Dr David Southall Exposed

And of course David Southall doesn't lie does he??

2011-09-15T23:50:00.000-07:00

Well well after years of flat out denials at the previous GMC hearings, Samuels finally admitted in the latest hearing that the SC Files related to the research they undertook on children. So here's the bottom line

Southall and Samuels kept secret files in which there were original medical records not to be found elsewhere in the children's record that were in fact research files.
That that research was not consented to
That children were harmed as a direct result of the research and then the hiding of the records, this includes CVS
That Southall lied, repeatedly, on oath, at the previous hearing by denying that the files had anything to do with research (shock horror ........)

I suppose there is one consolation, all politicians lie to get votes and Southall put himself up for president of the RCPCH ergo he is eminently qualified is he not!!

CNEP Forgeries and the truth David Southall et al

2011-06-07T10:21:00.001-07:00

Tuesday, 7 June 2011

David Southall PACA and the alleged false allegations made by parents to the police

CNEP parents claimed that their signatures were forgeries on the consent forms for the research in which they claim their babies were brain injured - they took that complaint to the police, the police took legal advice and decided not to pursue the matter. Below is the evidence that the parents weren't lying, the consent forms had been destroyed. So the consent forms produced for the Griffiths Inquiry and to the police had to be forgeries - note that David Southall is CC'd in the below letter - so who are the liars? And why did the police not get the information I have hmmm? Who do you trust? More to come David et al I promise you, much more to come.

The Independent David Southall, the GMC and the film

2011-04-30T04:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-a-crusader-against-abuse-provoked-the-anger-of-accused-parents-2276845.html

How a crusader against abuse provoked the anger of accused parents

By Jeremy Laurance

Saturday, 30 April 2011

Near the beginning of A Very Dangerous Doctor, next month's Cutting Edge documentary on Channel 4, there are a few seconds of grainy footage that are among the most shocking to be broadcast on TV.

They show mothers smothering their youngsters – one using a T-shirt to stop her child breathing, another holding a hand over her child's mouth and nose and a third lying prone across her child's face while its tiny arms and legs thrash frantically as it struggles for air. They were taken by covert video surveillance of women whose babies were being investigated in hospital for breathing difficulties.

The secret videos, introduced by Prof David Southall more than a decade ago for detecting abuse, proved doctors were looking in the wrong place. The problem lay not with the children but the parents.

Dozens were convicted as a result and their children removed to safety. Dr Southall was hailed by colleagues for "thinking the unthinkable" – that parents could harm their children. He became an expert in Munchausen's syndrome by proxy (now called fabricated or induced illness), in which mothers injure or poison their youngsters to gain doctors' attention.

But like many doctors working in child abuse, he soon felt the anger of parents who claimed they were wrongly accused.

For more than a decade they have campaigned against him and his colleagues, filing thousands of complaints and triggering investigations by hospitals, the GMC and police.

Four appear in the Cutting Edge documentary, including Justine, suspected of smothering her two-year-old daughter Rosie. The child had been kept in hospital, hooked up to monitors for five days with nothing to do but watch a Thomas the Tank Engine video over and over again.

"To me that was tantamount to child abuse," Justine says. But she lost her daughter, who was taken into care and not returned for a decade. She has since campaigned for more than a decade to have Dr Southall struck off.

He remains unmoved. "The lies told by parents doing this to their children are continuous," he says. "I remain of the view that I did the right thing for all the children involved."

There are 47 cases pending against him, according to the film, (although the GMC said it did not recognise this figure) and the Medical Defence Union has spent £750,000 defending him – and is still doing so.

In 2004 he was found guilty of misconduct by the GMC and suspended from involvement in child protection work for three years after he accused the husband of solicitor Sally Clark of murdering her children on the basis of a TV interview he had given. Following that verdict, 53 UK paediatricians wrote to protest that the GMC verdict "conflicted with child protection laws and guidance for professionals".

Filmmaker Leo Regan says the dispute between Dr Southall and parents is unlikely ever to be resolved.

But in a tribute to his skill, both sides say his documentary, which they have seen, is fair.

Dr Southall's critics say he did not just test the boundaries, he crossed them and was overzealous in his conviction that children must be protected at all costs. Like many pioneers attacked for their beliefs, he deals in absolutes and is unrepentant. Hope now rests with the GMC's working group and the new guidance it is due to provide to doctors involved in child protection. GMC chief executive Niall Dickson says: "We need to build confidence in what will always be a difficult area of practice."

'A Very Dangerous Doctor' will be shown by Channel 4 on 12 May at 9pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/controversial-child-doctor-could-be-struck-off-for-a-second-time-2276844.html

Controversial child doctor could be struck off for a second time

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

Saturday, 30 April 2011

Dr David Southall was originally struck off in 1996 after accusing a mother of drugging and killing her 10-year-old son

ENLARGE

Britain's most controversial expert in child protection will this week face a disciplinary hearing before the General Medical Council that could see him struck off for a second time.

Professor David Southall, regarded as a pioneer in the detection of child abuse by his supporters but as a dangerous doctor who ripped families apart by his detractors, is also the subject of a Channel 4 film to be broadcast next month that explores one of the longest and most emotionally charged battles in British medical history. Meanwhile, a working group of the GMC is to produce new guidance for doctors involved in child protection – regarded as the toughest job in medicine, where both intervening and not intervening can lead to tragedy. A draft version of the guidance is due to go out for consultation in the summer.

The developments will focus attention on how the abuse of children can be prevented in Britain in the 21st century. Two children die each week, often murdered by their parents, and hundreds of others endure physical and sexual assaults leading to long-term harm.

There are few crimes to equal abusing a child, but one is falsely to accuse a parent of committing such a crime. The dilemma faced by paediatricians working in child protection is how to steer a course between wrongly diagnosing abuse while avoiding missing it altogether. Dr Southall, formerly a consultant paediatrician at the North Staffordshire hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, was struck off the medical register in 2007 after being found guilty of serious misconduct for allegedly accusing a mother of drugging and murdering her 10-year-old son, who died in 1996.

He had denied the mother's claim that he had accused her of murder, insisting that he had raised it as one possible scenario to explain her son's death. His account was backed up by a social worker who had been present during the interview, but the GMC panel chose to believe the evidence of the mother. It concluded Dr Southall had an "attitudinal problem" and that this, combined with his "lack of insight into the multiplicity" of his failings, made erasure from the medical register necessary. But, in May last year, the High Court overturned the GMC's decision, arguing it was based on "flawed" reasoning, and Dr Southall was restored to the register. However, the GMC had also found that Dr Southall had breached patient confidentiality and kept special case files separate from the main hospital records. The High Court instructed the GMC to resolve these issues, and the hearing, which could lead to Dr Southall being struck off again, has been adjourned three times owing to the illness of a panel member and is now due to resume on Wednesday.

The GMC's original decision to strike Dr Southall off the register alarmed the paediatric community because it appeared to demolish a key part of their defence against false accusations – the presence of an independent professional witness.

The Royal College of Paediatrics said "nothing should deter professionals from acting in the best interests of vulnerable children" and that "cases such as this have caused considerable concern in the paediatric community".

The GMC responded by announcing an expert group "to review the guidance for paediatricians who practise in this critically-important area of healthcare", chaired by Lord Justice Thorpe, a family court judge.

David Southall "A very dangerous doctor" Cutting Edge Channel 4 12th May

2011-04-27T00:22:00.000-07:00

Subscribe:

26/04/2011

A Very Dangerous Doctor, Thu 12 May, 9pm, Channel 4

The second film in a new run of Cutting Edge, Channel 4's flagship documentary series, is A Very Dangerous Doctor, which explores one of the longest-running, most emotionally-charged battles in British medical history. In one corner, a pioneering doctor who dared to accuse mothers of abusing their own children. In the other corner are the mothers who counter-claim that the doctor was the abuser; using his power so that he could research on the children to test his own medical theories.

With unprecedented to access to both sides of the story, this authored documentary, by Bafta award-winning film-maker Leo Regan, explores the controversy surrounding paediatrician Dr David Southall and a group of mothers, who he accused of abusing their children. Filmed over two years, Regan gets to the heart of the war between doctors and mothers and tries to find out who is telling the truth.

Dr Southall has been recognized as one of Britain's leading paediatricians and an expert in child protection. But a group of mothers believe he is a dangerous doctor, who abused the system and tried to further his career by illegally researching on their kids. They've spent the last 20 years fighting to hold him to account.

Dr Southall was lauded for his pioneering research work investigating cot death and is regarded as an international expert on Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, now known as FII (fabricated or induced illness), a condition which means parents deliberately induce or fabricate illnesses in their children to gain attention for themselves.

During his career he's been involved in over 100 cases where children have been taken from their families. This film meets some of the mothers accused of abusing their children, separated from their kids on the basis of his evidence. They deny harming their children and say he's destroyed their lives. They also claim that he used their children for un-consented medical research - leaving one boy severely disabled.

Earlier this year the Court of Appeal overturned a decision to strike Dr Southall from the medical register, though he now faces further General Medical Council (GMC) sanctions which could see him struck off a second time. The GMC originally struck him off in 2007 saying he had abused his position by accusing a mother of drugging and murdering her son, and had acted inappropriately by keeping original medical documents on children in his own special case files, separately from their official medical records.

But Southall is also supported by many child health experts who believe he is the victim of a hate campaign by child-abusing parents in denial of their guilt.

Regan meets the parents who believe they were falsely accused and have devoted much of their lives fighting against the paediatrician's diagnosis. He meets other medical professionals who support them and follows Dr Southall as he defends his reputation, backed by fellow paediatricians who believe that the doctor is the subject of an orchestrated and vexatious vendetta.

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/a-very-dangerous-doctor

CPS considering whether to charge Southall with assault

2010-05-20T03:07:00.000-07:00

And this man heads up a charity working with vulnerable children abroad? Just great!

http://caiuk.org/news/index.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7741933/CPS-considering-whether-to-charge-Dr-David-Southall-with-assault.html

CPS considering whether to charge Dr David Southall with assault

Paediatrician David Southall could face assault charges 19 years after he carried out oygen deprivation tests on a five-year-old.

Published: 7:30AM BST 20 May 2010

The Crown Prosecution Service has revealed it is considering an alleged assault on a boy of five involving a paediatrician Professor David Southall.

Until recently Dr Southall was struck off the medical register after a General Medical Council panel found he had accused a mother, Mandy Morris, of murdering her 10-year-old son, Lee.

He was interviewed by South Wales Police about experiments that took place at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff 19 years ago.

Bens parents claim he was brain damaged during a sleep study involving oxygen deprivation.

Dr Southall denies any wrongdoing and claims he is being continually hounded by critics.

During the experiments in Cardiff, children were given short bursts of reduced oxygen or increased carbon dioxide.

Ben has difficulty with coordination and weak speech. He still lives with his parents in Swansea.

Professor Southall faced similar allegations over his treatment of premature babies in the early 1990s while working in Stoke on Trent.

South Wales Police said that a file had been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in April.

Dr Southall said he had been interviewed last October by police and that he was expecting a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service within the next couple of weeks.

"It's of serious concern to me," he said. "After what has happened to me I have lost a lot of faith in the justice system.

"These allegations have been hanging around for ten years, but I was only interviewed last October."

The controversial doctor was reinstated earlier this month as a paediatrician following a legal challenge after being struck off by the General Medical Council in 2007.

The appeal judges found that the GMC had failed to give adequate reasons.

The case has been sent back to the General Medical Council by the Appeal Court.

Dr Southall made it clear he has no intention of practising as a doctor in the UK, but he does want to return to child protection work.

"I have had 12 years of trauma, and opponents really will have won if I do not go back to child protection work," he said.

David Southall The CPS and his experiments

2010-05-18T23:34:00.000-07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8690789.stm

CPS investigates 'assault' by paediatrician Southall

Michele Paduano
BBC West Midlands health correspondent

Ben Hollisey Mclean has coordination and speech problems

The Crown Prosecution Service is considering an alleged assault on a boy of five involving a paediatrician who until recently was struck off.

Dr David Southall was interviewed by South Wales Police about experiments that took place at the University Hospital of Wales (UHW) 19 years ago.

Ben Hollisey Mclean's parents claim he was brain damaged during a sleep study involving oxygen deprivation.

Dr Southall denied any wrongdoing, saying he had lost faith in the system.

During the experiments at UHW in Cardiff, children were given short bursts of reduced oxygen or increased carbon dioxide.

Ben, now 24, has difficulty with coordination and weak speech. He still lives with his parents in Swansea.

South Wales Police confirmed just after Easter that a file had been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS received a large file which was logged in late April.

"It's in the system and people are looking at it," a spokesman said.

Dr Southall, from Staffordshire, confirmed that he had been interviewed last October by police and that he was expecting a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service within the next couple of weeks.

David Southall was struck off by the GMC in 2007 but reinstated this month

He said a large number of people had been interviewed. He denied any wrong
doing.

"It's of serious concern to me," he said. "After what has happened to me I have lost a lot of faith in the justice system.

"It's the last case, but I am sure others will come out of the woodwork. These allegations have been hanging around for ten years, but I was only interviewed last October."

Davina Hollisey Mclean, Ben's mother, was not available for comment.

The controversial doctor was reinstated earlier this month as a paediatrician following a legal challenge after being struck off by the General Medical Council in 2007.

The GMC panel took action after it accepted that he had accused a mother, Mandy Morris, of murdering her 10-year-old son, Lee.

The appeal judges found that the GMC had failed to give adequate reasons.

The case has been sent back to the General Medical Council by the Appeal Court. Dr Southall was also found to have kept special case files on individual patients which contained material which was not in their NHS notes.

Although Dr Southall says that he has no intention of practising as a doctor in the UK, he does want to return to child protection work.

"If I give up now, these people will have won. Nobody wants to give evidence on behalf of the police and social services.

"I have had 12 years of trauma, and they really will have won if I do not go back to child protection work," he said.

David Southall and the truth

2010-05-17T12:31:00.000-07:00

yeah yeah David, whatever; the below protocol was written for the Royal Brompton and what did you go and do eh ..... such a liar and somebody that says one thing to pacify the stupid idiots that believe your every word (cult) and does another. Do I detect a personality disorder, (psychopathic tendencies) you'd better believe it honey. You hide behind the mantra that you are brave and fearless, stating you're out there for the good of children, when the reality is, that it's all about you and your desire to be hailed as an icon because of your deep seated inadequacies and all your little "friends" worship at your alter and don't you just love it, no need it!

You can't fool me David, you never could, you fooled Panorama, you fooled PACA members, you have fooled some of the media, you, for a time, fooled your lawyers, but never me. I know you and your type.

Another little matter, you had already instigated a police investigation into Mrs M and child M1 and his death, yet you "interviewed her" potentially skewing any prosecution, you see the ins and outs of that interview were moot, you shouldn't have talked to her at all and this document proves, because it predates that interview by many years, that you knew that didn't you!

Read the above and apply it to the below.

PROTOCOL FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INFANTS SUSPECTED OF SUFFERING OR BEING AT RISK OF SUFFERING IMPOSED APNOEA (SMOTHERING) ,

From the Paediatric Department of the Brompton Hospital Background

The accompanying manuscript (Enclosure 1), which is now in press with the British Medical journal, describes the management of two recent children who presented to the Brompton Hospital with severe hypoxaemic episodes due to smothering.
In addition to the above cases, one further newborn infant whose previous three siblings had all died suddenly and without adequate explanation and where the referring paediatrician had suspected infanticide has undergone 24 hour covert video surveillance.

It is anticipated that further cases with problems similar to those described above will be referred to our paediatric department. This document outlines a protocol for their management.

1) Management Prior to the Initiation of Covert Video-Surveillance

All infants will be fully clerked in by the junior medical .staff. The parent(s) of all patients will in addition be seen by Dr Southall and/or one of the other consultants at the time of admission. It is important that all parents are interviewed by the paediatric social worker, or her deputy, as soon as possible after admission in order to provide a social and psychological assessment of the family. The social worker will also liaise with the social service departments at the referring hospital and/or the area of domicile of the family.

Dr Southall will initiate a standard overnight recording of O2 saturation, respiratory airflow, expired CO2, EEG, and breathing movements to help rule out a natural causes for the cyanotic episodes. If an episode of apnoea occurs during this recording it might show the characteristic pattern identified in association with smothering described in detail in the enclosed manuscript.

If the circumstances of the cyanotic episodes and the above recording suggests imposed apnoea then an immediate case conference will be held at which the following representatives should be present:- a member of the hospital social work department and social services manager, Dr Southall and/or XXXXXXXXX one of the nursing sisters from Rose Gallery, one of the nursing officers, a member of the hospital administration and, as is standard procedure at a case conference, a member of the local police force. Drs Southall, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX will also notify by telephone the referring paediatrician and the child's family practitioner about the reasons for holding a case conference. Although they will be invited to attend, this is unlikely to be possible for them given the urgency of reaching a decision concerning the video-surveillance. During this meeting the need for a Place of Safety order would be considered and subsequently initiated by the police or social services department as agreed at the meeting. Dr Southall or one of the consultant paediatricians will contact the Chelsea police station and, request their help in establishing the video surveillance.

2) Management of the Video-Surveillance

One of the cubicles in Rose Gallery, preferably the one closest to the sister's office, will be used for this surveillance. The infant/child will be attached to a tape recorder collecting the following physiological signals; (O2 saturation, breathing movements, and respiratory airflow) thus tethering the child within the field of vision of the camera.

The camera will be situated in the ceiling of this cubicle and connected to monitoring and video recording equipment in a cubicle on Gallery 3 (the ward above Rose Gallery). The video monitor will be surveyed continuously by police officers based on Gallery 3. These police officers will not enter the children's ward except when setting up the equipment. The police officers will have an emergency radio transmitter which will be linked to a radio receiver carried by paediatric nurse on Rose Gallery who has volunteered look after infant.

If the police officer detects an episode of smothering or suspected smothering he/she will wait 10 seconds for corroboration and then alert the paediatric nurse by radio. The nurse will immediately go into the cubicle and attend to the infant. The nurse will not confront the mother but merely check that the child is breathing and thereafter remain in the cubicle.

The police officer will also alert Dr Southall or a designated member of the medical staff. Dr Southall or deputy will then proceed immediately to the cubicle on Rose Gallery and request the mother to accompany him to Gallery 3. The mother will then be introduced to the police officers. Dr Southall will not discuss the reason for this transfer of the mother from the children's ward unless it is absolutely essential. He will not discuss the video monitoring since this could prejudice any subsequent court proceedings brought by the police against the mother.

If statutory protection is required, this will follow. The paediatric social worker or deputy will liaise with the family's local social service department to arrange for transfer of the child out of the hospital provided that the medical staff are satisfied that he or she is healthy and has no need for further investigations or treatment.

Dr Southall, or deputy, will contact the paediatrician or family practitioner who has direct primary care of the family requesting that she or she inform in
person the husband, father or guardian of the child about the diagnosis and police action.

Justification for the Protocol and Ethical Considerations

In a publication entitled 'A Child in Trust' concerning the death by physical abuse of a child called Jasmine Beckford the following statements are stated relevant to our action.

“.... the immediate treatment and care of an abused child is essential . The need for accurate factual information is paramount in all cases as it is often the absence of concisely documented information which leads to unnecessary difficulties."

"....parental rights cannot be insisted upon by a parent who has abused these rights."

Further discussions on these vital issues are to be found on pages 16-19 of Enclosure 1 and in Enclosure 2, which is a report by Professor Dunstan following a meeting at the Brompton Hospital to discuss the ethical problems associated with this approach to the management of this serious and dangerous form of child abuse.

There are two further questions that should be answered.

1. Does the covert video surveillance need to be implemented by the police?

We consider for the following reasons that this is essential. The medical, nursing and social service professions have no training in detective work, in handling people suspected of committing criminal offences or in the use of covert video surveillance. The need to obtain hard, unequivocal evidence has been discussed above. It is possible that evidence obtained without the help of the police may be inadmissible in court. It is crucial that if the child is being abused he or she is adequately protected from further injury. Only the court has sufficient power to enforce this. It is also vital that the abuser receives psychiatric treatment and once again only the court has the power to enforce this. Although we accept superficially that enlisting police assistance may be considered to promote a punitive outcome, this is in fact incorrect. The police act only to protect the public. It is the juries and judges, who are elected on behalf of society, who provide, hopefully in an appropriate way,either punishment or treatment to the abuser.. In all three cases to date investigated at this hospital we have been impressed by the professionalism and compassion shown by the police. For these reasons although it would not be illegal to do so, we do not wish to manage covert video surveillance without the help of the police.

2. Would the pattern of signals on the multichannel recordings be sufficiently specific for imposed apnoea and therefore avoid the need for video surveillance?

Unfortunately this hypothesis will have to be tested prospectively on a larger number of cases before it could be scientifically or legally accepted and therefore this investigation cannot be used without the video surveillance.

Finally we stress that information with respect to suspected or proven child abuse is absolutely confidential and must be discussed only with personnel involved directly in the care of the child or his or her family. This protocol will be implemented by, and involve only medical, nursing or social service personnel who have agreed to abide by this agreement on confidentiality.

Yo Davey et al

2010-05-17T11:35:00.001-07:00

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb eh, know what I mean.

There are no winners, especially the children, now watch me the the sheep and watch very carefully because this time you all really screwed up and you will be hoisted by your own petard!

Oh and PACA stop putting out your press releases and hiding behind what you think are clever words, what you really mean is that Penny Mellor is conducting an orchestrated campaign against child protection doctors. At least have the balls to say what you mean. Cowards.

Mo Wilson

2010-05-15T08:03:00.000-07:00

Today was Mo's funeral, sadly, despite my best efforts to get sitters for animals and younger children, I couldn't make it, I did however make her birthday party a couple of weeks back, my "goodbye" to Mo was to sit and sup wine and have a joke about getting her outside.

To my dear friend Brian Morgan, who has suffered this terrible loss, she will be missed and I would like to thank you and Mo for the tremendous things you have both done for children in both your work and personal lives. Mo walked this earth and she left a legacy, she will never be forgotten. Brian, you must continue the work she so wanted you to finish! x

You can leave a tribute here http://mowilson.blogspot.com/

I lift a glass to Mo, wherever you are brave sweetheart, (or stubborn given that you are Scottish!!!) the world has lost an innately decent, kind human being, enjoy xxxx

David Southall and how he spins my position

2010-05-07T02:27:00.001-07:00

Just another indication of how the truth is glossed over by DS.

• An article headlined The campaign against David Southall (6 May, page 12, G2) said that the campaign against him and a fellow paediatrician, Sir Roy Meadow, had been led by a group called Mothers against Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy; the group was described as denying the existence of a form of abuse whereby a parent deliberately causes a child illness or injury. The article went on to describe Penny Mellor as leader of the campaign. To clarify: the article did not intend to suggest that Penny Mellor's activism on this issue involved leadership of a specific group, Mothers against Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, or that she shared the group's belief that parents/carers do not abuse children in this way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/may/07/corrections-clarifications

David a message

2010-05-05T03:15:00.001-07:00

You have not been cleared, you've been acquitted on a technicality (your words) - You have been sent back for retrial!

David Southall double standards and breath taking arrogance

2010-05-05T01:18:00.000-07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8661000/8661517.stm

Well well well, here is the man himself, stating that the mere suspicion of child abuse should result in immediate reporting and further investigation - further to that he advocates that whilst that is going on children must be protected. Admirable and right, however he doesn't apply it to himself does he? No.

So here are the facts

David Southall is under police investigation for an alleged assault on a child
David Southall was interviewed under caution for over 7 hour by the police in relation to that offence in the Autumn of last year
As I write, that file, after a lengthy police investigation, sits with the CPS awaiting charging decisions
In Jan last year the law changed in relation to arrest and charge, prior to last year the police could arrest and bail the suspect and not have to disclose the evidence they had against them, today that does not apply, today the police have to disclose upon arrest, which is why they interview under caution without an arrest where possible, allowing them to keep their cards close to their chests.

So, applying David's own standards, should he be allowed near any child?

PACA Members

2010-05-04T06:02:00.000-07:00

Want to explain to the media that you are the named referring paeds for the SC Files? Or shall I?

Keep going!

Southall latest judgment

2010-05-04T04:57:00.000-07:00

Thanks the GMC for completely failing the complainants, oh well never mind eh, what more can we expect! Even Jesus only had one resurrection!!!!

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Southall v The General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 484 (04 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/484.html
Cite as: [2010] EWCA Civ 484
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 484
Case No: C1/2009/1239

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
THE HON MR JUSTICE BLAKE
CO/11559/07, [2009] EWHC 1155 (Admin)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
04/05/2010

B e f o r e :

THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WALLER
Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
THE RT. HON. SIR JOHN DYSON SCJ
and
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON
____________________

Between:
Dr. DAVID SOUTHALL
Appellant

- and -

THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Respondent

____________________

Mary O'Rourke Q.C. and Oliver Williamson (instructed by Hempsons, Manchester) for the Appellant
Monica Carss-Frisk Q.C. and Richard Tyson (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse, Manchester) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 22-23 March 2010

____________________

HTML VERSION OF ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

Lord Justice Leveson :

In the judgment of the court handed down on 20 April 2010, 2010] EWCA Civ 407 , written submissions were invited from the parties as to the appropriate order in relation to the charges relating to Mrs M. Sequentially, both sides have submitted two sets of submissions.

