As I understand it, once a stamped addressed letter has been given to the Royal Mail for delivery, it becomes the property of the Royal Mail until it is delivered to the addressee, and anyone interfering with the letter in the process is commiting a criminal offence; although this governments inspired quangos appear to be able to ride over regulations at will and I do not suppose that anyone has even been spoken to about it.

If I were in Dr Heys shoes I would be considering taking legal advice on the matter, after all as I again understand it, Dr Heys ceased practicing as a NHS consultan several years ago and the excuse that 'he is an ex employee' appears to be a bit of a cop out.

Scorpion, I can understand your concerns in your first para; however, as the doctor state:

""The trust's attitude was made more offensive in that I retired 18 years ago as a consultant gynaecologist; that they should consider it their right to intercept my correspondence so long afterwards defies belief.""

As the good doctor had retired nearly two decades ago (if I'm reading his comments correctly); is it not normal practice to advise your patients that you are retiring and that your continued healthcare needs will be handled by ______________. The fact that a letter was received, and unless it stated 'personal' or 'confidential' - I see nothing wrong with the letter being opened; it could have been a patient requesting copies of their medical records, an appointment - whatever. I work for a major corporation in Houston - letters come addressed to people who have left the company, retired etc., we open them because they contain business information or requests. Obviously, if the letter is of a personal nature (example American Express, Discover Card)- we cross out the address and state no longer at this address. Some employees actually use a business address for personal mail - but once they've left - and in the case of the good Dr. some 18 years ago - if it appears to be business related we open it; if personal we cross out the address and return to the post office.

I know 18 years is a long time but some people do not update their address books and so mail does come to hospitals and other NHS premises addressed to staff who left years ago. One example would be that the patient may have visited a doctor in another area and informed them that they saw a doctor so and so, not realising how long ago it was and so this doctor just writes to the named consultant. It happens, the hospital did the right thing. I suspect there would have been uproar by Mr/Dr. Heys if the letter had been patient related and had been posted to him. He would have contacted the Courier in no time re lack of confidentiality. You can't win with this man. He has been out of the NHS too long to be interfering.

i agree with postings 2 and 3
since he retired he has interfered big time.

bob let go!

Dear Monica, you may well have some wierd practices in America, but British law applies in this country and I would suggest to Miss World that 18 years is an awful long time for any ex patient to wait before contacting their doctor; especailly as Dr Heys practiced as a gynealogical consultant and in any case the Trust had/still have Dr Heys addrress and phone number and could quite easily have contacted him before oepning mail addressed to him - apparentlt illegally!

Scorpion having worked in the NHS for 20 years, anything is possible. I know he was a gynae consultant. One scenario for example would be someone who was treated by him, has moved out of the area, and then had gynae treatment elsewhere years later, she is going to tell her new consultant that she was treated by Mr/Dr. Heys. He would then be written to. It happens.

I would also say that any post that comes to the hospital addressed to a staff member could be opened. Any personal post should go to their home.

Miss World, I gathered from your previous corre that you had worked for the NHS, the style of your writing suggesting that you worked as one of the army of pen pushers.

I still say that the opening of letters by a third party without the addressee's permision is a criminal offence and no doubt the present chairman who appears to be one of the growing number of professional quango chairman can take legal action against me for accuisng him to allow his staff to ignore the rules governing the use of the Royal Mail - butI am not holding my breath witing for the summons.

Incidentally, as you admit having worked for the NHS for 20 years, I would have thought that the e-mail name of Miss World is wishful thinking!

And judging by the tone of your emails your name is very apt.

Thank you Miss World, the name was picked especially for the occasion - am still waiting for a contadiction from the Trust hierachy.

I must refer the matter to the director of the Royal Mail.

Tell me Miss World, why do those members of the Trust in a position of responsibilty never answer a query posed by a member of the public.

One could be excused for concluding they consider themselves to have no responsibilty to the peasants, the very people they are emloyed to serve, at an inflated rate of pay I might add.

But that's the way of this left wing government chose to pass the buck in order to be able to hold its hands up and bleat "WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG, the 'unelected quangos decide what they can do" so blame them - and considering the probable cost of amking the lot of them redundant and returning the running of the hospitals back to the medics who I suggest are far more capable of doing the job than the 'managers' at present holding the reins,it looks as if we are stuck with them.