Hot Potato! Hot potato!Well, the after effects of Southall case continue. There is a somewhat mixed picture in the press, both pro and anti Southall so far. The appeal is awaited with great interest.
Nigel Speight in the Observer- supporting Southall and saying decision is bad for children.
Minette Marin on “deformation professionelle” When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Basically sees Southall as misguided, and as having become mono-focused over time so that everything looks like child abuse. I sense her analysis is very sensible.
Cassandra Jardine in the Sunday Telegraph
I think key point of this case comes down to the balance between factual and expert evidence. In many of the cases the factual evidence available (Post mortem, video, medical records and measurements, notes) did not provide evidence of harm. There may have been suspicion of parents harming the children, but this must go unspoken if the evidence is not present to back it up. The presumption of innocence is too strong.
False, or unfounded, accusations of “The parents did it” are dangerous, especially when the defence team ask “how do you know this?” “What facts do you have to support this accusation?” No amount of “expertise” can work if the basic facts are not established. (And in this context the failings in the pathology evidence in the Sally Clark case were dreadful. If the pathologist cannot get things straight, then only a crooked case can go forward.)
Southall’s biggest failing may have been not to start backwards (from how he would answer barristers in court) And also apparently not to consider the question, “I pray you, consider you might be wrong.” He appeared to know more than actually he could have known.
Medicine as a profession is eminently not philosophical. Too few doctors are fully aware of their personal and collective epistemology, and therefore struggle to answer the questions "How do you know that?" and "how do you know that you know that?"
The barristers and judges who seem to have allowed Southall’s expertise to trump the analysis of basic forensic facts need to think about their part in this story. The fact barristers have not gone back to the basics “How do you know this?” and “On what basis?” questions shows a lamentable lack of curiosity.
Having read the GMC transcript I think the appeal hearing may be very interesting, and quite difficult to overturn on appeal. However both sides will have good barristers and the argument will get more interesting still.
(The Dr Rant team reserves the right to kind an open mind on this issue and will not be harangued by either camp who patently do not have open minds, and no you can't have OUR GMC numbers - Ed.)
68 comments:
a much more considered post, so my congratulations.
though I don't think you explicitly say so, an allegation of unfounded parental abuse also leads to the child(ren) being removed from the parents; and that cannot be a good thing "for the children".
Southall didn't appeal his first SPM from the GMC, and williams recently lost his high court appeal against his spm. it will be interesting to see what transpires here.
Dr Rant
I must say I am disappointed.
I hope you will therefore ensure that as a GP - when you face the GMC on the whim of a patient - just remember the evidence of your chaperone will not be counted. As long as you are happy with that, please do let the above matter stand. In any case, it is only a matter of time before the GMC touches the lives of every doctor during revalidation in two years. Then we get the organisation we fight for don't we.
May I suggest you take the time to read the full background of the case. Southall's case was not about expert evidence AT all.
You have enough on your team to be able to read the documents and evidence in front of you.
It isn't difficult to find your GMC numbers - they are all over DNUK.
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
"It isn't difficult to find your GMC numbers - they are all over DNUK.
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com"
Is Dr Pal threatening you all because you think for yourselves?
Be careful Dr Rant, you'll get your own hate blog, just as I have.
What's this business of a chaperone about? I recall Dr Pal comparing the social worker who sat in with Southall and Mrs M to a chaperone, whose testimony should be believed in preference to the mother.
However, the social worker was not an independent person (as has repeatedly also been claimed and more widely than by Dr Pal), she was an officer of the local authority which had instructed Southall to conduct the interview.
There ought to have been a taped record of that interview. How many times have we heard parents say they wished they had taped interviews, especially with social workers?
It should be mandated.
Dr Pal
Interested parties would have difficulty in identifying the Dr Rant team via DNUK activity as 'Dr Rant' doesn't have a DNUK account. Several active DNUK members are avid readers of ours, and help out with identifying topics for discussion, and the occasional image. The team are generally too busy with work and this blog to spend much time on DNUK, other than the occasional 'lurk'.
However, Dr Pal is herself accutely aware of libel laws, and will doubtlessly be reassured that attempts to 'out' members could well be defamatory to any DNUK members picked on, and that would be a shame.
Frank
Dr Rita Pal wrote:
"just remember the evidence of your chaperone will not be counted..."
this appears to be a reference to the last southall case, and the social worker (Salem) who sat in on a david southall medical.
the transcript of Salem's cross-examination is an absolute cracker, and points out many issues that are troubling.
Dr Pal unfortunately doesn't mention that much of the stuff in David Southall's own contemporary notes isn't in Salem's account of the meeting. Moreover, the GMC may well have relied on Southall's own notes, and the schedule of things to address that he prepared shortly after the interview.
So let us ask Rita: why should the GMC discount Southall's own contemporary notes as a source of evidence against him ? If southall writes that the Mother categorically denied asphyxiating her son, why cannot we reasonably infer that southall asked her if she did ?
Indeed, the identity issue is a complex one.
As a member of the Dr Rant Team I sometime feel like one of Charlie's Angels, but with a moustache.
I have been known to contact people on DNUK on behalf of Dr Rant.
The thing is that Some of the Team know each other, but no one actually knows who the great man/woman Dr Rant himself really is. We receive our instructions, and do as we're told.
Mustard
I'm sure Dr Pal will find something to say about that, and some garb to clothe you in, even if she hasn't got your number.
Mind you, getting her GMC number isn't a problem.
(She seems to prefer semi-clothed mind you, so be prepared.)
"open mind" the rant team?
oh yea
What a splendid debate. We post a fairly open starter thread reflecting some of the journey in the Southall case and we get two opposite poles (Penny Mellor vs Rita Pal) as visitors.
Welcome to both, and we'll see how the appeal case unfolds.
Let's be straight shall we, Dr Pal jumped this particlar bandwagon only after she could not blackmail me into dropping a complaint against somebody else who she also tagged herself too.
A quick look at her blog will date the precise time she decided that Southall was a goody!
I may not be everyone's cup of tea, however I haven't changed sides over this issue unlike Rita Pal.
Only two years ago Rita Pal was whistling a very different tune!
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7483/152#93119
Re: Oh dear, oh dear, Raj Persaud 18 January 2005
Rita Dr Pal,
Freelance writer and doctor
UK
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Oh dear, oh dear, Raj Persaud
Miscarriages of justice are emotive issues for the public. In my view Dr Persaud misunderstands the great demands forced on a defendant in their case. The court system is inherently disorganised, has no scientific rigour and judges have an accepted respect for consultants. Roy Meadow is an example. The CPR rules have tightened up since the Woolf reforms and experts are now compelled to justify their views by citing research. This was not always the case. An expert could have got away with a simple statement without research verifications.