The Appropriate Orders

For the GMC, Ms Carrs-Frisk argued that Mrs M's complaint should be remitted to the panel for amplification of reasons. Given that the court rejected the complaint that the findings of the panel were perverse, the approach in cases such as Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 578 and Adami v The Ethical Standards Officer of the Standards Board for England [2005] EWCA Civ 1754, while leaving open the option of quashing the decision, approved the practice of remitting to the same tribunal for it to reconsider the matter and reformulate and adequately express its reasons for decision. She argues that paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment merely raise a question mark about impermissible influence and that the panel should have the opportunity of dealing with that issue.

Ms O'Rourke, for Dr Southall, besides challenging the mechanism whereby such an outcome might be achieved, submitted that the mind of the panel had been set by reference to issues which did not fall within the charge as formulated and that there would be a real risk that it would tailor its answers to meet the concerns expressed in the judgment, rather than reconsider the matter in an open and fair way. Indeed, the questions posed by Ms Carss-Frisk postulate merely the provision of further and better reasons without raising the possibility that the facts may have been approached on an impermissible basis.

I have no doubt that, in an appropriate case, this court has the jurisdiction to remit a decision to a panel for further reasons but I am equally clear that, in the circumstances of this case, it would not be right to do so. Given the issues between the parties, the process of reaching a decision – the reasoning – is itself important and although I recognise that there was material upon which the panel could reach the decision that it did, that is not the same as saying that, if approached from the correct analytical position, it would necessarily have done so.

This proposition can be illustrated by reference to one of the questions postulated by the GMC that the panel might address. It is:

"Bearing in mind the comments made in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment, to what extent, if any, were you influenced, when reaching your determination of the facts by (i) your extreme concern that Dr Southall formed the belief that the circumstances of M1's death needed to be investigated by him; or (ii) the submission made to you by the GMC that Dr Southall and Ms Salem both had a 'mindset' which concentrated on the risk of harm to M1 at the hands of Mrs M before, during and immediately after the 27 April 1998 interview?"

For my part, I find it very difficult to see how that question can be answered satisfactorily. The fact is that when dealing with sanction, the panel expressed extreme concern that Dr Southall had undertaken this exercise: without expert evidence, they accepted submissions to that effect. If the panel answers "not at all", on what basis does it appear in the sanction remarks? If they answer (as I say it is not fanciful to suggest) that his concern made it more likely that he would ask the direct question (as opposed to asking questions that created that perception), the reasoning is not based on evidence and flawed.

As an alternative submission, the GMC submit that the complaints made by Mrs M should be re-heard if the public interest in the regulation of the medical profession is to be served. It is said that the case is of profound importance to Mrs M and Dr Southall and has attracted the close attention of the profession. Ms Carss-Frisk also submits that it could be re-heard by the same panel. Ms O'Rourke argued that 'enough is enough': 12 years have passed, it would be difficult to find a panel that had not been affected by subsequent events and Dr Southall was both subject to a wrongful suspension for 5 months (which led to his resignation from NHS employment) and, for over 11 months since the decision of Blake J, has been erased from the register.

I recognise that there is serious public concern about the investigation of issues surrounding alleged child abuse but underline that, at the hearing, Ms Carss-Frisk made the point that the issue raised by prominent paediatricians (and others) did not arise because the case turned upon a straightforward issue of fact i.e. whether Dr Southall had expressly accused Mrs M of drugging and then murdering M1 by hanging him, it not being suggested that if Dr Southall had done so, he was not guilty of serious professional misconduct. In the light of the way in which the charges had been formulated, the wider issues did not arise and the panel did not have to grapple with the question how far it is appropriate for a consultant paediatrician to go when investigating these issues or, to put the question more bluntly, whether it is appropriate to question in such a way as raises the perception that the interviewee is being accused of murder and, if so, what material should be available to the paediatrician before he does so.

I am far from convinced that the public interest is truly served by a rehearing of the limited factual allegation that was made in this case, turning on the precise language used 12 years ago. Having said that, however, protection of the public interest is primarily for the GMC and I do not consider it appropriate to remove the responsibility for making this decision from them. I would quash the findings of the panel in relation to Mrs M (including the sanction) and remit the matter for the GMC to determine whether or not, in the light of all the circumstances and these observations, it is appropriate to pursue the complaint of Mrs M to a fresh panel. If there is to be a re-hearing, I do not accept that it would be right for it to be conducted before the same panel; fresh minds should be brought to the issues in the case.

As for the Dinwiddie and SC files, I reject Ms O'Rourke's submission that the sanction hearing should necessarily be before a different panel or that the minds of the original panel will be 'closed' because of the allegations concerning Mrs M; I have no doubt that the panel is sufficiently professional to be able to focus only on the issues that fall to be sentenced and I reject the concern of appearance of bias. Further, although Ms Carss-Frisk argues that if the complaint by Mrs M is to be remitted to the same or another panel, the appropriate course would be for further consideration of these complaints to await the final outcome of Mrs M's complaint, for my part, I do not understand why that course is necessary. The complaints are distinct and were linked with the Mrs M complaints only because it was convenient that they be heard together. Dr Southall is entitled to finality on these charges and I would remit them to the original panel for a sanction hearing.

Permission to Appeal

Ms Carss-Frisk seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and suggests that this case raises an important principle as to the duty to give reasons; although the function of hearing cases such as this will be transferred to the Office of Health Professions Adjudicator, it is argued that it would be of value for the common law principles to be authoritatively settled. For my part, however, this case did no more than identify an exceptional circumstance where the principle of fairness requires reasons to be given "even on matters of fact": see Gupta v General Medical Council [2002] 1 WLR 1691 at [14]. I would refuse permission to appeal.

Costs

It is unnecessary to outline the various contentions of the parties. To reflect the substantial (but not total) success of Dr Southall in this court, I would order the GMC to pay 60% of his costs. As for the costs in the Administrative Court, which concerned challenges to each of the decisions of the panel (in relation to the Dinwiddie and SC files not being repeated to this court), I would reduce the order made by Blake J so that Dr Southall pays 75% of the costs of the GMC. In each case, the costs are to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

The parties should agree and lodge a minute of order.

Sir John Dyson SCJ :

I agree.

Lord Justice Waller :

I also agree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/484.html

David Southall back on the register OH YES watch this space

2010-05-04T04:25:00.000-07:00

So Davey, the SC Files weren't about research weren't they? Really, "clinical audit" was it? Well explain the above, found in the SC Files during the DCFS investigation and I will get the names of the doctors that responded (members of PACA) and sent you original records, only for them to be hidden, oh and where's the protocol to enable you to do this? Where was the patient's consent? Doesn't exist does it.

Bring it on!

SOUTHALL APPEAL JUDGMENT

2010-04-29T05:19:00.001-07:00

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/407.html

David Southall coming to a country near you!

2010-04-28T01:28:00.000-07:00

The mad professor??!

http://www.mcai.org.uk/whoweare/boardoftrustees.aspx

Dr David Southall - OBE (for humanitarian aid for children in Bosnia & Herzegovina) MD, MRCP, MBBS, FRCPCH

David Southall was Foundation Professor of Paediatrics at Keele University. He is highly rated internationally as an academic and clinical researcher. David's main interests include: medical education and sustained improvements in the emergency medical care of mothers, babies and children in disadvantaged countries, critical care paediatrics,

the development of techniques for managing the life-threatening abuse of
children and mothers

, and advocacy against armed conflict and its effects on mothers and children and against the arms trade. David founded the charity in 1995.

The RCPCH and the spinning of Southall's Judgment

2010-04-24T00:47:00.000-07:00

Disingenuity or dishonesty?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suspended-paediatrician-southall-wins-appeal-against-gmc-1949610.html

From: DARETOCARE1@aol.com

To Jeremy.Laurance@independent.co.uk

CC: len.tyler@rcpch.ac.uk, pressoffice@gmc-uk.org

Sent: 23/04/2010 16:31:53 GMT Day light TimeSubj:

Your article regarding Dr Southall's appeal

Dear Mr Laurance

In your article you quote the RCPCH

"The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health said the case raised an important principle: that a paediatrician voicing child protection concerns would, as Lord Justice Leveson had put it, be "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't", and that argument was "supported by statements from prominent paediatricians". The college said there was "a genuine and widespread sense of puzzlement" among members that the GMC preferred a parent's evidence even when a paediatrician's account was corroborated by a second professional."

"3. Ms Mary O’Rourke QC for Dr Southall argued that lying beneath the surface of these issues is a far more serious question which touches upon the approach which paediatricians and other professionals are required to or should adopt in relation to investigating whether children with whom they are concerned are being or have been abused. On the one hand, in this case, what was found to be inappropriate, accusatorial, intimidating questions which the panel concluded abused the doctor’s professional position and added to the distress of a bereaved person (to summarise the other charges which were found proved) led to the erasure of the doctor. On the other, public criticism of the failure of professionals to identify abusive relationships and then take appropriate steps to protect children (evidenced contemporaneously in relation to a child known as Baby P whose parent was convicted of permitting the harm and death of her child) has led to the concern that, in connection with child protection issues, a paediatrician will be “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t”; that argument is supported by statements from prominent paediatricians. Ms Monica Carss-Frisk QC for the General Medical Council (“GMC”), responding to this appeal, challenged that view. She submitted that this issue did not arise; the case turned upon a straightforward issue of fact i.e. whether Dr Southall had expressly accused Mrs M of drugging and then murdering M1 by hanging him, it not being suggested that if Dr Southall had done so, he was not guilty of serious professional misconduct. It was not suggested that the other charge in connection with Mrs M reflected different issues.

The RCPCH have misinterpreted the context of the judgment, Lord Leveson is quoting Mary O'Rourke, (which is why the statement is in quotes!) when he says "damned if they do damned if they don't", he is not agreeing with the RCPCH at all, in fact, had somebody bothered to read the judgment in its entirety, they would have noticed that rather than support the RCPCH's submissions the Judges throw them out in their entirety, whilst making the point that the other charges needed to be further explained.

69. It is no part of our task to enter into issues of professional practiceor the need for guidance and, for my part, I would not do so. Child protection issues and the way in which such matters are handled remain a matter of enormous public concern and I have no doubt that paediatricians will recognise the vital importance to be attached to an approach that is focussed but sensitive. In that regard, it is clear that considerable thought has been given to the appropriate guidance which I hope will go a considerable distance to assuage remaining concern. If any remains, it requires to be addressed by the relevant bodies and not, in the first instance, by this court.

70. In relation to interviews, however, I add this. The days when a police officer corroborated by one or more other police officers was inevitably believed in relation to interviews (recorded in the officer’s notebook after the event) have long since passed. Prior to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, concern was expressed about the adverse impact of tape recording police interviews. In fact, taped interviews have removed all challenge and have assisted the administration of justice enormously. When asked why such steps were not taken in relation to those interviews in this field which are the most sensitive (in which category, the interview of Mrs M would most certainly qualify), the court was told that it was a matter of expense. Small digital tape recorders are not expensive and interviews can be stored electronically and transcribed only if some issue later arises: such a step would provide protection for the paediatrician and any other professional involved and also protection for the person being interviewed. Although it is not a matter for me, as with taped police interviews, I perceive only advantage to all and no disadvantage to anyone.

Conclusion

71. For want of adequate reasons, I would allow this appeal although I must make it clear that this conclusion is not a condemnation of Mrs M or a vindication for Dr Southall and should not be seen as either.

On any showing, the panel will have to consider what penalties should be imposed in relation to the other proved charges;

as for the charges relating to Mrs M, I would invite the parties to make submissions as to the appropriate order. Lord Justice Dyson

I would appreciate it if you and the RCPCH would correct the article/press statement accordingly.

Thank you

Penny Mellor

.

David Southall the so called won appeal

2010-04-22T10:08:00.000-07:00

In lay man's terms, the LJ's, that would be our law makers, stated that there is plenty of guidance in place for child protection doctors and furthermore, the evidence currently available shows them there isn't a problem with dilligent paediatricians undertaking this difficult work. Finally they state that the panel must now pronounce judgment on whether or not the letter to the unamed paediatrician and the issue of nicking 4,500 original medical records from the Royal
Brompton and placing them in files marked SC amount to SPM and if so what sanction they would impose.

Breach of patient confidentiality in relation to the letter, is a very serious offence, compounded in this case by the fact that the letter was not addressed to anyone in particular, meaning that it was read by several doctors.

As for hiding original medical records, well that was serious enough for both the AG's office and the DCFS to undertake an investigation into that. And as the GMC only heard the facts of the case in only 4 out of the 4,500 that existed, you can only guess at the harm that was done. I can name one case in which the harm that came to the children in that case was so immense as to lead to one child nearly being killed!!!

Now if the above aren't striking off offences I do not know what are!!

Professional Concerns

68. When the application for permission to appeal was renewed before Mummery and Moore-Bick LJJ, Ms O’Rourke argued that there were compelling reasons to justify a second appeal based upon the extensive professional concern that had been expressed, which reflected the ambiguity of the position of paediatricians in the field of child protection explained in [3] above. The court then made the point that there was no evidence of that concern and, in order to make good the submission, statements have now been served from a number of leading paediatricians in the field along with articles from medical and legal journals. Among other matters, these deal with the impact of the decision on the profession and the problem facing doctors if the word of an independent social worker and a doctor is to be rejected in circumstances such as these. In response, the GMC have challenged the suggestions of adverse impact on recruitment and have provided copies of publications which make it clear how these difficult interviews should be approached; save for an American textbook, this guidance post-dates the facts in this case. Ms Carss-Frisk also made the point that in none of this material has anybody suggested that it is not entirely common ground that making an allegation of murder to a mother in the terms alleged would constitute serious professional misconduct.

69. It is no part of our task to enter into issues of professional practice
or the need for guidance and, for my part, I would not do so. Child protection issues and the way in which such matters are handled remain a matter of enormous public concern and I have no doubt that paediatricians will recognise the vital importance to be attached to an approach that is focussed but sensitive. In that regard, it is clear that considerable thought has been given to the appropriate guidance which I hope will go a considerable distance to assuage remaining concern. If any remains, it requires to be addressed by the relevant bodies and not, in the first instance, by this court.

70. In relation to interviews, however, I add this. The days when a police officer corroborated by one or more other police officers was inevitably believed in relation to interviews (recorded in the officer’s notebook after the event) have long since passed. Prior to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, concern was expressed about the adverse impact of tape recording police interviews. In fact, taped interviews have removed all challenge and have assisted the administration of justice enormously. When asked why such steps were not taken in relation to those interviews in this field which are the most sensitive (in which category, the interview of Mrs M would most certainly qualify), the court was told that it was a matter of expense. Small digital tape recorders are not expensive and interviews can be stored electronically and transcribed only if some issue later arises: such a step would provide protection for the paediatrician and any other professional involved and also protection for the person being interviewed. Although it is not a matter for me, as with taped police interviews, I perceive only advantage to all and no disadvantage to anyone.

Conclusion

71. For want of adequate reasons, I would allow this appeal although I must make it clear that this conclusion is not a condemnation of Mrs M or a vindication for Dr Southall and should not be seen as either. On any showing, the panel will have to consider what penalties should be imposed in relation to the other proved charges; as for the charges relating to Mrs M, I would invite the parties to make submissions as to the appropriate order. Lord Justice Dyson :

72. I agree.Lord Justice Waller :

73. I also agree

David Southall his appeal and next steps

2010-04-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

Should Davey get back on the reg, after this next round, then there are further complaints to consider, one of which being that of Justine Twiss. Secondly there is the little matter of the GMC Police and CPS having signed up to the APCO agreement, something which, when Southall is struck off, as he currently is, they don't have to adhere to, however will have to be complied with should he go back on.

So let's see shall we, because I know their Lordships, should they decide to reinstate Davey, will be just a tad pissed off if they were to put him back on the register, for him then to be arrested and charged and be taken straight back off again .....

For those that haven't already guessed, I want him back on. MSbP Epidemiology David .........!

PACA Paragraphs 68 - 71 Judgment

2010-04-20T05:20:00.000-07:00

Well that's a F*** Off isn't it - no more using the courts as your playground - plenty of guidance in place, oh, not to mention the fact that (I paraphrase) "the days when police officers were believed regarding notes and corroboration, are long since passed" - translation, just because Davery boys notes are the same as Salems notes and they are both "professionals" does not mean that they have any right to be believed over Mrs M.

As I have always stated and now the C of A have backed me up, nothing to hide, tape it all. Interviews, case conferences, children's admissions into hospital when abuse is suspected, the whole lot.

Amazon have some good deals on dictaphones!

Oh and as a PS PACA and David, you can fool some of the people some of the time ..... etc, your run of being able to influence everything, yet again abusing your positions, has just been well and truly stopped. That'll teach you all won't it!

David Southall "wins" Appeal

2010-04-20T04:19:00.000-07:00

Uhhm, No he didn't the appeal was allowed (they didn't put him back on the reg though!!) and guess what PACA et al, now the SC Files come into play and now the the public will see what was really going on - hmmm is stealing 4,500 original medical records and hiding them from everyone, other doctors, social workers, the police, the courts a striking off offence ... I thinks so.

So finally it becomes about the illegal and unethical research and not about the smoke and mirrors created, child protection!

Southall Appeal Judgment to be handed down Tuesday

2010-04-17T01:23:00.001-07:00

NOTICES FOR JUDGMENT

NOTICE

Take notice that on TUESDAY 20 APRIL, 2010 in COURT 8, at 10 O'CLOCK, Judgment will be given in the following.

APPLICATION
C1/2009/1239 Southall -v- The General Medical Council.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm

David Southall Appeal - will he get off on a technicality?

2010-03-24T02:01:00.000-07:00

Oh dear, para's 53 - 60 Justice Blake's judgment, did he take into consideration any part of what he himself thought about this case and what the GMC didn't do, when denying Southall's original appeal? If he did, then the "conviction" so to speak, is potentially very wobbly indeed.

Anyway I'm not second guessing Law Lords!

What I will say is this, if Southall is reinstated, he faces further complaints at the GMC that were put on hold when he was struck off, plus some new ones and the merry go round starts again ... It's getting beyond a joke now it took the GMC 10 years to do round 1! Not to mention the fact he is under police investigation for a child related offence ... You couldn't make it up could you!

It reminds of those old Zombie films, where they keep getting back up again no matter how many times they're "killed".

I'll be drawing my pension by the time this is over!

David Southall appeal and the Baby P card

2010-03-23T01:21:00.000-07:00

Ingeniously, Mary O'Rourke is using the Baby P card in her rigorous defence of Southall, I say ingeniously, because Mary O'Rourke is the barrister for both Southall and Al-Zayyat. "Damned if they do - Damned if they don't" argument as well as saying paediatricians don't know what to do and these cases have undermined child protection. Legally arguing both cases at the same time!

What crisis in child protection aside from the Baby P backlash placing too much pressure on local authorities. Certainly the paediatricians I know, ones who work in CP find that the only pressure that they are under, eminates from the hysteria being whipped up in the media about child killers and babies! So there you have it, the Royal College of Paeds and PACA can scream as much as they like, every single day in the country, paediatricians quietly and dilligently go about their work protecting children, without once drawing adverse comment or attention, the reason they don't draw any attention is because they do their job properly!

Thing is, there are plenty of guidelines out there, Safeguarding Children Guidelines, Children Act local CP protoclos and finally guidance on the duties of an expert witness. All widely avaialable. Any paed wanting to know how to do their job when it comes to child protection can e-mail me I'll send them to you! Not to mention the obligatory training you have to undertake in child protection if you choose to take up that baton and run with it. So what is Ms O'Rourke saying? They can't read or understand and implement the training they have to undergo? Sorry Mary, nice try, however just not tenable really!

The trouble with David is there is no middle ground, it's full out, all or nothing and that means there are margins for huge amounts of error. You cannot just go around accusing people of murder because you feel it is murder, you can raise the concern and have an appropriate investigation by the appropriate agencies, like the police, first and foremost though, David needs to learn that he has limitations, he is not policeman, judge and jury and certainly not a forensic scientist.

As a campaigner I never say never - there are cases in which there has been a mixture of abuse and underlying medical causes that have contributed to the death of a child, where David says "Guilty" I say "not sure let's explore this further and let's make sure we have crossed all the t's and dotted the i's". Which is a lesson David badly needs to learn. Shame really because his early work in relation to breathing problems in children was seminal, he will never be remembered for that though even if he is reinstated onto the register. There is no going back to those heady days for David Southall.

DAVID SOUTHALL APPEAL

2010-03-22T07:20:00.000-07:00

Paediatrician David Southall in appeal battle against decision to strike him off over 'shocking' accusations against mother

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 2:15 PM on 22nd March 2010
(0) Add to My Stories

Dr David Southall, who is appealing against a High Court ruling upholding the General Medical Council's decision to strike him off

A controversial consultant paediatrician who was struck off the medical register for serious professional misconduct launched a Court of Appeal battle today in his bid for reinstatement.

The action before three judges in London has been brought by Dr David Southall over a High Court ruling last year which upheld the decision of the General Medical Council's (GMC) fitness to practise panel to strike him off.

Dr Southall is urging Lords Justices Waller, Dyson and Leveson to grant him permission to appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Blake, who said he had made 'truly shocking' and unjustified accusations that a mother had drugged and murdered her son.

The paediatrician, one of the UK's leading experts in the protection of children from abuse, had been asked by a county council to provide an independent report relating to the safety of her surviving son.

A GMC panel found in December 2007 that the doctor's actions added to the distress of the mother - Mrs M, from Shropshire - whose 10-year-old boy hanged himself in 1996.
It accused him of having a 'deep-seated attitudinal problem'.
Dismissing Dr Southall's appeal, Mr Justice Blake said: 'The unjustified accusation of murder ... was an abuse of the role of consultant and expert instructed in ongoing litigation.'

Dr Southall's lawyers had argued at the High Court that the panel failed to give any or adequate weight to inconsistencies in Mrs M's evidence, and to the totality of evidence from witnesses, including social workers.

They said it was Dr Southall's concern that the panel "did not understand ... what child protection involved and the part played by doctors like him'.

The High Court ruling against him triggered a warning from Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA) that it could have 'further serious and negative effects' on the willingness of doctors to engage in child protection work.

Dr Southall's QC, Mary O'Rourke, told the appeal judges today that the case raised points of 'principle and public importance'.

She said rulings in Dr Southall's case had caused 'confusion' among paediatricians and others in child protection over how to handle cases where parents and carers were potential abusers.

In other high-profile cases, professionals had been accused of being 'too trusting' and not being sufficiently vigorous in the questioning of family members.
But Dr Southall had been sanctioned because he was said to have been 'over vigorous' in his questioning of Mrs M.

She told the judges: 'It is of fundamental importance that paediatricians and specialists in child care fearlessly investigate the possibility that a child may be at risk or actually suffering from harm.'

Dr Southall, who worked as a consultant paediatrician at London's Royal Brompton Hospital from 1982 before moving to the same post at the North Staffordshire Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent in 1992, hopes this latest legal move will lead to his name being restored to the medical register.

Print this article Read later

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259796/Leading-child-abuse-expert-appeals-decision-strike-truly-shocking-accusations.html#ixzz0iunlmZi7

Southall Appeal Mary O'Rourke etc

2010-03-21T10:51:00.000-07:00

Well can the single rotweiller lawyer beat the paid two for the GMC - hardly fair, however that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes - wasn't fair that the heart of the GMC complaints were ripped out either. That's the GMC for you though ... No integrity!

So here's a heads up; despite what people might say or think about me, the one thing I do believe in, beyond any cause, is fairness.

Lord Leveson

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/spj-forensic-experts-05112009.pdf

"As a judge, I will expect you to have a proper appreciation of the scope of your expertise – and I will expect you to have the confidence and integrity to point out weaknesses in your evidence not so much by denigrating yourself but by ensuring that you have shaded your opinion and provided appropriate caveats and details of the significant facts the accuracy of which you have assumed but the judge may have to find. Further, of course, when you simply don’t know the answer to something or are being pressed to speculate or make assumptions which fly in the face of your appreciation of the facts or the basis on which you have proceeded, say so. By knowing the limits of your expertise, you will know the limits of what your evidence can be."

Justice Blake

"I well understand that a paediatrician concerned with the welfare of the child is not bound by previous conclusions of social workers, police, coroners or anybody else with respect to injuries on a child he is examining or even a sibling of that child. Matters that are properly recorded in medical notes or substantiated by other evidence can properly form the basis of conclusions by an expert paediatrician. It may be that it is considered by reason of his or her experience in assessment of such cases that such injuries were not accidental, or that a sequence of innocuous injuries, however caused, may point to real concerns as to the treatment of the child whether physical or emotional in the home environment where he was at the time. The difference from wholly proper investigative concerns of alternative scenarios in such a case is that they are founded on evidence and the proper experience of the expert evaluating such evidence within his or her area of competence. In this case Dr Southall was not an expert in curtain poles or pathology or it appears the means by which young people may choose to harm themselves once they had decided to do so. In this case not only was there no evidence to support the hypothesis that M1 had not self harmed, but all the inquest evidence pointed the other way. Dr Southall 's initial instincts in January and the matters that he put to Mrs M in interview in April were deployed without there being any change in the evidential position adduced before the inquest. Nothing new or suspicious had emerged"

Justice Collins Southall CHRE Appeal

"Further, there can be no doubt that Professor Southall 's report had breached the guidelines for medical experts in court proceedings and had failed to have proper regard to the need for caution in advising that a particular event had taken place. Further, he had for no good reason failed to disclose that he had spoken to Professor Green and Professor Meadow over the telephone and had obtained what he regarded as important information from them which fortified him in his opinion."

David Southall appeal

2010-03-19T09:56:00.001-07:00

COURT 72

Before LORD JUSTICE WALLER Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division

LORD JUSTICE DYSON and

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON

Monday, 22nd March, 2010

At half-past 10

APPLICATION

C1/2009/1239 Southall -v- The General Medical Council. Application of Appellant for permission to appeal with appeal to follow if granted.

