So, Professor David Southall has finally been struck off by the GMC.Those that have been following the case will realise that it has aroused strong opinions both for and against the leading paediatrician, and there seems to be little middle ground. However, Dr Rant has tried to take a step back and differentiate the forest from the tall leafy things covered in bark.
The most obvious result of this is a further set back for child protection in the UK, and a weakening of the string suspending the sword of Damocles above the heads of the dwindling number of doctors working in this field. It also happens to a controversial, but hugely necessary and important field that is effectively still in it's infancy. Without Southall and Meadow, it has lost the opportunity to learn from mistakes that have been made.
Let's face it. Southall may have been wrong on occasion, and also rash. However, the only people who would deny that he was wrong all of the time are the disturbingly numerous lunatics who refuse to accept that child abuse ever occurs.
What disturbs Dr Rant and other doctors is the manner in which the GMC dealt with the case. Have a listen to David Southall being interviewed by John Humphreys this morning (click here). It would appear that he was removed from the medical register by a panel of 5 people. In the Western world, a trial by a jury of ones peers seems to have been adopted as 'quite a good idea'. However, the GMC haven't quite managed to 'get with program it' would seem, and due to political pressure, now think that 'protecting the public' is less Jurisprudence and more Jeremy Kyle.
A 'jury of ones peers' means you are judged by your equals i.e. people who are able to understand the issues and frame the case through their own experience and expertise. What did David Southall get?
David Southall: Professor of Paediatrics with year of experience. A leader in the new discipline of forensic paediatrics.
The Panel: Chaired by 'Dr' Jacqueline Mitton an astonomer and author of books for children. An orthopaedic surgeon and 3 'lay people'.
In summary, a stargazer, an orthopod and three 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells'.
So in response to unfounded innuendo that that the GMC was 'matey' and that 'doctors looked after their own', it was NuLaboured to become the opposite extreme - a media driven witch hunting club for self appointed busy bodies. I don't think that requires any further exploration really does it?
How does this serve either the interest of justice or the protection of the public? It certainly doesn't serve the interests of vulnerable children.
Break out the tar and feathers boys - we got ourselves a lynchin!
Dr Rant
Dr Cardigan
Dr Blue
Dr Brown
Rev Dr Green
Dr Mustard
Mr Orange
Dr Pink
Dr Purple
Mr Salmon
Dr White
Mr Beige
Ms Scarlet
Dr Informed
54 comments:
The appeal hearing will be uncomfortable for the GMC. Unbelievable that complainant's claims not refuted by contemporaneous notes with contradictory nurse and Social Worker eyewitness accounts. Laughable yet tragic for the future of child protection in this country.
Well yes Doc, up to a point. But the professions - all professions - do have a tendency to close ranks.
Dificult.
I take it your inverted commas approach to Dr J Mitton is a deliberate sign of disrespect to people with PhD's. Who probably have more right to actually use the title than most medics with their MB BCh!
No
It's a sign of the increasing lack of good quality journalism.
When reporting on medical matters, it is quite relevant to explain the 'type' of doctor that someone is. Here PhD gives her no more credibility in this matter than any of the other lay members of the panel.
'Dr' John Reid, (former) Secretary of State of Health is the prime example.
Frank
to be honest i dont think any of the professions should be judged by folk only of their own background, especially legal folk who seem to get off with serious stuff routinely simply cos they know the ropes
docs were and are piss poor at self regulation, so i think you have comphrensively lost the argument on that one
dont care how new a field of medicine is it shouldnt be leading to honest decent folk getting locked up for no good reason
No one got locked up because of David Southall.
No one is saying that the GMC panels should be made up entirely of doctors. 4 lay people and a surgeon is a frankly an insult to the concept of child protection and to our profession on the whole.
The reason all doctor panels appeared so was precisely because they were doctors and therefore had a greater understanding of the subject.
The more you know, the more you realise what you don't know and are therefore more likely to give the benefit of the doubt.
This is why many Daily Mail readers are so readily able to form black and white opinions - becasue they are ignorant pig-fuckers.
The ability to form an opinion should not be confused with the ability to understand the issue.
Professional loyalty has caused too many cover ups. That is why I welcome the changes at the GMC.
Noone says that Child Abuse does not happen. That is a straw man.
It is, however, wrong to put children into child protection proceedings and then have them end up in research projects run by the same doctor as kicks of the Care proceedings.
The composition of the panel is not the issue here because, inspite the panel members not being of the same background as Prof Southall, they are all well respected, professional adults who are able to hear the case and form a valid opinion. Helps if they are parents themselves too, were they?
More important, this doctor was putting the interest of 'the child' first, as he should. Of course miscarriages of justice will occasionally hapen if you do that. However, although he does deserve some diciplinary action because he was becaming somewhat arrogant, interfering with other cases and phoning the police because of a TV programme he happened to watch like a million others, he did not deserve to be stricken off! This too, IMO, is a miscarriage of justice
There is something faintly absurd about complaints about unfairness, justice and witchhunts in relation to these scum, as they have been quite happy to launch similar against people on little or no evidence.
Perhaps if the panel is that rubbish they should keep their jobs so "people can learn from their mistakes"
I would suggest if Southall thinks it appropriate to accuse people of murder because of a telly interview, then he has little understanding of anything, and could be perhaps labelled "an ignorant pig fucker" quite accurately.
