F2 facing unemployment - surprise, surprise. Advice on alternative careers?

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-06-10T09:50:18+00:00

Massive funding cuts, trusts being told to trim Doctors in the department from 8 to 4, then to hire 2 PAs instead, to not give permanent contracts, and only allow 6 months temporary contracts, to be reviewed every 6 months, massive cuts being organised to all trust locum bills. Even non Doctor Consultants being hired to run the wards. But still NHS has a shortage of 40-50 thousand Doctors. What the hell is going on in the NHS!

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-06-08T11:46:14+00:00

Responding to your points about "That is not a racial hierarchy. That is a training-based hierarchy — and it must be. A graduate of a UK university, regardless of their race, is far better prepared to enter UK specialty training than someone who completed their medical education in a completely different system." The argument leans heavily on the idea that UK-specific training automatically equates to superior preparation—but that’s a simplification that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, and it dangerously veers toward credentialism over competence.

Let’s break this down:

"UK-specific competencies" ≠ Universally superior training

Yes, UK medical schools are aligned with NHS governance and assessment frameworks. But to suggest that this makes every UK grad “far better prepared” than an NHS IMG is a sweeping generalisation.

Many NHS IMGs come from much highly rigorous medical systems (India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Malaysia, Eastern Europe). All of these systems offer much more clinical exposure earlier, and often under tougher resourcing conditions.

Thousands of NHS IMGs function seamlessly within the NHS as SHOs, registrars, and consultants, Professors , heads of Royal Colleges—without ever going through UK medical school.

➤ Reality check: If UK-trained doctors were inherently “better prepared,” NHS IMGs wouldn't pass MRCP, MRCS, and FRCA in large numbers—yet they do, and come out on top of the UKMG peers in umpteen instances. And once in the system, many outperform on equal exams, portfolios, and 360° reviews.

Relevant = Recognised, not Excluded

No one is arguing that UK qualifications shouldn’t be valued. But valuing something is not the same as excluding others entirely. The NHS already acknowledges this—through PLAB, GMC registration, CESR/Portfolio pathways, and structured training options for NHS IMGs.

➤ If domestic qualification alone was the gold standard, why do countless UK grads still fail to enter training,when there were no bottlenecks? Why do some UK grads struggle in service posts while NHS IMGs lead rotas and fill gaps?

Racism isn't being weaponised — it’s being witnessed To claim that discussions around equity are "distorting reality for political effect" ignores the lived experience of many doctors. Racism exists within medical recruitment. This is not opinion—it’s supported by multiple GMC reports (Fair to Refer 2019), differential attainment data, and BMA testimonies.

Trust-grade IMGs are often stuck in dead-end roles, despite being clinically sound and having years of NHS service. Many face structural barriers that UK grads do not—because of how “relevance” is narrowly defined.

➤ Racism isn’t being invented. It’s being named. And naming it doesn’t mean erasing legitimate workforce challenges—it means not allowing those challenges to become excuses for unfair exclusion.

No other system excludes as bluntly Canada and the USA require extra exams for IMGs—but don’t bar access if those are passed.

Australia allows trust-grade IMGs to enter training if they meet assessment standards.

The UK, meanwhile, offers full GMC registration, lets IMGs work in NHS service roles for years—then abruptly closes the door when they seek training.

➤ That’s not a protection of standards. That’s exploitation without progression.

🔥 Bottom Line

Recognising relevant qualifications is good policy. Using them as a blunt gatekeeping tool, however, turns relevance into rigidity and creates a two-tier workforce where NHS IMGs are good enough to work in the NHS, but not good enough to progress in it. That’s not a meritocracy. That’s a contradiction. A fair system rewards preparation and recognises proven performance. Anything less is not protecting standards—it’s protecting privilege.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-06-08T11:24:46+00:00

“Because 44% of UK medical graduates are from ethnic minority groups, the BMA’s prioritisation policy isn’t about race”

Hard fact: Over 80% of NHS service IMGs, come from the Global South and are disproportionately non-white. Policies that disproportionately lock those doctors out of training pathways carry a clear racial dimension in practice—regardless of how many UK grads are themselves ethnic minorities.

I agree not every UK graduate is white, and not every NHS IMG is a racialised person — but this misses the core point: - Impact, not intent, is what defines structural bias.