If anyone has ever been into court, you will realise that the result is much like a lottery. You are dependant on your barrister who takes instruction from your solicitor. Barristers dislike talking to their clients. It is much like a Chinese whisper from you - to solicitor - barrister - judge. The interpretation may well alter at the end thus having an impact on the result of the case.
Medical evidence is accepted implicitly without question because there is no one to question it. The judge has no independent expert (who does not take sides) to corroborate what is said. With due respect to judges, they know the law but they have a minimal understanding of science. The judge is therefore reliant on cross-examination. Therein lies another problem - barristers are not medical generally and often do not know or understand the key questions to ask in order to defeat an eminent Professor. The court battle is about " names". The bigger the names you are likely to afford, the better the chance of success. You also require a sprinkling of luck and the hope that the judge is not playing golf that afternoon.
A significant number of these women have spent many years incarcerated in prisons. While this may be acceptable to Dr Persaud, it is not acceptable to the public. Prisons break people. That is the harsh reality. I do not feel that the media furore is disproportionate. Injustice should never be accepted or tolerated. While harassment of doctors is unacceptable, their suffering is nothing compared to the women who have been confined within the four walls of prisons, lost their family and their livelihoods. To snatch a segment of a person's life has repercussions. The description by Dr Persaud is more of the side effects of a culmination of actions.
Doctors like Roy Meadow have done very little to encourage trust in the profession. Perhaps an acknowledgement that they may have been wrong may have gone someway in dampening the public outcry.
As it happens, many wrongly accused women have suffered at the hands of expert witnesses and system failures within the courts. These women were not medically trained so they faced an uphill struggle to seek the answers through the maze of medical jargon. Everyone knows that it is easy to blind lay people with science with catastrophic results. There a few experts who do believe in their own arrogance and do feel that they will never be challenged. Court injustices is another method of psychological assassination. Post traumatic stress disorders and other psychiatric illnesses are the results of long periods of trauma. The public now believe that the injustice is unacceptable and quite right too.
Raj Persaud is an eminent doctor who should really start to understand that psychiatry and its communication thereof comes from empathy of the human condition. While Dr Persaud's material is often well researched and skilfully presented, my own patients often ask me whether Dr Persaud has set foot in a world called " real life".
Kind Regards
Dr Rita Pal
Competing interests: Some minimal contact with Dr Persaud - was not impressed :)
Fantastic post, it puts Rita Pal in a whole new light.
~G~
Dr Rita Pal's recent espousal of the Southall cause is wholly the result of being enlisted to the aid of a certain psychologist who was the subject of a complaint by Ms Mellor.
The paradox is that this psychologist declared Southall to be her enemy.
So Dr Pal supports Southall. The psychologist doesn't support Southall. Mellor doesn't support Southall. I can't work it out, I'm neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist, so what is going on Dr Pal's mind is hard for me to assess.
How long before Dr Pal turns on the psychologist as she surely will?
we'll see how the appeal case unfolds.
southall didn't appeal against his 2004 serious professional misconduct finding. I think there is a reason for that.
I don't know that southall has lodged an appeal against this current finding. One can only speculate that legal advice on the likely chances of success might be a factor in deciding whether or not to proceed with an appeal.
I will be very interested to find out if there will be an appeal.
http://davidsouthallexposed.blogspot.com/
Were the GMC really wrong?
1. Of course, I recently found out about the injustices in Meadow's case. I have retracted all statements made about the past since and actually apologised to Roy Meadow recently. Roy Meadow was unfairly attacked by the GMC. The statistics he relied on was from the Department of Health. I have indeed written about it on my blog if anyone would care to read it. I have of course learned the art of reading internal documents as opposed to believing what is in the media.
2. Well, I see Mellor could not resist showing her face on Dr Rant. Perhaps she would like to tell them about her
a. Criminal record for conspiring to abduct a child
b. Her scientology award.
c. The fact that she has made no less than 60 complaints against doctors - where Dr Rant and his cohorts have paid their GMC subs for.
d. Mellor has been known to have access to DNUK.
e. She complained to the GMC about me following a few critiques I wrote on her inability to assess basic science. Her website is a classic example of her leaps in logic. Mellor lost me my job and the GMC cleared me. Basically, I won and she lost.
f. It is true I have had a long spat with the hold bag from Wolverhampton - that is because she is in effect a waste of GMC subscription funds.
3. As for Dr Rant. I suggest you read in detail the elements of the Southall case. Those who look blindly past the GMC are only sealing their fate in the future.
4. Dr Rant and team, I have no reason to out you. I could if I wanted to but I won't. Secondly, just remember no one is anonymous on the internet. Most are trackable by their etc. The Medical Act gives the GMC - effectively police powers to get information on you or anyone else they wish to.
Finally, Mellor and friends have made no less than 42 complaints about Southall. Mellor was called a liar by the judge. Her accomplice Ms M has been far from honest. You should also look up the faked emails that were sent to the British Psychological Society against Lisa Blakemore Brown.
As for Mellor - attempting to win the doctors isn't going to wash because in the end doctors know about science and you can't bluff a doctor like you have done the GMC:)
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
Have a look at Dr Pal's conduct on this comment forum:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2224604,00.html
See her attacks on the families, one of the child victims now an adult, her false claims about 'evidence' etc. etc.
Dr Pal your arrogance and ignorance of issues (including the science) is breathtaking. I've come onto this issue from another direction- having no links with Mellor whatsoever. But your behaviour has appalled me on that Guardian comment forum, and I see you're bringing it onto this one as well. My concern is the families you are attacking. I am so heartily SICK of seeing patients and families, already suffering more than is just, then attacked by doctors, just because they have the courage to stand up against institutionalised abuse.
Whooping Crane
Dear Anon
You are of course entitled to your view. I know a lot more about the sort of families involved here. I am sure many are not above misinterpreting the truth to manage their compensation claims. Simply because a 22 year old boy makes claims - does not mean I should by default believe him.
There are many more families who have suffered - trully suffered and lost their relatives. The GMC has done nothing. They deserve sympathy and all our help. The families involved in attacking Southall don't deserve an ounce of sympathy - certainly not from me.
This isn't about institutional abuse, it is really about a vendetta against professionals who are actually trying to do their job.