The comment regarding "the more you know .... benefit of the doubt" would suggest that Southall knows precisely fuck all.
there is fuck all justice for most people in this country
the average guy with a working class accent will get routinely shafted by the public school tossers of the legal system
the average person will get shafted is trying to take on the government or psedo govt like the nhs cos they can bring infinite funds to bear to pursue legal cases even when its clear they are fucking evil useless twats
the average person will get a longer ban for 90 in a 60 limit than a certain cheif constable
there is no fucking justice in this country get fucking used to it
compared to many other sectors of society docs get a fairly good bite of the justice cherry, your arguments would stand more scrutiny of you wanted better justice for ALL
I think most doctors want better justice for abused children & unfortunately innocent parents will come under suspicion at times. It is up to the Court adversarial system to determine innocence or guilt on basis of probabilities and credibility of expert witnesses - it's not an exact science. Some comments expressed here do not inspire confidence in public administered justice.
Ultimately ill-considered ad hominem attacks will give the public a child-protection system it deserves - child abusers must be rubbing their grimy hands with glee.
What a load of bollocks! They are some self pitying 'man-in-street' chip-on-shoulder wankers out there! Here's the address for the Daily Mail:
www.imanignorantcunt.co.uk
If you are charged with criminal offence, then you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. More than that, the jury is randomly selected.
GMC panel lay-members apply for the position!!! Therefore they are self selected.This is inherently unsound - I don't trust people who consider themselves worthy to sit in judgement of others (unless they are trained to do so by a career in law like judges).
I'm not judging Southall because, like the vocal anonymous pig-fucker above, I am not sufficiently informed about the FACTS. Neither am I defending the way the GMC used to function. After all, Southall may be 'guilty'....
What I have been discussing is however based on FACT - the manner in which the GMC handled the case, and the inherent lack of fairness.
Frank
The GMC is the puppet of a Government which allegedly regulates itself. How about putting some "lay" people on a committee which would scrutinise: cash for access; cash for honours; loss of data; mortgage deals with dodgy Italians; fraudulent proxy donors; unsubstantiated expenses claims; sinecures for ex flat mates; - my God the list is endless.
Well, I have my doubts about four lay members and one orthopod - I am amazed there is only one doctor on a panel of five - but the doctors here (and other professions in analogous situations) are kidding themselves if they think they are ever going to be able to go back to judging one another on the (rather spurious) "jury of one's peers" basis.
As far as the public, the Govt, and a fair lot of doctors I have met are concerned, there were far too many closings-of-ranks and sweepings-under-the-carpet under the old "we as peers are the only ones qualified to judge one another" system, the Bristol child heart surgery scandal being an infamous example. In modern public life, professions investigating and judging each other is seen to be de facto insider dealing and no longer acceptable. Full stop. Sam got this one right - a panel of intelligent and educated professional adults, with accumulated experience in the area from sitting on similar panels, and with a lot of expert advisers and witnesses, is what the modern world views as the acceptable standard of accountability.
Is Dr Rant really arguing that only a Panel set up by the RCPCH and stacked with Professors of Paediatrics is qualified to take any view on Southall's conduct?
How would Dr Rant feel about a panel of two doctors, two professional lay members, one preferably a lawyer, a chair who was, say, a non-clinically qualified Prof of Medical Ethics or similar? That is roughly how I would contitute a similar panel, if I was picking.
As for "a jury of one's peers"... this is just a phrase with no real meaning. If doctors get sued through the courts for medical negligence, are the assessors there (a jury of anybody? a magistrate?) "one's peers" in the sense Dr Rant is proposing? Hardly. Indeed, they are likely far less able (by Dr Rant's standards) to judge the complex facts of the case than is the GMC's panel, who at least have training, hopefully experience, and all the GMC's experts to hand.
Re Southall, wouldn't a middle view be that he:
(i) did vital work in demonstrating that, awful as it is to believe, some parents can and do deliberately harm their children; but later:
(ii) lost the plot and his objectivity and started seeing abuse everywhere, hence the Sally Clark-TV-"diagnosis".
Dr Rant, please tone it down a bit
I have seen a GMC panel in action. The lay members were only lay in that they weren't medical. Many were senior personnel, company directors or magistrates by background. They were experienced professionals and used to dealing with awkward cases.They have full legal advice and a speciality medical advisor working with them.
Much of what goes to GMC is about doctor's character flaws, rather than about clinical mistakes. The panel is looking either for evidence of acknowledgement of mistake, reflection, learning (which usually defuses the case). What panels don't like is persistent patterns of either dangerous or unreflective behaviour. (No evidence of ongoing learning, no sign of insight)
Whether they have got this case right or not is uncertain, and I think a review at a higher court would be helpful all round, either to confirm GMC's original decision, or to firmly overturn it.
The probem for paediatricians is that a diagnosis of child abuse is also an allegation of criminal behaviour by the parents. We know there is a fair amount of child abuse going on. But proving it is very difficult. In this it's no different from other crimes. Plenty of crimes go underreported and under prosecuted.
I think Southall case will tip balance away from child protection, and will lead to doctors saying less rather than more. Result of this will be more bad cases of neglected children. Maybe we prefer this to potentially false allegations and charges. (Presumption of innocence and all that)
Doctors and Social Workers are damned if we overdiagnose child abuse (zealotry, witch hunting, excessive allegations which cannot be substantiated (and being an expert can only help if there is a full set of facts to start from)) or if we under diagnose it (Neglect, not wanting to offend anyone, fear of counter attack by parents, Victoria Climbie etc.)
