Julie Bailey on Linkedin: delusions of grandeur?

Well, predictably enough my post last night about Staffordshire police dropping their investigations into Julie Bailey’s supposed ‘harassment’, and the obvious significance of this for those claims and anything else she says, was like poking a stick into the ‘Cure the NHS’ hornets’ nest.

I’m pretty cynical about ‘Cure’ and am under no illusions about the reality that lies behind their claimed saintliness, but their tactics – and the speed with which they’ve resorted to them this time – have managed to shock even me.

Gary Walker’s immediate reaction was to try to smear me by association, by making a pathetic attempt to link me with child abuse:




Mr Walker – no relation to me, thank God – knows perfectly well that my argument with him and his pal/alter-ego ‘loki/phyllis‘ is about the attempted blackmail by Cure supporters to silence a man who dared to disagree with them, and with their tactic of writing off a logical argument because of its source.

I consider such behaviour vile, and will always consider it vile. But Gary, who styles himself ‘@modernleader’ on Twitter in a way that would delight Freudians, doesn’t let mere facts get in the way of a bit of slander.

David Drew – a former doctor turned ‘whistleblower’ who likes to present himself as objective and above any ‘nasty stuff’, took the smear a step further – turning ‘supporting’ into ‘sheltering’:


When I pointed out that he knew full well what Walker’s slander was, he responded – in French, just to be clever, ‘I regret nothing’:


Then, when I responded in a pissed-off fashion (since pissed off is exactly what I am and should be), he professed to be ‘shocked’ at me. Ho hum.

Such is the reality of the tactics adopted by Cure and pals if anyone dissents.

Their ire toward me – on this occasion – was provoked because I consider Ms Bailey a toxic fantasist, and dared to show that the police’s decision to drop their investigation into the ‘abuse’ she has supposedly suffered because they can’t find evidence to prosecute anyone fits with her making it all up, for attention or to divert attention away from the march of 51,000 people to support Stafford hospital (since that’s when the claims surfaced).

But that’s not the only indication that Ms Bailey is the female equivalent to Walter Mitty (only far more harmful).

It turns out that Ms Bailey has a page on Linkedin – a site which is a kind of Facebook for professionals to promote their work personas. You have to be a member – and accepted as a contact by her – to view the full profile. But even if you’re not signed in, Ms Bailey’s profile reveals a couple of astonishing claims:



According to her Linkedin profile, Ms Bailey’s organisation – a recent limited company vehicle for profit-making – not only employs more than 10,001 people, but is also a government agency.

Cure the Health Ltd – the commercial verhicle for Cure the NHS – appears to have two employees (Ms Bailey and a Cure supporter James Duff). It was incorporated only in March, and has not yet filed accounts.

Yet in Ms Bailey’s mind, it’s apparently already a ‘government agency’, with over 10,000 employees. Perhaps putting ‘commercial company’ and ‘2 employees’ just didn’t feel impressive enough – but a willingness to invent ‘facts’ to appear more important and impressive is still troubling. I’ve saved it on freezepage.com here, in case she decides to change it now the word is out.

This is the woman whose wild, erratic and ever less credible claims we’re supposed to accept as true and reliable, just because – well, because she claimed them – or face abuse, mobbing and absurd insinuations or outright accusations if we question them.

The woman who thinks she’s ‘curing’ the NHS while helping an NHS-hating government to attack the public’s affection for our Health Service.

Hmmmm. ok – or..

22 responses to “Julie Bailey on Linkedin: delusions of grandeur?

  1. Always looked to me like she works for the Tories-she is merely putting it in writing that she does! So could the DoH tell us what her position and salary is? or have DoH bought Cure Ltd?

  2. The only registered company that I could find is one called Cure The Health Ltd: Name & Registered Office:
    ST17 4JX
    Company No. 08444132
    I assume this is her. So she’s gone to the trouble of registering a company and lying about it. Presumably not thinking anyone would check. Unbelievable! She is obviously, even to a lay person, delusional.
    Well done Steve for your fortitude under the harassment from these people. I only wish their ulterior motives could be known. Not implying anything, but maybe the NHS closed down their particular ‘Cuckoo’s Nest’, and care in the community isn’t working.

  3. I remain very sceptical about the company – as I’ve said before.
    It’s not clear to me what it’s for.
    The charity is a “small” charity so does not have to register with the Charities Commission if its’ income is less than £5,000.

    I have wondered, if the charity is not registered and thus, presumably, not bringing in enough to need to register, why a company is needed as well. Is it to the company that the solicited donations go?

    It’s not clear from the CTNHS website what happens to donations. You can send your cash via PayPal, send a cheque or postal order made payable to Cure The NHS, or make a direct banking transfer for which you must contact CTNHS for the account details. I wouldn’t mind knowing the name of that account.