By the way, providing a defence to the insults hurled in my direction is important. If it is perceived as an insult then so be it. I cannot change the public's view and neither would I wish to.
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
www.nhsexposed.com
What compensation claims Rita? All they want as I understand it is Southall accountable to his own professional body, and subect to appeal this is what some of them have achieved. If he stays on the register there are further complaints against him and colleagues due to be heard in 2008, and if he stays on the register after that there will even more from families needlessly damaged by his allegations.
Dr Rant's team helpfully mentioned libel. You seem to have taken that on board and drawn back from publicising their GMC registration details.
So why are you putting your name to accusing Mrs M and Mr A junior and by implication his mother Mrs A also of lying?
Does this kind of behaviour of yours align with registration with the GMC? In the past you have said you would resign your membership. Why don't you just do it?
"I know a lot more about the sort of families involved here. I am sure many are not above misinterpreting the truth to manage their compensation claims."
Good grief Dr Pal- this IS about institutional abuse, and your uncanny tendency to believe you can libel people with impunity, the above comment of yours a case in point! What do you 'know' about these 'sort' of families, and bearing in mind your conduct and inability to get facts straight, why on earth should anyone have any confidence in what you go around proclaiming?
Whooping Crane
What do you medics in the Rant ranks think of the latest from Dr Rita Pal, GMC Number 4528472, on her nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com site?
"Rant talks about revalidation. What no one touches on is the fact that the GMC will be responsible for it and will conduct its witch hunts even more effectively than they have in the past. I see Penny Mellor has attempted to charm Dr Rant with the disordered thoughts of a failing campaigner. Dr Rant has resisted. For Penny's sake - contraception may now be available in pharmacies incase she requires it. Mind you not many years now till the old menopause. Given hair dying has already started to take place we have to wonder what is next - perhaps a Botox party for her friends?"
Oh this is a difficult one-
Rant tends to call anyone whose arguments 'he' cannot fault by reason a fuckwit, an ignorant cunt and the like, and attacks patient groups by calling them 'Lydia Lard', and putting up fatuous 'malingobrace' images and the like.
Pal makes irrelevant bitchiness an art form with regard to Penny Mellor, and defames victimised families.
Both use their status as doctors to claim privileged insight, even while they engage in such unprofessional bad faith behaviour and treat logic like a bad smell.
Pal's is more feminine an oiky behaviour, I suppose, at least with regard to Mellor, while Rant's may be more typically masculine (a sort of football hooligan without the Doctor Martin's on cold terraces but with a nice computer somewhere comfortable).
Either way, their contempt for those who generate their income, Joe and Joanne Patient, is palpable.
The Southall case, ironically, is only further illustrating, starkly, the contempt many doctors seem to have for their patients. I think history is still being written on this, but the behaviour of Pal in these last days alone, a doctor who supposedly whistleblew in advocacy for patients in the past, has issued a stark reminder of this. But she's not the only one. Nigel Speight, a doctor only too aware of the instituationalised abuse of ME/CFS child sufferers at the hands of MSPB peddlars, now takes it upon himself to support Southall, even after retiring from his position, and even while knowing the effect Southall and his ilk's belief systems have had on those children he (Speight) ostensibly advocates for:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2224604,00.html
Other doctors line up to support Southall, as they did with Meadow. A massive press campaign is waged. Clear misconduct is glossed over by treating the patients and/or their families, as recalcitrant villains of the piece.
I can't make up my mind if this is a surreal situation or all too mundane, a recent phenomenon or something that has been with us for a long time. But what does seem to have happened is that doctors' moral responsibilities towards patients have become something of an inconvenience, to be sacrificed on an altar decked out with careers, belief systems, power, privilege and status (and money).
In many patients' experiences, doctors have become adversaries, part of a system generating institutionalised abuse and oppression, where patients (or in Southall's case, parents of patients) are blamed for illnesses not yet fully understood by medicine. The irrational and ultimately indefensible diagnosis of MSBP is the ultimate get-out clause for any lazy paediatrician/GP with a mean streak and fear of admitting lack of knowledge: no matter how irrational its assumptions, no matter what the devastation it wreaks on people.
Only victims of this irrationality are now more successfully defending themselves, legitimately using the GMC to do it, to the ire of the medics.
If anyone thinks this current exchange involving insults about menopause and botox is a silly spat between two feminine parties, please be disabused. This is about something much bigger.
from
Shoot-the-messenger
Ahh, the old "compensation grabber" stereotype. Do please change the record, Dr. Rita Pal- or put your Ipod on Shuffle, to use a more modern analogy. In the unlikely event that I do get any compensation I will use it to get my healthcare back in shape- which clearly has to be done privately and at considerable cost, seeing as the NHS have been denying me care for years because of the false MSBP label. The rest will go to child protection charities and the Angela Cannings Foundation.
Funny that my very own GP is currently spouting the exact same poppycock about me being forced to appear in the media and having ulterior motives, etc- when you and the rest of Southall's crew are currently saying exactly the same things. You really are all clockwork toys, you know.
Having ill-advisedly "NHS Exposed" your vileness towards me- publicly- on the Guardian thread, I don't think it would do your reputation much good to continue the exercise here.
Some doctors clearly don't like me speaking out- and being the contrary type I'm afraid that gives me all the more reason to do so.
If you think your words upset or depress me, Dr. Pal, then you are very much mistaken. They're just laughable. The tactic seems to be to use basic playground name-calling to try to put me off. Well, having had plenty of experience of the latter, I can assure you that your efforts are well and truly in vain.
Back to grown-up debate now, d'you think?
http://lawrencealexander.blogspot.com
Not much chance of that with Dr Rita Pal.
Rita Pal's contempt seem to be more directed at the person who has prevented her from earning an income.
There are two ways to skin a cat so it's said, I don't know what method number two is.
But with RP simply referring her to the GMC was enough to get her sacked it seems, and that's a puzzle.
Because normally a GMC referral doesn't achieve this.
She must have had a skinned cat in her cupboard, sorry, I meant skeleton.
1. Many thanks for sitting here and attempting to discredit me. Of course you oddballs would - given we are the only website presenting the entire story on Southall et al.
And material you can't get off the net no matter how much you attempt it.
2. Yes I had the phonecall attempting to persuade me not to place transcripts up - or else. And I have a tape recording of it. Of course no one is going to heed these pathetic warnings.
3. Mellor reported me to shut me up as she has every single doctor who has attempted to speak against her. It is her little scientology ploy.