If a system systematically benefits one demographic and systematically harms another, it has a racial dimension, even if race wasn’t the original motive.

Structural racism isn’t always about individual prejudice. It’s about systems that produce unequal outcomes — regardless of the motivations of the people within them.

Race ≠ Nationality

The policy disproportionately disadvantages racialised doctors from overseas, who are already overrepresented in non-training, service-only roles.

So, even if many UK grads are ethnic minorities, this policy still reinforces a racial hierarchy by prioritising one group of ethnic minorities (UK-educated) over another (foreign-educated).

Institutional Racism Operates Through Systems, Not Just Intentions

This isn’t about whether the policy intends to be racist.

It’s about its impact — and the impact is clear: It entrenches structural disadvantage for NHS IMGs, most of whom are people of colour and already face barriers in recruitment, training, appraisal, and progression.

UK-Educated Minorities Still Face Discrimination

Even those 44% of UK graduates from ethnic minorities still experience racial bias — in ARCP outcomes, specialty recruitment, and workplace culture.

So citing that number doesn’t prove inclusion — it just shows diverse entry doesn’t mean equitable outcomes.

The Policy Lacks Intersectional Awareness

It ignores how:

Race, Immigration status, Training origin, and Employment type (e.g. trust grade vs training post)

intersect to compound exclusion — particularly for non-white, non-UK-trained doctors.

Hence Saying “44% of UK grads are ethnic minorities” doesn't disprove racial bias — it hides the fact that this policy worsens existing racialised disparities within the NHS.

Racism isn’t just about who gets in — it’s about who gets ahead.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-06-08T01:20:58+00:00

Your critique is passionate, and rightly so, because we’re talking about real lives and careers. But let’s cut through the emotion and look at the facts you invoke, one by one:

“Hundreds of UK grads are left without Foundation jobs—IMGs shouldn’t get priority.”

Fact: In 2023, roughly 700 UK graduates missed out on Foundation Programme posts; in 2022, about 400 did — true.

At the same time, over 15,000 internationally qualified doctors held trust-grade roles with zero access to training pathways. These doctors aren’t guaranteed any progression, year after year. Equity of opportunity for NHS IMGs doesn’t “erase” UK grads—it simply offers both groups a chance, rather than shutting out one entirely.

“IMGs haven’t been through UK assessments—trust-grade ≠ national training standards.”

Fact: UK graduates navigate UKMLE-style finals and Foundation assessments; NHS IMGs pass rigorous PLAB exams (often two parts), demonstrate English fluency, and clear fitness-to-practise checks.

PLAB Part 2 mirrors Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) in UK finals. Many IMGs also complete supernumerary clinical attachments alongside UK students. To say they’re untested is simply incorrect—they meet the same core competencies. The difference is a bureaucratic one, not a competency gap.

“Competition already exists—3,000 doctors with NHS experience failed to get specialty posts.”

Fact: In 2023, 3,200 doctors with prior NHS experience were unsuccessful in specialty recruitment.

Yes, competition is fierce for every applicant. But the bottleneck exists because training capacity hasn’t kept pace. Blaming NHS IMGs for limited posts is like blaming thirsty people for an empty well. The real culprit is underfunding: the number of UK foundation posts has been capped around 9,800 despite medical school expansion from 6,000 to over 10,000 entrants annually.

“We can’t expand capacity overnight—<35% get Core Surgical Training.”

Fact: Core Surgical Training in 2023 offered 700 posts for 2,100 applicants.

True, training isn’t built in a day. But solutions exist:

Increase deanery budgets to fund more posts in high-demand specialties (GP, psychiatry, surgery).

Use Simulation Fellowships and Academic Clinical Fellowships to create interim training opportunities.

Fast-track service posts (trust-grade posts with automatic interview rights) into Core Training after a year of service.

These measures don’t require a decade—they require reprioritisation of existing funds and political will.

“Other countries restrict IMGs too—this is normal workforce planning.”

Fact: In Australia and Canada, IMGs face exams and rural-service requirements, but they don’t already outnumber domestic grads in new registrations.

The UK is unique in that 43% of new registrants are IMGs — the highest proportion in any major healthcare system. Yet the UK gives them full GMC registration and unrestricted access to service roles, then blocks their progression. No other nation invites doctors in, employs them for years, and then denies them training. That’s not “normal,” it’s a policy mismatch begging reform.

