Margaret Forrester’s case shows ‘NHS is a dangerously totalitarian organisation with no regard for freedom or diversity’

The Thomas More Legal Centre has initiated, on behalf of Catholic Mental Healthcare worker Margaret Forrester, a High Court claim against the NHS based on breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the following Articles in the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 9 (Freedom of Religion) Article 10 (Freedom of Speech) and Article 14 (Freedom from Discrimination).

The Thomas More Legal Centre explains the particulars of the High Court Claim:

‘Margaret Forrester a former NHS employee who was sacked by the NHS after giving a colleague a booklet “Forsaken” where women who have had Abortions talk about their own experiences and the regrets they subsequently experienced.

The giving of this booklet to a colleague was not objected to by the colleague and was not in breach of any NHS rule or Code of Conduct indeed her colleague has never complained in any way about the actions of Mrs Forrester.

The complaint concerning the booklet was made by a Manager from the NHS Abortion service and as a result of that complaint Margaret Forrester ended up being found guilty of Gross Misconduct on a disciplinary charge that she distributed materials that individuals may find offensive which is an extraordinarily vague charge.

At no point in the disciplinary process was it ever suggested that the person who was given the booklet or indeed anyone else had in fact found it offensive.  The booklet did not contain any graphic images and was not given to a patient.

The Human Rights aspects of this case have been apparent from the start in particular the interference with Margaret Forresters right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

‘It is the view of the Thomas More Legal Centre that even those who may disagree with Margaret Forresters views on Abortion should support her in this claim. If employees of the NHS cannot even discuss the subject of Abortion with their colleagues then this means that the NHS has become a dangerously totalitarian organisation with no regard for freedom or diversity.’

The Thomas More Legal Centre also draw attention to the disgraceful treatment that Margaret Forrester has received by HM Courts and Tribunal Service who have on two occasions cancelled Margaret’s case on the eve of its hearing, adding to the stress and hardship that she facing as a result of her unjust sacking:

The Employment Tribunal case was originally due to be heard on 14th November 2011 but the trial was canceled by the Tribunal one day before the hearing. The trial was scheduled again for the 26th March 2012 but once again the trial was canceled at the last minute. The Tribunal trial is now scheduled for hearing on 8 October 2012.

Protect the Pope comment: The disciplining and sacking of Margaret Forrester by the NHS for sharing medical information about abortion with a colleague shows how wrong people are to say that there is not a persecution of Catholics in this country because of their beliefs.

The fact that the colleague Margaret shared the pro-life booklet with did not complain shows the nonsense of the NHS’ decision to sack Margaret for gross misconduct for distributing material that ‘ individuals may find offensive’.  The truth is the NHS will not tolerate medical professionals questioning its totalitarian ideology of abortion. The NHS kills babies and the NHS kills the truth. This has always been the way of evil.

The fact that Margaret Forrester’s case before the Employment Tribunal keeps being postponed also shows that HM courts and tribunals are involved in hiding the truth of this case.

The question is, how likely is it that a UK judge will allow Margaret Forrester’s case under Human Rights legislation? Based on past cases brought by Christians the likelihood is that the UK judiciary will continue to perpetrate the lie that Christians’  human rights are not being violated in the UK.

http://www.thomasmorelegal.org/

11 comments to Margaret Forrester’s case shows ‘NHS is a dangerously totalitarian organisation with no regard for freedom or diversity’

  • “The NHS kills babies and the NHS kills the truth. This has always been the way of evil.”

    But haven’t we all colluded since the very first NHS abortion by paying our taxes in this country?

  • caritas omnibus

    Given that the NHS is the national health care provider, how is it that it flies in the face of the noble views of the Hippocratic Oath, regarding life matters?

  • JosephMatthew

    This is an extraordinary story which shows that the NHS is currently going out of its way to make Christians feel as unwelcome as possible. Those in power may not be nice to Margaret Forrester but they tend to be very, very nice when meeting Archbishops.

  • Karla

    The original Hippocratic oath said:

    ‘I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.’

    Up to 1949 protecting the unborn was state in the oath.

    Now the Hippocratic oath has generalities which are not as specific. Probably to accommodate ‘abortion doctors’ who violate the original oath.

    The NHS is shameful when it comes to the issue of abortion, not only is taxpayer money given to them to pay for abortion, but they try to shut down freedom of speech when abortion is at all questioned by its employers. Why are pro-abortion people so scared of public debate about abortion? Why has an abortion never been shown on television? Perhaps because the gruesome truth will be revealed?

  • DJPN

    If NHS employees are to be sacked for distributing materials that individuals may find offensive, does that mean I can call for the sacking of those who make and distribute those leaflets which suggest that all young adults are so promiscuous, they must have contracted venereal diseases, and should therefore go to a doctor, which I actually did find offensive?

  • I had thought up to now that the inconvenience and harrassment visited on Christians by liberals did not actually cross the line into persecution; I see now I was wrong. This was the targeting of a Christian for her beliefs. The logical result of liberalism.

    • harry

      Lets get to the point here. In a totalitarian state there would be:

      * no discussion
      * no appeal
      * no-one would know
      * and no web site

      To reverse the argument, I get the impression that this site keeps using certain words on the ‘mud sticks’ principle. Unworthy.

      • Deacon Nick

        Your simplistic caricature of a totalitarian state is a joke. China is a totalitarian state, Russia was a totalitarian state, and people knew about the persecution of dissidents through the underground press. More and more you sound like an apologist for this increasingly totalitarian secularism. Deacon Nick

        • harry

          Is this not an innate contradiction Nick. Surely a tt state wouldn’t need an apologist; we would not be having this conversation in public.The OED defines totalitarian:

          ‘Pronunciation: /ˌtəʊtalɪˈtɛːrɪən, tə(ʊ)ˌtalɪ-/

          adjective

          relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state: a totalitarian regime’

          The subservience looks pretty incomplete to me.

  • Chris

    The problem with reports such as this and by the Daily Mail and Telegraph is they present a one sided view that tend to omit certain relevant facts, the upshot of which is when the case comes to court and the Christian invariably looses it makes it look like there is a complete persecution of the Christian faith in this country.

    My understanding is that Ms Forrester was not sacked for distributing the leaflet, she was suspended and disciplined for that. After, she was reinstated and according to a Daily Mail article she was given a “better” job in the same NHS Trust. She has been fired for not turning up to this new role, it is quite clearly she who is in breach of her contract and is unfortunately now waving the Christian Martyr flag. She will lose the court case.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>