4. Mellor did infact get me fired. Oddly enough the Trust wrote back to the GMC and told them they had no concerns over my ability to be a doctor. It was noted though that facing a GMC investigation meant getting fired these days. Some of you doctors should try it on occasion. Naive about the rules of the regulator no doubt - or shall we say the new rules.
5. This is not about institutional abuse of patients or relatives. It is about a bunch of dysfunctional lying mothers ticked off with Southall making complaints about him. Of course Mellor lies - a judge said so so she must do. This is not to mention the faked emails sent to the British Psychological Society.
6. Lawrence - if you want to be a victim be my guest. You do well with a website about being a victim. I am not going to sit here and pity you. You can go seek sympathy somewhere else.
By the way, I don't give a damn what is said about me. The public can see that a bunch of oddballs miffed with Southall is also after me anywhere I write. This is indeed about something bigger - this is about a group who lies at the drop of a hat to get want they want. By the way, didn't Mellor state that she wanted the GMC to shut me up. Isn't that what she wrote to the GMC?
It hasn't happened has it - as we know how much rubbish she writes and how dim she is. Then she is a housewife.
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
One thing you're never going to be RP.
Maybe you thought DPS would be your housemate?
Not now though eh?
None of your rants will work RP, you are going to get struck off the register.
Your internet rantings bring the profession of medicine into disrepute.
You are actually uniquely unpleasant.
Oh and by the way it's obvious where your material is coming from, it has DPS written all over it even if it is coming via a third party named .... ? Next instalment.
That makes it sooooo reliable, not.
"Lawrence - if you want to be a victim be my guest. You do well with a website about being a victim. I am not going to sit here and pity you. You can go seek sympathy somewhere else."
I don't recall ever having said "Doctor Southall, please may I be a victim in your unethical clinical research programme, and while you're about it, can you lie about my parents for me too, kind Sir?"
I have plenty of sympathy from real life friends thank-you very much, so I do not feel the need to additionally seek the Cyberspace equivalent.
My motives are to understand how Southall managed to do the damage he did and to help the others who have been through the same. I think you know that already.
I have constructive things to do with my life so if there's nothing more than banal slander to be had here, then I'll say cheerio. I simply haven't the time for this soap opera this afternoon.
Imagine if Prime Minister's Questions was like this! "I put it to the Honourable Member that her hairdo is rubbish!" {boos and jeers} "Or-der! Or-der!"
What's the bets I get called a "pesky kid" now?
On the contrary Lawrence, keep it up. She will descend into even more bizarre banality, eventually disappearing up her own ISP.
1."Your internet rantings bring the profession of medicine into disrepute"
You mean exposing the lies the msbp group tells brings medicine in disrepute does it?
2. Many thanks for the threats. One of many over the last few months. Of course, those with issues can't help themselves can they anon?
Dr Rita Pal
"eventually disappearing up her own ISP"
Which hasn't happened in the last year.
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
www.nhsexposed.com
So cagey, you really mean it has happened before then.
Of course we knew that RP, on rulings by Nominet, on applications by Doctors Net and General Medical Council.
Rule 12(2) and 12(3)
Showing a complete disregard for CPR Rules governing the courts and tribunals in placing transcripts of evidence in the public domain PRIOR to the witnesses taking the stand.
CIAO (which rhymes with Miaow) She won't get that!
The thing is Rita you are the only one who can lose in the ranting and wrangling. Nobody else can, nobody cares a toss, except of course in seeing you brought down, struck off, imprisoned, sued or whatever.
Penny
You should study your law my dear.
The GMC is not a court :).
1. Struck off - It will never happen
2. Imprisoned. That won't happen
3. Sued. It may happen but I would probably fight it and may even win it.
4. Nominent - the issues were settled in court proceedings. As such the judgments there are invalid.
The GMC isn't governed by the CPR.
Now, what was that you said about being a housewife Penny?
While we are at it could we have your Forensic Psychiatric Report. You know, the one you admitted to having before your spell in prison. Wasn't that the spell in prison when you failed your appeal?
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
Rita you should study your own guidance "dear".
Attempting to pervert the outcome of any hearing is actually an offence, you posted transcripts of evidence that had been given that the witnesses were not allowed to know about prior to them giving their own evidence, if this had been a crminal case you would have been arrested, and you did it to usurp the hearing so that the witnesses could tailor their evidence according to what Southall had said. When the defendant takes the stand at the GMC they are not allowed to talk to anyone until they're stood down. Sounds like CPR to me "dear".
Gornall isn't a doctor, you are however, there's the little problem of being able to identify the source of the documents you have posted .... as in the name of the creator is on them, which drops somebody else right in the doo doo, then .... no I won't tell you, I'll let you try and work it out yourself.
BTW too late the documents with the ID of the person that created them in a particular format have aleady gone where they needed to go.
How did you get the internal UHNS report on Mrs M Rita?
I'll give you the answer shall I, only three parties had those documents, one was UHNS, they didn't provide them to you, the other two were Samuels and Southall. So after the faux pas on your website identifying the docs source, we already know that a certain doctor is releasing info. It's only a matter of time before you're bought to book for breaching Mrs M's confidentiality "lovey". (must be having a menopausal moment!)
That'll teach you to try and be soooo clever won't it eh - engage brain before uploading.
I take it your techie geeks have now abandoned you too, they wouldn't have slipped up like that.
You weren't fired either, you resigned. We can all do FOI apps when you lie in the public domain.
Looking distinctly munchie to me Rita, you know telling porky pies in order to gain attention.
Dr Rant team Meadow was sanctioned for giving evidence outside of his area of expertise, that being statistics, the rhetoric is a red herring, and for the record we all stated that striking him off was going way over the top and that includes the Clark's lawyers.
:) :) :)
Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
Now as for that Forensic Psychiatric Report. Now, I wonder if our friend and guiding light of the medical profession ( Dr Rant) would like to feature it on his website?
All these serial complaints, lying as detailed by the judge, conspiring to abduct a child. Tut Tut. Doesn't instil confidence in you does it?
Now, how much money are the poor doctors subs spending on you then? Now that would be a fine question to ask wouldn't it.
I am quite pleased you liked the articles on Querulous Paranoia and personality disorders. Did you find any of it familiar.
Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
I am beginning to wonder if you have any sort of brain at all - all people being admitted into prison have a psych eval to ensure they aren't self harmers, or a suicide risk - for somebody who wrote to HMP Woodhill demanding a, b and c for an inmate you clearly have little knowledge of how the prison system works.