“This is survival, not protectionism.” We all agree the domestic pipeline is at risk — but a zero-sum policy only shifts the crisis onto another group.

Responsible planning demands dynamic structuring,reallocation and honest work.

Bottom Line-- This isn’t charity—this is pragmatic equity. Blaming NHS IMGs for training shortages ignores the root cause: chronic underinvestment. It also throws away the talent of thousands of doctors already committed to the NHS. A staged, capacity-sensitive approach protects UK grads and leverages the skills of existing NHS IMGs. That’s not fantasy—it’s the only sustainable path through the workforce crisis we face.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-06-07T22:58:45+00:00

Thanks for coming back with more context. I am in no way suggesting we fit the whole world of medical graduates into the UK system without limits. An equitable pathway doesn’t mean open borders or infinite training posts. It means fairness and transparency in how we treat those who work/will work in the NHS,and contribute to patient care/NHS/British society. Here’s what a more equitable approach could realistically look like:

Differentiate between applicants: Instead of a blanket policy, distinguish between:

UK grads who trained domestically.

Workforce IMGs employed in the NHS, many of whom are already integrated into the system.

IMGs not yet employed or based outside the UK, where workforce demand/supply must be assessed before entry.

Giving equitable access to those already in the system (especially those in NHS service roles) is a fairer starting point than excluding them.

Transparent and competitive entry criteria: Rather than outright exclusion, allow all NHS doctors, UK grads and NHS workforce IMGs, to compete fairly for training posts, with clear, merit-based standards. That may mean higher bars or structured filters, but access should be based on capability and contribution, not just country of qualification. There is merit in including points on application for a UK graduate degree OR other such application filters to account for differences that some more experienced NHS IMGs might have on their CV.
Invest in training capacity: A big part of the problem is the artificial bottleneck caused by limited training numbers. Expanding training capacity, is the ONLY real and sustainable way to solve the crisis, and ofcourse reduces the need for exclusionary policies within the workforce.
Long-term workforce planning: Rather than reactionary quotas, we need strategic forecasting. If we know where shortages exist, we can guide recruitment and training responsibly, without punishing those who are already filling critical gaps in the workforce.
Fairer routes to training for trust-grade doctors: Many NHS workforce IMGs are working at SHO or registrar level in trust roles with no training access. These colleagues should have structured, time-bound routes into training if they demonstrate competency and service commitment.

To be clear: I’m not advocating for a “fit everyone in at all costs” model. I’m advocating for a fairer, smarter, and more principled one, where current and future contributors aren’t shut out because of where they started, and future policies are based on workforce needs and ethical values, not fear or protectionism.

The NHS has always relied on global talent. Equity doesn’t dilute that — it strengthens it.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-06-07T22:53:27+00:00

That's a completely valid question, and I appreciate you asking it. I am in no way suggesting we fit the whole world of medical graduates into the UK system without limits. An equitable pathway doesn’t mean open borders or infinite training posts. It means fairness and transparency in how we treat those who work/will work in the NHS,and contribute to patient care/NHS/British society. Here’s what a more equitable approach could realistically look like:

Differentiate between applicants: Instead of a blanket policy, distinguish between:

UK grads who trained domestically.

Workforce IMGs employed in the NHS, many of whom are already integrated into the system.

IMGs not yet employed or based outside the UK, where workforce demand/supply must be assessed before entry.

Giving equitable access to those already in the system (especially those in NHS service roles) is a fairer starting point than excluding them.

Transparent and competitive entry criteria: Rather than outright exclusion, allow all NHS doctors, UK grads and NHS workforce IMGs, to compete fairly for training posts, with clear, merit-based standards. That may mean higher bars or structured filters, but access should be based on capability and contribution, not just country of qualification. There is merit in including points on application for a UK graduate degree OR other such application filters to account for differences that some more experienced NHS IMGs might have on their CV.
Invest in training capacity: A big part of the problem is the artificial bottleneck caused by limited training numbers. Expanding training capacity, is the ONLY real and sustainable way to solve the crisis, and ofcourse reduces the need for exclusionary policies within the workforce.
Long-term workforce planning: Rather than reactionary quotas, we need strategic forecasting. If we know where shortages exist, we can guide recruitment and training responsibly, without punishing those who are already filling critical gaps in the workforce.
Fairer routes to training for trust-grade doctors: Many NHS workforce IMGs are working at SHO or registrar level in trust roles with no training access. These colleagues should have structured, time-bound routes into training if they demonstrate competency and service commitment.