This is going to be interesting!

David Southall PACA et al

2010-02-20T08:09:00.000-08:00

Now we're nearly at the end of the half term, let me fire a warning shot shall I, you see I am not a victim, I won't defer to authority, I won't give up ever - you can't buy me, you can't blackmail me, you cannot shut me up, let's face it imprisoning me and having me illegally registered as a sched 1 didn't do the trick, neither did getting social services to visit my home when I was in prison, so as it's all about the lyrics here's how it is and watch me go now, because I meant it when I said I would not rest until you and your crew are all prosecuted for the crimes you have committed against children ... If you thought MAMA was bad, well think again because procuring children for research using child protection is a crime and I have the evidence that that is exactly what you did, now who are the real child abducters???????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1cACrPHdc

Massive Attack

"Safe From Harm"

[Shara Nelson]

Midnight ronkers
City slickers
Gunmen and maniacs
All will feature on the freakshow
And I can't do nothing 'bout that, no
But if you hurt what's mine
I'll sure as hell retaliate

You can free the world you can free my mind
Just as long as my baby's safe from harm tonight

You can free the world you can free my mind
Just as long as my baby's safe from harm tonight

[3d]

I was lookin' back to see if you were lookin' back at me
To see me lookin' back at you

[Shara Nelson]

Lucky dippers
Crazy chancers
Seems to be moving fast
What happened to the nicities
Of my childhood days
Well i can't do nothing 'bout that, no
But if you hurt what's mine
I'll sure as hell retaliate

[3d]

I was lookin' back to see if you were
I was lookin I was
I was lookin' back to see if you were lookin' back at me
To see me lookin' back at you

[Shara Nelson]

You can free the world you can free my mind
Just as long as my baby's safe from harm tonight

You can free the world you can free my mind
Just as long as my baby's safe from harm tonight

[3d]

Tell us what it is dangerous
Friends and enemies I find it's contagerous
And they're spreading through your system like a virus
Yes the trouble in the end it makes you anxious

I was lookin' back to see if you were lookin back at me
To see me lookin back at you

I was lookin' back to see if you were lookin back at me
To see me lookin back at you

[Shara Nelson]

But if you hurt what's mine
I'll sure as hell retaliate
You can free the world you can free my mind
Just as long as my baby's safe from harm tonight [x2]

Guess what's coming Davey and Crew

2010-02-15T11:54:00.000-08:00

I shall be scanning after half term and I have been a very very busy girl, with my FOI's and had some truly shocking results, makes Wakefield's paper look positively honest! Research fraud? What, oh and Martin did Little One's and Amble Charity's pay for your time at UHNS between June 1992 and November 1993 and was it all listed as donations for research? I think so. Not to mention the conspiracies ....... And if I'm wrong then this would be libel, so where are the writs, I am inviting you to take me to court - thing is you can't can you because I have the documentary evidence that proves what I am saying is true ....

The anonymous blogger Nicola and the lies in the post

2009-05-24T01:17:00.000-07:00

First of all, this baby would have been transferred immediately to either Stoke Birmingham or New Cross, Stafford does not and never had a PICU, I know I gave birth to my youngest child there, any major problems and they were taken straight to the first available bed in the PICU's. As a "lost cause" it is highly unlikely that the child would even have been admitted to Stafford, they didn't have that sort of expertise.

As a parent living 7 miles from Stafford Hospital, who has done for the last 11 years I know, if the kids just banged their heads, Stafford always told us to go to New Cross, just in case. So the below is bollocks. And "Nicola", why is it you found the time and spent the effort to trace this SHAKEN BABY BLOG to post your undying support for David Southall, yet didn't bother to write to Southall's well publicised legal team or the GMC and give a testimonial for him in all these years - if you are so grateful I am sure the media would love to talk to you, even if it was anonymously?

The well written posting is smattered with deliberate grammatical mistakes and mis spellings ..... Using quotes appropriately and then using a word like "me" instead of my.

Finally the one phrase that "Nicola" used which stuck out in my mind as a mother is "I had no bond with my baby". After 5 weeks I would hope that you did have a bond with your baby and only somebody who hasn't had a child would make a statement like that - the bond doesn't break, it stays forever, any mother knows that, it may get damaged, but it doesn't go. Only somebody who has never had a child would write that.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "David Southall and continued lack of insight":

Not so much a comment but another angle... My Son was born in 1996 and at 5 weeks of age (after me calling doctors every day to say there was something wrong) was taken into hospital in Stafford. He was to all a 'lost cause' I was shut in a room with his father and left to wait for over 4 hours before someone came to tell me that he was 'alive for now' he wasnt expected to survive the night. I was instructed at this point to go home and get some rest as I was indeed still very ill from giving birth and an emergency c section. The next morning I dived to the telephone to hear that he was still alive. I went straight to the hospital and sat beside him till nightfall again being told 'he may not make it but you need to go home'. Some weks later after defying doctors my son was transferred to Newcastle Under lyme hospital where Proffessor Southall was based. I went with him this time. I was questioned and then told of my sons injuries - he has shaken baby syndrome - severe brain damage and broken ribs and a broken leg - all of which I knew nothing - of course. I sat with Proffessor Southall for more than 2 hours where hetalked at length about his injuries and told me of what they might expect for the outcome if he did still survive this. Proff. Southall was harsh he words stung and I was devastated I had no bond with my baby and to be honest was more scared of him stopping me from becoming a 'proper mother'. He saw that I was innocent and that I had done nothign he put his hand on my shoulder and said 'Dont worry Nicola it will be ok I believe you and I know now that you have done nothing - but you know that as you didnt then someone had to - the only other person being his father'. I left the hosptial and packed my belongings I left that following day and didnt look back. I was still questioned and arrested and then released I was still made to prove that I was innocent by taking training classes for parents ina hospita in Oxford. Two years later his father went to prison for Child Cruelty and GBH with intent - I had my son back about 12 months after he was taken into hospital. My son is now 12 and a healthy and happy child/teen I so proud of what I have done but through it all I found that only Proffessor Southalls words were what rang in my mind - 'it will be ok Nicola I know you are innocent'. I understand that mistakes can happen but in the world of child abuse and suspicion its so hard to see something positive. I still question my mind when I see a child crying in its pushchair. It never leaves and it never dulls. Bless you Professor David Southall you saved me and my child I am forever in your debt.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Anonymous to Shaken Baby and unsafe convictions at 24 May 2009 01:06

Do PACA et al understand the law?

2009-03-19T03:45:00.001-07:00

They think that by undermining the case against Southall ref Clark is going to work in the Court of Appeal? Really, thing is boys, the Clark judgement stands and a GMC review panel has no juridstiction over Justice Collins - it's a none runner, it's not allowed in - anyway he never appealed it, do you all seriously think Southall was struck off because of Mrs M's case alone?

Deluded all of you.

You think the "panel weren't qualified" shit is going to work? None of you said a word about that when it was Camille de sam Lazero, or Colin Patterson or interestingly in Clark did you ???

Let me put you all straight, Mrs M and Mr Clark are NOT one offs, ask your boy Davey what he tried to pursuade HM Coronor in Hampshire to do (I have the transcript of the phone call) Ask your boy what he accused the New Zealand mother of doing when a neighbours baby died.

I can't wait for this appeal because I have the evidence of repeated patterns, like a recording of Southall bursting into a parent's home in Stoke on Trent and shouting "you are emotionally abusing your children" in front of those children and being exceptionally abusive and threatening to the mother, lovely, how marvelous for those children, who remember the entire incident BTW. Not to mention an independent investigation into that incident upholding the complaint about your behaviour. Shall I You Tube it? Does everyone want to hear how "kind and compassionate" David Southall really is?

You see the reason that the Panel at the GMC struck you off David is because you were rendered naked, alll those different excuses for having the SC Files which varied according to who was asking you a question, the reason they didn't believe you or that lying social worker is because your lies were exposed at that hearing, you and Salem lied, PACA members provably lie, can't put the evidence up, it's in other agencies hands right now.

Davey boy

2009-03-02T12:34:00.000-08:00

I don't compete to "take part" I compete to win, never lost anything in my life even my freedom, having represented myself was not a loss, you martyred me, when the public find out what you've been doing to children I still win.

Let's get this straight shall we, I'm not employed I can do what I like OH and the best of the best are on board!!!

SCR's Family W ......

I know who hacks into this blog BTW.

Childhealth Advocacy International

2009-03-01T23:57:00.000-08:00

List of trustees until she suddenly resigned under the name Dr Joanne Meran; (hmmmm)

Dr Joanne Meran, who is listed on specialist info and the RCPCH A list as Dr Joanne Meran-Talabani, no such person exists on the GMC register, however when you put her registration number in you get something all together different. Funny that isn't it? And of course neither Companies House nor the Charity Commission were aware of this, just how can you CRB check somebody who has given a name that isn't their real name and just why was Dr "Meran" not giving her real name in the first place?

List of Registered Medical Practitioners

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results of search on: 01 Mar 2009 at 12:02:00. The details shown are valid at the date and time of the search only.

GMC Reference Number 3238493

Given Names Jwan Atallah Jamal

Surname Al Talabani

Gender Woman

Registration Status Registered

More Details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary Medical Qualification
MB ChB 1974 University of Baghdad

Full Registration Date 12 May 1987

Specialist Register entry date
Paediatrics From 14 Feb 1996

GP Register entry date This doctor is not in the GP Register
Information for Employers Details

Sometimes it would be nice to be a real boy eh!

2009-02-27T13:45:00.000-08:00

What struck me about the unlisted song on Kanye West's new album was the video footage, it reminded me of a caged animal or the Romanian babies who rock. You can keep fame and fortune, however I do identify with the lyrics -just exactly what is a normal life these days?

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DJ_pzL1ZtvbA&ei=k16oSfqrJoaI1QXMt5zMAg&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=2&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNFlilLLNkH-YtYyZJnYCOOuWmlOYQ

I tried to do my best:

Pinocchio Story - Kanye West

Wise men say (x3)
You’ll never figure out real love (x3)

Its so crazy
I got everything figured out
but for some reason I can never find what real love is about
no doubt
everything in the world figured out but I can never seem to find what love is about

do you think I sacrificed real life
for all the things, the flashing lights
do you think I sacrifice real life
for all the things, the flashing lights

there is no Gucci I can buy
there is no Louis vuitton to put on
there is no ? they could sell
to get my heart out of this hill
my mind out of this jail
there is no clothes that I could buy
that could bring back the time
there is no vacation spot I could fly
that could bring back a real piece of real life
real life, what does it feel like?
I ask you tonight, I ask you tonight
What does it feel like, I ask you tonight
To live a real life
I just want to be a real boy
They always say Kanye, he keeps it real boy
Pinocchio story is, I just want to be a real boy
Pinocchio story is to be a real boy

Its funny Pinocchio lied and that’s what kept him from it?
I tell the truth and I keep runnin
Its like im looking for something out there trying to find something
I turn on the tv and see me and see nothing

What does it feel like to live real life to be real
Not some posiedon? on tv that no can really feel
Do you really have the stamina
for everybody that sees you and that say wheres my camera?
For everybody that sees you and says sign the autographs
For everybody that sees you and says that you all that
You all that
I just want to be a real boy,
Pinocchio story goes, I just want to be a real boy
Pinocchio story goes

And there is no ? to guide me no one right beside me
The only one was behind me I cant find her no more
I cant find her no more I cant,
the only one that come out on the tour and stays
Back when I was living home in her room and this was all up in dreams

And the fame will be got caught and the day I moved to LA
Maybe it was all my fault, all my fault to be a real boy
Chasing the American dream, chasing everything we seen, up on the tv screen
And the benz left and the clothes left, and the hoes left and the hoes and

Real boy, they say kanye you keep it too real boy
Perspective, Wise man say, one say you’ll find your way
The wise man say, youll find your way
The wise man say, youll find your way
The wise man say

David Southall

2009-02-27T13:28:00.000-08:00

Madam, as part of the circumstances of this case you ought to know that Mrs H has reported her concerns about Dr Southall’s treatment of her son to the South Wales Police. The South Wales Police are investigating an allegation of assault made by Mr and Mrs H concerning their son, Child H. It is alleged that Dr Southall was a party to the commission of an offence in July 1991. His exact role in this matter is the subject of ongoing investigation.

DAY 29

Watch ....

The GMC

2009-02-26T01:40:00.001-08:00

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry!

I put the hypothetical question to the organisation that oversees doctors, that question being, if the police visited them under the ACPO GMC NMC undertakings, and infomed them that a number of doctors were under investigation for child related offences, did they inform the trusts who employed the doctos, the response was:

"well contrary to popular belief, we don't actually know where any doctor works at any given time" WHAT? Why? It should be mandatory that all doctors give their employment details to their governing body surely??????

So I then ask what steps they take (mot mentioning specialist info which gives all the details as to where a doctor is employed DUH) to protect the public outside of IOP which takes FOREVER, the answer was "well we write to the doctor informing them of our intentions to contact their trust and the reasons why and could they tell us who they work for" OK, by this time I am mildly hysterical, "whilst being mildly hysterical, I then asked if it occurred to them that there was no incentive for a doctor to respond immediately to their request and that in fact by undertaking such an action they were tipping the doctor off,as happened here in Stafford, when the doctor took off to the USA as soon as she got the letter, extradition taking 10 years to get her back to face manslaughter charges, the response was "hmmm you've got a point" God help us!

I then point out that if the police are taking action, they will know where those they are taking action against will be, so why not ask them ... that met with silence and the phrase "that's a good idea" By this time I am thinking "beam me up Scotty"

Is there any competency anywhere within any of these beauracratic organisations?

I wonder what the public would have to say if they found out that because of all this red tape, deference and incompetency that a doctor, who works with children, could remain in situ for a considerable amount of time before the public is protected! Any other profession would be suspended at the start of any such investigation, why doctors are treated so differently is something that needs changing, it's a joke.

Southall and the anomlies in his testimonies

2009-02-25T03:50:00.000-08:00

Southall claimed that having seen the programme about Clark in which a child had a nose bleed he felt compelled to immediately go to the police such was his concern about the safety of a child. This is something he reiterates time and time again, the "minute I believe a child is in danger I act to protect that child" - fair enough, so he should, however that doesn't tally with the below abduction plan, when he wants to research on the child first, child protection comes second, he waits weeks, even months before he does anything, so long as he gets the child into his care, he states he wants to be sure in the case below, yet he didn't bother to wait to see if he was sure when it came to Clark, he went on the back of a TV programme.

Doesn't quite add up does it? Thing is he had no chance of getting the Clark's youngest child into UHNS, he was suspended, so he manufactured another situation which may have led to him at least getting clinical records to review! And if he got what he wanted, both Steve and Sally out of the way, he may ultimately have got the Clark's youngest child to "investigate".

People have, in the past, believed this all to be too fantastic, I was a fantasist and a liar, well I have document after document in which the same pattern emerges, get the children into his units at all costs, even if it means leaving a child in danger.

No, Southall is not the child protector, he is the child snatcher and Samuels pulls his strings, Dr Sakar Forensic Psych and panelist cottoned onto that at the GMC, look at the questions he asked, even then Southall deferred to Samuels, furthermore Southall states that Samuels "started a new set of SC Files in 1999" not WE started a new set, enmeshed relationship, individually it's unlikely either doctor would have done some of the things they have done, put them together and everything changes, Samuels is still writing all Southall's documents for him, why would that be eh? Because Samuels controls Southall.

Samuels came into Southall's life in 1986 - that's when all of this started, trawl pubmed, you'll see that I am right.

The biggest single scandal in the history of medicine is about to hit the fan despite the best efforts of PACA et al.

Southall the abduction plans using child protection

2009-02-24T05:35:00.000-08:00

The 35 year old sister referred to as being "normal" is anything but, she has high functioning Asberger's Syndrome fully diagnosed by one of the world's leading experts who also diagnosed the child Southall said wasn't autistic.

Child C, whom Southall was so interested in because of the hyperventilation has now been diagnosed with a cardiac problem, which at the time had been misdiagnosed as epilepsy, the anti convulsants were making him ill. (a common problem) he has also been diagnosed with CP and his autism is so bad now he has to live in a residential care home.

Lowry only referred child C to Southall after a Pethidine overdose prior to an operation on C's leg led to a complaint from the family against him. Southall becomes involved and virtually salivates over child C, he isn't interested in child protection, he wanted him and he got him. Added to this was the fact that grandmother had lost three children way back - all of whom died in a hospital with Grandmother not being present. Two death certificates when finally obtained, showed that they had died of suspected cystic fibrosis, the third was ascertained. Southall would have gone into a frenzy, all these factors were exactly what he needed for his research.

The rest speaks for itself, during the attempts to research on child C at UHNS grandmother complains about C's treatment, like attempting to occlude whilst administering a noxious substance (CO2? Chloral Hydrate, take your pick!) and starts asking what's going on, she also highlights in a letter to the trust that "babies were being taken off the ward at night when the parent/carer had left" and asks what was going on.

At that point the family were well and truly got.

I cannot comment on aspects of Lowry's letter, it's despicable and shows Southall and Lowry to be devious and untruthful.

Finally UHNS Confirmed that there were no such "specially trained nurses" in MSbP!!

OFSTED PACA and Serious Case Reviews

2009-02-24T00:11:00.000-08:00

How is anyone supposed to protect children in this country when the country is run by bureaucrats? Having gone round and round the houses, via every single government department, I finally get answers from one. OFSTED. OFSTED are currently re reviewing an SCR in Bristol involving a CVS case in which an SC File was created. In this case no original records could be found at the child/ren's index hospital, that's because Southall and Samuels always demanded originals and never handed anything back, or only handed back the records that fitted their theory of the case.

OFSTED are waiting for the DCFS to complete its review into the retention of SC files, it is already clear that there will be serious case reviews into some cases, not least of which those that went before the GMC. I have asked that the broken arm incident is also reviewed given that Southall et al did not follow their own protocol which resulted in baby J coming to significant harm during CVS.

OFSTED have taken on board all the evidence I have sent them, including the evidence that PACA have deliberately tried to prevent any SCRs being undertaken in relation to the storing and retaining of the SC Files, they are also very concerned about the PACA members who are also sitting on the safeguarding children's boards - conflict of interest I would say. Many PACA members are the doctors who referred cases to Southall and Samuels, they are the ones that handed over original records and left no marker as to where those records had gone, neither did they try and retrieve them, or if they did there is no record of that happening. They would have to explain their actions to any enquiry.

Currently the PACA crew are trying to usurp the upcoming appeal by using the Clark case. All they are interested in is having a pop at the expert in both cases and boosting their golden boy.

This is a witch hunt against a father who has suffered unimaginable tragedy, who despite everything, has acted with dignity and has been the surviving child's rock. These people who claim to be the child protectors, put their mate (and by defacto themselves) before this child and his well being. They make me sick all of them, how could anyone put that little boy through any more than what he has been through.

I can't post the letters they are PDF files, I will try and get them changed to JPEGS so that members can read for themselves whati s going on.

We're on countdown now, only 3 days to go.

Panoroma are still hassling everyone out there so be careful who you speak to on the phone, they have pulled some pretty nasty stunts in the last few days to try and trick parents into talking to them - you all know the score, it's Southall et al driven and more importantly Southall's agenda is to ensure that none of you can take the stand ..... so sit tight, they'll go away in the end.

How the GMC conned the MPS and other police forces and then shut me down

2009-02-10T02:04:00.000-08:00

The GMC undertook to inform the police (2005 ACPO undertakings) of any criminal activity they found in the files they obtained through their investigations of any doctor. No hearings took place at the time the GMC stated they would. Furthermore Jonathan Gornall obtained these confidential documents (I wonder were from DAVID!) when I can't, even though they relate to me - any wonder Southall always claims the "police won't do anything" - we'll see eh, times have changed significantly, not to mention the "confessions" at the GMC hearing!!

Any wonder Southall set me up to go to prison and had all those other parent's houses raided. Thanks to diligent enquiries via FOI and subject data access, we are now in the position of being able to prove the below.

The offences that can be proven to a criminal standard of proof committed by Southall and Samuels are:

The theft of original medical records from the Royal Brompton leaving children without the proper medical care and endangering the lives of children such as those in Family W.

Assault and GBH all the children entered into unconsented research projects who were harmed through burns, life threatening ALTES after the administration of noxious substances, etc.

Perverting the course of justice in retaining and failing to disclose original medical records in files marked SC which were unavailable to police, social services, the courts or any expert witness in any case involving that child

Perverting the course of justice in accusing parents of harming their children to silence the parent when they found out and challenged Southall and Samuels about the fact that not only had their child been entered into a research project without their knowledge or consent but that their child was subsequently harmed as a result of both actions, the allegation and the research.

Conspiracy to abduct, in making a false allegation against any parent that refused to allow their child to entered into unethical and dangerous research projects in order to gain control of the child so that the "regime" could be implemented (Southall's own evidence at the GMC)

Forgery

Fraudulent research

Perverting the course of justice and criminal contempt (perjury)

Giving evidence for percuniary gain (lying in court for a fee!)

Research protocols and how Southall et al ignored the guidelines

2009-02-09T23:57:00.000-08:00

Protocol 90/02, no consent, parents unaware it was research, children burnt by the TCPO 2 monitor, no report of adverse event, event recorder tapes unreadable to any other clinician, used to accuse parents of smothering their children. When parents challenged Southall/Samuels they were subsequently accused of MSBP and threatened.

Protocol 85/02 - 85/09 no consent, parents unaware it was research, babies subjected to highly unethical research given their predisposition to SIDS, adverse reactions not reported to ethic committee. When parents challenged Southall/Samuels they were subsequently accused of MSBP and threatened

CVS, no consent, parents unaware it was research, some parents were legally children themselves (3 under the age of 18), many parents in which abuse was proven using CVS already diagnosed with severe personality disorders and mental illness prior to implementing CVS, no pyshciatric assessment prior to admission, complete disregard of protocols for implementing CVS, children harmed during CVS as a direct result of being "tethered" to the other unconsented research, CVS tapes grainy would be inadmissable in court by today's standards, potentially entrapment, disregard of parent mental state which in turn put children in danger.

Chloral Hydrate Histamine research, lung function tests, parents unaware it was research, no consent, children had severe and life threatening adverse reaction to research, two documented cases in which the child nearly died, had to be rescucitated, those children were alreay high risk for sids. Complete disregard of protocol, no adverse events reported. When parents challenged Southall/Samuels they were subsequently accused of MSBP and threatened

CNEP, also included protocol 90/02, no consent, parents unaware that children subjected to multiple research projects.

Hypoxia study, another format for Protocol 85/02 - 85/09 with all the others thrown in for good measure!

David Roy and the making of a saint - in theory anyway

2009-02-04T13:30:00.000-08:00

It's funny how Davey and Roy Boy's names are often used in the same breath, sentence, paragraph, whatever, when in reality there is no common denominator except MSbP.

When Meadow was struck off at the GMC we all fell of our seats in shock, stopping him from being an expert witness yes, but struck off, no, not for that case, many others where real harm had been done yes, it was not a striking off offence, it was an offence that warranted sanctions particularly when it was poor defending that was at the heart of the problem, all Roy did was what most prosecution experts do, chanced it, tried his luck in an area outside of his expertise, what did the defence do ... NADA, nothing, zilch, they let him say it all unchallenged.

Now the confusion starts when Roy and Davey are uttered in the same breath because folks this is h9ow it really is.

All the parents that Roy ever interviewed stated he was polite and charming

All the parents Southall bothered to interview (which were very few) found him rude, intimidating and accusatorial

Roy actually did some outstanding work in his early career, bringing child abuse in the home to everyone's attention, went a bit loopy after 1977 and wreaked havoc, however there was some good done at the beginning. Mummy would have been so proud to a point!

Davey right from the go get was busy experimenting on and harming babies to see if he could find the Holy Grail, the cause of SIDS at all costs.

Roy was found guilty of SPM for misleading the court (really bad lawyering I do have to say)

David was found guilty of SPM for, his appalling behaviour towards Mrs M, breaking patient confidentiality child H, creating, storing and then hiding files marked SC which contained original medical records, not to be found elsewhere in the child's records and then nicking 2,500 of them from Royal Brompton (all 4,500 cases not just the four at the GMC) and taking them up to Stoke - how does that compare in any way with what Roy was found guilty of???

So you see, everyone's running around thinking that because they got it wrong with Roy, then the panel were also wrong about Davey, despite the vast differences in the case, PACA et al have canonised Meadow and Southall, making them into the martyrs of child protection, squawking about how dangerous the world would be for children without their input, how child protection is in tatters because of the likes of me, yet the child homicide index indicates that child murders remain at the same level they were 30 years ago, taking into account population growth, which effectively means that it is the child protectors who have failed to do their jobs in not getting those figures down.

But that's OK believe the myth, believe the fantasy world that has been created, do not bother yourselves with discomfort of thought, have the opinion, the very same opinion that will be blown out of the water.

Mark my words, because anyone that thinks the 30th of March will be a walk in the park, with St David swathing a path through the justice system will have many hours afterward to ponder why it was they believed the myth and voiced the opinion without the discomfort of any thought at all and good riddance to the lot of them I say!

Does David Southall lie in police statements and his research paper or ...

2009-02-03T05:11:00.001-08:00

Did the medical director lie to the press?

In the police statement and the CVS Paper Southall claimed the baby was shaken prior to the arm being allegedly deliberately broken by mother - they didn't go in, isn't shaken baby a form of child abuse?

