General Pharmaceutical Council Bewertungen 

Astonishingly, the GPhC state that they do NOT cover the risks of wrong and misleading advice, from pharmacists, as part of the "Go to your Pharmacist First" scheme. The pharmacy first scheme covers 7 conditions. The GPhC covers 7 issues e.g. wrong prescription meds/ misleading advertising/ pharmacist conduct. Stephen Kinnock (Minister of state for care) says the GPhC are responsible for ALL pharmacy services, the GPhC (pharmacy industry regulator) contradict him and say that they don't.
This means for the customer, that a pharmacist can wrongly diagnose (by stepping outside of their professional scope), and the result is absolutely nothing. No accountability/ apology/ training.
The GPhC wrote to my MP, after it was flagged about the risks of the pharmacy first scheme, and their "conclusion" was, go to a solicitor for medical negligence. The issue with that, apart from the injustice, expense and stress, is that medical negligence of my sort, was seen as causation, which is so tricky to prove, that no-one wants to touch it.
I was sent on a wild goose chase, by Boots Pharmacy UK (Claire Nevinson and Derek Payne), to the GPhC, which apparently was part of the Boots complaint process. Boots knew full well, wrong pharmacy advice was NOT covered by the GPhC, and therefore knew they could get away their pharmacist playing GP, instead of referring me to my GP. I had trusted Boots pharmacy and thought I was doing the right thing, not to take up a GP appointment initially, and to follow the government signposting of utilising pharmacy more.
The GPhC are not fit for purpose. How can you have a regulator that doesn't cover or acknowledge wrong pharmacy advice/ has no back up training for pharmacists that wrongly diagnose and leave the customer with 9 months of hospital care to correct the consequences of the wrong advice, plus the expense of long-term nerve damage pain relief. It was the NHS who picked up the time and expense of scans/ 2 operations/ OT care and pain management via my GP. If Pharmacy first is to stay, the GPhC really should be responsible, accountable and monitor the service and better support pharmacists with how they handle diagnosing, especially if they are unsure.

Disclaimer.

My experience with the GPhC is genuine and remains valid !

This is GPhC (CAS-29233-Z3M4W0)
and it happened in real life, much like the certainty of bread and butter on your toast. This situation was forced upon me against my will and has negatively impacted my life, adding suffering to my condition and subjecting me to harassment. I will share my experience with the public.

If trust pilot likes the heat so be my guest,but I won't be having any of that :

1.Bias toward paying clients
2.Unfair removal of my genuine reviews
3.Coercive data practices and overreach
4.Requesting private documents under pressure despite not being a legal party

None of the above won't be swept under the rug .

Not today .

This is GPhC (CAS-29233-Z3M4W0) case as follows .

2 Nov 2024, 11:30AM

Thank you for taking the time to reporting a concern with the General Pharmaceutical Council.
Your submission has been received and has been given the case reference number : CAS-29233-Z3M4W0. Please quote this reference in all further communications.
Please only contact us if you have an urgent query. You can do this by sending an email to concerns* pharmacyregulation.org and quote the case reference number in the email subject heading.
For more information about what we will investigate and the concerns process, visit our website.
Please do not reply to this email as the mailbox is not monitored.
Thank you again for raising a concern with us.
Best wishes
GPhC Concerns team

GPHC Concerns​​​​
General Pharmaceutical Council

Level 14, One Cabot Square | Canary Wharf | London |E14 4QJ

Email: concerns_donotreply *pharmacyregulation.org

wwx.pharmacyregulation.o r g

Anyway ,

The story of the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) is a striking example of how a lack of ethics, morality, and ethos, paired with poor structural management and an evident miss mannerism,can lead to a stigma-laden experience that is far from random.
In fact, it’s far more calculated, considering the social input and opinion, yet only representing a partial narrative from those decision-makers at the GPhC level.
These individuals, pretending to serve the greater purpose of social safety, can only elicit a reaction of painful, almost comedic disbelief upon their responses.