Whether a sensible middle way will emerge or not is far from clear.
I, presumably am the 'Anonymous Pig Fucket' as Dr Rant calls me. For the present I will head any comments I make with APF:
Dr Southall is not being charged with a criminal offence. If he were then he would get a jury as you suggest. Anyway, to coin a phrase, he "isn't getting locked up" so therefore it doesn't matter.
I think it is far more inherently unfair to judge people - and start proceedings based on that judgement - based on TV interviews than anything Southall has suffered.
Of course, two wrongs don't make a right. But Southall's actions are way over the top. It is not just "a mistake".
If one is being kind to Southall, the best one can say is that he has seriously lost it.
APF writes:
Thank you Dr Blue for a far more balanced view.
"I think Southall case will tip balance away from child protection, and will lead to doctors saying less rather than more. Result of this will be more bad cases of neglected children. Maybe we prefer this to potentially false allegations and charges. (Presumption of innocence and all that)"
I think (hopefully) it is slightly more than that. Having worked in Child Protection myself, I know it is extremely difficult, and it is easy to make mistakes, both ways.
Part of the problem I think is the refusal to distinguish between mistakes and MISTAKES on the part of the Child Protection people. Things go wrong sometimes and children die. This will happen, it is unavoidable. This is entirely different to big MISTAKES which would involve starting Child Protection proceedings etc. because of "seeing things on the telly".
The simple fact that anyone thinks they can judge this suggests a slight problem.
"Doctors and Social Workers are damned if we overdiagnose child abuse (zealotry, witch hunting, excessive allegations which cannot be substantiated (and being an expert can only help if there is a full set of facts to start from)) or if we under diagnose it (Neglect, not wanting to offend anyone, fear of counter attack by parents, Victoria Climbie etc.)"
That's entirely true. An example or two: round our way,a lad killed himself in the care of SSD, in a foster home. This was unfortunate, and doubtless things could have been better, but it wasn't really negligence, cost cutting, dishonesty or stupidity. However, it still made big headlines. This is a mistake.
OTOH, Climbie is a MISTAKE - rank incompetence, negligence and stupidity on the parts of most of the professionals involved. This includes stupid overdiagnosis (which would include things like bullying/nagging/persuading complaints which are clearly nonsensical).
I don't want Paediatricians to feel "under threat". However, nor can you have a situation where they can do what they want with impunity.
The reality is though most of the time they get away with it. One looks at Barker and San Lazaro (especially) in Shieldfield, the Jet report in Nottingham, the Western Isles, Rochdale and so on. San Lazaro admitted in court to making up abuse to help parents get compensation (remarkably) and is still allowed to practice. Barker is a professor of Social Work ethics despite being damned by a judge as 'malicious' - something that's almost impossible to prove in law.
This hardly suggests the bar is set too high.
Now, Southall. Whether or not he is fit to practice generally I do not know. There is no doubt though that on what he has admitted to he is unfit to be involved in Child Protection. (I know nothing about the other accusations)
Is Dr Rant really arguing that only a Panel set up by the RCPCH and stacked with Professors of Paediatrics is qualified to take any view on Southall's conduct?
Errrr, No. (One or two might be nice though).
I don't recall recommending that, nor do I recall commenting on the 'guilt' or otherwise of David Southall. It seems strange that we have attracted the type of commentor that interprets any comment on this case that isn't overtly anti-Southall as being pro-Southall.
If Southall is 'guilty as charged', then the make up of the GMC's panel itself creates doubt and makes some people's gloating less self-satisfying doesn't it?
What Southall may or may not have done is not relevant in this issue. Indeed, not everone that gets lynched is 'innocent'.
This year, my mandatory GMC fee will increase by £100 pounds to £390 apparently. So I'm actually paying for all this nonsence (and the private health care cover for the GMC's employees). However, the GMC is still viewed as 'soft of doctors'. 'If we make the doctors buy enough rope, maybe we can hang them'.
If it were funded by government and not by doctors, then perhaps this misperception may be corrected somewhat.
Just a thought.
"No one got locked up because of David Southall", said Dr Rant.
Not true. Individuals have been convicted and imprisoned as a result of expert evidence provided by Dr Southall. There are concerns that S/C files related to these cases held evidence that was not put before the courts. The Attorney General is examining the paper trail.
One convicted parent has already been released on appeal and had Southall not been struck off there would have been a further complaint before the GMC.
In fact, to follow that point, there might have been many more complaints to come. One complaint involving a controversial research study at North Staffs is due to proceed next year, against the remaining doctors involved in that project.
Dr Rant please read my blog with associated documents posted regarding David Southall - I'm afraid you have been duped!
Again, there was no intention to discuss the doings of David Southall.
The point I make is that due to the way in which the General Medical Kangaroo Court is set up, there is huge doubt in the minds of many.
Therefore justice has not been seen to be done.
It has also cost me money because my subs have gone up next year.
The debate needed a wider and more robust forum than it got, if only to make it plain that there are two equally compelling sided to this whole issue.
I find myself reminded of the comments of His Honour Mr Justice Whitburn QC, when, on the 21st March 2002, he passed sentence on Penny Mellor for her part in a “wicked conspiracy to abduct” a child in February 1999. His words: “Impervious to debate, convinced that you are right, you have traduced, complained about and harried dedicated professional people working in this difficult area.”