UK News Electronic Telegraph
Tuesday 28 October 1997
Issue 887

Ward spy cameras watched as mother broke baby's arm
By Maurice Weaver

MEDICAL staff who ran covert video surveillance in hospital wards to catch parents suspected of abusing their children told yesterday of one mother who deliberately broke her baby girl's arm.

The six-month-old child had been referred because her blood oxygen level had dropped abnormally, Dr Keith Prowse, medical director at the North Staffordshire Hospital, told a news conference. He said: "On her first night she was monitored most of the night. The mother came in and out of the room and there were some signs, such as poking and pushing the child, but no actual confirmed abuse.

"At first we thought she was going to suffocate the child but suddenly she grabbed her arm and broke it. The child was obviously in horrendous pain and immediately staff were alerted and sent in.

"As soon as the staff entered the room the mother became very loving and doting again and couldn't understand why the child was in so much pain."

In another case a mother was recorded trying to suffocate her baby using cling film. Both women were reported to the police and prosecuted for cruelty. The hospital confirmed that it operated video surveillance in secret for eight years until one woman became suspicious of the medical authorities' involvement in her prosecution. Then the decision was taken to go public.

Prof David Southall, the consultant paediatrician who is the co-author of the report which is due to be published next Monday, told the news conference that the cameras had caught "the most disturbing thing possible to see".

The victims were aged from two months to 44 months. The surveillance led to 38 care orders being made and 33 parents were prosecuted. The cameras recorded deliberate attempts to suffocate 30 children, the case of the broken arm and two poisonings. Prof Southall said the parents came from across the social spectrum and invariably put on public shows of affection to their children.

The report, by Prof Southall and Dr Martin Samuels, states that the 39 children under surveillance had a total of 41 siblings, 12 of whom had previously died unexpectedly. Eleven of these deaths were classified as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome but, following the CVS programme, four parents admitted suffocating eight of them.

Prof Southall said that, while by no means all such sudden infant deaths resulted from child abuse, the report indicated that the issue should be considered as part of routine.

Yesterday a mother accused - but subsequently cleared - of harming her three-year-old son spoke out against the dangers of video surveillance of babies thought to be at risk of harm. Nicola McCombe, from West Kirby, Merseyside, said that the babies of some mothers accused of harming their children had been found to have breathing difficulties or physical defects which accounted for their condition.

She said: "Families have been disrupted and babies and small children taken from their mothers because of Prof Southall's refusal to accept that he could have been mistaken."

The GMC, ACPO, CPS, Police and Southall et al!

2009-01-30T05:55:00.000-08:00

http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/partners/ACPO_MOU.pdf

47. The senior officer within the NMC would be the Departmental Head of Investigations within Fitness to Practise, and within the GMC would be the manager of the GMC London investigation team. Offences which usually the GMC/NMC will refer to the police are listed below (this is not intended to be an exhaustive list):

i. Indecent assault and rape

ii. Incidents of violence (Burns from the TCPO 2 Monitors used in unconsented research - administration of chloral hydrate and anti-histamine, unconsented research, administration of high levels of CO2 and occlusions, unconsented research )

iii. Theft, particularly cases involving a serious abuse of trust (the removal and hiding of 2,500 files containing original medical records up to Stoke on Trent in secret files marked SC, several children using an MSbP allegation!)

iv. Theft of drugs (debatable, who supplied all the drugs for the unconsented research!)

v. Other offences of dishonesty, including fraud and false certification which cannot otherwise be dealt with at a local level through employment contracts. (oooh "I head up a UNICEF project" "I am a qualified paediatrician" etc etc etc

vi. False declarations of professional qualifications to obtain employment (Hmmm just how did Southall become a consultant in the two year period in which he was only allowed to undertake "clinical physiological monitoring only"

vii. Racist or homophobic behaviour towards any person

viii. Pornographic material apparently involving children (CVS Tapes being copied onto CD ROMS and being shown to anyone!!)

And the GMC allowed Davey to do child protection again - yeh some country, some child protection system we've got any wonder children like Baby P die!

Let me fire a warning shot across the bows shall I?

2009-01-25T12:05:00.000-08:00

OK, a letter, written in the Lancet recently, just prior to when Southall's appeal was originally going to be heard (So predictable PACA et al) in which a certain "expert" made certain claims.

Firstly Family W that expert! Let me give you a clue shall I, child's name began with M and ended with E, your patient, MSbP CVS case, hidden medical records taken to Stoke in a file marked SC unavailable to anyone, the withholding and hiding of the contents of that child's records led to the further abuse of children in the family. Wonder what the Health Commission, MP's, OFSTED, the Safeguarding Children's Board and the DCFS investigations teams are going to have to say about what you wrote in that report. Afterall it is our civic duty to ensure that matters that have led to child abuse be shared with the relevant agencies isn't it?

Secondly you forgot that under the Heshall ruling ALL material has to be disclosed to the complainant - that includes any reports prepared for the hearing.
So whilst the GMC cannot disclose .......

Funny how what was said in public, a medical magazine, does not correspond with what was said in a sworn witness report isn't it!

So the warning shot is this, the Lancet piece and the report prepared for the GMC will be going to officials and they can deal with the issue.

A Change is Gonna Come!

2009-01-23T03:22:00.000-08:00

Based on the Black Civil Rights Movement, played at Obama's inauguration and so very relevant to other struggles against oppression, one of which is very nearly over.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aHa096VQ8FE

A Change is Gonna Come

I was born by the river in a little tent
And just like that river I've been running ever since
It's been a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will

It's been too hard living, but I'm afraid to die
Cos I don't know what's out there beyond the sky
It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will

BRIDGE:

And then I go to see my brother
And I ask him to help me please
And he just winds up knockin' me
Back down on my knees

There were times when I thought I couldn't last for long
But now I think I'm able to carry on
It's been a long, been a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will

Martin Banks CVS and the truth

2009-01-19T05:18:00.000-08:00

Just what did Banks, a senior social worker, think he was doing releasing confidential information regarding a clearly identifiable CVS case that was still being criminally investigated and hadn't yet gone to trial, to Directors of Social Services across the UK?

What was Martin Banks doing telling everyone that the mother had provably been seen under CVS poisoning her child, when that was proven to be forensically not true and doing so prior to a trial??

More to come .......

Implementation of CVS not "approved" by ACPC

2009-01-18T23:52:00.000-08:00

The DOH endorsed the protocol - not the use of CVS, apart from which they did not follow procedure, they did not do any of the things stated within the protocol which I might add was approved AFTER they had already done it! As usual!

Where is the Public Indemnity Insurance for the equipment and research David?

Bet everyone's wishing they hadn't said the below right about now!

2009-01-18T12:39:00.000-08:00

"CVS isn't research"

"MSbP cases weren't research"

"The SC Files weren't research"

"We cannot investigate the use of CVS or MSbP because it wasn't research" Griffiths and Hull

"The Trust found that Professor Southall and Dr Samuels had not done anything wrong"

"CVS was approved by the DOH" David Southall

"I don't have the power to influence a case conference, all decisions about a child's welfare are made in a multi-agency setting, of which I am a small part" David Southall and crew repeatedly over the years

More evidence going up Davey - All going to the relevant authorities and posted here for posterity (actually to make sure there isn't yet another cover up). Guess bonfire night will be coming soon this year.

MSbP/CVS cases "weren't research" - Really?

2009-01-18T07:37:00.001-08:00

The "mugging" of social services in MSbP cases

2009-01-16T05:05:00.001-08:00

MSbP cases at Royal Brompton and UHNS were a euphamism for research fodder!

The NSPCC David Southall UHNS and historical allegations of abuse

2009-01-16T04:22:00.000-08:00

Funny what documents fall into your hands after so many years - so PACA et al, it was me that started the whole thing was it? Funny that I wasn't anywhere near this back in 1993/94 yet the allegations being made back then are no different to those I have made in the last 11 years.

Any wonder CVS stopped in Stoke 1994.

The burns were caused by the TCPO2 monitor, another research project undertaken by David Southall and Martin Samuels.

Poor parents, little did they know that what they were describing was their children being subjected to unconsented research.

More to come Davey et al, all came registered post this AM. You've been telling porkies haven't you!!! Shock Horror!

Christian Poets - Southall's researcher

2009-01-15T01:02:00.000-08:00

For years Poets co researched with Southall - He was part of Protocol 85/09, the Chloral Hydrate and anti histamine lung function research and also CVS in which data was obtained on intentional suffocation (you see it never was about child protection as I have always stated!)

Finally, the most chilling phrase is this one

"The latter data were confirmed in a similar study observing gasping in 23 of 24 infants immediately preceding death."

What does he mean "observed"?????

4 (S)
CARDIORESPIRATORY RECORDINGS DURING SUDDEN INFANT DEATH (SID)

Christian F Poets

Department of Neonatology, University Children's Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany

The pathomechanisms leading to SID are still unknown. One way to gain more insights into these is an analysis of memory monitor downloads.

There are now a number of recordings from cardiorespiratory monitors which were obtained during SID. In an analysis of 9 recordings of chest wall impedance and heart rate obtained during SID, gasping was the predominant pattern, being already present at the time of the monitor alarm in 3 infants and occurring within 3 min. after it in a further 4. One infant only began to gasp 13 min. after
the first monitor alarm.

The duration of gasping ranged from 3 s to 11 min. Primary trigger for the monitor alarm had been bradycardia in all but two infants, but there was no indication of heart block or ventricular tachycardia. Prolonged apnea (>20 s) began only up to
13.7 min. (median 2.7) after this alarm in 5 infants and 7 to 20 s before it in 3; in the remaining infant, stimulation occurred prior to any apnea. There was no evidence for any arousal reaction (e.g., body movements). These observations suggest that prolonged apnea is unlikely to be a primary mechanism in the sequence of events leading to most cases of SID. Also, bradycardia is unlikely to be a primary
mechanism, as it was closely related to gasping, which is indicative of severe hypoxemia (triggering the bradycardia).

Finally, gasping occurred in the majority of these SID victims, but was obviously not successful as an autoresuscitative mechanism.

The latter data were confirmed in a similar study observing gasping in 23 of 24 infants immediately preceding death.

These data differ from those obtained during imposed apnea (infanticide), which may show initial tachycardia.

These data will be compared with a polygraphic video recording of an infant during a severe ALTE who showed similar respiratory patterns.

Case Notes

2009-01-15T00:37:00.000-08:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/casenotes

Professor Peter Fleming "for around 15 years an obsession with breathing patterns in babies led us investigating the wrong causes for SIDS"

BBC Radio Four Case Notes

2009-01-14T01:33:00.000-08:00

All about SIDS - repeated today at 4.30 PM http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/casenotes/pip/b6boj

Listen to what Prof Fleming has to say about cardio respiratory monitoring (Like Southall and Samuel's event recorders) - funny that - still I suppose better late than never eh Peter!

Oh dear oh dear

2009-01-12T08:39:00.000-08:00

Had a phone call today from "Pete". I'll give you a clue, Barclay Card, something not quite right at UHNS, yet another cover up under way, I don't think so, watch this space ........

Amazing where due diligence will get you

2009-01-12T01:05:00.000-08:00

When I structre my FOI's, I use the rule of thumb that has to be used when purchasing a company and undertake "due dilligence". Those involved in this have also structred their requests under subject data access in much the same way. The results would be quite shocking, if you didn't know that information was going to be hidden for years from the outset!

Notes said "not to exist" any longer make a miraculous reapearance, copies of SC Fiules that don't match what went before the GMC are the funniest, because, as was stated when they (GMC duh) asked Davey to hand them over, it would be a bit like asking the murder suspect to hand in their weapon, it just ain't gonna happen is it!

So far we now have vital evidence that was supposedly "missing", SC Files that have been altered and provably so, forged documents and a few other things that I am not at liberty to discuss in public.

What a lucky girl I am to have had so much involvement with the criminal justice system, it taught me very well indeed, I can paginate a file for court just like that these days!

My meeting with my MP was also of huge benefit, I love my MP, straight as they come, no hidden agenda, just a decent man and he will be acting on certain issues that I raised with him, like no insurance, storing SC Files and the little matter of senior civil servant Jenny Gray and her fraudulant research.

Not in my name

2009-01-04T05:53:00.000-08:00

On New Year's Eve I finally plucked up the courage to watch Chosen

http://www.chosen.org.uk/film/

I promised myself that before I hit 50 I would address certain issues that had been kept in one of those boxes I have in my head filed under "not to open yet".

It was one of the hardest things I have ever done, what a truly outstanding film, such dignity and understanding when addressing child abuse in the Public School system.

It never ceases to amaze me how often I am accused of protecting or advocating for child abusers, yeh right, of course I am going to protect those that are guilty of tearing my own childhood to shreds and for a very long time, ensuring I made the wrong choices in my life. My survival also means that I have an inbuilt antennae where abusers are concerned and guess who makes the hair on my neck stand on end ... the first time I met him, every single instinct in me told me to get away from him - so at another level David, I know what and who you really are.

So I just want to say this to Southall and PACA, do not state anywhere that you are the child advocates, as the surviving adult I can tell you that what you do does not protect children at any level, it leaves them vulnerable and open to every predator out there.

As hard as this film is to watch, I actively encourage anyone interested in this area of child protection to watch it.

In fact it should be obligatory.

Southall appeal against striking off

2008-12-30T11:48:00.000-08:00

Now delayed until 30th March - oooh now why would that be Davey - your legal team struggling given that the transcripts were posted prior to your witnesses giving their testimony? Didn't tailor her evidence at all did she Davey ....... ? Listed for 5 days as well - bringing some "experts" in are you (PACA members by any chance ???????).

Can't wait, because your "experts" did a runner during the hearing didn't they ... why would that be then eh? Couldn't be because they were implicated could it Davey ..... ??

See you in court Dave and all of you who are looking to "save Dave" which is a euphamism for "save ourselves because he's got dirt on us" a word of advice, when you lie down with dogs you get fleas, don't say you weren't warned!

Aunty Penny may have been quiet, that doesn't mean she's redundant!

Back in the land of the living

2008-12-29T10:49:00.000-08:00

Well, very hectic Christmas, all my children, grandchildren and their relevant partners descended on the house as usual - just recovering, although I don't think that I will ever recover from our family version of pictionary, which saw me so hysterical that I had to leave the room and go to the ladies. Very very funny and completely off the wall.

Thanks to all who sent cards - my money went elsewhere as you all know!

All of you will know that I have been working with Suzanne and Lee, who came to stop on Monday, we had what can only be described as a very traumatic albeit productive evening, thankfully my girls monopolised Jamie-Lee and took her off to the cinema so she didn't hear or see any of it, I am now on the trail of the real abuser in that case, as can be seen on my shaken baby blog.

Now this is the David Southall blog, so, it would be churlish for me not to mention Dave, so there you are Dave, you have your mention - I am very much looking forward to this year Dave, things are moving along very nicely. OFSTED aren't too impressed with the SC Files you kept, neither is Ed Balls, not to mention a few others - watch this space guys and dolls, more news to come.

Our In House designer promises a New Year Toy in the not too distant future, which will be announced as soon as it has been finished - can't wait!

Must get back onto my FOI's eh!!

Happy New Year - get the Champers ready, I promise you will be opening at some point.

PS Davey, can we have Justine's CVS tape back please, you know you shouldn't have it and it would be so tiresome to have to go to the relevant authorities to get it back!

Will PACA Southall et al stand up for these children???

2008-12-17T04:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.libdemvoice.org/justice-minister-david-hanson-agrees-to-use-of-pain-on-children-in-custody-7183.html

Or will it be me, on my own again!

Justice minister agrees to use of pain on children in custody

Written by Helen Duffett on 17th December 2008 – 10:23 am

Justice minister David Hanson has agreed to the continued use of deliberately painful restraint methods in young offenders’ institutions, secure children’s homes and training centres.

Despite the deaths of two teenage boys from restraint-related injuries and a ruling in July by the Court of Appeal that current restraint rules are unlawful, such methods have been approved for use over the next six months.

An independent review was commissioned after the 2007 inquests into the boys’ deaths and was published this week. Adam Rickwood (14) and Gareth Myatt (15) both died in privately-run secure training centres.

The Guardian reports:

Rickwood’s mother, Carol Pounder, whose son died in Hassockfield secure training centre in 2004, said: “I am disgusted that force is still being allowed to be used. At home, parents are not allowed to use any kind of force against their children. Why are children in custody treated differently?”

The court of appeal ruled in July that the existing rules on restraint were unlawful and exposed children to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. The review by Andrew Williamson and Peter Smallridge (which went to ministers in June but was only published yesterday), concludes that “a degree of pain compliance may be necessary in exceptional circumstances”.

It advises that a safer system of restraint in child jails needs to be developed and this should be based primarily on holds that avoid pain.

The review adds that the use of “wrist locks”, which do involve deliberately inflicting pain, should continue to be used in exceptional circumstances.

“We understand how irreconcilable the proposal is with the UN convention on the rights of the child and how unpopular it is likely to be with the children’s commissioners, the parliamentary joint committee on human rights and others,” said Willamson and Smallridge [the report's authors].

“Our natural inclination is to support their position on the use of pain. But in this report we bear a significant responsibility to young people and to staff to keep them safe and to protect them from physical harm as much as possible.”

Their report calls for a temporary ban on the use of two particular restraint techniques - one known as the “double basket” hold and another that involves delivering a short, sharp burst of pain to the nose - to be made permanent, and their ban extended to YOIs and local authority secure children’s homes.

The Ministry of Justice said it would allow these techniques to be used for a further six months in young offender institutions while they were replaced with a safer alternative. Hanson added that £4.9m would be spent over the next two years on overhauling the system of restraint used on children held across the public and private sectors.

Official figures released earlier this year show that physical restraint was used 2,729 times on 227 children in the 12 months to June 2008.

One child quoted anonymously in the official review report described being restrained: “You feel funny, dizzy, feel like your arm’s breaking, blood goes to your head, your arm stings for about 10 or 20 minutes afterwards, numb, and you feel sick with the nose one.”

Baby P

2008-12-08T07:52:00.000-08:00

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g5JX57cC0vUNzjliKep7vfoVC9WA

So the local council spent £19,000 on a spin doctor to defend Sharon Shoesmith, yet not one penny was spent burying Baby P who had a pauper's burial (cremation) and his ashes scattered.

No lasting memorial for a short and tortured life, they were all "so sorry" that not one person put their hands in thier pockets and bought little Baby P a headstone, something his siblings in future years could visit and talk to.

How fucking wonderful the world of child protection is!

PACA Family W Bristol SCR

2008-12-08T06:47:00.000-08:00

Should have written to OFSTED about me really shouldn't you PACA, little did you know that the Safeguarding Children's Board SCRs were going to be scrutinised.

Nevermind Avon and Somerset Police Force Public Protection Unit have been enlightened about the SC File and so have OFSTED, not to mention my MP amongst others.

Funnily enough people thought it highly suspicious that you wrote to the SGCB's at the exact time Family W SCR was about to be published . .. Nice try boys, didn' work did it.

I shall sit back and watch the fallout now, because of course Davey boy and Martin care so much about children they hid a file from agencies that were investigating the family, a file that held information that would have prevented the abuse of further children.

The Baby P effect will eventually bring you all down and expose you for what you are.

Family W Serious Case Review Inadequate

2008-12-07T05:23:00.000-08:00

Oh, now I wonder why that would be eh Davey and Martin, wouldn't be because you had all the evidence ref the CVS and smothering hidden away in a God damn secret file marked SC would it?? Go on PACA support the boy, because I am going to blow this thing wide open and lets see how brave you all are then.

Details have emerged of two child abuse cases in which Bristol City Council failed to effectively deal with the fall out.

Ofsted inspectors named the local authority as one of 28 that had carried out inadequate reviews in the aftermath of serious cases of neglect or abuse in the last year, in a highly critical report published this week.

The Bristol Safeguarding Children Board has held four serious case reviews since 2006, with Ofsted branding two of them inadequate.

Serious case reviews are carried out when a child is seriously injured or dies as a result of abuse.

The Ofsted report comes in the wake of the "Baby P" scandal, when a 17-month-old baby in north London died as a result of sustained abuse.

No details of the cases were published by Ofsted but the Post has learned they involved a cases where children died and one where a mentally-ill mother was able to continue abusing three children for years because of failures in the care network.
The story of "Family W" – so called to protect the children's identities – was revealed by the Post in May.

The mother was allowed to look after her three youngest children despite previously trying to smother her eldest child and abducting a baby from a hospital. She suffered from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, which leads to parents to harm their children to attract sympathy for themselves.

A report for the Bristol Safeguarding Children Board found safeguards were not in place that could have prevented the children suffering more harm and made 12 recommendations for agencies to work more closely.

But Ofsted has now said the review was itself inadequate.

The second case involved Rio Ross, who was just 14 months old when he died in July last year of an overdose of crack cocaine, heroin and methadone.

His mother Sabrina Ross, of Wordsworth Road, Horfield, was jailed for five years in June after admitting the manslaughter of her son.

Rio was found dead clutching a cuddly toy by his mother in July last year, the morning after she had been on a crack cocaine and heroin binge.

A report by the board into Rio's death, published in July, concluded his death had been "clearly avoidable" but none of the health or social workers involved could have known he was at risk of methadone ingestion.

This report has also been branded inadequate by Ofsted.

The latest figures show there are 320 children subject to the child protection plan in Bristol, as of this month.

Of these 137 are at risk of emotional harm or abuse; 115 or neglect; 44 of physical harm or abuse and 24 of suspected sexual abuse.

Referring to the Family W case, a Bristol City Council spokesman said: "The safeguarding children board is extremely disappointed that one of its serious case reviews has been assessed as inadequate. The board wholly accepts that assessment and will be applying all the lessons learnt from it.

"However, it is important to stress the finding is a criticism of the time it took to complete the review and the specific nature and content of some of its recommendations – and not of the way partner agencies have acted in managing the care and protection arrangements of the child and other siblings since the case was investigated.

"The children involved are being properly and safely cared for."

Baby P

2008-12-06T01:25:00.000-08:00

And the points meant prizes, so they fudged the figures to get what they wanted, 3 stars kudos and more money; it's worse than this actually, the data wasn't hidden, it was destroyed, watch this space, because it's all going to come out. So PACA, now you all know the truth, are you going to call for the people responsible to be prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter/Homicide Act April 2008, or are you going to carry on pointing the finger of blame at "campaigners" - because the big question is this, Haringey came under GOSH and all its expertise in child protection, yet not one designated child protection doctor has spoken out about the fraudulant data, data they would have known was false, because they sit on the very boards that helps compile reports for the audits, their inaction then left many children unprotected, they kept their mouths shut because their jobs were more important than telling the world what was really going on.

So PACA members, which one of you is brave enough to take a stand and stop the abuse?

Times

Baby P council gave false data, Ofsted claims

Laura Dixon

Haringey Council misled Ofsted inspectors and provided inaccurate data on its child protection assessments during the period that Baby P was being abused, according to the organisation’s head.

Christine Gilbert said that officials in Haringey, the London borough whose social services team visited Baby P 60 times before his death, were able to “hide behind” false data that resulted in the agency being rated as good. Inspectors later found that managers had said assessments were completed when they had not been, and that they were often made with the parent or guardian in the room, when they could be the person harming the child.

“I think if the grades that we gave last December gave a false assurance we have to take some responsibility for that,” Ms Gilbert told The Guardian. “That’s one of the reasons that I’m saying we’re looking again at our proposal [to reform inspection]. We need to do all we can from our position so I’m not washing my hands of it.”

She admitted that child protection agencies across the country could be failing children and misleading Ofsted because the assessment methods were open to manipulation. Among proposed reforms are spot checks and rolling reviews

Suzanne Holdsworth

2008-12-02T03:43:00.000-08:00

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2008/12/02/toddler-murder-denied-84229-22384967/

Toddler murder denied

Dec 2 2008 by Gareth Lightfoot, Evening Gazette

A MURDER trial has heard of a mother's shame at leaving her two-year-old son home alone days before he died, allegedly at the hands of his babysitter.

Clare Fisher, 24, gave evidence at Teesside Crown Court as the retrial of an unpaid babysitter accused of murdering toddler Kyle Taylor began yesterday.

Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, 38, denies murdering the tot, also known as Kyle Fisher.

A jury heard how Holdsworth was accused of losing her temper and killing the child by banging his head against banisters in her home.

He was taken ill on July 21, 2004, and died in hospital from brain swelling two days later.

Opening the three-week trial to a jury of eight men and four women, prosecutor Andrew Robertson QC said: “We submit it will become apparent how all the answers point to only one possible conclusion - namely, sadly, that Kyle was killed by this defendant by her forcefully banging his head against the banisters at her own home.

“This was a significant brain injury caused by blunt force.

“This fatal injury must have occurred while he was alone with her.

“We do not suggest that Mrs Holdsworth intended to kill Kyle. The only inference is that she intended to cause him really serious harm.”

The barrister said Kyle was “fine and bubbly” when he was taken to Holdsworth’s then home on Millpool Close, Hartlepool, at about 10.20pm.

At 11.34pm, Holdsworth dialled 999. Paramedics found Kyle dying in the house.

Mr Robertson said Kyle’s unusual bruises to the head matched the banisters at Holdsworth’s home. He said a pathologist suggested Kyle had been gripped and had his head banged several times against the banisters.

He alleged Holdsworth also assaulted Kyle the night before causing less serious bruises.

He told the court Holdsworth put pressure on Miss Fisher, who lived opposite her on Troutpool Close, Hartlepool.

He claimed Holdsworth manipulated Miss Fisher with the prospect of revealing to others that the young mum had left Kyle home alone four days before he was fatally injured.

