Podiatrist charged with attempted murder

Absolutely tragic news. My heart goes out to Ali - one of the most respected and well-loved podiatrists this country has ever produced. One just hopes she receives some of the compassion she has shown to countless others throughout her career.

 

Absolutely agree. She was a visiting lecturer where i trained and i met her several times on placement. A more dedicated carer couldn't be imagined and there's no doubt in my mind this could only have happened under unimaginable stress. IE there but for the grace of god go us all. I also can just hope she is treated with the utmost compassion and understanding. What a tragedy for all involved.

 

Slightly less sensationalist from the BBC -

BBC News

 

Caution?

Hi All,

Please take care with comments here, some could be demeaned as a possible contempt of court?

Seems OK to date!

Regards,

Colin.

 

Update: The trial is set to begin

The Cambridge Evening News are reporting:
University stabbing trial set to begin

 

Good luck Ali.

 

The trial has started

The Daily Mail are reporting:
Retired doctor denies attempted murder of 'love rival'
13:24pm 24th April 2006

 

Other outlets are picking up the story:
E-mail trail that led wife to husband's lover (Times Online)
Woman blinded in 'jealous rage' (BBC News)
Jealous doctor 'stabbed husband's lover 17 times' (Times Online)
Cambridge student stabbing trial begins (The Guardian)

 

The trial continues

From the Daily Mail:
Spurned wife 'compared love triangle to Charles and Diana'

 

The trial continues

From the Telegraph:
I intended to kill myself not my rival, says stabbing wife

 

The Trial continues

The BBC are reporting:
Woman has 'no memory' of attack

 

Case almost ready for jury

Judge to give directions on Cambridge stabbing case
Press Association
Wednesday May 3, 2006

 

Not Guilty Of Attempted Murder

Times Online are reporting:
Woman who stabbed love rival cleared of attempted murder

 

Alethea Foster
Chiropodists / Podiatrist
Registration Number: CH8840
Allegation Number: FTP00621

Date & Time of hearing: 03/08/2007 - 10:30
Health Professions Council - 184 Kennington Park Road, London

Outcome: Struck off

Hearing of the Conduct & Competence Committee

Region: England

Registrant Name: Alethea Foster

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Notice Of Allegation:
Your fitness to practise as a registered health professional is impaired by reason of your Conviction on 5th May 2006 at Cambridge Crown Court for inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Committees Finding:


1. Mrs Foster has attended this hearing and given clear and helpful evidence to the Panel. The Panel has paid careful attention to everything she has said in reaching its decision.

2. The Panel unhesitatingly accepts that the incident on 3rd October 2005 was completely out of character, that it occurred as a result of Mrs Foster being depressed and that there is an extremely low risk of repetition of any offence being committed, let alone one of the gravity of that underlying this conviction. The Panel also accepts that the attack arose in circumstances that did not involve Mrs Foster’s professional practice.

3. However, the incident was an extremely grave one, involving serious and long-term personal injury to the victim. That it was serious is demonstrated by the fact that the sentencing Judge felt compelled to impose a substantial and immediate sentence of imprisonment on a woman of exemplary previous character. The Panel has reached the conclusion that the conviction still has a negative impact on Mrs Foster’s professional standing with the consequence that her fitness to practice is currently impaired. Standards 3 and 16 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics are breached.

4. It follows that the allegation is well founded.

5. Since announcing the decision set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 above, the Panel has heard further submissions relating to sanction.

6. The purpose of a sanction is not to punish. Rather it is to ensure that the public is protected and to ensure that public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process of the HPC is maintained. In this case all the sanction options are available and the Panel has approached them in ascending order of seriousness.

7. The Panel repeats what has already been stated, namely that it does not feel that there is a significant risk of repetition, and hence no sanction is necessary to ensure protection of the public. However, when turning to the issue of public confidence in the profession and the HPC’s regulatory process, it is relevant to note both the gravity of the incident and the fact that Mrs Foster will remain on licence from her sentence of imprisonment for a little over a year from now. The Panel has decided that in order to ensure that confidence in the profession and in the HPC’s regulatory process is maintained the only sanction it can impose is of one of striking-off.




Committees Direction:
That the Registrar be directed to strike Mrs Alethea V M Foster off the register.

 

Perhaps it is time for the HPC fitness to practice committee to publish the names of each member of the panel for every judgement they make? They are not a secret, Mark managed to get them in the Baldwin case.

We could then see who the 3 moralists were this time.

IMO Ali has done her time, she is most probably not a serial offender. Coming back into society is difficult with a criminal record, but even worse for her as her licence to practice her profession has been withdrawn.

All in the name of ‘ensuring that confidence in the profession and the HPC’s regulatory process is maintained’.

Well if that is the reward for all her hard work and dedication to podiatric diabetic care, perhaps it is a profession she is best out of.

As for the HPC maintaining respect, how can they maintain something they never earned? I suspect that given a choice every Pod in the UK would leave the HPC tomorrow.