AFP writes: there's only doubts in the minds of Paediatricians, who apparently appear to think they should be free to do what they want.
Comments like : "Without Southall and Meadow, it has lost the opportunity to learn from mistakes that have been made." are insane. Would you support the retention of dishonest coppers, incompetent doctors and teachers so people can "learn from their mistakes".
Even more insane is the complaint about a jury trial ; this *isn't* a criminal trial for a start, and if it were, then the jurors wouldn't be any more knowledgeable either.
If Southall is a leader in the field, god help the field is all I can say !
"No one got locked up because of David Southall", said Dr Rant.
perhaps you are forgetting sion jenkins ? Southall testified against jenkins at his first trial, giving medical evidence that Jenkins' story was very unlikely. In the face of vastly more experienced, and completely contradicting, defense testimony at the successful appeal, Southall wasn't invited back for subsequent trials.
In the case of Mrs M (from the recent GMC trial), child M2 was forcibly removed from his parents, mainly on the basis of southall's supposition about munchausen's by proxy; which turned out to be wrong, and unsupported by several other medical experts.
Let's face it. Southall may have been wrong on occasion, and also rash.
southall was asked to inquire into the safety of child M2. He wasn't asked to "solve the case" of child M1, he didn't have the information, he didn't have the right to second guess the police and the coroner, he didn't have the right to force a bereaved mother to "categorically" deny asphyxiating her child.
is the manner in which the GMC dealt with the case
if you think there is something wrong, tell us exactly what they did wrong. The transcript of almost the whole thing is at, e.g.
http://www.nhsexposed.com/patients/msbp-penny-mellor/david-southall-transcripts.shtml.
Go through the evidence, and explain why DS was right to accuse the (innocent) mother of asphyxiating her child- when it wasn't his job to do so; or tell us why this is acceptable.
Alternatively, feel free to continue to sneer at the 99% of the population, who are too thick, common and scummy to be allowed to pass judgement on such intellectual paragons as yourself. You will find that a lot easier than engaging with the facts of the matter.
Unbelievable that complainant's claims not refuted by contemporaneous notes with contradictory nurse and Social Worker eyewitness accounts.
it is worth reading the transcripts, then you can make informed comment.
It was Southall's own notes that showed the the mother "categorically" denied asphyxiating her son. How do you think that categorical denial came up in conversation? Southall's record of the conversation shows good agreement with the complainant's, in terms of the subjects covered.
There was one other person present at this interview, the social worker Salem. It is a total mystery why her account of the interview fails to document many of the things in Southall's notes. There are numerous significant issues about Salem's testimony, and you can pick that up in the transcript of her cross-examination.
As I recall, one of the issues was that Salem knew that investigating the death of child 1 was a criminal issue, and reserved to the police.
Another issue is that her typed-up notes don't contain stuff that is in her original written notes.
but read the transcripts; there is just so much weird stuff there. Find out for yourself.
I refer you to my last comment.
you complain about the weakening of child protection, and you lament southall's departure. But you don't want to discuss why he departed, and you don't want to discuss how striking off a doctor who damaged children and adults can "weaken" child protection.
A 'jury of ones peers' means you are judged by your equals i.e. people who are able to understand the issues and frame the case through their own experience and expertise. What did David Southall get?
the transcript is on-line. The panel's questions appear to reveal considerable understanding of the issues. They were assisted by witnesses who were expert paediatricians, and who set out what the relevant professional restraints were.
your charge that the panel were not able to understand the issues is bunkum. Your charge about "framing the issues" is gobbledegook to substitute for "i want a hand picked jury of my professional friends". I don't find your argument at all convincing; and that is why there have to be lay members to convince the public that the GMC is protecting the public.
your argument seems to boil down to "lay people are incompetent to judge doctors", even when advised by medics and lawyers. I can't work out why that is not just pure, self-serving, arrogance.
Dr Rant, believe you me WE didn't want the GMC either, it should actually be a jury of his peers (as in criminal) court that should have heard parts of this case. I refer you to my blog, please read the documentary evidence posted up there and you will see why this required a criminal trial and not the GMC.
Please understand that the panel were asking very very pointed questions regarding child protection procedures and in fact at one point it was clear that the panellist knew more about the guidance than David Southall did!
You paid for the transcripts, read them.
just for the record, I believe the gmc panel in question started off with a second medic empanelled. However, after a year long hiatus in the middle of proceedings, the second medic was unable to continue.
The more you know, the more you realise what you don't know and are therefore more likely to give the benefit of the doubt.
one of the reasons i argue, is that the public transcripts can lay this argument bare. In southall's first trial, where he was banned from child protection work, he had no access to any medical records, the research basis for his hypothesis is published and was threadbare, and still he asserted his findings (based on a tv programme) beyond reasonable doubt. These facts are on the public record and there seems to be an unwillingness to interact even with clear cut evidence.
Dr Blue said
What panels don't like is persistent patterns of either dangerous or unreflective behaviour. (No evidence of ongoing learning, no sign of insight)
southall has yet to apologise in either case.
I think Southall case will tip balance away from child protection, and will lead to doctors saying less rather than more. Result of this will be more bad cases of neglected children. Maybe we prefer this to potentially false allegations and charges. (Presumption of innocence and all that)
It is an important concern.
However, if medics (or anyone else) are giving evidence that puts people in jail, takes their children away, then they have to give evidence responsibly. San Lazaro made stuff up; and Southall warranted a man was guilty of murder, when he couldn't possibly have known the facts.