Demanding to see my medical records is entirely innapropriate and the double smiles mean sweet FA Rita.
Now then sweetie, answer the questions, how did you get confidential documents relating to Mrs M? Who gave them to you? (The DPC has a vested interest now too)and what right do you think you have processing personal data about a patient without their consent or knowledge and in particular when you are not a data controller?
Worked out which doucment has DS's handwriting on the back with the date on it yet?
The reason the child protction paeds have at me in the press is because I am an effective campaigner, you're just a band wagon jumper wannabe look at me.
God you blog isn't even witty, just crude, lewd and common. As desperate as you heroines from Dallas and Dynasty!
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.
Effective campaigner :). That is not what I have heard.
By the way, I have lots and lots of sources :). Some happen to be in the GMC or even Trusts, nurses, doctors, people. Now imagine that eh.
You have such a huge crush on Southall that you even imagine his scribblings. Now that is love isn't it Mellor - you write about him, read files about him, campaign about him every single day. All that attention you throw at him and he just walks away from you. How long has it been going on then? Acting like a spurned bunny boiler doesn't actually win you friends does it?
Well, 10 years on the case must take its toll especially when achieving a finding at the GMC that is as weak - just as weak as that token housewife who hangs around you - what was his name again Brian Morgan. Oh yes, the man with nothing better to do than write obscene mails.
There is not a day that goes by where you do not campaign against Southall is there? Just for the record NONE of your allegations stood up at the GMC at all.
Now what was that contempt of court judgment involving your little friend.
Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
Penny Mellor's "honest" cohorts. Birmingham Courts has the consent order should anyone wish to view it. All very interesting especially as these documents are online again courtesy of the arch housewife campaigner.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE CHANI 97/0295/B
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
(His Honour Judge Boggis QC) Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Wednesday, 30th July 1997
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE
LORD JUSTICE PILL
and
LORD JUSTICE WALLER
-------------------
(1) NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST
(2) DAVID SOUTHALL Plaintiffs
-v-
(1) SHARON PAYNE (also known as SHARON WRAXALL)
(2) ANDREA DEAN
(3) BRIAN MORGAN
(4) CLIVE BALDWIN
Defendants
-------------------
Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 831 3183 Fax: 0171 831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
-------------------
THE APPELLANT FIRST DEFENDANT did not appear and was not represented.
THE RESPONDENT PLAINTIFFS did not appear and were not represented.
-------------------
J U D G M E N T
(As Approved by the Court)
Crown Copyright
Wednesday, 30th July 1997
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE: On 15th November 1996 His Honour Judge Boggis QC, sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division in Birmingham, had before him a motion for committal of the first and second defendants for their contempt of court in breaching orders made by him in September 1996. The judge found several breaches proved against each defendant. In giving judgment he said that he would make an order committing the first defendant to prison for 28 days, suspended for seven days to give her a final chance to comply with the previous orders. He added:
"She shall pay the costs of these committal proceedings on the indemnity basis."
In the case of the second defendant he said:
"In my judgment, Mrs Dean will be punished enough by being ordered to pay the costs of the committal proceedings on the indemnity basis."
In giving judgment the judge did not refer to the defendants being legally aided and it may be that he was either unaware of that fact or did not have it in the forefront of his mind. However, counsel for each of the defendants then submitted that, since they were legally aided, no order for costs could be made against them personally except in accordance with the requirements of section 17(1) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1988 and that the judge did not have sufficient information as to their resources to enable him to determine what it was reasonable for them to pay. Nor did he have any information as to the amount of the costs for which they might be liable if they were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis.
Having heard submissions from all three counsel, the judge delivered judgment on costs. He read section 17(1) of the 1988 Act and continued:
"It is urged on behalf of the defendants that I am in no position to exercise any discretion under section 17(1), because I do not know enough about the financial background of the two defendants. I reject that argument.
The position before me is abundantly clear. The first and second defendants are legally aided; they are on income support; they are both single mothers and, on the other side, the first plaintiff is an NHS Trust and the second plaintiff is a consultant. But what the arguments in front of me have failed to address at all is the fact that I am dealing with contempt proceedings in which I have found the first defendant to be seriously in contempt and to have shown flagrant disregard for the orders of the court, and in which the second defendant only at the very last moment admitted that she had quite deliberately withheld from the court information which she was obliged to provide pursuant to the orders made against her. In those circumstances it seems to me that I am in a very good position to decide what ought to happen so far as costs are concerned.
I am entirely satisfied that both defendants have been in clear and flagrant breach of the orders that I have made. In those circumstances, and even taking into account the financial positions in which they find themselves, I have no hesitation in finding that I am well able now to make a determination under section 17. I make the determination even taking into account the defendants' financial position as compared with the plaintiffs' financial position. The order that I propose to make is the appropriate one and, indeed, is the order which would ordinarily be made anyway, and that is that they are to pay the costs of the motion for committal on the indemnity basis. That is the order that I propose to make."
The judge then turned to other provisions of the order.
Counsel for the first defendant asked the judge for leave to appeal in respect of the order for costs, but leave was refused. The material part of the judge's order as drawn and entered on 22nd November 1996 provides:
"AND the learned Judge having considered submissions under section 17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 and having made a determination pursuant to the said section and the Regulations made thereunder IT IS ORDERED THAT
(i) the First Defendant and Second Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's costs of and occasioned by the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for contempt, such costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed;
(ii) Legal Aid Taxation of the First and Second Defendants' costs."
On 18th December 1996 the first defendant applied to this court for leave to appeal and the application was placed before me as the single judge. In granting leave upon consideration of the documents, I gave the following reasons:
"The judge not having decided to impose a fine for the contempt, as to which different criteria would have applied, his order can only be treated as it was expressed, namely as an order for costs against two legally-aided defendants. Not only is it well arguable that the judge did not make a determination pursuant to section 17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988, alternatively that in doing so he erred in principle or gave a decision which was plainly wrong; it is difficult to see that arguments to the contrary could be raised."
I also gave a direction that the respondent plaintiffs should be invited to consider whether they wished to oppose the appeal.
A notice of appeal was duly entered and the appeal set down. As a result of my direction, there was correspondence between the parties and the court which culminated in a letter from the plaintiffs' solicitors to the court on 23rd June. The position which has been arrived at is that the plaintiffs do not oppose the first defendant's appeal and that both sides have agreed that the court shall decide how the costs of the appeal should be borne. It is necessary for the appeal to be disposed of at a hearing in court, but in order to save costs the attendance of the parties has been dispensed with. We now give judgment accordingly.