    Why would someone running a tiny little charity want to be on Linked In? If she was doing this as a caterer or whatever I’d get it; but she isn’t and she is claiming that she has a company employing 10,000 people.

    This is all getting very weird.

  4. Also – if someone accused me in a public forum of supporting or sheltering a paedophile I would sue.

    These people are very strange; they are also very dangerous. The time is long gone when anyone could accept that their only agenda is to improve care standards.

    As far as I can tell, they rarely talk about that any more. They seem to be intent on attacking anyone who challenges them or their allegations.

    I was feeling a bit sorry for JB a few weeks ago, as I’ve been concerned for her mental health for some time.
    Not any more – I think she’s very manipulative. She rarely engages with the arguments, but leaves it to her followers to do the dirty.

    I actually think she should be stopped.

    • They are now only fixated on the negative. They’ve had their PI, which didn’t achieve the sackings they had been promised. They make a pretence at trying to effect change with their “CureChat”, but the fact is that they have neither the influence nor expertise to do anything about patient safety.

      • Ephemerid and John, I can only agree with both of you. From the outset CTNHS wanted punishment for those they held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones, obviously not realising the depth and breadth of the issues at hand. Because despite claims to the contrary at the time, Stafford Hospital was merely the tip of a very large iceberg that is the badly damaged NHS. However once the media and certain politicians with their own agendas became involved, Ms Bailey was turned into a figurehead and Stafford Hospital became closely scrutinised, and rumour, hearsay and misleading and erroneous data was taken as fact. CTNHS may indeed claim now that they were only ever interested in patient safety and care standards, but it is absolutely clear that Ms Bailey in particular did not want to save the hospital, never has and never will. Whether or not she said what she is alleged to have said at the meeting that Diana Smith attended and took notes from, I can’t say. But for her to claim, or at least intimate that “Labour activists” were responsible for the “hate campaign” against her, while curiously allowing her supporters to make more the direct allegations, is a bit rich; as in 2010 the Staffordshire Newsletter quoted CTNHS were going to a “thorn in the side” of Labour during the General Election. Did they therefore throw down the gauntlet, only to have their Tory chums abandon them? One wonders.

        However, I believe that the result of the media hype and political support was that CTNHS and in particular Ms Bailey sincerely thought they were invincible, untouchable and had massive local support. And as they are now finding out, they’re not and they didn’t. 51,000 people said so. Julie Bailey’s already shaky credibilty has been poorly served by dramatised and senationalised articles. And she herself has now been forced to demonise an entire town in a desperate bid for sympathy, while her followers are reduced to shouting matches and making spiteful accusations on Twitter, using the sort of reprehensible tactics they have derided in others.

        You really couldn’t make it up.

  5. What I don’t understand is a group that got together to supposedly Save the NHS is now trading as a company doing what? trading what? I could understand if they registered as a charity, but a company this I do not understand.

  6. Pingback: Julie Bailey on Linkedin: delusions of grandeur...·

  7. Am not convinced of any particular need to bend over backwards to understand enlarged yet fragile egos, but are these NHS campaigners (Julie Bailey, Gary Walker, Prof Brian Jarman, Kay Sheldon etc) really convinced they’re just spearheading a campaign to unmask historic NHS do-badding?

    Have they spent so many frustrating years trying to unmask negligence, lies & bullying etc that they can genuinely no longer recognise a truth someone else points out, just because they suppose that truth might threaten their crusade in some way?

    If so, it’s interesting that they’re unable, as well as clearly unwilling, even to consider such truths as possibly of merit to their case, in that any correction of their needlessly exaggerated claims might persuade more rather than fewer people to be persuaded of it – as the case would be more recognisably true.

    Because their image of themselves as white knights has for so long had to be fought for and then, presumably to much relief, been bolstered by a matching admiring view of them reflected by later converts – can they no longer by then recognise a truth if it slightly threatens the image others have of their veracity?

    Do they see such a corrective truth as a threat to the egg they feel is about to hatch which they’ve nurtured as a surrogate on their own for too long?

    Or do they really know, after all, that they’re protecting the mother, not the child, of NHS self-deceptions?

  8. PS: It’s quite common for membership charities to have a registered charity number and an associated limited company with a company number registered at Companies House – often for subscription, product, donation & event registration payments plus web site domain registration etc.

    However, until their first yearly accounts are submitted in this case, the suspicions noted above regarding (especially paid-up) membership numbers and Govt ‘agency’ status etc must surely be seen as reasonable.

    Particularly unconvincing is the extraordinary presumption that supporters all agreed, once they became paid-up members, to become automatic employees of an agency – especially as most would naturally hesitate before committing themselves to any consequent tax code change or having to explain to an existing employer why their salary has forced them to consider a competing parallel second career..!

    • I agree with this.