I really struggle to see why holding people to account for egregious misbehaviour can in some way be weakening child protection.
Readers might like to see Dr Rita Pal's most enlightening contribution to the Southall debate here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2224604,00.html
Dr Pal is of course an RCPsych registered psychiatrist so her comments must be given credence. Where this is difficult it must be just an unfortunate omission, so we look forward to a helpful update the morrow.
With regards to the "trial by peers bits" -
Yes it is not a criminal trial, but does the ending of a career have not near enough the same result as a criminal trial with regards to ongoing life/stigma/work?
Full of peers not, but maybe 50/50?
Dr Sniper
"December 08, 2007
Anonymous said...
Readers might like to see Dr Rita Pal's most enlightening contribution to the Southall debate here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2224604,00.html
"Dr Pal is of course an RCPsych registered psychiatrist so her comments must be given credence."
Dr Pal's contributions to various debates can be viewed if one Googles her in 'groups'.
'Her comments must be given credence'- just because she's a doctor?? Shipman, Neale, Ledward - hmmm.
If Dr Rant, or any other doctor has a problem with dealing with the GMC, they should try being a patinet and dealing with the GMC. They are very hostile towards patients and have even been known to set about embarassing and humilating patients that dare to stand up against doctors.
Everyone outside the medical profession know fine well that the GMC have a reputation of protecting doctors and reputations that protecting patients.
Despite being able to abuse, kll and destroy more lives, doctors are far more protected that the opatients they seek to destroy. Dr Sothall was proved guilty beyond resonable doubt, something doctors demand they have a right to. At the same time doctors, including Southall, demand the right to destroy familes on the 'just in case' princable.
You cant have it both ways. If the GMC and doctors in general dont like the fact that they will get caught, then tough shit, find another job. Yes, child protection is important but it seems rather 2 faced when people like Southall are giving evidence to courts where the accused has fewier right than those held at Gumtanamo Bay, need very little evidence to take children into care and operate under more secrecy than MI6 yet demand more protection for themselfs. Why should Doctors be given more protection? I admit that if they get it wrong that child could get harmed by the parents, but the doctor could easily abuse,/kill hundreds and destroy far more lives than they should. Lets not forget that the amount of forced adoptions in the UK went from 500 a year to 1500 a year after the goverment brought in targets. That stinks of baby traficaing (something the likes of Southall take part in), yet we dont hear the health profession speaking out about it, oh hold on, that would involve them not protecting their own kind!
Southall desrved a lot more than being struck off. He is a disgrace to his preofession. If you dont like it, tough luck. Stop trying to protect your own
Dr Rant
You have it well measured up here.
The issue about the GMC judgment is this - it is a judgment to please the public.
I would say that Southall's Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial has been affected due to the legions of newspaper articles written about him - news that has been fed by Mellor.
I note Mellor has attempted to charm you here but in reality she is unable to assess science properly.
Regards
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
Judicial Review in R v GMC Ex Parte Dr Pal addresses the issue of the failure of the GMC to stop vexatious complaints. The GMC have no vexatious complaints policy. You should also know that Penny et al have subjected Southall to near enough 42 complaints. The GMC don't like mentioning this issue because afterall, they lost the last hearing in R Pal v GMC(1)
I doubt if they will lose the next one RP. They've learned how to win and the Southall case is the one to show this.
You will be a push over next time. And, why do you keep insisting you are the winner in the battle with PM?
You lost your locum job in Evesham, you will never get another clinical post.
PM 1, RP 0
:)
Dr Rita Pal
PM 0 RP 1
Actually I think RP is right. Her target was David Southall not PM, because with a supposed pal like RP who would need enemies. He's been struck off, she has won.
It was all a devious plot. LBB's enemy was Southall. She brought RP in and she got him.
QED.
Errrm I believe someone has their knickers in a twist.
David Southall will win on appeal.
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
Let's hope he does, that's something everybody wants.
Then the log jam of cases against him and the CNEP complaint against him, Samuels and the others can go ahead in full.
Will they??? :)
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
www.nhsexposed.com
What a bizarre question?
Is the Pope a Catholic?
Is Rita Pal a psychiatrist? Oops that slipped in accidentally.
Ok Guys
www.nhsexposed.com contains a lot on the half witted oddballs after Southall.
Read em on the blog and website. Its important cause your GMC subs are going increase in April 2008
Ciao
Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
I doubt that Rant has a taste for ex convicts.
IN THE CROWN COURT AT NEWCASTLE
Ref: T20010758
The Crown Court
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
21st March 2002
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WHITBURN QC
REGINA v PENELOPE MELLOR
SENTENCE
APPEARANCES:
For the Prosecution: MR. C. KNOX
For the Defence: MR. T. PARKIN
JUDGE WHITBURN: Penelope Mellor, please stand.
Penelope Mellor, you were convicted by a jury of a wicked conspiracy to abduct [XXXX] in February 1999.
A woman of ability, determination and tenacity, you have been a self-appointed advocate for those, amongst others, whose children are taken into care on the basis of what was known as Munchausens Syndrome By Proxy, now known as Fictitious Illness Syndrome. Your view, expressed to the Jury, was that this was a misdiagnosis, designed to cover up medical negligence.