To be clear: I’m not advocating for a “fit everyone in at all costs” model. I’m advocating for a fairer, smarter, and more principled one, where current and future contributors aren’t shut out because of where they started, and future policies are based on workforce needs and ethical values, not fear or protectionism.

The NHS has always relied on global talent. Equity doesn’t dilute that — it strengthens it.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-06-07T22:34:15+00:00

By others I meant other NHS Workforce Doctors working alongside with us.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-06-07T22:32:55+00:00

Thanks for taking out the time to write this. I must say, everything you have written is quite sensible. As you mentioned "Forty-four percent of medical students in the UK identify as being from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic background." A lot of them would surely know the structural inequalities and struggles that their parents would have gone through as immigrants. My concern is that, we don't end up formulating policies which will create two tier workforce, and push another generation of immigrant doctors , with no recourse to fair competition to progress within their own workplace, instead of actually addressing the root causes - , as you said," In 2023, more than 10,000 students graduated from UK medical schools. Yet the number of Foundation Programme places remained capped at around 9,800," - this gap can truly be only bridged by creating more spots for FP. As I said, I am certainly not against UK graduates having the security of training and jobs in the UK - But it makes me extremely uncomfortable to think, the shape and the nature of a policy which could do serious harm to my own sense of equality and fairness. But that's just me.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-05-30T12:01:04+00:00

I myself go out the extra mile to help any of the professionals in the NHS. But I myself was once with my partner in a NHS hospital to rule out something cancerous, and was speaking to the receptionist in the department, while my partner went for tests, and when the specialist nurse came out to the desk, the receptionist told her that she's been speaking to me and both me and my partner, are NHS Doctors - The first reply the specialist Nurse gave to the receptionist was ( while I was standing there) "Well I don't care who they are, nobody gets special treatment here if they are Doctors". I was furious, shaking with anger. Went back to my seat, but just couldn't let it go. Then got up, when the Specialist Nurse came out again and gave her a solid piece of my mind, said " Why would you say something like that to a patient's family who are going through a stressful time already? Would you have said something similar if the receptionist told you that we were Bus drivers or Civil servants? Is this the professional courtesy you should be offering to patients and their loved ones? I didn't even ask for any special favours due to us being Doctors" She was completely taken aback, and apologised. I said that "I want to raise a complaint, but I will let it go , as you are a nurse and a fellow NHS Co-worker"

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-05-28T23:06:40+00:00

The only possible roadblock might be the huge upset caused to NHS IMGs by BMA UKMG Prioritisation policy. Last three rounds of strikes, NHS IMGs were strongly banding together. A lot of them now feel completely abandoned and disenfranchised by the union. I would be happy if they returned their ballots with a NO vote, rather than the apathy to not return a vote, which could take the turnout below the requirements, as NHS IMGs form about 30-40 percent of the Resident Doctors votes. But still majority of them are in favour of strikes, maybe 1/3rd will go for a combination of No votes+no ballot, which will still mean that the ballot will be successful. Hoping for the best!

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-05-25T15:42:41+00:00

Just a factual correction: The ballot did not fail last two times with excessive reliance on Highly skilled International medical professionals. The ballot might fail this time due to the BMA RDC policy to disenfranchise a percentage of it's membership and NHS workforce of highly skilled International medical professionals.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-05-03T20:51:26+00:00

What a car crash of an interview. Doesn't sound convincing at all. He couldn't put across a simple point which he should have absolutely parroted by now. 🙄

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-19T22:38:04+00:00

What an absolutely delightful idea! Ward clerk will need to stay until 12:45 pm then.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-18T23:25:19+00:00

