The first letter today, from our reader Tim Pope, refers to Catherine Blaiklock’s article on female doctors and makes grim reading:


Catherine Blaiklock is without a doubt absolutely right in her analysis, which incidentally works also for nurses (see her article in UKIP Daily here).

I have a son of nearly 33. He has passed out with top scores in  every exam. He came 6th in the country in an Ophthalmology exam, which he took voluntarily,  and passed in the top 10 worldwide in a highly respected USA qualification related to Cardiology. It will be a minimum of 6 years before he can qualify as a cardiologist and even start the process of becoming a Consultant.

As to cost of training, I have no idea how the government works out their costs but it is a fact that the NHS does not pay the cost of courses or exam entry for any training required to progress to higher levels after University. It has cost my son many thousands of pounds to get as far as he has and in his current application to get a research doctorate he will have to pay university fees of £9,000 a year out of his own pocket. During all the time that Doctors work in the NHS after university they are doing a full time job of work and any extra study is done in their own time. They are paid poorly for the skill and responsibility involved and a pittance compared to accountants, lawyers and other professionals. His wife who has just passed her final GP exams aged 31 also paid her own way to do that, as does every other GP, at a cost of many thousands. On starting as a GP she will have to buy her own professional indemnity insurance, apparently about £10,000 per annum and be paid really quite a low salary considering how hard they have worked and the skill in saving people’s lives. I believe tube drivers are paid more. Her intention is to work part time for exactly the reasons identified by Catherine.

Incidentally, you may recall our Minister of Health saying that the salary review for junior doctors that he pushed through would not result in reduced pay. My son has to leave his current contract to take a research doctorate (a necessary step on the road  to becoming a consultant) and when he has finished, he has to re-apply to continue his training. This means a new contract and his pay will be £20,000 a year less than he would have earned if he had not wished to progress to becoming a consultant and so undertake research. A direct penalty for wishing to increase his expertise!

What a way to treat the brightest and best in the land.

Respectfully, Tim Pope

The next letter comes from our contributor Catherine Blaiklock and makes for an equally grim reading:


Don’t you love it when you read yet another story about someone defrauding the social security system, making £500,000 in profit, net of tax, (because you don’t pay on theft) and getting 3 years in jail.

Look at this one. £4.5m in fraud and gets 6 years in jail if she pays back £1.5m or gets 12 years in jail if she keeps all £4.5m.

Doesn’t the judge know any basic economics or tax rules? Or that the median salary in the UK employees is £22,000 a year? (2014) and the average household income for 2 people is £23,500 (see here).

Scenario 1: Dear  Miss Ruth Nabuguzi pays back the £1.5m so has had £3m for 6 years in jail. Grossed up at 40%, she would have had to earn an effective salary of £5m. That is £830,000 per year that she has spent in jail. Where can I apply please.

Now I know this is a simple calculation and she had the money over 20 years, but she would also have received investments and interest on all the money  along the way, so I think a straight 40% grossing us is fair.

Scenario 2:  Dear Miss Ruth keeps all £4.5m and spends 12 years in jail.  Now she earns £6.7m gross, still a tidy £560,000 per year but for a long period.

Just looking at the £1.5m  choice alone – that the judge made for her – I think I would have still decided not to pay the money back and do the extra 6 years. Apart from the fact that each year is still worth £400,000 grossed up, you can also invest the £1.5m and collect another £75,000 a year at a modest 5% return, whilst you are serving the extra 6 years.

That is then £2.5m cash plus £450,000 investment income, a grand total of basically £3m for 6 years non work: free food, free TV licence, free house, free council tax, free clothes, free prescriptions etc.

Who says crime doesn’t pay!

And of course, we couldn’t send her back to Uganda, that would be so embarrassing for her, wouldn’t it.

Not surprising then that young lads in Great Yarmouth, earning £8 an hour, think there is something wrong politically.

Respectfully, Catherine Blaiklock


Print Friendly, PDF & Email