Impervious to debate, convinced you are right, you have traduced, complained about and harried dedicated professional people working in this difficult area. I do not punish you for that, let me make it clear, however tiresome and eccentric your views are, the toleration afforded to you who expressed them, by those who hear them, is part of the price we gladly pay for living in a liberal democracy.
What is unforgivable is the way in which you manipulated for your own, as I find, purposes, the genuine distress of the [XXXX] family. I am quite sure that before they visited you, mother, grandmother and child, on that fateful weekend towards the end of January 1999, that there was never any plan to abduct the child to Ireland, so as to keep the child away from Social Services in Sunderland.
Steps were taken, monies were drawn, tickets obtained, and this only after another long early morning call by you. It was you who put them in touch with [XXXX], and it was he who visited you before catching the ferry to Ireland and meeting up there with [XXXX] and [XXXX]. It was very significant that that was the one aspect on which you admitted telling lies to the police. He then of course took the grandmother and child to Scotland, and then orchestrated the non-negotiable demands, to effectively ransom the child.
The child was kept away, and despite being with her grandmother, she must have been, and as the Pre-Sentence Report clearly says, disorientated and confused. She was kept away for over a month. You said in evidence that you were thought by some to be the Svengali, the one who pulled the strings, but that you only empowered those caught up in such a case by giving them the tools to fight.
In this case I have no doubt, having seen you giving evidence and having the whole of the case, that you were the architect, the Svengali of the whole plan. [XXXX], her mother and her husband, would never have been part of any conspiracy to abduct had they not met you, you counselled and advised them, and as a result encouraging them throughout this conspiracy.
I am sure that on the evidence, only as a result, they embarked on that fateful course, which inevitably led to all three, of hitherto good character, serving sentences of imprisonment; mother and grandmother nine months, and father, who played a lesser role, six months, they readily followed where you had pointed.
As the Court of Appeal Criminal Division pointed out in dismissing the appeals of [XXXX] and [XXXX] and [XXXX], those who act as you and they did commit a serious offence, especially where what is done is to thwart the orders of the Court in respect of a child or proceedings taken in respect of a child, by removing the child from the jurisdiction of the Court and assisting the continuing absence of that child from the jurisdiction.
It is, and it is to be emphasised, the interests of the child which are paramount. It is chilling to read in the Pre-Sentence Report the effect of that abduction upon that already emotionally damaged child. You have made clear your cavalier disregard for the injunction of the High Court, viewing them as gagging orders preventing what you regard as the truth from emerging. Certain it is that you were pursuing your own agenda; the difficulties of the [XXXX] family, their emotional fragility, their suffocating love for their children fitted in well with the campaign that you were waging.
A woman of 40, hitherto good character, a mother of eight children, ranging from an adult to a small baby, any Court must pause and anxiously consider whether a custodial is inevitable. Sadly, I have done so, and it is.
I take into account all the personal matters of mitigation urged upon me. I have considered the Pre-Sentence Report, which so well sets out your background, and I am most grateful to Mr Parkin who has pleaded your case so eloquently.
What you are being punished for is orchestrating an abduction of a child, in part at least for your own propaganda purposes; an abduction which lasted over a month, and was only resolved at considerable cost of scarce Police resources and by good detective work. An abduction which cost others, who were unlikely to have participated without your encouragement, their liberty.
The very least sentence I can pass upon you, Penelope Mellor, is two years’ imprisonment. Of that you will serve half. Take her down. I make no order for costs.
REPORT INTO THE COMPLAINTS RAISED BY MRS M AND MRS M’s mother
IN RELATION TO M1
INTRODUCTION
This report has been completed following a review of the processes and management of child protection cases between June 1992 and November 1999. The review is based on information available from the Trust, external agencies and Medical Advisors against the standards defined by The Children Act (1989) and Supporting Guidance Working Together (Department of Health 1991).
BACKGROUND
A written complaint from Mrs M was received by the Trust on 14.12.99 underlining her concerns which are listed below.
1. AG, Head of Nursing contacted David Southall by telephone and he gave a diagnosis of MSbP in relation to the death of Mrs M’s son M1, who hanged himself on 03.06.95. This diagnosis was given without any medical evidence. Because of concerns raised by Professor Southall her younger son, M2 M D.O.B. 25.2.88, was removed from home.
2. When seen by David Southall he called Mrs M a murderer in the presence of a Social Worker. He told her that her son (M1) had not killed himself but that she had done it by drugging him, then hanging him from the curtain pole.
3. A complaint was also lodged by Mrs C, Mrs M’s mother on 5.1.00 reiterating the above issues and which related to A G.
4. Mrs Mellor made a further complaint in January 2000. Mrs Mellor became an advocate for Mrs M and this complaint focussed on a senior nurse who was employed at the S O Hospital. The essence of the complaint was claiming breach of confidentiality by the senior nurse who allegedly pulled Mrs M’ medical records and referred her to Professor Southall.
This complaint is being dealt with by the O S Orthopaedic Hospital.
Complaint One
A G, Head of Nursing contacted David Southall by telephone and he gave a diagnosis of MSbP in relation to the death of Mrs M’s son M1, who hanged himself on 03.06.95. This diagnosis was given without any medical evidence. Because of concerns raised by Professor Southall her younger son, M2 M D.O.B. 25.2.88, was removed from home.
A referral was received by Shropshire Social Services from Mrs A G at the RJ and A H Hospital on 20 January, 1998, following concerns about Mandy M’s sick leave and Mrs M’s comments about her son M2 being bullied at school and had been threatening suicide. M2’s GP was also concerned that M2 was depressed.