While I fully understand how it came about that the judge made the order he did and that he was fully entitled to take a serious view of the clear and flagrant breaches of his previous orders, I am satisfied that his unqualified order for costs against the first defendant must be set aside. I repeat the reasons for granting leave to appeal which I gave on 13th February. An order for costs against a legally-aided respondent to a motion for contempt is just as much subject to the requirements of section 17(1) of the 1988 Act as any other such order. Moreover, I am satisfied that the judge did not make a valid determination pursuant to that provision. Indeed, on the limited material before him he could not have done so.
The costs of the appeal must be paid by the plaintiffs. As I read the exchanges between their counsel and the judge which took place after judgment, they supported an order in the form which was made. Further, when asked by the first defendant's solicitors in correspondence after the hearing to agree not to enforce the order without the leave of the court, the plaintiffs, through their solicitors, replied:
"The judge quite clearly made a section 17 determination and in any event the most important factor is that the judgment was on the basis of your client's contempt."
After that, an appeal was inevitable.
I would therefore allow the first defendant's appeal with costs and add the following proviso to paragraph (i) of the judge's order for costs:
"provided that this order shall not be enforced against the First Defendant except with the leave of the court."
I would order a legal aid taxation of the first defendant's costs of the appeal. I would also direct that the plaintiffs and the first defendant should each be provided with a transcript of our judgments at public expense.
Finally, I refer to the case of the second defendant, who has not applied for leave to appeal against the judge's order. Technically, therefore, the order made against her stands. However, her position is indistinguishable from that of the first defendant and, unless there is some significant change in her circumstances, I would not expect the plaintiffs to seek to enforce the order against her.
LORD JUSTICE PILL: I agree.
LORD JUSTICE WALLER: I also agree.
Order: appeal allowed with costs; proviso added to the judge's order for costs that it not be enforced against the first defendant without leave of the court; legal aid taxation of the first defendant's costs of the appeal; plaintiffs and first defendant each to be provided with a transcript of these judgments at public expense.
Written in 1999
BMJ 1999;319:1376 ( 20 November )
Reviews
Media
Diagnose and be damned
Doctors who have exposed child abuse are being hounded. Harvey Marcovitch, editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood, believes that the media are making matters worse
A few years ago, I found a neat roll of documents tucked behind a radiator outside my office. It contained letters, minutes of meetings, and suggestions on how to run a campaign to combat doctors' diagnoses of child abuse. Most were reasoned, but some were written in crude language and bristled with anger. The package had been planted where I would find it. I think it was meant to frighten me.
Last year, sitting in the editorial office of Archives of Disease in Childhood, I was handed some letters, headed with a private address, asking whether we had ever received for publication, but subsequently rejected, papers from the North Staffordshire Hospital on continuous negative pressure ventilation. My explanation that we did not keep records of rejected submissions beyond one year met with incredulity. The correspondent wrote again complaining that she knew I was covering up the existence of unethical experiments on newborn babies.
The anti-doctor website
This week, I logged on to http://www.msbp.com/ and found a bulletin board for "Mothers against Munchausen syndrome by proxy." It was full of attacks on named paediatricians and child psychiatrists, and diatribes against two judges, a member of parliament, and various social workers. The accusations included perjury, conspiracy to defraud, attempted blackmail, and child abuse. More than one contributor claimed that judges and an MP in the Lord Chancellor's department had connived to prevent legal aid being granted to sue doctors who had diagnosed abuse. One message, to a neurologist, stated: "I promise I will make it my life's work to finish you for good."
Another message attacked David Southall, professor of paediatrics at the University of North Staffordshire: "Why I compared David Southall to Joseph Mengele: Joseph Mengele experimented on Jewish children in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany. Gloria's two children were named Joshua and Aaron. Need I say more? Penny."
These events are connected. They are some of the activities of a network of individuals whose aim seems to be to discredit, humiliate, and punish doctors, and others, who diagnose child abuse. Although primarily concerned with factitious illness, the website conflates this with allegations of unethical research on newborn infants, negligent paediatric intensive care, and, just lately, how some children with chronic fatigue syndrome are treated.
Television fuels the fire
On 20 October, Channel 4 News joined in. It invited into its studio the prime target of this group, David Southall. Southall states that Channel 4 News producer, Jessica Salmon, invited him to discuss with newscaster Jon Snow the many attempts that have been made to frustrate his work in child protection and charitable aid for victims of war. Aware of the triple pronged attack on his work (the third involves research into the effects of high altitude on infant respiratory physiology), he told Salmon he was willing to take part but could not discuss his department's work on continuous negative pressure ventilation (CNEP) as it was subject to an NHS inquiry. As he watched the film preceding his live interview, Southall was horrified to find he had been ambushed, as much of it was about CNEP and contained a specific allegation of negligence from a parent of a child treated in his hospital's intensive care unit. Like all doctors in this position, he could not defend himself without breaking patient confidentiality.
The child in question had been transferred to Southall's unit after a stay in an intensive care unit elsewhere, a fact ignored by Channel 4. Staff at the referring hospital have stated that there is plenty of evidence to refute the allegation made in the programme, but, again, confidentiality forbids them saying more. Jim Gray, editor of Channel 4 News, justified the programme on the grounds that parents "are clearly in an excellent position to know about their own child, and everything we said in the report accords with what [they] told us. Whether or not Professor Southall has consent to comment on her case is clearly not a matter for us." Does this comment mean that Channel 4 News accepts what it is told without properly checking if it is true? And is it happy to set up a target for a live interview, caring little that he is unable to defend himself because of the paradox that he does not have his accuser's permission to do so?
On 8 November BBC's Panorama performed a hatchet job on Dr Michael Prendergast, previously a child psychiatrist at Great Ormond Street Hospital. Prendergast uses active rehabilitation as a treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. It also criticised Dr Alan Stanton, a community paediatrician who had intervened in a case where parents' views and those of the local medical team were in conflict. This child's case had already led to msbp.com targeting Stanton for his stance in this case, and he has had to deal with complaints to his hospital trust and the GMC.
Much of the media, it would seem, has little interest in distinguishing news from propaganda. Which sections of newspapers and television programmes are the more reliable, news or advertising?
