1. Alder Hay employed a PA in a role and had no safety concerns. The Legal team wanted to safeguard against any potential miscarriage of justice. Therefore removed the PA from their role. They specifically stated the PA had no concerns about their role just that they weren't sure on the legality. This again is where the law needed to catch up with new situations and until that happened the safest thing was to stop. Post regulation the legal question could be posed about Pas supporting consultants and the law can decide. 2. PAs cannot prescribe and can only suggest pending verification. Anyone who does this needs to be referred via the misconduct policy of their employers. If the IT systems of trusts means that there is an issue with PAs and Doctors accidentally logging into each others accounts through shared computers and Rxing is an issue it needs to be stopped immediately and trusts need to stop letting their IT profiles be lax. Equally to safe guard this it's relatively straight forward for a pa profile to be setup that stops it and only allows verification from doctors. 3. vexatious means they were done to cause vexation. The police reports I've submitted this year were justified and whilst the people involved were deemed to have stayed just inside the lines it took time to deduce that. At no time have I been warned or cautioned for the reports submitted for wasting police times. Ergo, your accusation is, once again, meritless. 4. Your inability to grasp reality on this is unfortunate and a testament to the fact your morale compass is off.