Jurors heard she left him in his room with a broom wedged under his door handle while she went out to a nightclub.

“I know I shouldn’t have done it. It was the most stupid thing I’ve ever done in my life. That’s the hardest thing I’ve got to live with,” Miss Fisher said.

She denied leaving him alone for long periods at other times, and claimed Holdsworth once suggested leaving him alone.

The Crown say that as they waited at the hospital Holdsworth warned her they would be investigated and constructed a series of lies and persuaded Clare to go along with them.

She said she went along with it because she’d left him alone days earlier and feared he would be taken into care.

Miss Fisher, 19 at the time Kyle died, said it was not easy becoming a single mother at 17.

Under cross-examination by defence barrister Andrew Thomas QC, she admitted being neglectful and living in a “tip”, but insisted: “I would never harm Kyle. I loved Kyle more than anything.”

She said her boy told everyone he loved Holdsworth. She said she was tired and run-down, but not suffering from depression. Her moods were affected by a thyroid operation and she was on medication.

Mr Thomas referred to incidents where Kyle needed medical treatment for injuries. Miss Fisher said he had falls.

A week before Kyle died, a doctor noted he had “a lot of bumps and bruises”. Miss Fisher said nothing was said to her. A pathologist found bruises on Kyle’s head and body, including chest bruises “consistent with rough handling”, said Mr Thomas

He said Kyle had older bruises and had “an awful lot of injuries” in the weeks leading up to his death.

She denied failing to attend medical appointments, refusing offers of referrals or not wanting to take Kyle to see doctors.

When interviewed by police Holdsworth, now of Boggart Hill Drive, Seacroft, Leeds, admitted telling lies - she said to protect Miss Fisher.

Proceeding

PACA David Southall and the letter to Laming

2008-12-01T14:50:00.000-08:00

So PACA want to be listened to, they believe what they have to contribute is of significance, this the group that condone Southall and Samuels creating storing and removing files marked SC that weren't available to any other agency in relation to some child protection cases. Fantastic, what stalwarts of child protection they all are. And the OFSTED report proves beyond any doubt that systemic failings that relate soley to points mean prizes (money and kudos) were the single biggest contributing factor in Baby P's death. Not any "campaign". These so called child protectors who pose as PACA are the very reason baby P died, they are the ones that deem that their careers and how they are perceived by the public are more important than the life of a small child. They make me sick, all of them.

Don't take my word for it read it for yourselves it is the likes of the PACA paeds who should never ever work in child protection self interest being their rule of thumb :

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/publications/haringeyreview/docs/Ofsted%20Joint%20Area%20Review.pdf

Main findings
7.
The main findings of this inspection, described below, point to significant weakness in safeguarding and child protection arrangements in Haringey. They also show that the arrangements for the leadership and management of safeguarding by the local authority and partner agencies in Haringey are inadequate.
􀂃
There is insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight of safeguarding of children and young people from Haringey by elected members, senior officers and others within the strategic partnership.
􀂃
There is a managerial failure to ensure full compliance with some requirements of the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, such as the lack of written feedback to those making referrals to social care services.
􀂃
The local safeguarding children board (LSCB) fails to provide sufficient challenge to its member agencies. This is further compounded by the lack of an independent chairperson.
􀂃
Social care, health and police authorities do not communicate and collaborate routinely and consistently to ensure effective assessment, planning and review of cases of vulnerable children and young people.
􀂃
Too often assessments of children and young people, in all agencies, fail to identify those who are at immediate risk of harm and to address their needs.
􀂃
The quality of front line practice across all agencies is inconsistent and not effectively monitored by line managers. 3
4
􀂃
Child protection plans are generally poor.
􀂃
Arrangements for scrutinising performance across the council and the partnership are insufficiently developed and fail to provide systematic support and appropriate challenge to both managers and practitioners.
􀂃
The standard of record keeping on case files across all agencies is inconsistent and often poor.
􀂃
There is too much reliance on quantitative data to measure social care, health, and police performance, without sufficiently robust analysis of the underlying quality of service provision and practice.

Baby P findings and the retention of SC Files

2008-12-01T09:12:00.000-08:00

Now did the creating and retention of files marked SC lead to the further abuse of children in the case of Family W? Yes it did and now that all SCR's are being reviewed David and Martin, you had better believe that I have alerted those with that responsibility as to what you did in that case and were found guilty of.

Baby P report: The key findings

Baby P suffered 50 injuries before his death last year

An independent report into the death of Baby P has delivered a damning verdict on the services provided by north London's Haringey Council.

The 17-month-old boy died after months of abuse despite being on the council's child protection register.

Children's Secretary Ed Balls said the shortcomings included:

Failure to identify children at immediate risk of harm and to act on evidence.

This included a failure to talk to children believed to be at risk

Agencies acting in isolation from one another without effective co-ordination

Poor gathering, recording and sharing of information

Insufficient supervision by senior management

Insufficient challenge by the Safeguarding Children Board to council members and frontline staff

Over-dependence on performance data which was not always accurate

Poor child protection plans

Failure to implement the recommendations of the Victoria Climbie inquiry, which heavily criticised it five years ago.

Baby P, PACA and the hangers on

2008-12-01T08:28:00.001-08:00

Toilet Blog owner and PACA can stop all their pontificating about how campaigners against false allegations of child abuse have caused baby P to die, because the reality is that Haringey, from the top to the bottom was dysfunctional in its approach to child protection and I want to know why Sukanta Banerjee who sat on the Safeguarding Children Board, whose absolute duty it was to protect Baby P, has not been held accountable yet, still what can you expect from a doctor who seemingly has had no training for the last 4 years?

Haringey PCT and the charges I intend to have bought

2008-12-01T04:10:00.000-08:00

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/236/2006236.pdf

Corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide

1 The offence

(1) An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way
in which its activities are managed or organised—
(a) causes a person’s death, and
(b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the
organisation to the deceased.

(2) The organisations to which this section applies are—
(a) a corporation;
(b) a department or other body listed in Schedule 1;
(c) a police force (as defined in section 12(1)).
In this Act “corporation” does not include a corporation sole but includes any
body corporate wherever incorporated.

(3) An organisation is guilty of an offence under this section only if the way in
which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a
substantial element in the breach referred to in subsection (1).

(4) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) “relevant duty of care” has the meaning given by section 2, read with
sections 3 to 7;

Corporate Manslaughter an 2 d Corporate Homicide Bill

(b) a breach of a duty of care by an organisation is a “gross” breach if the
conduct alleged to amount to a breach of that duty falls far below what
can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances;

(c) “senior management”, in relation to an organisation, means the persons
who play significant roles in—
(i) the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial
part of its activities are to be managed or organised, or
(ii) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial
part of those activities.

(5) The offence under this section is called—

(a) corporate manslaughter, in so far as it is an offence under the law of
England and Wales or Northern Ireland;
(b) corporate homicide, in so far as it is an offence under the law of
Scotland.

(6) An organisation that is guilty of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(7) The offence of corporate homicide is indictable only in the High Court of
Justiciary.

Relevant duty of care

2 Meaning of “relevant duty of care”

(1) A “relevant duty of care”, in relation to an organisation, means any of the
following duties owed by it under the law of negligence—
(a) a duty owed to its employees or to other persons working for the
organisation or performing services for it;
(b) a duty owed as occupier of premises;
(c) a duty owed in connection with—
(i) the supply by the organisation of goods or services (whether for
consideration or not),
(ii) the carrying on by the organisation of any construction or
maintenance operations,
(iii) the carrying on by the organisation of any other activity on a
commercial basis, or
(iv) the use or keeping by the organisation of any plant, vehicle or
other thing.

(2) Subsection (1) is subject to sections 3 to 7.

(3) For the purposes of this Act, whether a particular organisation owes a duty of
care to a particular individual is a question of law.

The judge must make any findings of fact necessary to decide that question.

Dr Sukanta Banerjee Baby P and the questions that need asking

2008-12-01T01:17:00.000-08:00

Dr Al-Zayyat insisted she was not warned of any child protection
concerns about the toddler before she examined him and said he was bruised and seemed 'miserable'.
Dr Sukanta Banerjee was the designated child protection paediatrician, it was her duty to ensure that all agencies were aware of the child protection concerns. I know that Banerjee had a telephone conversation with Al-Zayyat the day that Baby P was examined by her and that conversation happened post the examination, so, the questions ares these, if Banerjee and Al-Zayyat were in contact and Al-Zayyat had no idea that there were CP concerns, then who phoned who? Why did they have a conversation? What was the content of that conversation and how is it that the designated child protection doctor, who sat on the safeguarding children board, who isn't and hasn't been on the RCPCH A list for her CPD points for the last four years, did not inform all parties involved with Baby P that not only was he on the CP register, but at the time Al-Zayyat conducted an assessment for behavioural problems, was still the subject of a section 47 investigation?

Despite the actions of David Southall

2008-11-29T02:44:00.000-08:00

Today my beautiful twins are 18, all my children and grandchildren and my partner of 17 years are here today to celebrate , we are a family, that despite the terrible actions taken by David Southall in 1999 when he lied to the police and set into motion a chain of events that deeply affected my children, we came through and are stronger than ever.

It's no coincidence, that one of the songs that was "our" song, my children and I, has re-emerged in the charts, Snow Patrol's Run, covered by Leona Lewis, outstanding and so poignant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfPaNeYjeDs

Snow Patrol - Run Lyrics

I'll sing it one last time for you
Then we really have to go
You've been the only thing that's right
In all I've done

And I can barely look at you
But every single time I do
I know we'll make it anywhere
Away from here

Light up, light up
As if you have a choice
Even if you cannot hear my voice
I'll be right beside you dear

Louder, louder
And we'll run for our lives
I can hardly speak I understand
Why you can't raise your voice to say

To think I might not see those eyes
Makes it so hard not to cry
And as we say our long goodbye
I nearly do

Light up, light up
As if you have a choice
Even if you cannot hear my voice
I'll be right beside you dear

Louder, louder
And we'll run for our lives
I can hardly speak I understand
Why you can't raise your voice to say

Slower, slower
We don't have time for that
All I want is to find an easier way
To get out of our little heads

Have heart my dear
We're bound to be afraid
Even if it's just for a few days
Making up for all this mess

Light up, light up
As if you have a choice
Even if you cannot hear my voice
I'll be right beside you dear

And the first head to roll in the Baby P case is ....

2008-11-25T09:36:00.000-08:00

Funny that, Drs Ruby Shwartz and Mary Rossiter didn't even get a slap on the wrist for their part in Victoria Climbie's demise.

Now then, Haringey, 3 stars? Really, 3 stars that can only be achieved if all the CP stuff is in order and on whose directions were certain things not done so as "not to leave a paper trail"?

The other very odd thing about all of this is that the chair of Haringey PCT also sits as a senior magistrate in Family Court Hearings, conflict of interest maybe?

More to come, learn PACA and toilet blog poster and owner, Baby P died as a direct result of politics and money, you're all so good at this that the whistleblowers won't touch any of you with a barge pole, they don't trust you because of your agendas, leaks and announcements, you're all so way off the mark it's a joke, child protectors? Really, why is it then that not one paed goes out at night trying to help the child prostitutes?? Too comfy tucked up in their warm sanctimonious beds that's why.

GMC Reference Number 6058093

Given Names Sabah

Surname Al-Zayyat

Gender Woman

Registration Status Suspended

More Details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary Medical Qualification

MB BS 1982 University of Punjab (Pakistan)

Full Registration Date 22 Sep 2004

Specialist Register entry date This doctor is not in the Specialist Register
GP Register entry date This doctor is not in the GP Register
Information for Employers Details

Baby P what was going on in Haringey?

2008-11-22T04:33:00.000-08:00

Professor **** ***** has been appointed Programme Director of Race for Health, a PCT programme designed to deliver real improvements in the health outcomes of black and minority ethnic people.***** joins the programme from her position as Director of Nursing at Haringey Teaching PCT.

With ***** ****** chairing the programme, Race for Health now enjoys strong leadership from people working at the front-line of NHS
.

The Director of Nursing, who sat on the Safeguarding Children Board in Haringey was drafted in after Victoria Climbie died, the child protection lead nurse was black, the child protection paediatrician was Asian. Yes they didn't want another Victoria, another Black child dead and the white baby has paid the price.

Did anyone understand that "we don't want another Victoria" didn't equate to another black child, it meant "we don't want another dead child no matter what ethnicity".

My insiders (yes PACA and toilet blog owner, I have those who work in child protection who tell me everything) are telling me some very disturbing information regarding this case and the review. Dr Al Zayat is being made the scapegoat, she is the only professional involved in the case to publicly express remorse and any thought for Baby P, the rest are passing the buck, make no mistake it is the "players" in Child Protection who are going to make sure she is the head to roll, well not if I have anything to do with it.

When you have racial diversity then it must be reflected in those you employ, that means you have every race creed and colour employed to help to identify where a child might be at risk of harm, with those very people communicating how each of the ethnically diverse groups live their lives. It is my opinion, and it will be unpopular and not PC, that baby P is dead beacuse of Climbie, not despite of Climbie.

A child is a child is a child, colour is not something that should be considered when it comes to child protection, every child has the right to be protected from abuse.

It is precisely these sort of mad policies that allows groups like the BNP to grow, it creates racism.

Baby P, the designated child protection doctor what is the truth?

2008-11-22T00:35:00.000-08:00

Questions that need asking.

Why is it that the named doctor for child protection in Haringey is not mentioned in any reports, media or otherwise given that in December 2006, child protection concerns were first raised whilst Baby P was in hospital?

Why is it the named paediatrician for child protection has not been on the RCPCH's A list for CPD for the last 4 years?

Why is it that only one named doctor for child protection is now covering both Haringey and GOSH, making an already bad situation even more dangerous?

Why is it that the government insist that local authorities pay back their overspends in children's services, reducing the amount of available cash for the following year, which in turn places more children at risk of harm?

Haringey has a high level of lone parents and the East of Haringey is one of the most deprived areas in Britain, in the top 10. It is ethnically diverse and has a high number of asylum seekers, all of which add to the problem of careful monitoring. 5,500 families/people are acommodated temporarily and 1,300 were accepted as homeless by Haringey Council. It is vital that there is more funding and training of professionals working in areas that have a hugely complex makeup.

Is Dr Al Zayat being made the scapegoat?

2008-11-19T04:38:00.001-08:00

You can't date fractures/breaks

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?View=Full&ID=12005003632

Let's look at the facts and ask the questions nobody else will ask?

Dr Al Zayat has an unblemished career, she is a competent paediatrician, any member of the public would spot paralysis, so how could a competent doctor miss it?
Baby P's mother lied to social workers about "going away to visit an uncle" to prevent any social worker visiting when baby P had two black eyes, yet we are asked to believe that she attended a health check knowing he was paralysed and had had a tooth punched out?
You can't accurately date fractures or breaks, where the injuries dated to tie in with all three defendants being present on that one day?

Without doubt baby P suffered the most horrendous abuse, however it is becoming convenient to certain quarters for the paediatrician to take the blame, it certainly helps PACA et al's views doesn't it and it most certainly assists social services and the police to pass this buck given that DR Al Zayat had no information regarding the fact that there was, at the point at which she examined baby P, an ongoing police investigation under section 47 for assault against baby P's mother.

Perhaps it was the police dropping the case that was the catalyst for poor baby P's demise, just maybe the boyfriend thought he would be removed along with all the other children and out of his life, only to find that wasn't going to happen?????

It's worth noting that one of the WHITE paediatricians in the case of Victoria Climbie was not held responsible by the GMC or anyone else for that matter, the other WHITE South African paediatrician, who saw little black Victoria left the country!

Following through Southall & Gornall

2008-11-18T05:51:00.000-08:00

After taking legal advice from lawyers who specialise in contempt, I have now made formal complaints to Ministers and Judges regarding the posting of the GMC transcripts of Southall's GMC hearings on the internet prior to any witness being called. My guess is the GMC won't raise this issue at any appeal because they should have done something about it and didn't - so we shall see what happens, won't we PACA et al!

PACA, GORNALL, SOUTHALL AVOIDING THE TRUTH

2008-11-17T04:34:00.000-08:00

Dr Southall’s long battle is not over yet. Last December, in a case that
has caused further outrage among paediatricians, he was struck off the medical register on the say-so of a mother who claimed he had accused her of murder during a formal child-protection interview, conducted 10 years earlier.

Jonathan Gornall and PACA on David Southall. Uhhhm NO, Secret Files Marked SC, files that were not available to anyone else! Files that were withheld from Bristol, that action caused the abuse of a child from Family W.

It's interesting to note that PACA and Johnny boy avoid this subject completely isn't it!

HIGHLY RELEVANT DON'T YOU THINK GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENED IN HARRINGEY?

FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL (PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT)

Tuesday 4 December 2007

Regent’s Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN

Chairman: Dr Jacqueline Mitton

Panel Members:

Mrs Leora Lloyd
Mr Alexander McFarlane
Mr Arnold Simanowitz

Legal Assessor: Mr Robin Hay

CASE OF:

SOUTHALL, David Patrick

(DAY THIRTY-THREE)

MR RICHARD TYSON of counsel, instructed by Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse, solicitors, appeared on behalf of the Complainants.

MR KIERAN COONAN QC and MR JOHN JOLLIFFE of counsel, instructed by Messrs Hempsons, solicitors, appeared on behalf of Dr Southall, who was present.

(Transcript of the shorthand notes of T. A. Reed & Co.
Tel No: 01992 465900)

I N D E X

Page No

DETERMINATION 1

SUBMISSIONS AS TO IMMEDIATE SANCTION

MR TYSON 11
MR COONAN 12

LEGAL ADVICE 12

DETERMINATION 13

THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. I am now going to read the Panel’s determination.

Dr Southall:

The Panel has considered this case in accordance with the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988.

The Panel has heard that from 1982 you were a senior lecturer and subsequently a consultant paediatrician based at the Royal Brompton Hospital, London. From 1992 you were Professor of Paediatrics at the University of Keele and also a Consultant Paediatrician at the North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke on Trent.

In January 1998 you were contacted by local authority social workers who had concerns about the welfare of Child M2. You were told that there were similarities between current events in Child M2’s life (including apparent suicide threats) and events in the life of his elder brother, Child M1, who in June 1996, when aged 10, had died by hanging. You gave the social workers certain advice. On 29 January 1998 the court made an emergency protection order. As a consequence Child M2 was removed from his parents’ care.

On 2 February 1998 you wrote what you described as a preliminary report, following which on 3 February 1998 the local authority applied for an Interim Care Order. On 17 March 1998 you were instructed by the local authority to prepare a report for the care proceedings. Your report was to cover both Child M2 and his family. For the purpose of preparing your report you interviewed Mrs M on 27 April 1998. The Panel has found proved that during the course of this interview you accused Mrs M of drugging Child M1 and then murdering him by hanging. This was done in an accusatorial and intimidating manner.

The possibility of M1 being the victim of murder had not been raised until you became involved. At the inquest the coroner had recorded in his verdict that he had considered suicide and accident but in the event he returned an open verdict. It is apparent that no evidence was presented at the inquest to suggest that murder was a possibility. Despite the verdict, you formed the belief that the circumstances of M1’s death needed to be investigated by you.

The Panel is extremely concerned by these facts. You are a registered medical practitioner and in that capacity you were instructed by Shropshire County Council to write an expert report for the court in care proceedings based on the papers that had been provided to you. The letter of instruction made it clear that it was important that the parties had confidence in your independent status.

Your action in accusing Mrs M of murdering Child M1 was inappropriate, added to her distress as a bereaved person and was, in the circumstances, an abuse of your professional position. By acting in an accusatorial and intimidating manner you failed to treat Mrs M politely and considerately and did not respect her dignity. This behaviour was also inappropriate and caused distress to Mrs M.

In some situations doctors have responsibilities not only to patients but also to third parties. Although Mrs M was not your patient you interviewed her in your capacity as a registered medical practitioner and you had a clear obligation to treat her as you should treat a patient, that is politely and considerately and respecting her dignity. The manner in which you conducted the interview, questioned and directly accused Mrs M was incompatible with your position as a doctor. The Panel regards your behaviour towards Mrs M as a very serious instance of misconduct.

In March 1989 Dr Dinwiddie, a consultant paediatrician at Great Ormond Street Hospital, referred Child H to you for investigation and advice. In September 1989 and again in March 1990 Child H was admitted to the Royal Brompton Hospital where his breathing was monitored. In March 1990 you proposed to the parents a home monitoring and care regime. However, on about 22 March 1990 Child H’s parents informed you that they no longer wanted you to be involved in the management of Child H’s care.

On 22 March 1990 you wrote to Dr Dinwiddie to the effect that the parents were not acting in Child H’s best long term interests, that they liked the idea of him having a rare illness, that you were suspicious of their motives and that you viewed the long term prognosis with great concern. You copied and sent this letter to an unnamed Consultant Paediatrician at the Royal Gwent Hospital even though no-one there was currently involved in Child H’s care or had been involved in the past. The letter contained sensitive and confidential information. Your action was inappropriate and in breach of the confidentiality owed by you to Child H and his parents.

In the General Medical Council’s Guidance, Professional Conduct and Discipline: Fitness to Practise (March 1989), which was in force at that time, paragraphs 79-82 cover the subject of professional confidence. It is a doctor’s duty, subject to the exceptions listed in Paragraph 81, to strictly observe the rule of professional secrecy by refraining from disclosing voluntarily to any third party information about a patient which he has learnt directly or indirectly in his professional capacity. None of the exceptions applied in this case because the letter was sent to an unidentified recipient.

In relation to Child D and Child H, you created, or caused to be created, an “S/C” File for each child wherein certain original medical hospital records relating to the children were then placed by you or on your behalf. These medical records are not elsewhere in the children’s hospital medical records. The placing of the original medical records in “S/C” Files damaged the integrity of the children’s hospital medical records and caused the items concerned to be inaccessible to others involved in the medical care of the children at that time or in the future.

You have a responsibility and duty as a doctor to ensure that medical records are readily available to colleagues as and when required. Failure to do so can result in serious consequences. Your action in this respect was not in the best interests of either Child D or Child H. It was inappropriate and an abuse of your professional position.

You treated Child H at the Royal Brompton Hospital, and there created an “S/C” file for the child. The “S/C” file contained original Royal Brompton Hospital medical records relating to Child H. When you moved to the North Staffordshire Hospital in 1992 you took, or caused to be taken from the Royal Brompton Hospital, the S/C File relating to Child H. Your action was not in the best interests of Child H. It was inappropriate and an abuse of your professional position.

The damage to the integrity to the child’s hospital medical records was compounded by transferring them to a hospital at which the child was not being and had not been treated.

The Panel takes a serious view of your conduct in relation to the S/C files over a considerable period of time.

In 2004 the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) found you guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to the Clark case and placed a condition on your registration for a period of three years. The events in that case took place in 2000 and also concerned child protection issues. The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals appealed the decision of the PCC. In his judgment given on 14 April 2005 Mr Justice Collins held that that the PCC’s decision to impose conditions was not unduly lenient but that the condition imposed was not sufficient to prevent any involvement by you in child protection work. Moreover, the PCC should have directed that a resumed hearing take place towards the end of the three year term. He substituted more tightly drawn conditions for that originally ordered. A Fitness to Practise Panel reviewed the case on 23 July 2007 and determined that you had complied with the conditions. It directed that the period of conditional registration should be extended for a further period of twelve months.

The events that gave rise to the Clark case occurred after the matters before this Panel. These events and the consequent finding of serious professional misconduct have been disregarded by this Panel when considering the question of serious professional misconduct before it.

In February 2007 the Attorney General set in hand a review of cases in which you had acted as a prosecution witness. This was with particular reference to the S/C Files. The report is yet to be published. The Panel has also heard that the South Wales police are investigating the treatment of Mrs H’s son.

The Panel has concluded that any police investigation and the Attorney General’s review are not relevant to its consideration of the question of serious professional misconduct, nor indeed to any sanction.

It has been accepted on your behalf that, in the light of the findings of fact there is evidence before the Panel from which it could conclude that you are guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The Panel has found that your conduct has fallen well below the standard expected of a registered medical practitioner in a number of respects. It therefore finds you guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The Panel next considered what action, if any, to take in relation to your registration.

The Panel has borne in mind throughout its deliberations that any sanction imposed must be proportionate and appropriate, and that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive but to protect patients and the public interest. The public interest includes not only the protection of patients, but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The public interest can also include a doctor’s return to safe practice.

The Panel has balanced the public interest against your own interests. It has taken into account the Indicative Sanctions Guidance published by the General Medical Council. The Panel is aware that the question of what, if any, sanction to impose is a matter for the Panel, exercising its own independent judgment.

The Panel has given consideration to the submissions made by both Counsel. Mr Tyson, on behalf of the Complainants has submitted that the only appropriate sanction in this case is that of erasure. Mr Coonan, on your behalf, has submitted that an order placing tight restrictions on your registration would be sufficient.

The Panel is in no doubt that it is necessary to take action against your registration and that the sanction imposed must mark strong disapproval of your behaviour. Given the serious nature of your misconduct the Panel has determined that to conclude this case without making any direction in respect of your registration or to issue a reprimand would not be sufficient.

The Panel next considered whether it would be sufficient to impose conditions on your registration.

The Panel is aware that you are a paediatrician of international renown and that you have contributed significantly to the field of paediatrics and child protection.

The Panel recognises that your misconduct has arisen as a result of the child protection work that you were undertaking at that time and that your actions, although clearly misguided, may have been motivated by a concern to protect children. There is no evidence before the Panel to demonstrate that your actions have caused direct harm to patients or their families other than in cases involving child protection. Since your reinstatement in 2001, following suspension by your Trust, you have not worked in child protection. You have complied with the conditions to which your registration has been subject.