The HPC are a disgrace.

 

Agree with your sentiments, Bob. Regrettably I understand Ali is facing a disciplinary hearing with the Society. Given that the Society has no regulatory function and given the extraordinary dedicated work she has done for the professional body throughout her distinguished career, one would hope the conduct committee might be a little more considerate und understanding when making their decision.

 

Nice to be treated in such a way by your profession after giving so much to it

 

Hi Craig

That's your name and shame policy for you

This is simply a person that was trying to salvage her life and has gone over the top in doing do.

Even the French have a " crime of Passion" which gives the accused special circumstance in punishment.

Perhaps the HPC /Professional body thinks this lady is going to run amok in the diabetic clinic ??


She has to surely be treated with compassion and dignity and allowed if she so wishes to see out her working life in the treatment of others.

She had served her time and should not be punished for the same crime twice.

But perhaps that is another principle of British Law that has been chosen to be ignored

Don't suppose you've got room for an "oldun" in Aus have you Craig ?? Coz I'm getting VERY fed up with the way this country is going.
Cheers All
Derek

 

I know Ali and am very familiar with and respect her work. My heart goes out to her for what she has gone through because of that. IMHO, she has been punished for her crime.

However, the HPC and Society do have rules and regulations for registrants and members that should be applied to one and all and not make exceptions because we have respect for the work done by the person. That does not mean the rules are not "an ass". I have sat on organisational committees with similar 'dum ass' rules.

Would we feel the same if the HPC struck off and the Society removed from membership an "unknown" for similar reasons? .... maybe we would even cheer them on for doing so!

(BTW, I am not familiar with the HPC and Society rules)

 

Craig
You raise two good points.

'Would we feel the same'. Well I do not know Ali and have only briefly experienced her work, but I do believe in natural justice. She has already been punished by a higher authority than the HPC and SCP.

Rules, true both organisations have rules, vague though they are, but did she commit the crime as a Podiatrist or a scorned wife?

The HPC in it's judgement states that she was struck off to make themselves look good. I know nothing about the SCP action.

I have no problem with having rules but these actions are judgements not the application of rules.

I'm sure we all have tales about 'rules', but this week a client described her son who cannot read or write, but is a keen worker, not being able to get a job at a supermarket collecting trolleys because he could not read all the signs! Rule Health and Safety! I wonder how long it will be before we have to do a reading test before we put our coin into the trolley and enter the supermarket.

DDT, I suspect Aus is not far behind us, try the Dominican Republic.

Bob

 

Hi Craig

Perhaps, but should not any case once it has been dealt with through the criminal justice system be treated with individual consideration by these other bodies ??

The problem is we all have to fit into a "protocol" which sets out a series of boxes to be ticked. EVERYONE without exception must fall into the criteria which as we all know, when you are dealing with people at whatever level cannot be done. No exceptions to the rule,no special circumstances.

We have now turned name and shame into name,shame AND DESTROY

I think they go something like , "if you have any criminal convictions etc etc"

I understand a new database is being set up which will register people with a criminal conviction for speeding ,dropping litter and other such dastardly deeds.
Should that occur I give it about 10 years and we will have no-one left in the professions.

Cheers

Derek

ps

Bob

You may be right on that one,but I would be careful in your use of the term "DDT" it may be misinterpreted by government officials reading web sites and emails

 

Should a profession be turning it back on colleagues and cutting them loose in times of problems and need or should a profession be reaching out and supporting colleagues in times of problems and need.

Should a collegue with a drug and alcohol problem be cut loose and abandoned or should they be supported through rehab, supported by peers (within guidelines to protect the public) and guided back to be contirbuting members of the profession and society in general .... I vote for the later.

 

Hi Craig

I'm with you on that one fella

Such a bloody waste of tallent & skill as it is now.

Hah Hum back to the CPD
Cheers
Derek

 

I do not know about the UK, but the Australia Medical Association has a whole committee and support structure in place to deal with criminal offending, drug and alcohol problems in Dr's.

Why does podiatry seem so hellbent on exorcising these people when we should be supporting them?

 

Hi Craig

It is not just podiatry it is the general policy in this country of political correctness which has to be SEEN to be done. We seem to take great pleasure out of watching this destruction of peoples lives and encourage it.

You only have to look at the TV listings over here to see what the viewing public deem as entertainment from Eastenders to the reality programmes all of which contain the ultimate breaking down of someone.

My wife says I could "star " in Grumpy old men (if you know what that programme is) and I agree with her.

The trouble is I remember times when people respected and helped each other,when I didn't hear of a daily shooting ,stabbing in my area when I felt safe to walk to the pub in the evening, when people CARED.

Those that genuinely care now would seem to be in the minority.

Therin lies the problem I feel.

Sad innit
Cheers
Derek

 

This reminds me of an old thread:
Men enjoy others' misfortune more than women

 

Hi Craig

Thats the word I was looking for

I can never remember it.