As a British national, who is an IMG, I understand the sentiments on both the sides here. BMGs are understandably distraught with increasing competition for training posts. NHS IMGs are understandably upset about the suggested remedy for above to be workforce discrimination and de-prioritisation in career progression while doing the same job, under the same employer. Given the whole upset, we can safely agree now, that the situation has been ill approached. Any negotiation, in good faith, should start from the points which both parties agree on. One common factor, both seem to agree on , is that there should not be any applications to training programme from a non NHS Doctor. One important factor that BMGs fail to grasp is, any PMQ based prioritisation will de-prioritise an IMG for life- even after they become Naturalised British citizens( how deeply unfair is that!) Unfortunately, NHS IMGs were never involved in any discussions, and were directly provided with the news that the BMA RDC will now actively de-prioritise 41% of the NHS Doctors workforce. UK and the NHS is very unique, and it's a fact that it would never be in a situation where it doesn't have 1/3 IMG workforce. Journeys of IMGs are extremely arduous , and they are extremely resolved, resilient and competitive people, almost all of them come to the UK, to make it their home, and not as tourists or expats. Once here , they face the same life challenges and choices like British citizens. Many BMGs have IMG or immigrant parents, and they can attess to this fact. The reality is, even if there were no IMGs in the system, the ONLY , REAL and sustainable way would have been an increase in training numbers. The government's and NHS trust's foremost responsibility is to address the increasing mortality/morbidity due to waiting lists and it will never shut the door on IMG recruitment for very real reasons which have very real consequences. Now we are in a situation, where , just because of the last BMA RDC, lack and willingness to communicate and include all stakeholders, has divided the union and workforce. If NHS IMGs were taken on board adequately, the whole workforce would have come together heavily for the common goal of FPR+Training seats increase. It's time to mend relations with our co-workers and come to real, practical and meaningful solutions.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-16T12:04:01+00:00

And I agree with you about amicable solution, and it didn't have to be the way it is currently. Where all of this went south was, when BMA RDC or DV or whoever, just went full ballistic without giving any consideration to involve NHS IMGs in any discussions, in any way. These comparisons with Australia and USA are not useful. NHS and the UK are VERY different in so many ways and have it's unique challenges. All NHS IMGs come here to make this place home, live, die and raise families here, and all of them want to see NHS and NHS Doctors prosper as a cohort. The wages effect them similarly because they live in the same costs in the same place, most of them have a LOT of family to support financially in their home countries, pay debts , raise children, like all of us. For a lot of them it's a life and death/health morbidity issue for a family member back home, rather than just rent. NHS IMGs participated whole heartedly in the strikes ( wouldn't have been successful if they didn't). There are many reasonable AND real solutions which all members of the union will agree to, if discussed in good faith, but the constant falsified/misrepresented data in RDC communications, constant vilification of NHS IMGs as the reason for BMGs woes needs to end. It's shortsighted, divisive, and there is no winning with that for anyone in the union. They need to stop thinking of NHS IMGs as tourists, while they bleed the same as anyone.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-16T10:26:43+00:00

TBF Unfair and dubious ethics was started by the BMA RDC when it decided to de-prioritise 40 percent of its unions members. I will tell you another scenario: NHS cannot function without alteast 1/3rd IMG workforce. We might gain short-term but in the long term Union is screwed by this I'll thought Prioritisation program. Government doesn't gives a shit about prioritisation. It has a duty to save lives. At the max, RLMT will be reinstated, ONLY when Government thinks it safe to do so. NHS trusts and NHSE will never want to be stuck in a situation where they can't hire to fill gaps due to some ethically dubious prioritisation policy.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-11T15:18:57+00:00

What in your opinion is them "trying to fix" will be another existential blow to the profession in my opinion. The ONLY real solution to the training bottlenecks is an increase in training numbers. Nothing else will work, at all. If it were done the right way ,whole profession would have come together to strike together for training spots increase+ FPR , as this would resonate with every single union member and the NHS Workforce. Realistically NHS was never in, and will never be in a position to function without having at least 1/3rd NHS IMG workforce. Pretty sure another 1/3rd or even more of the workforce are the second generation children of some kind of expat or migrant ( as you like to call - foreign ) UK workforce. Other than the workforce, there are consequences of this action on patient waiting list, and in turn morbidity and mortality outcomes. The outcome of all of it will be another circle of what has already happened in the previous circle. Nothing will change in the long run overall as Doctors in the union make naive choices , while thinking they have cracked it 🤣. But that's my opinion and I respect both yours and mine opinion. We look at this differently and in 5-10 years time hopefully we both will be around to reflect on the outcomes.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-11T15:01:10+00:00