The Panel has been provided with testimonials indicating that you are held in high regard by your professional colleagues. The testimonials highlight your clinical skills and commitment to the welfare of children. They also indicate that you have undertaken important ground-breaking research, which has influenced how the medical care of babies and children has been managed both in the United Kingdom and internationally.

The Panel has heard oral evidence from Dr Parke, a consultant paediatrician at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire and from Dr Bridson, a recently retired Consultant Paediatrician and Chairman of the Trustees of Child Health Advocacy International, a charity founded by you. Dr Parke has given evidence about your outstanding clinical ability and your compliance with the conditions currently on your registration. He also informed the Panel that numerous letters of support and thanks from your patients have been received. Both witnesses confirmed that they were aware of the findings of fact made by this Panel. Nevertheless they remain confident in your clinical abilities. The Panel has also considered carefully the evidence given by Dr Chipping, Medical Director at the time, to the Professional Conduct Committee in August 2004 and her testimonial dated 16 November 2006. She holds in high regard your clinical skills and the contribution you have been making to the paediatric team at North Staffordshire Hospital.

The Panel has noted the determination of the Professional Conduct Committee in August 2004, the judgment of Mr Justice Collins in April 2005 and the determination of the Fitness to Practise Panel at the review in July 2007.

The Panel has been mindful of Lord Bingham’s well known observation in the case of Bolton v The Law Society, adopted in the case of Dr Gupta, as noted in the Indicative Sanctions Guidance:-

“A profession’s most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires………The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of an individual member……… Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is part of the price.”

The Panel also had in mind Lord Hoffman’s judgment in Bijl v General Medical Council [2002] Lloyds Med Rep 60, in which he said:-

“The Committee was rightly concerned with public confidence in the profession and its procedures for dealing with doctors who lapse from professional standards. But this should not be carried to the extent if feeling it necessary to sacrifice the career of an otherwise competent and useful doctor who presents no danger to the public in order to satisfy a demand for blame and punishment……..”

Having considered all the evidence that is before it, the Panel accepts that were your registration to be restricted by tightly drawn conditions, patients would be unlikely to be at risk. However, in considering the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour the Panel has concluded that the imposition of conditions would not reflect the gravity of your misconduct. Your multiple failings over an extended period caused the Panel great concern. Furthermore, the Panel is influenced by the fact that, although the events in the current case predate those in the Clark case, there are now two instances where without justification you have accused a parent of murdering their child. The Panel has therefore determined that to impose conditions on your registration, no matter how tightly drawn, would not be sufficient to protect the public interest.

The Panel next considered whether a period of suspension would be appropriate. It has carefully balanced the public interest against your own interests. It has taken into account the aggravating features of this case and the mitigation that has been advanced by you. The Panel is particularly concerned by your lack of insight into the multiplicity of your failings over a long period. The Panel is aware that an apparent lack of remorse should not result in a higher sanction but it has noted that notwithstanding the findings of fact you have not either directly or through your counsel offered an apology to any of the Complainants for your actions nor has there has been any acknowledgement by you as to your failings.

In all the circumstances the Panel has concluded that you have deep seated attitudinal problems and that your misconduct is so serious that it is fundamentally incompatible with your continuing to be a registered medical practitioner.

The Panel therefore directs that your name be erased from the Medical Register. The Panel is satisfied that this is necessary in the public interest for the maintenance of confidence in the profession and in the interests of declaring and upholding proper standards of professional conduct and behaviour.

The effect of the foregoing direction is that, unless you exercise your right of appeal, your name will be erased from the register 28 days from the date on which notice of this direction is deemed to have been served upon you.

Having reached a decision that your registration should be erased, the Panel is minded to consider, in accordance with Section 38 of the Medical Act 1983 as amended, whether to direct that your registration be suspended forthwith.

The Panel will invite submissions from both Counsel on this matter. Mr Tyson?
MR TYSON: Madam, can I draw the Panel’s attention to Rule 32 of the old rules. Rule 32 says:

“If in any case the Committee determine to suspend the registration of a practitioner or to erase his name from the Register, the Committee shall then also consider and determine whether it is necessary for the protection of members of the public or would be in the best interests of the practitioner to order that his registration shall be suspended forthwith”.

Madam, in view of the Panel’s findings, I seek to apply the same reasoning that you have given for erasure of the practitioner as it being necessary for the protection of the interests of the public or in the best interests of the practitioner that his registration should be suspended forthwith. I rely on the same reasons that you have given earlier to support immediate suspension.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Coonan?

MR COONAN: Madam, of course the reasoning that you have set forth in relation to the decisions supporting a direction to erase is not necessarily coterminous with your jurisdiction in respect of section 38 and Rule 32. I point to a number of features which, in our submission, bear directly upon this matter. May I just collect them together. First of all, as you have said and it is undoubtedly correct, there is no criticism of Dr Southall’s general competence as a medical practitioner. He has been practising in general paediatrics at the North Staffordshire Hospital up to most recent times, but, as you know, he has been here for the most recent period. Apart from that, he has been practising in that regard with full support and without any degree of questioning or criticism.

Secondly, again as you have observed, the criticisms which have arisen have arisen in the context of child protection only. He has not practised in the field now in child protection for many years. There is no possibility at all and no wish on his part to practise in child protection, even should the decision of erasure stand in respect of the interregnum period with which we are concerned in respect of the operation of section 38. Our submission is that from the standpoint of public protection, which is an aspect of the public interest, there is no need – and I stress that – to impose immediate suspension.

In terms of the wider issue of public interest, that is a matter of valued judgment for the Panel as to whether it is necessary for Dr Southall to cease practice altogether as from today without allowing him a period of grace until the sanction of erasure should take effect. Again, we say, despite what you have said in your reasoning, there is no need for him to be immediately suspended.

Thirdly, in relation to the interests of the practitioner, we say there is no interests relating to him that requires an immediate suspension, largely because he is not practising in the area in which you have found him to be wanting.

For those reasons, we say that it is not necessary for the intervening period for an additional sanction of immediate suspension to take effect. That is the way I put it.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Coonan. I am going to ask the Legal Assessor for legal advice for the Panel on this matter.

THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: When the Panel directs erasure as the sanction, it has the power under section 38 of the Medical Act 1983 to impose an immediate order to suspend the doctor’s registration. The power is at the discretion of the Panel based on the facts of the case. It is a matter for the Panel members’ judgment. The Panel should be satisfied that such an order is necessary for the protection of the public or is in the public interest.

I remind the Panel that the public interest includes not the only protection of patients, but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and upholding proper standards of conduct. The Panel should balance the public interest, which may require the imposition of an immediate sanction, against the doctor’s interest which may be to enable him to practise pending an appeal.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does either counsel have any comment on the legal advice we have received?

MR TYSON: No, madam.

MR COONAN: No, madam.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Panel will go into private to consider this matter. Can I ask all strangers to withdraw, please.

BY DIRECTION OF THE CHAIR, STRANGERS WITHDREW, AND THE PANEL DELIBERATED IN CAMERA

STRANGERS HAVING BEEN READMITTED

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr Southall,

Having determined that your name should be erased from the Medical Register, the Panel has considered in accordance with section 38 of the Medical Act 1983, as amended, whether your registration should be suspended forthwith. Mr Tyson has submitted on behalf of the complainants that immediate suspension is necessary in the public interest. Mr Coonan has submitted on your behalf that suspension forthwith is not necessary as patients are not at risk.

The matters identified in the determination, which necessitated the erasure of your name from the Medical Register, are of serious concern. The Panel has therefore determined that it is necessary in the public interest that your registration should be made subject to suspension with immediate effect.

This means that your registration will be suspended from today. The substantive direction for erasure, as already announced, will take effect 28 days from today, unless you lodge an appeal in the interim. If you appeal, the immediate suspension will remain in force until the substantive direction takes effect.
That concludes this case.

Baby P what about his siblings?

2008-11-16T01:57:00.000-08:00

I woke up this morning to be confronted with ever more lurid headlines regarding Haringey County Council and the death of Baby P, Baby P has now become a cause celebre, his death somehow lost in the political ping pong game the media and politicians are playing with circumstances surrounding his sad and all too predictable death . Anyone interested should research SCRs on each of the county council's websites and shamefully, he isn't alone, the only difference is that Baby P died in Climbie land. I hope the whistleblowing social worker isn't being paid for these stories!

What is so tragic about this entire scenario is the fact that there are five other children , one just a babe, but the others old enough to be aware of what is happening. I cannot imagine what it must be like for these children suffering the pain of reading or hearing about their brother and their mother on a day to day basis. I dread to think of the damage that is being done, yet, I see no mention anywhere about them, or their need to be protected from this onslaught. I don't suppose for one moment anyone has thought about the fact that this family are actually identifiable to anyone living locally and with a little digging I have found their names, which means anyone can.

If the media really want to help, then the story I would publish is not the Baby P case, but the one about the amount of children currently in care who are missing, off the radar, I will start to publish the facts on a seperate blog to this one, the forgotten children who could be dead.

In the meantime, my personal axe to grind on these issues (SCRs) are two Staffordshire cases, one where the child died as a result of being restrained at Stoke Heath young offenders unit, the other a child who died as a result of taking butane gas (aspiration) at a care home, both 15 years old and dead.

If any of Baby P's siblings ever read this blog because they are researching the case (one is old enough to do so), I would like to say to all of you that I am truly sorry that you have become the forgotten victims in this terrible tragedy and that I and others are fully aware of the effect this will be having on you. You are not forgotten by everyone.

Jonathan Gornall PACA and a defence of Southall!

2008-11-15T02:22:00.000-08:00

Dr Southall’s long battle is not over yet. Last December, in a case that
has caused further outrage among paediatricians, he was struck off the medical register on the say-so of a mother who claimed he had accused her of murder during a formal child-protection interview, conducted 10 years earlier.

The panel chose to believe the mother, despite evidence to the contrary
from a senior social worker. Dr Southall is appealing.
Yes well Johnny boy, you placed the transcripts of Southall and Mrs M's evidence on the internet prior to Ms Salem social worker, giving evidence, now it isn't rocket science to work out that Ms Salem could have tailored her evidence according to what she read in the transcripts YOU posted up. You know making sure the stories match .... There is a legal reason why witnesses aren't allowed to hear any other evidence prior to giving their own in any court scenario, so that they CAN'T tailor their evidence accordingly. Now we'll see what a judge has to say about your actions at the appeal won't we! Because my guess is that ALL Ms Salem's evidence will be discounted. Make no mistake Johnny, had this been a civil or criminal case, you would have been arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice, in fact this is one of the matters my MP will be dealing with, best get a lawyer, who knows, maybe the judge at Southall's appeal will decide that you were in contempt, in fact I think I shall write to the Lord Chief Justice and ask him to haul your sorry little ass into court!

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081114/FOREIGN/904375828/1013/ART

Doctors sentenced over boy’s death

Jonathan Gornall

Lawyers confer during the murder trial of a five-year-old French boy. Dennis Charlet

It was a tragically familiar story: a child tortured and battered to death by the adults who should have been caring for him.

What was different about the death of Marc, a five-year-old French boy whose short life ended in a blizzard of punches in Jan 2006, was that the doctors who failed to spot the serial abuse were held to account alongside the stepfather who delivered the blows.

Last week, a court in the French town of Douai sentenced eight people for their part in the death. David da Costa, 38, who punched Marc in the head until he suffered a cerebral haemorrhage, was jailed for life. Isabelle Gosselin, 35, the child’s mother, received 30 years; three other relatives and a childminder were given suspended sentences.

The postmortem revealed Marc had suffered a series of assaults and injuries, including cigarette burns, broken ribs and a fractured pelvis, but two doctors who saw the boy before his death accepted his mother’s explanation that he was self-harming. Christian Tirloy and Michel Vellemans were found guilty of failing to help a person in danger, fined and given three-year suspended prison sentences.

The outcome of the trial was welcomed by Catherine Bonnet, a French psychiatrist who in the ’90s became the target of a group campaigning on behalf of accused parents. In 1998, she was accused of making false allegations of child abuse against parents and banned from practising for three years.

“These sentences are a warning to French society, professionals who work with children, the medical community and politicians to stop keeping silent and to encourage reporting child abuse,” she said. “The pendulum has swung too far and professionals have been condemned for detecting, reporting and preventing child abuse.”

In 2002, Ms Bonnet’s case was taken up by the UN special rapporteur on child exploitation, who urged the French Medical Board to “review its procedures in order to support rather than condemn doctors who report their suspicions of child abuse”.

The French case has resonated among medical professionals in the UK, where for the past decade campaigners have been waging a media war against doctors who work in child protection. Paediatricians are also fighting a running battle with their regulatory body to defend their right to report suspected cases of abuse without fear of disciplinary action.

Dr John Bridson, the chairman of Professionals Against Child Abuse (Paca), founded in the UK last year to defend paediatricians, said the French trial was “symbolic of the lose-lose situation in which child-protection professionals find themselves, both in France, the UK and other countries”.

The case that led to the birth of Paca was that of Dr David Southall, a paediatrician and one of the UK’s most widely known child-protection experts, who has faced a record number of investigations by his regulatory body, the General Medical Council (GMC).

In 2004, he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and banned from child-protection work after raising concerns about the safety of the surviving child of a woman who had been jailed for the murder of two of her three babies. Dr Southall’s suspicions were raised when, in a television interview, the woman’s husband described a nosebleed his 11-week-old son had suffered while alone with him just 10 days before his death.

Dr Southall, who had conducted research that indicated a relationship between nosebleeds in children of that age and suffocation attempts, contacted the police and the father complained to the GMC. In September, in a successful application to have the ban lifted, all five of the experts who gave evidence agreed Dr Southall had been right to report his concerns and that his research had subsequently been vindicated by other work.

Dr Southall’s long battle is not over yet. Last December, in a case that has caused further outrage among paediatricians, he was struck off the medical register on the say-so of a mother who claimed he had accused her of murder during a formal child-protection interview, conducted 10 years earlier.

The panel chose to believe the mother, despite evidence to the contrary from a senior social worker. Dr Southall is appealing.

In an open letter in the British Medical Journal to the president of the GMC, one doctor said the decision had left paediatricians “in an impossible position… The message your body has sent out is loud and clear: challenge parents at your peril, you will have no conceivable defence.”

But woe betide them if they do not challenge parents. Politicians and the media in the UK this week have been baying for professional blood following a court case on Wednesday in which two men were found guilty of “causing or allowing” the death of a 17-month-old boy. The child’s mother pleaded guilty.

“Baby P”, who was found dead in his bloody cot, had been on the child-protection register and was seen almost 60 times by various professionals. His mother had repeatedly deceived doctors and social workers, at one pointing smearing chocolate on the child to hide his bruises. A doctor who saw Baby P two days before his death failed to notice his broken spine.

Dr Southall, speaking from the Gambia, where he is on assignment for the British medical charity Childhealth Advocacy International, said: “This is at the heart of it; despite all the evidence to the contrary that has been gathered over the years, no one – including the media, politicians and the general public – is prepared to believe child abuse happens as frequently as it does, until it is too late.”

jgornall@thenational.ae

A Rita Pal warning

2008-11-13T04:54:00.000-08:00

NHS Exposed is not a registered business, what employees?? Beware all those that have crossed Rita Pal, she'll be spying on you. Check with your GP's banks etc to make sure there has been no unauthorised access of your records, if there has, go first to the Information Commissioner and then to the police.

Data Protection Register - Entry Details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registration Number: Z996672X

Date Registered: 26 November 2007 Registration Expires: 25 November 2008

Data Controller: RITA PAL

Address:
PO BOX 8553
SUTTON COLDFIELD
WEST MIDLANDS
B76 2BS

Other Names:

WWW.NHSEXPOSED.COM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This register entry describes, in very general terms, the personal data being processed by:

RITA PAL

This register entry contains personal data held for 5 purpose(s)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose 1
Staff Administration
Purpose Description:

Appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation, work management or other personnel matters in relation to the staff of the data controller.

Data subjects are:

Staff including volunteers, agents, temporary and casual workers
Relatives, guardians and associates of the data subject

Data classes are:

Personal Details
Family, Lifestyle and Social Circumstances
Education and Training Details
Employment Details
Financial Details
Physical or Mental Health or Condition

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves
Current, past or prospective employers of the data subject
Education, training establishments and examining bodies
Business associates and other professional advisers
Other companies in the same group as the data controller
Suppliers, providers of goods or services
Financial organisations and advisers
Trade, employer associations and professional bodies
Employment and recruitment agencies

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose 2
Advertising, Marketing & Public Relations
Purpose Description:

Advertising or marketing the business of the data controller, activity, goods or services and promoting public relations in connection with that business or activity, or those goods or services.

Data subjects are:

Customers and clients
Complainants, correspondents and enquirers

Data classes are:

Personal Details
Family, Lifestyle and Social Circumstances
Employment Details
Financial Details

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves
Business associates and other professional advisers
Other companies in the same group as the data controller
Suppliers, providers of goods or services
Traders in personal data

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose 3
Accounts & Records
Purpose Description:

Keeping accounts related to any business or other activity carried on by the data controller, or deciding whether to accept any person as a customer or supplier, or keeping records of purchases, sales or other transactions for the purpose of ensuring that the requisite payments and deliveries are made or services provided by him or to him in respect of those transactions, or for the purpose of making financial or management forecasts to assist him in the conduct of any such business or activity

Data subjects are:

Customers and clients
Suppliers
Complainants, correspondents and enquirers

Data classes are:

Personal Details
Financial Details
Goods or Services Provided

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves
Other companies in the same group as the data controller
Suppliers, providers of goods or services
Financial organisations and advisers

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose 4
Consultancy and Advisory Services
Purpose Description:

Giving advice or rendering professional services.The provision of services of an advisory, consultancy or intermediary nature.

Data Controllers further description of Purpose:

Data subjects are:

Customers and clients
Complainants, correspondents and enquirers
Advisers, consultants and other professional experts

Data classes are:

Personal Details
Family, Lifestyle and Social Circumstances
Education and Training Details
Employment Details
Financial Details
Goods or Services Provided
Racial or Ethnic Origin
Religious or Other Beliefs Of A Similar Nature
Physical or Mental Health or Condition
Offences (Including Alleged Offences)

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves
Current, past or prospective employers of the data subject
Business associates and other professional advisers
Suppliers, providers of goods or services

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose 5
Journalism and Media
Purpose Description:

Publication by any data controller in relation to journalism, artistic or literary purposes made or intended to be made available to the public or any section of the public.

Data subjects are:

THE SUBJECTS OF ANY ARTICLES OR REPORTS

Data classes are:

Personal Details

PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES
TEXT OF ARTICLES AND REPORTS

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves
Business associates and other professional advisers
Suppliers, providers of goods or services
Persons making an enquiry or complaint
The media

Transfers:

Worldwide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of exempt processing:

This data controller also processes personal data which is exempt from notification

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright in this copy is owned by the Information Commissioner. Data Controllers may take copies of their own register entries. Apart from that no part of it may be copied unless allowed under the Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Copyright

Baby P case the review -

2008-11-12T11:24:00.000-08:00

Outrageous failings on the part of ALL the agencies.

November 2008

1 INTRODUCTION

Circumstances of child's death

1.1.1 On 03.08.07 at approximately 11.30am Ms A (mother of child A - a White child of Irish ethnic origin) called the London Ambulance Service. Attending paramedics took the apparently lifeless body of child A (aged seventeen months) to the North Middlesex University Hospital.

1.1.2 In spite of efforts by Ambulance and hospital staff to revive him, child A was pronounced dead at 12.10pm. A post mortem completed on 06.08.07 offered as a provisional cause of death ‘a fracture / dislocation of the thoraco-lumbar spine’.
1.1.3 At the time of his death, child A was subject of a multi-agency child protection plan.

1.1.4 Police enquiries established that at the time of child A’s death, Ms A’s boyfriend Mr H lived at her address and Mr G, his three children and a fifteen year old female whom he described as his girlfriend had been staying there since 17.07.07.
1.1.5 Ms. A, Mr H and Mr G have been charged with murder and causing or allowing the death of a child.

1.2 ARRANGEMENTS MADE FOR THE SERIOUS CASE REVIEW
1.2.1 As required by chapter 8 of the government’s statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006 Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board immediately initiated a serious case review and on 06.08.07 formally notified OfSTED (the relevant regulatory government authority) of that decision.

1.2.2 A sub-committee of the Local Safeguarding Children Board was convened and on 08.08.07 agreed the scope of the review and initiated formulation by each relevant agency, of individual management reviews of the respective services provided to child A and his family.

1.2.3 Agencies contributing to the serious case review were:
• Haringey’s Children and Young People’s Service (Children’s Social Care & Schools Services)
• Haringey’s Strategic & Community Housing Prevention & Options Team
• Metropolitan Police
• Haringey Teaching PCT
• North Middlesex University Hospital in Partnership with Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust
• Whittington Hospital NHS Trust
• Family Welfare Association
• Great Ormond Street Hospital
• Haringey Legal Services

1.3 CONDUCT OF SERIOUS CASE REVIEW
1.3.1 CAE Ltd (an independent consultancy) was commissioned to collate agencies’ individual management reviews and develop an overview report for approval by the serious case review sub-committee and subsequent ratification by Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board.

1.3.2 Child A’s father was offered and declined an opportunity to contribute to the review and his mother did not respond to an invitation to do so.

1.3.3 The sub-committee recognised a need for, commissioned and received expert medical opinions about particular aspects of child A’s receipt of health services and those judgements are reflected in the recommendations for action by Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board and specified member agencies.

1.3.4 The serious case review sub-committee met on seven occasions in the period from September 2007 to July 2008 and agreed the draft overview report and executive summary. Final amendments were made in October 2008 to improve the specificity of paragraph 4.2.3 and to ensure that the executive summary provided sufficient anonymity in line with legal advice.

1.3.5 The executive summary will be published at the conclusion of the criminal trial of Ms A, Mr H and Mr G.

2 SUMMARY OF AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

2.1.1 Ms A separated from her husband in the summer of 2006, from which time she had undertaken the care of their four children, a boy (child A) and his three older siblings.

2.1.2 There were no concerns about the welfare of any of the children in the family prior to mid December 2006, when child A (then aged nine months) was presented at a hospital with a head injury and bruising, considered by medical staff to be suggestive of non accidental injury.

2.1.3 Child A remained in hospital for four days until discharged to the temporary care of a family friend pending completion of multi agency enquiries some six weeks later. At that point the Police investigation was continuing, but had not identified any perpetrator of child A’s injuries.

2.1.4 Following the above incident and a consequent initial child protection conference on 22.12.06, child A and his youngest sibling became subject of child protection plans. From that point Ms. A and her children had extensive involvement with professionals from local agencies particularly the Police, Children & Young People’s Service and primary, community and acute health service providers.

2.1.5 From the time of child A’s first presentation at hospital, observations and assessments of the relationship between Ms A and her children remained largely positive and she was considered to be co-operating with the child protection plans.

2.1.6 Various professionals noted that child A was an active child who was observed to throw his body around and head-butt family members and physical objects. This appeared to support Ms A’s concerns that her son suffered frequent accidents due to being an active, clumsy child with a high pain threshold. From March, a main element of the child protection plan was to obtain a developmental paediatric assessment, to ascertain if there was an organic reason for such behaviour.

2.1.7 With one exception, the two elder siblings both under eight years old, did not give cause for significant concern. They attended school regularly and there was no evidence from schools of any concerns about their home life or any indication of changed circumstances.

2.1.8 The exception to the above apparently reassuring perception was an incident in March 2007, when Ms A was seen to slap her eldest child. This child was consequently made subject of a child protection plan in March 2007.

2.1.9 In early April 2007 child A was presented at a hospital for a second time this time with a swelling to the left side of his head, understood to have been the result of hitting his head on a fireplace after being pushed by another child. He also had bruises and scratches to face head and body, a rash to his face and neck and it was noted he had head lice. He was admitted for two days for observation and treatment with antibiotics and with the agreement of Haringey’s Children & Young People’s Service, discharged home.

2.1.10 There was a further significant event in early June 2007 when a social worker observed marks on child A, informed the Police and, with Ms A’s co-operation arranged and attended a medical examination, at which it was concluded that there was a reasonable probability that some of the bruising was due to abuse.

2.1.11 On 04.06.07, so as to ensure no unsupervised contact between child A and his mother, Haringey’s Children & Young People’s Service and Police agreed temporary safeguarding measures for child A involving a childminder and the same friend who had previously provided temporary care of him.

2.1.12 Also agreed at that point, and confirmed at the review child protection conference a week later, was the need to complete the still outstanding developmental assessment, to obtain legal advice on the justification for initiating protective legal proceedings and to learn the result of then ongoing police investigations.

2.1.13 Police enquiries with respect to potential perpetrators of child A’s injuries both in December 2006 and June 2007 proved inconclusive and were ultimately completed in July 2007, with no criminal charges being preferred against any individuals.

2.1.14 Haringey’s Children & Young People’s Service obtained legal advice on 25.07.07, which indicated that on the basis of the information provided, the threshold for initiating Care Proceedings (a Care Order would have meant that the local authority would have shared parental responsibility with the child’s parents and would have had the authority to remove child A) was not met.

2.1.15 Child A was seen by a paediatrician on 01.08.07, for the purpose of the developmental assessment. The paediatrician judged that he was unwell and miserable with a possible viral infection and partly healing scalp infection. The doctor completed a history, prescribed medication, arranged for various tests to be made and a follow up appointment made to complete the assessment.