A lesson from the Washington Post
In the 1970s I was a resident in a Massachusetts children's hospital. Week after week the local newspaper published brief news stories about odd and seemingly trivial events involving politicians connected with the Nixon administration. The stories added up to no more than what Bostonians call a hill of beans. But just as I returned to Britain the whole Watergate scandal finally broke, ending Nixon's presidency. Years later, I watched the film All the President's Men and understood what I had been unable to comprehend. The film detailed the policy of the Washington Postthat news was something that had to be corroborated. As long as there was only innuendo and gossip, the correct approach was to keep the story ticking over in a low key way on the inside pages, perhaps to flush out witnesses. Only when the same facts came from two unconnected sources, with no discernible conflict of interest, could the editor blow the whistle.
There's a lesson for Channel 4 News in the importance of independent corroboration, preferably by someone with no axe to grind. As one journalist said to me, if you make that extra telephone call you might just hear something that ruins your story.
Southall's work disrupted
In a largely ignored press releaseexcept, to its credit, by the GuardianSouthall detailed his 13 years of work in child protection. In it he claimed that, since 1992, Brian Morgan, a freelance journalist, and a group of parents accused of child abuse, have conducted a campaign against him. He says this has interfered with his work to protect children at risk, damaged his research, frustrated the work of his charity Child Advocacy International (which has provided financial and medical help to Bosnia and elsewhere), and led to wasteful hospital trust and NHS inquiries. One individual, Sharon Payne (also known as Wraxall), infiltrated the charity in the guise of a volunteer and removed confidential medical documents from its office. Another individual has been charged with conspiracy to abduct a child. The National Union of Journalists paid costs of £25 000 when it funded Morgan in his failed attempt to have Payne's purloined documents made public. Morgan states there is no formal organisation, merely a "loose network of contacts" and "a grapevine."
Southall says that he has received threats of violence, and that his charity's equipment has been destroyed. There is, however, no evidence to link this darker side of campaigning to Morgan or the public faces of the movement.
Surely Channel 4 News, the Sunday Times, the Independent, and others have been barking up the wrong tree. The real story is what drives Morgan and others like him, how the "loose network" is funded, the backgrounds of its supporters, and whether its campaign has destroyed some children's protection.
Doctors may fear diagnosing child abuse
Unsurprisingly, Sir Roy Meadow, a pioneer in the description of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, has been the group's target for many years. He has been more fortunate than Southall in that when one of the "loose network" applied for a job in his unit the person was unmasked in time. However, like Southall and others, he has to put up with poison pen letters and telephoned and written threats to himself and his family. Meadow's concern is that the campaign could encourage doctors, particularly the young and relatively inexperienced, to turn a blind eye to possible cases of child abuse when it can cause them much trouble.
Peter Milla is a paediatric gastroenterologist. I was surprised to see him demonised on the website hit list, but he told me that in his specialty a few children are referred with factitious symptoms, and the consequent involvement of a child psychiatric team can lead to being targeted. He believes a prime reason for the present spate of accusations against doctors is the failure of some social service departments to understand and get to grips at an early stage with problems presented by families in trouble.
One respected medical journalist who has written about the tribulations in the University of North Staffordshire is Jeremy Laurence of the Independent. He has known about the various allegations against Southall's group for a long time and had dismissed most as rumour mongering. However, he considered that the suggestion that consent might not have been obtained for entering newborn babies into a trial was something he could not responsibly ignore, especially as ministers had ordered an inquiry. Southall is unimpressed, pointing out that the inquiry was provoked by reaction to an article in the Independent's sister Sunday paper cowritten by Morgan, and that Laurence's article "effectively accused me of killing 28 babies and causing brain damage to a further 15." Laurence says: "Writing for a newspaper is a high wire act where you have to balance fairness with the need to sell the paper."
Fighting back
Can we persuade journalists that it is a matter of serious public concern when 11 consultant paediatricians and child psychiatrists have had to respond to letters of complaint to their employers and the GMC couched in virtually identical language? I have spoken to most of them, and most were prepared to respond only if I did not name them, because the publicity is interfering with their everyday work and because of the threats to their families. Presumably the GMC knows who they are. Sir Donald Irvine is rightly concerned about not ignoring whistleblowers and insisting on thorough airing of patents' complaints. But when complaints follow a pattern that suggests a campaign the GMC should consider changing tack towards protecting those on its register.
Jane Wynne, a Leeds paediatrician who is a leading expert in child abuse, became so frustrated with the GMC's handling of cases that she wrote suggesting she help its members understand what it was all about. Perhaps Sir Donald should take up her offer. Incidentally, Wynne isn't targeted on the website. Could it be because the Mail on Sunday had to settle for a substantial sum a few years ago when she pursued a libel suit against it?
Many of the doctors I have spoken to have been defamed publicly, certainly on the website and possibly in the press and on television. None is wealthy enough to launch a personal libel action. Medical defence societies have traditionally avoided entangling themselves with actions for defamation, citing the excessive cost and the undoubted fact that most libels are quickly forgotten, except by the victim. This campaign is different from the spontaneous angry or distressed comments of a parent whose child has suffered. It should be dealt with differently. Most defence society members would be happy to see their subscriptions used to nip this activity in the bud by some well placed libel suits.
Trust managers may not realise the complaining letter they receive is based on a pro forma. They should adopt a more vigorous policy of rebutting unjustified demands and involving the police if they believe their employees are being harassed. It's about time the profession hit back at those who are vilifying our colleagues in Stoke, Great Ormond Street, Oxford, York, Sheffield, Cardiff, Glasgow, and now, presumably, Banbury as well.
Harvey Marcovitch, consultant paediatrician.
Horton Hospital, Banbury
Posted by . at 04:18 0 comments
Labels: Medical Media Features on MSBP
I should put up what th C of A said about me, but I won't. Answer the questions Rita Pal and don't post as anons or sock puppets, pathetic.
Just answer the questions sad liddle scaredy cat Rita.
"And thar she blows!"
Soooo easy Rita ... just press those buttons and .... come to mama!
God you don't thinks she'll turn into a chocolate fountain do you?
Yuck.
Harvey Marcovitch is very restrained lately. Not signing any testimonials for Southall, not publicly backing him any more. Couldn't be something to do with Marcovitch now being a member of panels adjudicating on doctors at the GMC, chairing them sometimes?
He might be on the panel hearing the case against Dr Pal one day?
By the way Dr Pal, weren't you once backing a certain doctor and former elected GMC member with a criminal record until fairly recently?
The contempt action in the comment quite a bit further above looks interesting but there's nothing in there as to what it was actually about. Perhaps Dr Pal can fill us in? Without getting Dr Rant or herself into legal trouble over libel or whatever as there do seem to be some named individuals in there.