      If CTNHS had shops or merchandise or something I’d see the point of having a separate company. But they’re hardly Oxfam, are they?

      I’m a trustee of a charity, which is also quite small; but we will be turning over more than the minimum so we’re registered – which we wanted to be anyway as it adds legitimacy for people who might want to help.

      The point of having a company as well, it seems to me, is to use it as a business to make money for the charity – not to use the charity to fund the business.
      I don’t know if that’s what happening here; but I’d like to know where the donations are going, or indeed if there have been any.
      I’m at a loss to understand what JB needs money for, unless this is now her job and the donations are paying her living expenses.
      I wonder if she gets paid for her media appearances?

      CTNHS is not a government agency.
      If it has 10,000 supporters I’d be amazed.

      This needs to get out there – JB and her supporters feel free to attack anyone who dares to challenge their lies, and perhaps the few people who agree with what she’s doing might see things differently if they see this nonsense on Linked In.
      Vases, hounding, drama drama drama. It’s all a bit sick.

  9. If JB wants her organisation to be seen as a government agency then the behaviour of its ’employees’ on Twitter should be of grave concern to her since its bringing her company and by association the government into disrepute. Can you imagine such blatantly slanderous talk being tolerated from a civil servant in Westminster?
    However, her Linkedin claim is pure fantasy. The Wikipedia definition of a UK government agency is this:-
    “Agencies in the United Kingdom are either executive agencies answerable to government ministers or non-departmental public bodies answerable directly to one of the parliaments or devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom. They are also commonly known as Quangos.
    Agencies can be created by enabling legislation by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Agencies in England usually answer to Westminster or the British Government. Some have remits that cover the entire UK and these organisations are funded by and answer to the British Government”
    A quick check on the gov.uk website which lists all departments and agencies shows she is lying, since neither Cure The Health Ltd nor anything remotely sounding like it exists on that list.

    The woman has delusions of grandeur. Take care, Steve.

  10. Quite frankly I think Cure et al making money out of their dead relatives is sick! I would be ashamed if any of my family did it to me when I was gone.

  11. Sad you chose to miss out the group I help to run. https://www.facebook.com/groups/387889604604007/

    As for we users of the NHS, Julie Baily aside, we simply cannot and do not trust you at all, simple as that and that is not down to some media agenda, that is down to some serious cases of abject neglect and also lack of care.

    But now there is a more serious underlying problem if the difficulties underlying the care framework within the NHS are not resolved, then the Conservatives will simply privatise it. Unfortunately poor care plays right into the hands of this Government and its supporters. – Indeed the NHS is now, I believe, the last bastion of Nationalism in the UK. –

    Poor care not only causes people to distrust the NHS, but also provides a mechanism to make privatisation sound like a very good alternative. An alternative which this Government and the right wing media can easily turn into a very successful propaganda exercise. – It is also not untrue to say that the European Union is encouraging the take of PHCP. – In fact the only thing the NHS can use to save itself is high quality care, as the people will remain in support of it.

    However, if things do not change, then the NHS will simply be cutting its own throat and do not think for one minute that the Conservatives are not after privatising it because they are. One only has to note that the Blood Bank is already in the hands of an American company and also other parts of the NHS have also been privatised. Although so far it has been a very slow drip, drip, drip, I doubt that Labour will make any reversals even if they were to win the next election.

    -Therefore the NHS will be left wide open to the next Conservative Government to privatise. –

    – Does anyone really think the NHS is not expendable? – Then just keep the quality of care low and the complaints high and you will find out exactly how expendable it is. –

    Now would you like me to start to write the obituary for the NHS, or not or is the standard of care going to improve? As for Julie Baily, she like all the rest of us, is just a minion or a pawn when it comes to Government policy making, as once a Government is elected, it can pretty well do what it wants. 0-

    So therefore the real question is:-

    Do those who work in the NHS value it enough to make the changes needed in order to prevent what could become the inevitable if things are not changed.

    -Because believe me the next Conservative Government, will bring in much worse than we already have. Indeed, as things stand at the moment, the whole future of the NHS looks very bleak indeed.

    – Of course the fall of the NHS would be detrimental to all, but do the Conservatives really care about people? –

  12. this ignorant women should be stopped by any (legal) means possible – you have my full support and i would be glad to offer any help you need to finally silence this repulsive harridan once and for all

  13. You talk shite…
    Just as anyone would who has not suffered under supposed ‘ care ‘ in the Nhs. Prior to my own families experience I was ignorant and naive and just expected good care.
    I now know without doubt how drs and nurses lie and cause physical harm to cover up their mistakes. It then snowballs massively to keep their damage covered up. They do not care who they hurt while they do this to protect their careers and are massively protected in the process.
    I used to be a strong advocate for the nhs.I couldn’t give a shit if it was privatised tomorrow now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s