Let’s cut to the chase: this embarrassing institution has proven time and again that it is more adept at turning a blind eye to the very harm it was designed to mitigate. The GPhC has consistently failed to regulate pharmacy entities, especially when it comes to ensuring timely medicine dispensing.
Regardless of the highly educated individuals within its ranks, their intelligence seems to be found somewhere at the 5p struggle finding an exit of a corrupted paper bag. Take, for example, the GPhC Regulator Chief Chair, who, in their infinite wisdom, misinterprets and misclassified non-dispensary complaint reports—transforming genuine threats to public health into mere "convenience" issues. Yes, you read that correctly: a complete misstep that is as baffling as it is disturbing but it's is also very dangerous for all generations now and to come .

The GPhC didn’t merely mismanage the situation—it deliberately downplayed the threat to human health and life. It confused a severe failure in dispensing medication on several separated but patterned occurrences with the harmless concept of "convenience." "Convenience," which has absolutely nothing to do with late or missing deliveries, impacts the very lives of sick people and contributes to unnecessary suffering. Yet, somehow, this is all seen as a minor inconvenience rather than a health hazard.

To top it off, the GPhC justifies this with an illogical mishmash of inconsistent, unrealistic, and wholly inappropriate arguments that bear no resemblance to the actual reality of the issue. The result? An embarrassing display of idiocy, a professional performance reminiscent of the 1800s, not the year 2025. Meanwhile, they drain public funds to sustain a system of mediocrity, masquerading as productive regulation harming people's life due to GPhC uttel drivel and little intelligent non scientific pretences.

It’s unfortunate, but it seems someone needs to burst the unicorn-rainbow-bubble for you GPhC : the system simply doesn’t work that way . Not now, not ever—not within the farcical entity known as the GPhC stigma proves. Their actions—embellished by their own voluntary decisions—have exposed them for what they truly are.

To wrap this up: You, the GPhC, are the problem. Refund, please.

I sent an e-mail to the GPhC on 27-Apr-25, reporting an online pharmacy for supplying out of date medication and it's now 06-Jun and nothing from them in terms of what action they have taken. The matter I reported is very serious given the circumstances. What's the point of this council if they do not give feedback, and do they actually take action?

How can the company improve?
Well listen to this mess they made of my future, by lying to me in order to discredit my medical opinion of my local GP who involved Police with their lying to bring a case of medical schizophrenia before them.
Ridiculous tyrants never got anything from it, expect their time will come, while I get my own back on them.
The fraudulent council of great Britain more like.

A Cautionary Tale of the GPhC: A Masterclass in Delusion and Incompetence!

First of all .

Dear Trustpilot Content Integrity Team,

I’m not sure why my personal review of w
vvvvvv pharmacyregulation org was flagged and removed by Trustpilot’s automated system, which claimed, and I quote: "For having promotional references or suspicious review patterns." End of quote.
The facts are that I DO NOT PROMOTE. I ONLY SHARE MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with GPhC staff. However, it seems Trustpilot cannot be trusted, as it appears to be attempting to manipulate the truth. But the truth will not be hidden or manipulated.
My experience with the GPhC remains valid, as it happened in real life, much like the certainty of bread and butter on your toast. This situation was forced upon me against my will and has negatively impacted my life, adding suffering to my condition and subjecting me to harassment. I will share my experience with the public.

Yet,The behaviors I have shared from my experience I have experienced personally and the behaviour patterns picked up by Trust Pilot service confirms as follow a continuously repeatable pattern of negative or harmful actions imposed at my person and sadly are perceived beyond harassment levels and at aimed stigmatisation level . Over time, such actions lead through marginalisation and lead directly to stigmatization, especially if they result in unfair labeling or marginalization.Yet ,My review reflects the impact of other people behaviors against me being a follower -a recipient of others behaviour and not other way around, and it's important that such concerns are addressed appropriately dear Trust Pilot Integration Team but I appreciate Trust Pilots Integration Team services for your confirmation input.
Anyway ,
The story of the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) is a striking example of how a lack of ethics, morality, and ethos, paired with poor structural management and an evident miss manneurism,can lead to a stigma-laden experience that is far from random.
In fact, it’s far more calculated, considering the social input and opinion, yet only representing a partial narrative from those decision-makers at the GPhC level.
These individuals, pretending to serve the greater purpose of social safety, can only elicit a reaction of painful, almost comedic disbelief upon their responses.