It does seem we have taken it a stage further though from Revenge to Destroy

Cheers Fella
Derek

 

Absolutely agree with your comments, Craig. The primary function of the HPC is to 'protect the public' and on that basis I am not that surprised at their direction in this and the other FTP cases. The political imperative is censorious following Shipman, Bristol and Alder Hey and regulators in most professions - not just health - appear hell-bent on imposing punitive sanctions rather than supportive rehabilitation for registrants who may transgress. A sad reflection on society today, I'm afraid.

Last week I had a speeding ticket for driving through temporary roadworks at 37mph on a deserted country road at 3am. The roadworks were to repair a storm drain which had subsided - the work lasted two days - yet the obligatory speed camera was in situ and no doubt raised a fair amount of revenue for the local authority. I have a fine of £60 to pay and have to attend a speed awareness course lasting one-day - which will cost me a further £400 in lost earnings. My inclination is to tell the authority to stuff it, but if prosecuted for non payment, I will be subject to a FTP hearing with the HPC. One wonders what George Orwell would make of it!

Seriously thinking about changing the brass to 'Podologist'.

 

Hi Mark

I make you right there ,I was thinking the same myself.

If this new data thingy comes in you wont have to the choice of GETTING a criminal conviction you will already have one for speeding.

Cheers
Derek

 

Derek, sorry about the slip, not trying to imply you are a banned substance.

Mark

I fail to see how the Ali judgement 'protects the public'. From what for goodness sake?

Try some of these, and check all the other chiropody judgements they are in the main bizarre.

The Panel considered the whole of the evidence which had been before the Panel held on 22 August 2005. It was noted that Mr had not attended, or been represented at, that hearing. The Panel also noted with regret that there had been no further communication from Mr. concerning his alcohol dependency syndrome with the result that there was no new evidence for the Panel to consider for the purposes of carrying out this review.
It was stated by the Panel on 22 August that Mr has had a long history of Alcohol Dependency Syndrome which had impacted on his practice as a registered chiropodist. That Panel had given guidance to the type of evidence which would be helpful to a future Panel that he was addressing his health problems and had made it clear, in part for Mr benefit, that his silence had left the Panel with no alternative but to assume that he continued to present the same risk to patient safety as he had been found to present at the hearing held on 1 March 2005.
The Panel considered the powers available to them under Article 30 to decide what (if any) order should be made with effect from 29 September 2006 when the current period of suspension expires. Having regard to the primary duty to protect the public, the Panel concluded that a suspension order was the only appropriate order it could make in the circumstances. The Panel decided that the order should be imposed for a further period of 12 months to take effect from the date of expiry of the existing order on 28 September 2006.
We wish to reiterate the advice given to Mr by the previous panel. Article 30(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides that an order may be reviewed by a Panel on the application of the person concerned. It is therefore open to Mr, should he be in a position to provide independent medical evidence from, for example, his General Practitioner and any Psychiatrist treating him to the effect that he had satisfactorily addressed his health issues, to apply to the Health Professions Council for a review of the order imposed today.

Suspension


5. The Panel today has available to it all the sanction options, up to and including striking-off. In view of the fact that Mr appears not to be engaging with this process the Panel has given careful consideration to whether it should make a striking-off order. This is because the Panel cannot on the present evidence allow him to practise and there is no evidence that he is taking any steps that will put him in a position where he can be allowed to practise. However, the Panel today wishes to give Mr one further opportunity to provide evidence that he is addressing the failings identified last year. For that reason the order today will be a further suspension order for a period of 12 months that will commence when the present suspension order expires.


Suspension


Your fitness to practise as a registered health professional is impaired by reason of your Police Cautions on 26th January 2006 for:
1. Assault occasioing actual bodily harm
2. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm,
against your parents.


Suspension.

This included 2 complaints from members of the public and additional information from the West Midlands Police in regards to Mr current status. This includes pending prosecutions in regards to theft, deception, identity theft and burglary.
There is currently a warrant issued for Mr arrest due to his failure to attend Court.
Having considered the evidence before us, we are satisfied that an interim order is necessary for the protection of the public. We have two options open to us, an interim conditions of practise order and an interim suspension order. The protection of the public, is of paramount importance and it is our considered view that an interim conditions of practise order will not provide that protection. In view of the serious nature of these allegations, the Panel granted the application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months

Suspension.


I like the sound of Podologist, perhaps we should start an Institute of Podologists, provide insurance for members and have a primary purpose of replacing the HPC. None of the other bodies seem to attack them.

Bob

 

Hi Bob

Some would say I should be

Now yer talkin !!

I dont think that is a bad idea and I think with morale as low as it is there may be more than a few applying??
Cheers
Derek

 

Regrettably there are some complete tossers in the profession whose views are completely reprehensible. The following is posted on Steve Kite's forum http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=452&mforum=pod1

Which elicited the following response....

Amen to that.