2.1.16 Child A died before the intended follow up appointment was made.

3 LESSONS LEARNED

3.1.1 The absence of previous concerns about Ms A’s four children and the positive observations of her parenting led to a high level of trust of Ms A. This was further reinforced by her predominant behaviours and presentation (the current criminal proceedings may reveal whether the positive picture was more apparent than real) i.e., her:
• Co-operation with most professional visits and appointments
• Positive response to offers of help
• Frequent initiation of communications with professionals, often relaying information between them
• Openness of manner

3.1.2 As a consequence of professional perceptions of Ms A, coupled with the lack of an identified perpetrator, child A’s injuries were perceived to be largely a consequence of insufficient supervision and of his own observed behaviours. The latter led to concerns about a potential organic causation of child A’s bruising and injuries and prompted the involvement of the Specialist Child Health Service (SCHS).

3.1.3 Within the above context, new incidents were interpreted in terms of the existing understandings of the family dynamics, with insufficient attempts to use the incidents to prompt re-assessments.

3.1.4 All the professionals working with the family understood the household composition to be Ms A and her four children. Although it was known that a Mr H was a friend, neither his intimate relationship with Ms A nor his presence within the household, had been discerned by any professionals.

3.1.5 With the benefit of hindsight, the indication that Mr H may have been present in the household since February 2007 (current finding of the Police investigation following child A’s death) offers a new perspective.

3.1.6 It should be noted that during the last month of his life, Ms A presented her son to health professionals eight times, and in his last week, he was seen by a social worker and a paediatrician. None of those professionals identified major concerns about child A’s health and well being.

3.1.7 It is of concern that during this critical period the persistence of the sores on child A’s scalp did not raise questions about the effective application or appropriateness of the various medications prescribed.

3.1.8 Most critically child A was seen on 01.08.07 by a community paediatrician for the purpose of the long awaited developmental assessment. Expert medical opinion commissioned during the course of this serious case review concluded that a diagnosis of abuse should have been made at that point.

3.1.9 This serious case review has revealed clear evidence of appropriate communication between and within agencies,

as well as weaknesses in specific areas of information flow e.g. transmission of information to the Police ‘Child Abuse Investigation Team’ and between those directly involved in implementation of the child protection plan for child A.

3.1.10 With the benefit of hindsight, a number of key issues can be seen to have compounded the risk to child A including:

• Limited efforts made by professionals to involve child A’s father in the early period of intervention

• Trust and responsibility placed by Haringey’s Children & Young People’s Service in a family friend, with insufficient assessment, monitoring and review of her ability, role and performance

• The pervasive belief that child A’s injuries were caused by lack of supervision and his own behaviour and the lack of adequate re-assessment of the household following further injuries and bruising

• The inability to identify and prosecute a perpetrator of child A’s injuries

• Delay in an adequate referral to and provision of the required Specialist Child Health Service appointment

• Delay in holding a legal planning meeting and advice subsequently provided that the threshold criteria for obtaining a Care Order under s.31 Children Act 1989 were not satisfied

3.1.11 The quality of the work of the different agencies in this complex case, varied between and within them. Numerous examples of good practice within all agencies were found and have been acknowledged in the analysis provided in the main report.

3.1.12 The main finding of this serious case review is that, despite a great deal of professional input, the conclusions of the various assessment processes had not reached an adequate understanding of the:
• Cause of child A’s injuries and bruising
• Nature of Ms A’s relationship with Mr. H and the extent of his involvement in the family
• Value of the input by the family friend who provided alternative care in December 2006 and oversight of child A after the June 2007 incident

3.1.13 There were many factors that contributed to the inability of the agencies to understand what was happening to child A. With the possible exception of the paediatric assessment of 01.08.07, none on their own were likely to have enabled further responses that might have prevented the tragic outcome. The factors in combination contributed to the lack of understanding of the family’s functioning and consequently compounded the risk to child A.

3.1.14 The reality was that local professionals were wholly unaware that Mr H had been living with Ms A for some months; that five other individuals had been staying at the home for approximately a fortnight before child A died and that (according to expert medical opinion commissioned by Great Ormond Street Hospital in the course of this serious case review) child A had visible symptoms of physical abuse and chronic neglect in the week before his death.

3.1.15 Thus, although the review of this case has found that safeguarding structures exist across Haringey agencies and offer a sound framework for the implementation of required procedures, it has also identified scope for improving the detailed application of some processes.

3.1.16 The main report on which this executive summary is based, elaborates upon the above ‘lessons learned’. The recommendations in the following section specify the opportunities arising from those lessons for strategic multi-agency action by Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board and for enhancing operational effectiveness in each of the local agencies that provided services to child A’s family.

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board has sought to ensure that ‘lessons learned’ are disseminated without delay. Hence, the main serious case review report and this executive summary have been produced prior to the completion of current criminal proceedings and do not incorporate any relevant evidence that might arise in the course of the trial.

4.1.2 If the criminal proceedings present new evidence for the partners represented by the Local Safeguarding Children Board it is recommended that the serious case review sub-committee consider the need for an addendum to the main report. Any such further work should be undertaken by external consultants in accordance with chapter 8 of government guidance - Working Together to Safeguard Children.

4.1.3 It is understood that all the recommendations below have been accepted by the Local Safeguarding Children Board and are being implemented.

4.2 HARINGEY’S LOCAL SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARD

4.2.1 Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board should initiate a multi-agency review of joint protocols and practice guidance for referrals, strategy discussions, core group meetings and child protection conferences in respect of:

• The need to clearly state concerns and professional opinions in referrals
• Multi-agency involvement and attendance in discussions, meetings and conferences
• Involvement of paediatricians and/or named or designated doctors at strategy discussions / meetings (of particular importance if there are different perceptions of the risk and a potential need for further independent comment)
• The use of second, and if required, further strategy discussions
• Ensuring the designated or named paediatrician is invited to a child protection conference if a referral for a paediatric assessment has been made / is being considered
• Administration (to include timing, accuracy, circulation of records and secure maintenance of such circulated records)
• Periodic multi-agency audit of administrative processes
• Ensuring that core group members are informed within five days of any change in an agency’s allocated worker

4.2.2 Single and multi-agency training programmes for those undertaking supervision in safeguarding work should emphasise the need for all staff to:
• Be constantly vigilant
• Have an open and inquisitive approach, regardless of any assumptions arising from previous assessments
• Be aware of the need to re-assess following new and cumulative incidents and changes of circumstances (such assessment to include checking the accuracy of basic information e.g. household composition)
• Challenge colleagues within partner agencies if required

4.2.3 Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board should ensure that the Primary Care Trust has in place robust arrangements for each child subject of a child protection plan to have active oversight and monitoring of her/his medical treatment. The monitoring role should be undertaken by an appropriately trained medical professional i.e. a GP who should receive medical support from the ‘lead GP for child protection’ and when necessary, the ‘named’ or ‘designated doctor’.

4.2.4 Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board should recommend to the London Safeguarding Children Board that the London Child Protection Procedures be revised to require Children’s Social Care, to share information with Police if any new safeguarding concerns arise in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation of abuse or neglect.

4.2.5 Following the completion of court proceedings and identification of any additional lessons Haringey’s Local Safeguarding Children Board should ensure these are disseminated by holding multi-agency briefing sessions for staff.

4.3 AGENCY- SPECIFIC

FAMILY WELFARE ASSOCIATION (FWA)

4.3.1 FWA management should be more consistently proactive in ensuring clarity about directions for FWA work from safeguarding meetings and, if there is insufficient clarity or absence of notes, must communicate this concern to line managers.

4.3.2 FWA family support staff and management must be more consistently proactive in communicating all issues of concern or apparent relevance to the key statutory agencies.

4.3.3 FWA staff and management need to be more consistently proactive in addressing communication and participation difficulties within the professional network.

4.3.4 All casework recording in respect of a child subject to a safeguarding process must be kept up to date and contain an analysis of events and actions in addition to clear chronologies and information about the service being provided.

HEALTH AGENCIES

4.3.5 When Haringey children are seen in hospitals and there are child protection concerns or they are subject to a child protection plan, medical reports should be copied to Haringey’s Safeguarding lead professionals and the designated doctor for Haringey Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH): responsible for the Specialist Child Health Service (SCHS) following transfer to GOSH on 01.04.08

4.3.6 The SCHS should, in liaison with referring agencies, review the current referral process for assessments to ensure that it is clear:
• That referrers need to be explicit about the nature and purpose of the referral
• What information and documents are to be provided
• That, when a child is known to be subject to a child protection plan, the SCHS paediatrician should endeavour to obtain all relevant information, liaise directly with the social worker and consider the advisability of her/his attendance at the appointment

4.3.7 The SCHS service should review its Operational Policy (dated August 2007) with a view to:
• Developing a waiting list priority system that acknowledges the needs of the child, including the implications of a child subject of a child protection plan and
• Requiring referrers and any involved social worker to be consistently informed of any appointments offered and of any that are declined
• Facilitating Haringey’s Children & Young People’s Service to fully understand the care pathways and its implications with regard to a s.47 enquiry
• That ensures all communications from any professional regarding children waiting for an appointment are included within the child’s record

4.3.8 All GOSH doctors involved in any clinics but particularly in core services within Haringey, Enfield and Camden should contact the original referral person if they require further information or clarification.

4.3.9 When concerns about child safeguarding arise during the course of GOSH lead clinical assessments children should not leave the assessment unit / clinic / ward unless those concerns have been resolved or an agreed plan for their safeguarding is in place.

4.3.10 Bruises and any other injury on any child should be documented on a body map by SCHS / GOSH examining doctors.

Haringey Teaching Primary Care Trust

4.3.11 GPs and other practice based staff should be reminded of the importance of sharing any early concerns raised by parents / carers about health issues that could reflect safeguarding concerns, with other health professionals involved, particularly health visitors, school nurses and community paediatricians – the GP practice training programme and briefing cycle should raise this recommendation.
GOSH – responsible for GOSH in Haringey (Children, Young People and Families Community Health Services) since 01.04.08

4.3.12 The Mellow Parenting programme should review current practice regarding the recording and sharing of information emerging from group focused work to ensure that relevant information is passed to health visitors and social workers – this should include reviewing the information leaflet to parents, which currently guarantees confidentiality.

4.3.13 Health visiting and school nursing should continue with their plans to develop the standards for service delivery to complex families and those families with children subject of a child protection plan, review the child protection supervision policy and arrangements and review layout and format of records.
4.3.14 Parallel growth percentile charts should be introduced by health visitors / school nurses and maintained in the records of children where there are concerns about growth, and those subject of a child protection plan and the growth policy should be updated to reflect this.

GOSH at North Middlesex University Hospital (NMUH): responsible for and managing paediatric staff at NMUH

4.3.15 NMUH should review, in consultation with Haringey’s Children & Young People’s Service and the Metropolitan Police, the structure and completion of its child protection referrals to ensure:
• All concerns are included
• Fact is distinguished from parental explanations / assumptions
• Professional opinions are provided
• The intended purpose of the ‘child protection summary sheet’ is clarified i.e. internal and/or external communication
• The content of ‘child protection summary sheet’ reviewed to maximise its efficacy
11

HARINGEY CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE’S SERVICE

4.3.16 The Service should ensure that Police are informed of any new incidents of concern about a child if an allegation may constitute a crime and / or if the child is subject of a child protection plan and /or there is an ongoing police investigation.

4.3.17 The Service should develop detailed guidance regarding the use of family friends as temporary carers for children, during s.47 enquiries, involving a clear description of status and minimum standards of assessment, monitoring and evaluation.

4.3.18 Managers should ensure that all known parents are informed of concerns about their child, consulted about plans, invited to child protection conferences and included on core groups (and if a decision has been taken to exclude them from any part of this process, the rationale should be recorded).

4.3.19 Managers should ensure that for children subject to a child protection plan:
• All elements of the child protection plan should be implemented in accordance with the terms specified in the conference record and should there be any need to vary arrangements, such action must be authorised and recorded by the senior team manager in consultation with the conference chair
• Any change of circumstance, including temporary change of accommodation, should be subject to an assessment as to its suitability and the need for any alternative safeguards

4.3.20 When a conference recommends a change to the frequency of visits in the child protection plan the chairperson must state the rationale for the change.

4.3.21 If a child protection conference decides (exceptionally) not to make all the children in a family subject of a child protection plan, the chairperson must ensure the rationale for the decision is recorded.

4.3.22 If a child subject to a child protection plan, changes school, a core group meeting should be convened at the new school within ten working days.

4.3.23 The service should review and update its guidance in relation to case recording, and set out how this will be monitored and audited.

4.3.24 To improve the conduct of child protection enquiries, managers and social workers should be reminded that:
• Agency checks and information sharing should be undertaken for each s.47 enquiry, even for a child already subject of a child protection plan
• A telephone call should accompany faxed or e-mailed reports to police in urgent cases
• All relevant agencies should be involved in the strategy meeting / discussion, with a flexible venue to facilitate attendance
• Paediatricians are to be invited to all strategy discussions that involve physical injuries
• The strategy meeting decision sheet should be distributed to all invitees
• The plan devised includes a strategy to discover the circumstances of any concern and this should usually include speaking with children in the household and checking household composition (even if known)

4.3.25 To improve safeguarding practice, managers and social workers should also be reminded that:
• All agencies involved in the delivery of services, as part of a child protection plan, need to be informed of new or repeated concerns and the initiation of any s.47 enquiry

• Regardless of conclusions of previous assessments each new incident / injury should prompt consideration for the need to share information and to initiate a s.47 enquiry

•
All decisions taken about safeguarding a child, and their rationale, must be recorded; managers must ensure the records reflect the decision making process

4.3.26 Senior team managers should monitor the progress of an enquiry and ensure that further strategy discussions (and if appropriate meetings) are convened for all s.47 enquiries to:
• Review the progress of s.47 enquiries and associated police investigations
• Consider the continued need for any safeguards to be in place
• Agree any additional enquiries to be made
• Identify unresolved issues
• Agree outcomes of the s.47 enquiry

4.3.27 If any child is referred for a paediatric assessment as part of a s.47 enquiry or as part of the child protection plan, the social worker must ensure that:
• The paediatrician is informed of all relevant history, including any previous paediatric assessments and their conclusion and any past or current s.47 enquiries
• There is direct communication with the paediatrician and discussion of the need for a social work presence during the examination

4.3.28 The Heads of Service should remind all relevant staff of the procedure in relation to legal planning meetings including:
• The requirement to adhere to agreed timescales and propose dates accordingly
• Provision of all relevant documents and details of previous legal involvement

Schools

4.3.29 CYPS should circulate to all relevant schools and centres the requirement that all child protection related documents must be transferred to a child’s new school or setting within five working days of it being identified.
Haringey Children & Young People’s Service & Legal Services

4.3.30 Legal Services and Haringey’s Children & Young People’s Service should review cases involving a legal planning meeting every six weeks at ‘legal casework meetings.

LEGAL SERVICES

4.3.31 All staff in Legal should be reminded of the need to comply with case management and performance standards at all times including accurate recording, filing and adherence to agreed timescales

.

4.3.32 The Legal Services office manual should be amended to clarify that related matter checks should include both specific case files and general advice files.

4.3.33 To facilitate effective monitoring, Legal Services should introduce a specific file category for legal planning meetings on its case management system.

4.3.34 A pro-forma legal planning meeting memo and guidance should be drafted for use by the lawyers.

4.3.35 Legal planning meeting memos should be sent within two working days of the meeting and copied to the lawyer’s line manager, senior lawyers, social work team manager and senior team manager.

4.3.36 Legal planning meeting advice given by recently recruited lawyers (temporary and permanent) should be checked and approved by the senior lawyer during the first three months of conducting legal planning meetings after joining the team.

4.3.37 Pending a strategic review, Legal Services should ensure that sufficient numbers of lawyers with strong experience of acting for a local authority in childcare proceedings are recruited or alternative methods of service provision are explored.

METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE

4.3.38 Officers within the SCD5 Command should be reminded of the need to ensure that they accurately record all information during criminal investigations, including the need for photographs of scenes (including victims) in line with Standard Operating Procedures.

4.3.39 SCD5 Quality Assurance officer should review by ‘dip sample’ Haringey CAIT investigations to assess if these two investigations are reflective of the team’s general standards.

4.3.40 Officers of the SCD5 Command should be reminded that they have the capability to request follow up strategy discussions during complex or protracted investigations.

Baby P the SC Files PACA and Family W

2008-11-12T08:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5133966.ece

We can't be surprised by the death of Baby P

It is not very difficult to predict the outcome of the official inquiry
into the death of Baby P, the 17-month-old child who, like Victoria Climbié, died a horrific death in Haringey despite being well known to child protection services there.

The report will note with asperity the number of opportunities lost, many of them obvious even to non-specialists, to save Baby P. It will discover that procedures were not followed and forms were not filled
in correctly. It will draw attention to the lack of communication between all the agencies involved in his so-called care, and point out the imperative need for better communication between those agencies.

David Southall claimed in the GMC hearing into the retention of the content of the SC files (day 13)
A Sorry to be difficult, Mr Tyson, but there has been press coverage of this to say that I created harm to children as a result of keeping these files, has there not? There has. I think I just wanted to clear up that point that I cannot see any harm to any child as a result of what our policy and our practice was. I accept though that your other point is clear. That is what this discussion is now about.

Baby P is dead, baby P died because of a "lack of communication". Baby P died because to have a child removed from your care requires a theory and no injuries (as demonstrated in Climbie when Dr Mary Rossiter used the excuse of chasing data on three MSbP cases to explain why she was "too busy" to act on the injuries sustained by Victoria). The bottom line is this, that poor poor baby was failed by the state, he was failed because people would rather chase theories and "not communicate", than confront what was staring them in the face - David Southall and Martin Samuels hid evidence away in files marked SC, Bristol case is just one example of what that did, how many more Family W or baby P's could there be in the 4,500 files? So sorry PACA et al you are wrong, the very act of non communication leads to the death of children. And you all support the people who do it!
http://www.victoria-climbie-inquiry.org.uk/Evidence/Archive/Dec01/101201latestp6.htm
What I would say about Mary is that she has a lot of experience and despite that I would not say that she sort of lost her compassion at all, she is often very worried about a lot of cases, certainly that I speak to her about. This would not have been an unusual thing for her to say. She really does care about children that she actually works with and I think that she was worried about Victoria but that was not unusual for Mary, she was often worried about a lot of cases which I spoke to her about. So this would not have made me ring more alarm bells than normal. And the same for the 'very worrying case' thing. She often - I mean I said to you earlier that at the time I think we were dealing with about three potential Munchausen syndrome cases, which is very unusual, and she was working very hard chasing bits of information about them and she was equally very worried about those children because she is a paediatrician who I believe genuinely cares about the children that she sees."

David Southall Jenny Gray and "missing" GOSH notes

2008-11-08T09:12:00.000-08:00

Oh dear, paper published in 1997, information gathered in 1994, yet in 1991 said GOSH notes went walkies which then disabled a med neg case!!! Yet Gray and Bentovim rely on them for thier "research" Davey.

How very interesting! Now what's it called when you withhold evidence from the courts?

Davey and his Teflon crew!

2008-11-03T10:51:00.000-08:00

I subsequently found out there were no other candidates, just Davey and his £2 million and the porta cabin! (AKA Academic Dept Paediatrics toooo funny!) Surprise surprise and then of course one of the panel that appointed him, Professor David Hull was also the man behind the Hull report that exhonorated him, shock horror fall off my chair! NOT. See it isn't what you know it's who you know, what was it PACA stated "an independent inquiry cleared Southall of all allegations". What's the definition of independent boys and girls? Well when your a child protection paed, it means a mate once removed!

More to come folks!!

Ref: CP

5th November 2007

Via Email to:

Ms P Mellor
6 Coven Mill Close
Coven
Nr Wolverhampton
WV9 5HX
Clinical Governance, Audit and Risk Department
Information Governance
Old Computer Building
Royal Infirmary
Princes Road
Hartshill
Stoke-on-Trent
ST4 7LN

Tel: 01782 554040

Email:

Dear Ms Mellor

I am writing further to your emails of 21st September 2007 and 26th September 2007 in which you request copies of a range of information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I replied to you, in part on 26th September 2007 and since I have considered your request very carefully as the request itself is complex.

The Trust has responsibilities to manage requests for information in accordance with the relevant legislation; access to personal information must be managed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) whilst access to corporate information is managed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I have addressed each part of your request for information on an item by item basis, as the Trust cannot adopt a blanket approach in response to your request. Rather, each constituent part has had to be considered and the appropriate part of these complex ‘Freedom of Information’ and ‘Data Protection’ laws applied, as follows:

1 Question; please could I have the list of the panel members who interviewed and approved Dr Southall's appointment at UHNS?

Trust Response;

I can confirm that the appointment panel as detailed on the Report of Advisory Appointments Committee was constituted as follows:

Chairman Councillor F A Betteridge
Regional Health Authority Dr F C Leyland
Regional Health Authority Dr Clymo
University of Keele Professor R N Clayton
Royal College of Physicians of the UK Dr D C Davidson
University of Birmingham Professor R H R White
District Health Authority Representation Dr D S K Brookfield
District Health Authority Management Mr S Grey
Representative
Lay Representative Mr S Sherratt
School of Post Graduate Medicine Professor R Boyd
School of Post Graduate Medicine Professor B E F Fender
School of Post Graduate Medicine Professor D Hull
School of Post Graduate Medicine Professor C Lyon
School of Post Graduate Medicine Professor P M S O’Brien
School of Post Graduate Medicine Professor J Templeton

2. Could I also have the list of the other contenders for the position of consultant paediatrician at that time?

Trust Response;

The Trust is managing this request in accordance with its responsibilities under FOIA. This information is exempt form disclosure under FOIA; under Section 41 of the Act (Information provided in confidence) as the information was provided by the individual applicants, to the Trust, with an expectation that it remained confidential. In addition, applications for employment would be considered as “personal information” and as such any disclosure, via FOIA of such personal information the result in the Trust breaching Section 40 (part 2) of the FOIA (Personal Information).

3. Could I also have the names of any referees Dr Southall presented when applying for the appointment of consultant paediatrician?

Trust Response;

The Trust is managing this request in accordance with its responsibilities under FOIA. This information is exempt form disclosure under FOIA; under Section 41 of the Act (Information provided in confidence) as the information was provided by the individual applicants, to the Trust, with an expectation that it remained confidential. In addition, applications for employment would be considered as “personal information” and as such any disclosure, via FOIA of such personal information the result in the Trust breaching Section 40 (part 2) of the FOIA (Personal Information).

Response Queries (Freedom of Information Act 2000).

If you have any queries related to the responses provided please in the first instance contact me. Of course, you have a right to challenge this response using the Trust’s internal complaints procedure. If having exhausted the Trust’s complaints process you are still not satisfied, then you are entitled to approach the Information Commissioner and request an assessment of the manner in which the Trust has handled your request.
The Information Commissioner is an independent officer, appointed by the Crown and reports directly to Parliament. The Commissioner can request all the documentation relating to this request to decide whether the Trust’s decision was fair and meets the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, or via www.ico.gov.uk).

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate in contacting me via email or by telephoning my office on 01782 554040.

Yours sincerely

Information Governance Manager

David Southall another day another lie

2008-11-02T06:35:00.000-08:00

Now there was me stupidly thinking that case 10 in the CVS paper Bristol Serious Case Review Family W was a Brompton case, I must remember to check everything you say given that this is what you state at the beginning of the paper as quoted below:

METHODS

Patients and Controls

Between June 1986 and December 1994, 39 patients underwent CVS (36
after ALTE, 1 for investigation of suspected strangulation, 1 for fabricated
epilepsy, and 1 for severe failure to thrive and suspicion of poisoning). The
number of ALTE reported by parents before CVS ranged from 2 to more than 50
(median, 7). In 29 patients, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) involving
mouth-to-mouth breathing or external cardiac massage was reported by parents
and/or performed by health professionals.
Of the 39 patients, 37 were
referred from outside the local district (from 32 different hospitals) to
national centers at the
Royal Brompton and North Staffordshire
hospitals.
Two were patients from within the North Staffordshire Health
District, which has a population of 465 000, with 6500 births each year. A total
of 252 patients presenting with ALTE that required CPR were referred to our
department at these two hospitals during the 8-year period. As we developed CVS,
there was almost certainly a bias toward referrals of patients with ALTE and
suspicions of abuse. Therefore, these figures cannot provide a true
epidemiologic indication of the frequency of intentional suffocation as a
mechanism for ALTE.

So Davey were was the approval to conduct CVS in Crawley Hospital? Why did you lie in the CVS paper, oh, because you had to, there was no ethical approval was there? Any wonder Crawley have "lost" all data
relating to your little triste there and any wonder Fleming never turned up at the GMC in your defence in 2007 having written a report, by that time he would have known you were all in trouble eh!

1991 The Independent (London)

October 30, 1991, Wednesday

SECTION: HOME NEWS PAGE; Page 2

LENGTH: 515 words

HEADLINE: Hospital filmed mother trying to stop baby breathing

BODY:
A YOUNG mother secretly filmed blocking her baby son's breathing in a hospital
maternity ward was yesterday found guilty of cruelty to a child.

Two hidden video cameras caught the teenager putting her hand over her
eight-month-old son's mouth for 18 seconds before being disturbed by a noise.
She was then seen putting it back over his face a second time. The jury at
Croydon Crown Court took five hours to reach a 10-2 majority verdict on the
19-year-old Bristol woman. During the five-day trial they watched a grainy
10-minute black and white film of what the mother, who was then 18, did. At
the end of the trial it was revealed the mother, who cannot be named for legal
reasons, has a previous conviction for attempting to kidnap a child from a
Bristol hospital.

