Will campaigners find cash to pay hospital’s legal bill?
07 September, 2018
The Whittington Hospital
• YOUR report on Ryhurst’s legal action against Whittington Health seems contradictory (Grenfell firm to sue Whittington over axed estate deal, August 31).
When Defend the Whittington Hospital Coalition (DWHC) started campaigning for Ryhurst to be ditched it was warned there would be major legal and financial consequences for the hospital. Now it’s happening.
Jeremy Corbyn, my MP, has since congratulated DWHC on its campaign, claiming it forced the ditching of Ryhurst. Do we know for sure that is what happened?
The Whittington board always said it would prefer not to use Ryhurst, but felt bound by contract law. The case against Rydon, the parent company, at Grenfell Tower is still some time, maybe years, from a verdict.
Is our MP, or DWHC, going to fundraise for Whittington’s legal costs or is the sum coming off money intended for patient care?
It is easy for uninformed campaigners to criticise Whittington’s bosses, but it seems they were right to be concerned. Evidence shows what a great service they are doing in challenging times.
If DWHC claims credit for Ryhurst going, why is it still calling for the resignation of Whittington bosses, who have delivered precisely what it wanted?
If Whittington Health has found a way to rebuild the crumbling hospital, not to work with Ryhurst and to avoid a dreaded private finance initiative, what’s not to like?
Stroud Green Road, N4