A Senior Social Worker for Shropshire County Council then raised her concerns about the family with Professor Southall. Following this discussion a Strategy Planning Meeting was called for 26 January, 1998.
Professor Southall was not able to attend the meeting held on 26 January, 1998 at which issues concerning M2 and the death of M1 were discussed. However, on the 28 January, 1998, having been sent most of the relevant papers he met with Francine Salem, Senior Social Worker and her Team Manager at the North Staffordshire Hospital and thereafter a decision was made that an Emergency Protection Order should be immediately obtained for M2. A further Strategy Planning Meeting was also fixed for the following day, the 29 January, 1998. On the 30 January, 1998 Professor Southall prepared a preliminary report based on the initial paperwork that he had seen. He also contacted Dr Arnon Bentovin at Great Ormond Street Hospital to ask his advice about the situation, as he had expertise in dealing with suicide in children. Professor Southall also spoke to the family’s GP.
Subsequently on the 20 March, 1998 Professor Southall received a formal letter from Shropshire County Council’s Solicitor asking if he would provide a full assessment/report on the case. It was noted that Mr & Mrs M had already been informed of the possibility of MSbP.
Professor Southall’s opinion was based on concerns raised by other health professionals, an interview with Mrs M and relevant information given to him by the Social Services Department.
The medical experts opinion was that given the earlier death and M2’s behaviour, all professional concern was justified. Under these circumstances, sharing of any information is necessary and justified.
M2 was removed from home as a result of concern felt by all agencies involved. When Professor Southall was consulted, there were already strong grounds to consider MSbP, and consequently, M2’s removal to foster care was taken in his best interests.
Complaint Two
When seen by David Southall he called Mrs M a murderer in presence of Social Worker. He told her that her son (M1) had not killed himself but that she had done it by drugging him, then hanging him from the curtain pole
On the 27 April 1998 Professor Southall met with Mrs M. The only other person present was Francine Salem, Social Worker.
Professor Southall recalled this was a very difficult meeting to engage in and he and Francine Salem were very careful to ensure that Mrs M did not misunderstand anything that they were saying. The notes taken at the time of the meeting record the discussion which took place. At the beginning of the consultation the conversation related in detail to Mrs M’s suggestion that M1 had been bullied by other students and a teacher. Mrs M explained that M1 had been kicked, his clothes pulled and his books were kicked across the ground. Mrs M felt that the school would not acknowledge that bullying was taking place in their school. The conversation then led to M1’s state of mind and subsequent death. Mrs M described the situation and she found her son hanging from the curtain pole and this was discussed in some detail. Mrs M was determined that M1 had taken his own life because he was being bullied at school. When looking for explanations for M1’s death Professor Southall described three possible scenarios.
1. That M1 died accidentally through experimentation.
2. That he intended to kill himself.
3. That he was murdered.
In particular, Francine Salem remembers that these three scenarios put to Mrs M about the death of M1 were not put in accusatory fashion, they were described as logical possibilities and they discussed them in detail. At the end of the meeting Professor Southall recalls asking Mrs M if she had understood everything that they had raised and she said that she did.
Complaint Three
Complaint also lodged by Mrs C, Mrs M’s mother on 5.1.00 reiterating the above issues and which related to AG
The majority of these issues are responded to in Complaint Two. Complaints about Anne Gray are being investigated by her current employer, RJ and AH Hospital who will report directly to Mrs M.
Complaint Four
Mrs Mellor made a further complaint in January 2000. Mrs Mellor became an advocate for Mrs M and this complaint focussed on a senior nurse who was employed at the Shropshire Orthopaedic Hospital. The essence of the complaint was claiming breach of confidentiality by the senior nurse who allegedly pulled Mrs M’ medical records and referred her to Professor Southall.
Again this complaint is being investigated by AG’s current employers who will respond directly to Mrs M.
CONCLUSION
The medical experts opinion was that Professor Southall’s concerns were justified and based on anxieties voiced by other professionals.
There is no evidence which suggests that Professor Southall called Mrs M a ‘murderer’, but that he was stating possible explanations for M
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
IS PENNY MELLOR A SCIENTOLOGIST?
Information on Scientology can be found here. They are definitively anti-psychiatry. Their main website is here. We discuss the link between Scientology and Penny Mellor.
A few years ago Penny Mellor was awarded by the Church of Scientology. A notable Scientology publication stated the following.
"PENNY MELLOR, from the Dare to Care parents justice group, was honoured for her vigorous campaigning to expose the psychiatric label "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy," where parents or caretakers are alleged to have fabricated symptoms of illness in a child to gain attention for themselves. In accepting the award, Ms. Mellor said, "It is a huge honour to receive this award in recognition not for my work, but for those parents who have had the confidence in me and allowed me to fight in their name."
Ms Penny Mellor's methodology of attacks is very similar to that of the Church of Scientology. She has vilified approximately 60 doctors and other professionals on the internet, reported them to their regulatory bodies for various crimes and written defamatory comments about them usually accusing them of crimes. This is identical to the advice offered at the Church of Scientology. Her behaviour profile fits right into the description below. A classical example of her behaviour is the treatment of Professor David Southall. She has harried him, reported him for crimes, subjected him to repeated investigations that have gone no where etc for approximately 10 years now.