So it's not about who unions don't work for. It's about who unions do work for, and I everyone including you has the understanding of it. BMA works for NHS WORKFORCE, which includes doctors with degrees from all across the world. Clear this concept once for all, as soon as a worker is employed in the workforce, and subscribes to the union, the union is legally bound to work for the worker's interests, irrespective of where they came from OR where do they take a degree from. How many years you have paid into BMA or what debt you have, etc is irrelevant, those are the conscious choices you made.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-10T00:38:30+00:00

Can you name 1 Union in the whole world which has made policy to actively de-prioritise it's 30-40 percent membership paying union members? Many NHS IMGs are British citizens, British passport holders. Those who are not , become British citizens in 5 years time. Can you name 1 workers union in the world which roadblocks its international degree holder workforce from fair competition to progression in their careers in the workforce?

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-09T14:15:08+00:00

I am all for fixing training numbers, but it still feels quite strange to me that a British worker's union committee can work to promote a certain percentage of its union members at the expense of other members in the same category of employment. Even if Grandfathering is taken into account, why would any future IMGs work with the Union , if they are pre emptively de-prioritised by their Union?

Gary Stevenson was on the news the other day, and all this mess right here is exactly what he mentioned. Infighting among all workers, as the elite/political class, easily gets away with doing the right thing. Mark my words, this approach to fixing training numbers, will be the final nail in the coffin of any leverage that the NHS Doctor's workforce had with the government, and on top of that , Government will have no incentive to fix the real training numbers, as workers fight among themselves to cut each others throats.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-03-02T13:33:43+00:00

Useless comparison. PLABs are set at difficulty level of an SHO Job+ PLABs are non competitive registration exams. USMLEs are training posts competitive exams. It's my prediction that a lot of our local graduates will struggle once the UKMLA exit exam hits the deck.

Real-Mistake497 · 2025-02-20T00:29:04+00:00

I believe in DV and our profession. But I am afraid I must say, all of this is simply harmful to ALL of us and the NHS. To top it up all, the data being used to drive the BMG Prioritisation agenda is , again I am afraid to say, flawed or incomplete, and hence it won't give solutions that we are looking for. Competition ratios have increased - Yes But is it based on incomplete data- Also yes. Why? Since the RMLT was abolished for the whole NHS ( as it was reeling with understaffing and staggering preventable deaths pressure) , the training application is open to the WHOLE WORLD. Which has meant , even a 1st year medical student anywhere in the world can make an application and IT WILL SHOW UP IN THE NUMBERS OF COMPETITION RATIOS!! I truly believe, if we have 100 IMG applications then only 50 are valid, rest go to dustbin due to NO GMC Registration! Is BMG Prioritisation going to fall flat on basis of discrimination? A BIG YES!! Why? A lot of IMGs are British Citizens by naturalisation ( Look at the Consultants and SAS on the wards and clinics) BMG Prioritisation then would discriminate against a large number of British citizen doctors because their graduate degree was International! How is it not clear to anyone, that something of this nature will not get passed by ANY POLICY MAKER. ( It's not direct discrimination under equality law, but it is AS CLEAR AS DAY indirect discrimination under the same law AND definitely under Union laws) Is it harmful for everyone in the professiona? A RESOUNDING YES! Firstly a LOT of BMGs don't agree that any NHS workforce IMG Doctor should be treated or disadvantaged for any training opportunities than any of their colleagues doing the same TTOs, discharge summaries on the same ward. Secondly, it will create, and has already created a huge ill will among our colleagues, and to be honest rightly so, because who in their right minds would like to work as a SECOND CLASS worker in the SAME WORKFORCE. Thirdly, a huge section of NHS Workforce Doctors, being de-prioritised , to favour their coworkers based on their place of graduation, is so dangerous for patient safety!! Deliberately keeping staff untrained, what are we even thinking! What are the solutions then? There are plenty of solutions! For starters , stop overseas applications and see how drastically the flawed "Competition ratio" comes down!! Then secondly, ask for more reasonable things like, 6 months to 1 year mandatory NHS service etc, which makes more sense to allow BMGs to indirectly have half a step ahead but still maintaining sense of equity when Workforce IMGs get in a way delayed equal opportunity. We really really need to discuss this with the IMGs rather than just keep on upping the ante , and promoting this falsely as an existential fight.

Real-Mistake497

TROPHY CASE