You know it;s just a little hypocritical to consistently post my judges cooments about me as if it were all true, yet when Justice Collins slammed Southall at the CHRE appeal into Clark, for "lack of insight" failing to apologise" and called his excuses "sophistry" which is a police way of saying David Southall is a liar, it appears that in that case the judge was wrong.
The reason my "campaign" for want of a better word, is so successful is because I have never once deviated from my stance and furthermore can supply insurmountable documentary evidence in support of my claims.
Rita Pal is all hot air, puffing away and jumping from side to side depending on which side she thinks can win and she'll get noticed - a quick google on groups gives readers a much better insight into how nasty RP gets when people don't agree with her, it has been exampled here, a quick threat to "expose" the Dr Rant team in order to get her own way.
Rita Pal can't hold down a permanent job, she blames everyone other than herself, she has this in common with Southall, it hasn't ocurred to her that it's because people don't like her and who can blame them. When she isn't litigating against everyone she's writing purile bollocks on her blog.
Still not for much longer thank God.
"Friday, November 30, 2007
COMMENTS SHUT DOWN
Our apologies for shutting down the comments function on this blog. This is because Mr Paul Heathcote of Sheffield and his cohort Brian Morgan have been reported to the Police under the Harassment Act 1997." - Rita Pal
Does anyone know what has happened to Paul Heathcoat & Brian Morgan? Have the police spoken to them or was Rita just blowing hot air again and wasting police time.
"You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism related to David Southall originating from your IP address."
Dr Pal blocked from Wikipedia for 'persistent vandalism' - I suppose she'll be threatening legal action against them now. Seriously though, some people are put on this Earth for the amusement of others - Dr Pal is one of those people. So don't let her comments upset - she is nothing more than a figure of fun!
:)
The problem with a criminal record Penny is that it sticks on you much like a leech.
I believe Southall doesn't have a criminal record.
I am pleased you are posting again just to show the medics your true character. Keep going and do post that Forensic Psychiatrists Report won't you.
It is a shame you never got any qualifications and remained a house wife. I believe all the doctors in the UK are funding the hobby of a desperate housewife with their blood and sweat while oncall.
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
But not you, Dr Pal. You are funding it out of zero income, except from the Google Ad incomes from your blogs and websites.
How is your CPD these days?
I hear Dr Pal has the very interesting testimonials tendered to the recent Southall GMC hearing but she hasn't put them up on NHS Exposed yet. Why is that Dr Pal? Is it because you didn't write one? And you didn't write one for the previous major hearing either?
Would you like to comment? I'm sure you were interested in the Southall case way back weren't you?
Especially with your links with North Staffs NHS Trust and Ward 87.
You say you have all the documentations that matters.
How is that an unqualified housewife has stripped Dr Southall of his registration, and made Dr Pal unemployable?
This blog isn't about you Rita it's about David Southall, so let's get back to the central point shall we, Southall et al claim the panel had no training to question him on the Children Act, Southall claims he has acted in accordance with that act and here is the evidence that Southall just says whatever suits the CP paess to hear, which of course doesn't make it true.
Sadly most doctors are too busy to read the transcripts which means he can get away with the rhetoric.
You see Southall cannot cliam to have acted in accordance with something he has never read can he?
Which beggars the question as to just how much Southall does know the Children Act 1989.
He just made it up as he went along.
As an unqualified housewife, I have time to read the transcripts in full ...
Day 15/16 Ms Lloyd lay person.
I just wondered whether you were familiar with the Children Act and whether you were familiar with any reference to record keeping requirements in that legislation.
A ........ With regard to record keeping, I would have to look at it. The Children Act document, if I remember, is quite big, and I cannot remember now if there is anything in it. It is an interesting question to look at and I think it is worth looking at, but I have not done so and I do not know the answer.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"But not you, Dr Pal. You are funding it out of zero income, except from the Google Ad incomes from your blogs and websites."
I doubt Dr Pal earns much from Google Ads. People would have to click on the Ads to generate an income. No site traffic = no people. No people = no 'clicks'. No 'clicks' = no income. She could of course sit there clicking away at the ads herself.
Before I leave this blog, given that Rita Pal is jobless and apparently is "unemployable because of everyone else" and she has a real passion for abused children and child protection, I will expect to see her on the streets of Birmingham with the runaways, kids from care and child prostitutes, helping them out given that the vast majority of these children will have been abused.
She won't do it though, because its all bollocks, the most important person in Rita Pal's life is Rita.
Merry Xmas Dr Rant team, if you're bored read the transcripts, they are worthy of reading properly. Perhaps then you will see what the panel saw.
Penny Mellor said:
"She won't do it though, because its all bollocks, the most important person in Rita Pal's life is Rita."
Having read her posts and blogs it is clear that the ONLY person in Dr Pal's life IS Dr Pal. No family, friends, partner, lover, colleagues, patients etc. Very sad.
"It'll be lonely this Christmas, lonely and cold...." A blast from the past.
Is that the lot for now, then? Any more for any more? No? What a pity.
All Rita Pal can do now is fling amusingly corny and laughable insults at people such as me- the Boy (can you add Pet Shop to that next time?) and Penny- Viva la Diva.
But isn't that "wicked" Ms. Mellor annoying, eh? She has that terrible habit of always being right and always having documentary evidence for things, and stuff like that, doesn't she? Enough to really p*ss some people off, I'd say.
"this may be a hot potato as to my recall the intervention resulted in increased deaths".
Fiddlesticks and drat!
"We do not intent to seek consent from the parents as from experience this results in a high failure rate."
Bother! There she goes again- with more horrible, nasty, solid proof.
This thread has been a great source of debate, and most of all- of comedy. I wish to thank the Doctors of Rant for their work and wish them a very Merry Christmas: heaven knows they deserve it after reading all that!
Now where was that Forensic Psychiatrist report Penny?
:) :) :)
Believe anything you like Mellor - you are infact the one who makes up the most fiction. Not bad for a woman who has no qualifications to her name is it?
Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
(:)
Tell us Pal -
How much do you weigh?
What is your relationship with Tom Moore?
Have you ever had an affair with Raj Persaud?
Did you actually murder any old people on Ward 87?
Why can't you get a job?
Do you actually want a job?
How old were you when you learnt to speak English?
What happened to Errante?
Why do you own his websites domain name?
Answer these questions Pal - I demand it!!