Then there is Lisa Blakemore Brown. Lisa a psychologist has been vilified across the Internet, been accused of crimes, defamed to those who may well employ her and this has been ongoing for four or more years resulting in a catastrophic impact on her livelihood not to mention a British Psychological Society investigation instigated by Ms Penny Mellor.
Then there is Dr Rita Pal who wrote a critique of msbp.com on her website http://www.nhsexposed.com/ and unknowingly has become a target while questioning the evidence base in the complaint to the British Psychological Society made by Penny Mellor .
Two reports have been made to the GMC to suppress what she has to say. She has been defamed across the blogsphere with the classical example of attacks on a blog infamously showing us who their target is. The blogger switched their moderation on and said "At this point, over 340 comments have been made regarding the two posts (1, 2). Time to find a new hobby, everyone".
Furious Seasons stated "CL Psych's blog has blown up with comments over the Rita Pal affair in the UK. I have never seen nastier comments in the mental health world and I am glad that the Pal haters decided to steer clear of my blog. Probably because I moderate comments. CL has had to turn on his comment moderatin' software and has encouraged people to get a new hobby. Personally, I find the Pal affair discouraging on so many levels, but I am looking forward to its resolution in the British High Court where I guess the name of my little old blog will get mentioned".
It is therefore clear that Dr Pal will meet with a barrage of allegations that she will have to deal with. Rumours have circulated that Ms Mellor arranged for at least two people who have sought assistance from Scientologists to contacting R Pal. It is unknown what their agenda was. We are unable to verify this at present.
Professor David Southall is the man who propagated the msbp.com diagnosis and Lisa Blakemore Brown is a psychologist. Rita Pal worked in psychiatry. These professionals correlate well with the Scientologists hatred for mental health workers.
This pattern of attacks from Mellor is very similar to the material listed below from Wikipaedia.
The organization's actions reflect a formal policy for dealing with criticism instituted by L. Ron Hubbard, called "attack the attacker." This policy was codified by Hubbard in the latter half of the 1960s, in response to government investigations into the organization. In 1966, Hubbard wrote a criticism of the organization's behavior and noted the "correct procedure" for attacking enemies of Scientology:
(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press
The quotes from the emails below have circulated. They also establish that Ms Mellor is involved closely with the Church of Scientology. She admits that they have helped her get "psychs struck off". She is also heavily involved with recruiting for Scientology opting to provide those who are vulnerable with a cult they can depend on.
This is what Ms Mellor told a mother who posted on msbp.com about her associations with the church of Scientology.
"I don't know how you feel about the scientologists, they don't believe in drugging children, and get some bad press, however they are very keen to help any parent with autistic children who has been labelled, no strings attached, they have helped me get loads of MSbP psychs struck off... something to think about it can be done at your discretion but they do have a lot of resources, doctors etc who help falsely accused parents"
and on the 5th June 2005 she said
"Here's the scientologists email address cchruk@btconnect.com you want to talk to Brian Daniels and he'll do whatever he can to help you"
Msbp.com is therefore a group that is used to recruit and covert vulnerable people to Scientology
www.wickedconspirator.blogspot.com
If it takes scientologists to get doctors such as Southall off the medical register then bring them on I say.
And even better, for so called psychiatrists like Rita Pal. After all they don't like your sort at the best of times, and you're definitely the worst of them.
By the way, why can't we read your 24Dash.com and MyTelegraph.co.uk postings any more?
Have you been warned off there as well as Wikipedia?
What happened to your barrister training? Did they suss you out too?
What was that criminal record again Mellor - conspiring to abduct a child eh?
This is though quite amusing in a way because it establishes the sort of behaviour that Southall was subjected to. That is not to mention the death threats, the hate mail, the obscene posts etc.
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
Who was the arch conspirator using child protection procedures to remove children from caring parents who did not want them in his dangerous research projects?
Who tried to stop him?
Would you have tried Rita?
Answer this:
What happened to the children?
How many have died or are brain damaged?
How many have suffered the damaging experience of being in care?
You were concerned about older helpless patients, but not the youngest who had their lives ahead of them and desperate parents trying to protect them.
You are no better than Southall and deserve the same fate, along with the colleagues who raised not a finger, and stil don't.
I am sure that I must have read most of what Dr Pal has written before. Oh, well it seems to have been repeated on a number of occasions all over the Internet!!
Dr Pal.....A registered psychiatrist? Hmmm.
Rita, of course, would have tried to "Whistleblow" wouldn't she had she really known what was going on. (I doubt it!).
As Dr Pal has worked in North Staffs, could she tell us where Dr Southall really kept 4,500 files.
That would need to be a securely safe 'big' room and why weren't these notes kept within the medical records.
I can't see how a big room was kept secret from all those doctors for all these years... :)
Answer
Why did the GPs not know of these tests?
They didn't!
I guess they 'forgot' to copy them into the GPs or relevant consultants.
I guess Rita's website and devotion is to care for abused elderly like she did on Ward 87.
What happened for exposing the truth about MSBP and the parents who have been falsely accused?
The same sort of professional abuse which as is going on in the elderly. You would have thought there would be a degree of empathy for all those parents in that 'research project'.
This is all very straightforward. No doctor of medicine should ever be held to account for anything he does. They are a higher being, infinitely superior to all those who haven't acquired two unclassified undergraduate degrees.
Therefore, shut the fuck up, you worthless proles, and don't question your betters.
Post a Comment