Judge Charles Tilling remanded her on conditional bail to 26 November,
delaying sentencing to have social inquiry and psychiatric reports prepared.

He said: ''Clearly I am going to have to learn an awful lot more about what
the present situation is before I decide what is the correct course to take.'' The
woman has now had her young son taken away from her. Her second child, a
daughter born in May this year was removed within an hour of its birth, the
jury heard.

The mother only occasionally glanced at the video, but she wept while watching
the moments when her son was taken away. She was released on bail on
condition that she lives at home and only leaves the house accompanied by
someone aged over 21. Tudor Owen, for the prosecution, said: ''The medical
opinion is that until treated this young woman is a danger to children.''

Doctors and police filmed the mother after she repeatedly took the baby to
hospitals claiming he had turned blue and stopped breathing. They suspected
she was actually causing the ''attacks'' by smothering the child to convince
doctors the child was ill.

During the trial two leading paediatricians said that the mother suffered from
Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy - an extreme form of hypochondria. The
paediatricians, Dr Peter Fleming and Dr David Southall, decided to use the
cameras to check if she was smothering the baby. Mr Owen said: ''It was a
difficult decision to make about surveillance with hidden cameras in the
privacy of the hospital room but life threatening dangers to anyone's health, in this
case the baby's, demanded exceptional measures to deal with them.''

Police watching from the next door cubicle were under strict instructions to
interrupt within 20 seconds of spotting any suspicious behaviour, the jury
heard.

The case was brought because the mother still refused to admit she needed
help, not because she was an ''evil criminal,'' Mr Owen said.

The woman denied cruelty to a child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary
suffering. She insisted her hand had passed ''gently'' over the child's
face and claimed she made up the earlier ''attacks'' because the child's crying woke
her up to seven times a night and she wanted relief.

When a genuine ''blue attack'' coincidentally happened she was too scared to
admit the lies, she said.

BMJ and more unsubstantiated claims

2008-11-01T07:10:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDMHyxm9KA

My stance and I live my beliefs it isn't paediatric rhetoric for the record:

MARY J BLIGE AND LUDACRIS

Runaway Love

Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love

Now little Lisa is only 9 years old
She's trying to figure out why the world is so cold
Why she's all alone and ain't neva met her family
Mama's always gone and she never met her daddy
Part of her is missing and nobody will listen
Mama is on drugs getting high up in the kitchen
Bringing home men at different hours of the night
Starting with some laughs -- usually ending in a fight
Sneaking in her room while her mama's knocked out
Trying to have his way and little Lisa says 'ouch'
She tries to resist but then all he does is beat her
Tries to tell her mom but her mama don't believe her
Lisa is stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothing else to do but get some clothes and pack
She says she's 'bout to run away and never come back.

Runaway love [x8]

Little Nicole is only 10 years old
She's steady trying to figure why the world is so cold
Why she's not pretty and nobody seems to like her
Alcoholic step-dad always wanna strike her
Yells and abuses, leaves her with some bruises
Teachers ask questions she making up excuses
Bleeding on the inside, crying on the out
It's only one girl really knows what she about
Her name is lil Stacy and they become friends
Promise that they always be tight 'til the end
Until one day lil Stacy gets shot
A drive by bullet went stray up on her block
Now Nicole stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothing else to do but get her clothes and pack
She says she's 'bout to run away and never come back.

Runaway love [x8]

Little Erica is eleven years old
She's steady trying to figure why the world is so cold
So she pops x to get rid of all the pain
'Cause she's having sex with a boy who's sixteen
Emotions run deep and she thinks she's in love
So there's no protection he's using no glove
Never thinking 'bout the consequences of her actions
Living for today and not tomorrow's satisfaction
The days go by and her belly gets big
The father bails out he ain't ready for a kid
Knowing her mama will blow it all outta proportion
Plus she lives poor so no money for abortion
Erica is stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothing else to do but get her clothes and pack
She say she's about to run away and never come back.

Runaway love [repeats 'til end]

Published 31 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2347
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2347

Views & Reviews
Personal View
On drinking from a poisoned chalice
Rod Griffiths, president, Faculty of Public Health

rod@stonebow.demon.co.uk

For a period in the late 1990s there were repeated headlines about research on children in North Staffordshire NHS Trust using continuous negative extrathoracic pressure (CNEP). They alleged that excessive deaths had occurred. As regional director of public health I had already commented to the media that premature babies of that age had a significant mortality and that the children in the trial had fared no worse that expected. Public health passed the story to the research and development directorate.

The story did not go away and local MPs took it up. A meeting with the relevant minister and one of the MPs took place. The director of research and development should have gone, but he was in America. The minister wanted someone from the regional office to be present. I went.

By the time of the meeting formal complaints had already been made both to the General Medical Council and to the trust. To my surprise the minister asked a new, though not unreasonable, question: could there be a problem with the governance system, at that trust or in general? I was the regional director of public health, and I came out of the meeting having agreed to do a low key review to look at the system. Lesson one: poisoned chalices are easy to pick up.

After the review was announced new patient groups appeared, complaining about what was then known as Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy, nothing to do with our terms of reference, but they were persistent in lobbying the minister’s office. It would have been excessively complex to have commissioned yet another inquiry, so this was added to the task that we were asked to do. Lesson two: when drinking from poisoned chalices, try to avoid top-ups.

We hired a team that interviewed everyone who wanted to give evidence and appointed a panel with relevant expertise. We reviewed all the statements and decided which individuals or groups we needed to interview in person. We set up dates to take oral evidence and spent several days doing that. A number of potential witnesses were prepared to give evidence only on condition that their statements would not be made public. Of course when we reported, it made it easy for others to say, "Where did they get that idea from?" Some of the evidence that was given in confidence was important and without it we would have had a less complete picture, but it did make the review easier to criticise. Lesson three: if you have to drink from a poisoned chalice, better to do it in full public view if you can.

We were told many diverse stories about some issues, both in relation to research and in relation to child abuse. They could not all be true but documentation did not exist to verify one consistent story. We had to conclude that the essential question raised by the minister had some validity—there did seem to be something the matter with the system. Accordingly we recommended that research governance needed a better system; that child protection needed clearer guidance about possible fabricated illness; that consent needed clearer guidance; and that there should be a way of reporting supposed adverse events from all treatments, not just drugs. We also concluded that parents really needed to know if CNEP in neonates did damage or not. Short of a new randomised control trial it seemed that funding a longer term follow-up might give the answer. Marlow et al have now completed the review that we commissioned (Lancet 2006;367:1080, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68475-4); it shows that CNEP was associated with no more damage than control treatments. Several months after we reported and ministers accepted all our recommendations, we were roundly attacked in the BMJ (BMJ 2000;321:715-6, doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7263.715). I can’t think of anything I have found more uncomfortable than that weekend. Worse still was having to speak on the Monday at a conference on a different subject, wondering just how many in the audience had read that week’s BMJ. Lesson four: when drinking from poisoned chalices, don’t expect the effects to wear off quickly.

It is easy with hindsight to think of ways in which we could have been given different terms of reference, spent more money, done things differently. Commenting on the detail at this distance seems pointless but I do agree with those who say that a body is needed that can either investigate complaints about research or advise on the subject. Had such a body existed at that time, however, I still think it would have come to similar conclusions. We do need governance systems that protect patients and provide safe circumstances for research to prosper. Both are essential, but neither was guaranteed by the systems in place before we reported. No doubt the current system could be improved, but we do need a system or there will be more inquiries.

Finally, does drinking from the poisoned chalice do any good—is it good for the soul, the personal development and all that? Do you develop a thicker skin, making you tougher and more able to take poison in the future? I think not. I feel more vulnerable and easier to hurt as a result of the experience, though that may be a good thing. People who are in senior positions need thin skins, not thick ones. So lesson five for poisoned chalices is simple: when handed one, drink up and smile—it goes with the job.

Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2347
Rapid Responses published:

An appreciation of Professor Griffiths' identification of a poisoned chalice
Iain Chalmers, Edmund Hey (31 October 2008)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An appreciation of Professor Griffiths' identification of a poisoned chalice 31 October 2008

Iain Chalmers,
Editor, James Lind Library
James Lind Initiative, OX2 7LG,
Edmund Hey
Send response to journal:
Re: An appreciation of Professor Griffiths' identification of a poisoned chalice

We write to express our appreciation of, and thanks to, Professor Rod Griffiths for publishing (1, 2) his perspectives on the events triggered by allegations that the trial of Continuous Negative Extrathoracic Pressure (CNEP) undertaken in neonates in Stoke on Trent was so flawed that it amounted to serious professional misconduct. Everything we have come to know about this saga has made it clear that many of the allegations of misconduct had little to do with the CNEP trial and a lot to do with a determined campaign to destroy doctors who had been involved in child protection work, particularly David Southall and Martin Samuels. As Professor Griffiths reports, once Ministers had agreed that an enquiry into the CNEP trial should take place, campaigners came out of the woodwork and demanded that the terms of reference of the enquiry be extended to investigate the child protection work done by these two paediatricians – in Professor Griffiths’ apt language, to top up the poisoned chalice that he had been handed.

We agree wholeheartedly with Professor Griffiths’ conclusion that “if you have to drink from a poison chalice, better to do it in full public view.” We can also agree with him that, had a body capable of investigating complaints about research in public been in existence eight years ago, it might well “have come to similar conclusions” to his panel about the need for a more effective system of research governance. Given Professor Griffiths’ views now on the CNEP trial (2), we are confident that he agrees with us that a thorough, public investigation would have been highly unlikely to have found fault with the way the CNEP trial was conducted.

However, as we have made clear in our commentary in the Lancet (3), allegations of forged consent forms made behind closed doors continue to hang over the heads of 34 doctors who were providing neonatal care in Stoke on Trent during the early 1990s. No evidence to support these allegations has yet been made public. If consent forms were forged that is a scandal; if they were not then the allegations were false and highly derogatory and damaging (4).

Although we believe that the Department of Health is largely to blame for the failure to ensure natural, transparent justice in this affair, matters would not have got so completely out of hand after the Department’s report appeared had some of the paediatricians most critical of the clinicians in Stoke been required to defend their opinions in public then and there. This observation applies particularly to Professor Terry Stacey, one of the three members of Professor Griffiths’ enquiry team (who was appointed to direct the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees soon after this report was completed), and to Richard Nicholson, Editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, who has declared confidently that CNEP was used in research without parental consent (5). The clinicians in Stoke should be assumed to be innocent of this charge unless a proper investigation, conducted in public, reveals otherwise.

Iain Chalmers and Edmund Hey

References 1 Griffiths R. On drinking from a poisoned chalice. bmj.com, 1 April 2006.

2 Griffiths R. CNEP and research governance. Lancet 2006;367:1037–8.

3 Hey E, Chalmers I. Are any of the criticisms of the CNEP trial true? Lancet 2006;367:1032–3.

4 Hey E. The 1996 Continuous Negative Extrathoracic Pressure (CNEP) trial: were parents’ allegations of research fraud fraudulent? (in press) [Subsequently published in Pediatrics 2006;117;2244-2246]

5 Nicholson R. Editorial. Bulletin of Medical Ethics May 2003, p 1.

Competing interests: None declared

Editor’s note: This response was submitted in April 2006, but technical problems relating to the fact that the article which it was responding to had been posted as a webextra article meant that the response couldn't be displayed. See editor's footnote to that article for further explanation - http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/oct31_2/a2347 This article has now been republished as a stand alone article, making it possible to post rapid responses to it.

"Who was really served up the poisoned chalice to drink from?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Prof Griffiths states "After the review was announced new patient
groups appeared, complaining about what was then known as Munchausen’s
syndrome by proxy, nothing to do with our terms of reference, but they
were persistent in lobbying the minister’s office."

Not by me. I telephoned the offices of Professor Griffiths and stated
that I had information relevant to the inquiry with regard to the research
of both Drs Southall and Samuels. It was at that point two members of the
panel set up to investigate the claims of the Henshalls, came to my home
and upon reading the material decided that my concerns were valid and
then, according to them, included MSbP related research into the inquiry.
Can Professor Griffiths please clarify what he means by "lobbying the
minister's office" and provide the evidence to support this claim?

Professor Griffiths and the inquiry team have subsequently failed to
uncover what I now have, Through Freedom of Information Act (FOI) requests
I obtained evidence to show that there was indeed a problem with how this
project was set up.

Firstly, as required, there are no Public Indemnity Insurance
policies for the equipment used during any research undertaken at UHNS to
be found anywhere.

Secondly I have been unable to establish who was employing/insuring
Dr Samuels at the time of the CNEP trial as he did not take up his post at
UHNS until 1993. This is confirmed in writing under an FOI application.

Perhaps Professor Griffiths would like to clarify where the required
insurance is and who was employing Dr Samuels at the time of the CNEP
trial.

Drs Hey and Chalmers in their response state "Everything we have come
to know about this saga has made it clear that many of the allegations of
misconduct had little to do with the CNEP trial and a lot to do with a
determined campaign to destroy doctors who had been involved in child
protection work, particularly David Southall and Martin Samuels".

Really, having made such a sweeping public statement I would now like
to see the evidence to support such an allegation.

Dr Edmund Hey has not declared his conflicts of interest with regard
to the funding of Dr Southall's research projects, a quick read of the
transcripts of the Clark GMC hearing posted on the internet will enlighten
the BMJ's readers. [1]

The Poisoned Chalice was offered to us, the naive and gullible
members of the public so that we would have transparency and a proper
investigation, we drank from it and were in turn poisoned by the very
system set up to protect our children.

[1] http://jonathangornall.squarespace.com/southall-gmc-2004-day-8/

Competing interests:
I gave evidence to the Griffiths Inquiry regarding MSbP related research and
capacity to consent

Dr Martin Samuels UHNS and the enigmas

2008-10-30T10:50:00.001-07:00

Ok Martin, we know that it was always you that signed everything etc, now answer me this, just who was employing you during the CNEP trial and the Covert Video Surveillance at UHNS? Who was insuring you? Was the £2 million training grant awarded to Southall used to set up the Academic Dept Paediatrics in June 1992 as a pay off for Southall's appointment paying your salary eh? (Foundation Professor .... in a post set up because you had all the dosh Davey ......)

Come on the boys from PACA, let's get down to the nitty gritty, because none of you have any idea what evidence I have. Let's see how brave you all are when the shit hits the fan, hmmmm, what powers do the Audit Commission have? What powers do the Inland Revenue have?

More to come, watch this space .......

Clinical Governance, Audit and Risk Department
Information Governance
Old Computer Building
Royal Infirmary
Princes Road
Hartshill
Stoke-on-Trent
ST4 7LN

Tel: 01782

Email:

Dear Ms Mellor

Re: Request for Information; Freedom of Information Act 2000

I am writing further to your further email of 5th December 2007 in which you request access to information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

In relation to the FOIA, may I take this opportunity to inform you that the University Hospital of North Staffordshire (UHNS) is fully committed to the Act’s philosophy of openness which allows the public and individuals to ensure that corporate information is managed and used efficiently in order to assist and support business functions and decision making with the aim of delivering high quality and appropriate healthcare.

In order to address your to question I consulted with Trust senior colleagues; below I have listed the Trust’s responses to your questions.

Question(s);
“In what year was David Southall first appointed as a consultant paediatrician as in a clinician at UHNS? (I do NOT mean honorary)

UHNS Response;
Dr Southall was interviewed and appointed on 27th February 1992.

Question(s);
In what capacity was David Southall first employed at UHNS?

UHNS Response;
Dr Southall was appointed as Professor of Paediatrics/Consultant Paediatrician.

Question(s);
In what capacity was Dr Martin Samuels first employed by UHNS?

UHNS Response;
Dr Martin Samuels was appointed as Senior Lecturer/Consultant Paediatrician.

Question(s);
In what year was Dr Martin Samuels first employed by UHNS?

UHNS Response;
Dr Martin Samuels was appointed as Senior Lecturer/Consultant Paediatrician in 1993

Question(s);
When was the "academic department of paediatrics" set up at UHNS?
Please can you provide any correspondence that relates to the setting up and implementation of the Academic Dept of Paediatrics at UHNS?

UHNS Response;
I approached a number of UHNS senior colleagues whom I felt best placed within the organisation to provide information in relation to your question concerning the Academic Department of Paediatrics; unfortunately none had knowledge of or access to any related information. If you are able to explicate your request I it may assist in a further search.

Response Queries (Freedom of Information Act 2000).
If you have any queries related to the responses provided please in the first instance contact me. Of course, you have a right to challenge this response using the Trust’s internal complaints procedure. If having exhausted the Trust’s complaints process you are still not satisfied, then you are entitled to approach the Information Commissioner and request an assessment of the manner in which the Trust has handled your request.

The Information Commissioner is an independent officer, appointed by the Crown and reports directly to Parliament. The Commissioner can request all the documentation relating to this request to decide whether the Trust’s decision was fair and meets the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, or via www.ico.gov.uk).

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate in contacting me via email or by telephoning my office on 01782 .

Yours sincerely

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE MANAGER

Southall secret files and the harm it causes SC 2378

2008-10-30T01:59:00.000-07:00

Don't readers kid themselves that this is all about child protection, it isn't, Bristol were completely unaware that Southall and Samuels had covertly videoed this mother at the Royal Brompton because the data was all kept secret in a file marked SC taken from the RB in 1992 when Southall et al moved to Stoke. Samuels pulled 2724 files and removed the lot meaning that any investigations by Bristol social services were not able to be undertaken as RB had no record of the child M E having been admitted, let alone what was found. And before the usual suspects state I am wrong I have had it officially confirmed that I have correctly identified this case and this matter is subject to another review, at a much higher level than the LA. So just why did Southall and Samuels keep vital data away from the very agencies trying to protect these children? Can PACA justify the fact that children have nearly died as a direct result of Southall and Samuel's action? Can the Davey supporters state with confidence that no child has died as a direct result of his actions in keeping secret files? And this man has been allowed back into child protection - what a joke!

Executive Summary of Serious Case Review Bristol - W Family

Background to the Case

The decision to conduct a Serious Case Review in respect of this family was made in June 2005. The family had previously been the subject of a management review by the Area Child Protection Committee.

This action followed an incident in 2004, when the youngest child in the household, then aged 2 years, was admitted to Hospital with breathing difficulties. At that time the previous history of Fabricated Induced Illness in a sibling and the fact that he and his sister had been placed for adoption was not known to health professionals at the hospital.

Tests later revealed the presence of opiates in his urine, thought to have been administered maliciously. Subsequent investigations revealed that this child had no apparent organic reason for the reported breathing difficulties and it was assessed that he also had been the subject of Fabricated Induced Illness caused by his mother.

In 1988, when she was 17 years old, the mother was arrested for Child Abduction after she removed a baby from a local hospital ward. She was subsequently convicted of Attempted Kidnapping and was sentenced to a Probation Order for 12 months. This was her first Schedule One’ offence.

Her 2 eldest children were the subject of Family Court proceedings in 1990 and 1991 respectively, after she was found to have induced illness in her eldest child and attempted to smother him when he was 7 months old.

Covert Video Recordings of Life-threatening Child Abuse: Lessons for Child Protection

David P. Southall MD, FRCP *
Michael C. B. Plunkett BM, MRCPI D
Martin W. Banks MA, MA (Econ), M Soc Sc, CQSW M
Adrian F. Falkov BSc, MB, MRCPsych D
Martin P. Samuels MD, FRCP D

Case 10 CVS paper

Observed to be handling child roughly (when mother was unaware of being observed, before CVS) Violent to pets and sister as a child; smeared feces on wall at school; alleged rape; had faints, no cause found; <blockquote>abducted baby of another family from hospital
; alleged fall with hip injury when pregnant [88] , no injury found on admission; overdose ×1 Yes, personality disorder.

Attended school for behaviorally disturbed children. "Family well known to social services" Child Adopted; mother changed name and left country, becoming pregnant on 2occasions; both children into care on being discovered.

Deconstructing CVS pt 8

2008-10-28T13:58:00.000-07:00

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8sD4UWGt91w

Case 22

Time, 15:01 PM: the mother roughly patted the child's face 14 times and then
presses her hand forcibly against the child's face in an unusual way. She then
started to shake the infant like a doll

Uhhm, a number of questions on case 22 Davey, like why would you allow a baby to be "shaken like a doll" and not intervene? Secondly, according to your police statement regarding this case

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k-O90eGCIdc/SJnSDvsh3lI/AAAAAAAAApo/3KU5PaqpsC4/s1600-h/southallpolicestatement02.jpg

"this shaking was not gentle, but unlikely to cause injury", you change it to "shake like a doll" in the CVS paper, is that exagerating? Is it lying? Did you lie on the police statement to protect yourself, because you didn't intervene and hadn't followed the protocol, or did you lie in the paper?

Case 31 Alleged "pale, fighting for breath, blue, vomited"

Hitting child on mouth ×2; fabrication of ALTE, fit; alleged oedema hands and face

Care by mother under social services care order

Really David? Funny that could have sworn that all your evidence was thrown out of court, in fact I KNOW that all the evidence was chucked! So why is this case in the paper when you were told that all your evidence was completely disproven, to a civil standard of proof, care order for mother - really? Not true is it David!

Case 32

Toothbrush rammed down throat, probably to induce vomiting; gave disinfectant via nasogastric tube

Long-term foster care

Now come on David, you know the above is not true, how many times did you have to review the tape to see what was going on? Shall I remind you .... 30 times and you still couldn't see what was happening. Now isn't it the case that no forensic evidence was found to support your claims? No disinfectant was found upon aspirating the content of the stomach and there were no marks or scratches in the child's throat. Is it not the case that the child used its tooth brush as a comforter, chewing and sucking it and all that happened was that she gagged on the brush, which you in turn turned into "rammed down the child's throat". I put it to you David Southall, that it is you who lies and exagerates and embellishes the truth in order to gain attention for yourself.

The CVS paper is fraudulant.

Dr Anthony Baker Suspended

2008-10-27T00:52:00.000-07:00

GMC Reference Number
2209887
Given Names
Anthony William
Surname
Baker
Gender
Man

Registration Status
Registered

Fitness to practise panel on 23 Oct 2008.Doctor suspended. Not yet in force.

More Details
Primary Medical Qualification
.MRCS 1974 Royal College of Surgeons of England
LRCP 1974 Royal College of Physicians of London
MB BS 1974 University of London

Provisional Registration Date
20 Nov 1974
Full Registration Date
08 Jan 1976

Specialist Register entry date
This doctor is not in the Specialist Register
GP Register entry date
This doctor is not in the GP Register

Dr David Southall Exposed

And of course David Southall doesn't lie does he??

CNEP Forgeries and the truth David Southall et al

Tuesday, 7 June 2011

David Southall PACA and the alleged false allegations made by parents to the police

The Independent David Southall, the GMC and the film

How a crusader against abuse provoked the anger of accused parents

Related articles

Controversial child doctor could be struck off for a second time

Related articles

David Southall "A very dangerous doctor" Cutting Edge Channel 4 12th May

CPS considering whether to charge Southall with assault

David Southall The CPS and his experiments

David Southall and the truth

Yo Davey et al

Mo Wilson

David Southall and how he spins my position

David a message

David Southall double standards and breath taking arrogance

PACA Members

Southall latest judgment

David Southall back on the register OH YES watch this space

SOUTHALL APPEAL JUDGMENT

David Southall coming to a country near you!

The RCPCH and the spinning of Southall's Judgment

David Southall the so called won appeal

David Southall his appeal and next steps

PACA Paragraphs 68 - 71 Judgment

David Southall "wins" Appeal

Southall Appeal Judgment to be handed down Tuesday

David Southall Appeal - will he get off on a technicality?

David Southall appeal and the Baby P card

DAVID SOUTHALL APPEAL

Southall Appeal Mary O'Rourke etc

David Southall appeal

David Southall PACA et al

Guess what's coming Davey and Crew

The anonymous blogger Nicola and the lies in the post

Do PACA et al understand the law?

Davey boy

Childhealth Advocacy International

Sometimes it would be nice to be a real boy eh!

David Southall

The GMC

Southall and the anomlies in his testimonies

Southall the abduction plans using child protection

OFSTED PACA and Serious Case Reviews

How the GMC conned the MPS and other police forces and then shut me down

Research protocols and how Southall et al ignored the guidelines

David Roy and the making of a saint - in theory anyway

Does David Southall lie in police statements and his research paper or ...

The GMC, ACPO, CPS, Police and Southall et al!

Let me fire a warning shot across the bows shall I?

A Change is Gonna Come!

Martin Banks CVS and the truth

Implementation of CVS not "approved" by ACPC

Bet everyone's wishing they hadn't said the below right about now!

MSbP/CVS cases "weren't research" - Really?

The "mugging" of social services in MSbP cases

The NSPCC David Southall UHNS and historical allegations of abuse

Christian Poets - Southall's researcher

Case Notes

BBC Radio Four Case Notes

Oh dear oh dear

Amazing where due diligence will get you

Not in my name

Southall appeal against striking off

Back in the land of the living

Will PACA Southall et al stand up for these children???

Baby P

PACA Family W Bristol SCR

Family W Serious Case Review Inadequate

Baby P

Suzanne Holdsworth

PACA David Southall and the letter to Laming

Baby P findings and the retention of SC Files

Baby P, PACA and the hangers on

Haringey PCT and the charges I intend to have bought

Dr Sukanta Banerjee Baby P and the questions that need asking

Despite the actions of David Southall