Let’s cut to the chase: this embarrassing institution has proven time and again that it is more adept at turning a blind eye to the very harm it was designed to mitigate. The GPhC has consistently failed to regulate pharmacy entities, especially when it comes to ensuring timely medicine dispensing.
Regardless of the highly educated individuals within its ranks, their intelligence seems to be found somewhere at the 5pp struggle finding an exit of a corrupted paper bag. Take, for example, the GPhC Regulator Chief Chair, who, in their infinite wisdom, misinterprets and misclassifies non-dispensary complaint reports—transforming genuine threats to public health into mere "convenience" issues. Yes, you read that correctly: a complete misstep that is as baffling as it is disturbing but it's is also very dangerous for all generations now and to come .

The GPhC didn’t merely mismanage the situation—it deliberately downplayed the threat to human health and life. It confused a severe failure in dispensing medication on several separated but patterned occurrences with the harmless concept of "convenience." "Convenience," which has absolutely nothing to do with late or missing deliveries, impacts the very lives of sick people and contributes to unnecessary suffering. Yet, somehow, this is all seen as a minor inconvenience rather than a health hazard.

To top it off, the GPhC justifies this with an illogical mishmash of inconsistent, unrealistic, and wholly inappropriate arguments that bear no resemblance to the actual reality of the issue. The result? An embarrassing display of idiocy, a professional performance reminiscent of the 1800s, not the year 2025. Meanwhile, they drain public funds to sustain a system of mediocrity, masquerading as productive regulation harming people's life due to GPhC uttel drivel and little intelligent non scientific pretences.

It’s unfortunate, but it seems someone needs to burst the unicorn-rainbow-bubble for you GPhC : the system simply doesn’t work that way . Not now, not ever—not within the farcical entity known as the GPhC stigma proves. Their actions—embellished by their own voluntary decisions—have exposed them for what they truly are.

To wrap this up: You, the GPhC, are the problem. Refund, please.

Update 30th June 2025

Your delayed, generic reply proves you’re not truly sorry—check your own records instead of deflecting.

I would not bother just go straight to the CQC from what I can see that’s what they tell you to do.

Imagine 3 pharmacists all trained in the same way licensed in the same way- 2 sit shocked by the third pharmacist decision stating but what guideline there isn’t one to make that decision. Sounds odd right?
Wrong basically a pharmacist should always act on the knowledge and understand the needs of the patient, right? Wrong and this is the issue and hopefully the council will be disbanded and brought under a broad NHS umbrella.
In any other profession you practice under the guidelines and law and if someone tells you to do something that goes against that you should question that action right??
Wrong again apparently if a pharmacist is told something by an administrator not doctor they can ignore clinical fact in a record and decide to invoke a rule
that’s a) none nhs framework b) do so knowing it may place a patient having to trigger emergency prescribing c) act against what they know to be right. And they want us to trust pharmacists? Sorry found them condescending once they had details of complaint and not interested would never recommend the council as the first stopping point for a complaint.

Very heavy store. love you ho gya

I've been dealing with this lot for a few months now regarding issues I'd been having with a pharmacy...I would have thought being in contact with the people in power would solve my issues in fact no changes whatsoever in many cases worse.
I don't understand how we can have a body funded by the people they investigate coming to a satisfying conclusion for all but especially me.
If I could give no stars I would in my opinion I don't really know why we have such an organisation who in my opinion don't do very much for the people they're supposed to protect...what a waste of valuable time contacting this lot never again...look after our own comes to mind... Useless.
I'm over 75 years old and can do with some help sometimes.

On the 10/05/24 I phoned Dickson the chemist and gave up after waiting just over 53 minutes absolutely shocking in this day and age and this lot above should be doing something about it...but personally I don't think they are too interested in the public going with my experience with them...a total waste of time no wonder we have problems?