Roy Meadows has won his appeal

[Caligula]

story here

Does this mean that the women who wanted their cases against him to be heard by the GMC can now do so?

WWB - That is lovely, so very kind of you. It is when someone like you does something a simple as lighting a candel I remember just how lucky I am that I have access to mumsnet and many 'Virtual Friends'. It is the knowledge that even if just one person believes me then I am lucky, I doubt that Ian and Angela Gay are as lucky as I am. I hope that Jacie passes on our goodwishes.

I have a Candle lit for the Gay family at the moment but when I light it every morning I remind myself that there are hundred, thousands of children seperated from their parents for many, many reasons. Families are forever and should be together. I hope that the knowledge that so many people are questioning their conviction that they get some comfort and strength.

Thanks again WWB and everyone.

Hi Edam, hope all is well with you...?
I am probably wrong but I know that it is 'Beyond Reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, but in the family courts they are civil cases and there the evidence has to only meet the criteria of 'The balance of probabilities'. This and the courts need to 'Put the interests of the child first' (quite correctly IMHO) means that parents can not win against people like Meadows. He is very credible when giving evidence and very adament that his opinion is the right one and the only one that matters.
Somehow we need to review the legal system that promotes people like him and is open to scrutiny. Until the courts become more accountable and there are strict guidlines as to what an 'expert' witness is, nothing will change.
It is not surprising that some people see some of the women who have lost their children because of Meadows as 'threatening'. I do not agree with their behaviour but I do understand it. Ask yourself what would you do if someone took your children? Your whole existence you would call into question. You would no longer be a mother, no more childrens clothes to buy or wash, no food to be bought for them as it is their favourite, No reason to get up in the morning.... No one you can talk to about it, frightened that people will find out and believe that you are the evil person portayed in court. What would you do? I am sure you would fight and although it is wrong to threaten the people who are there to help you as in Edam's earlier post, who do you take your frustration out on, who do you talk to when no one will listen. I am just glad that the Women who have come together and formed an action group continue in their restraint and do not go down the same road a FFJ, as breaking the law does not make you a responsible person who should be in charge of children. It is a very thin line that has to be guaged and so I hope that although I do not condone some of these womens behaviour I do understand it and feel that the time has come for the truth of system that allows Meadow's et al continue be answerable to an independant body.
We have seen that the Social Services are unable to police themselves by the number of cases that were looked at after Margaret Hodges remit.
How do you change a system that is so closed and private that those who have never experienced it will never understand or believe what goes on behind those closed doors?

Here endeth the 'Bunglie Rant' I feel better now.

You are quite right about burden of proof in civil cases being balance of probabilities, but Tamz was talking about criminal cases, I think.

You are also right about people - women - needing to take action to highlight these dreadful miscarriages of justice.

The cheesy family are all fine - trying to persuade ds to do a card for dh's first day in new job (was made redundant before Christmas) but ds keeps saying 'you draw, mummy' which isn't the point, really!

Hello Bunglie, nice to see you around again. I thought of you yesterday and hoped your DS was in touch. Good luck with all.

Hi,
I found this link when i was researching about msbp, i was secretly accused of having this i only found it after being given access to my sons notes because of a clinical negligence case. The criteria for diagnosing msbp are ridiculous. I was secretly accused in 2o004 and i was not told anything at all including the fact the local school in the village and the dr who made the accusation were working to remove my son from my care, 10 yearsd down the line i am just getting diagnosis for my sons problem and yet i am unable to make the school or the doctor accountable can anyone help with these issues i am happy to email the full story to anyone who can help..
i hope this post gets read many thanksx

So what will happen to Roy Meadows now? The Sally Clark story sure made me very very sad.

I still cannot belive that he was allowed to continue to practise, and those that relied on his evidence were not forced to at least be retrained. He actually said that three cot deaths equal murder, yet he was not a statistician, or an epidemiologist and had no qualifications for making such a statement, besides which an expert witness should never make such an unprofessional sounding statement. It was dreadful that the lawyers questioning him did not go to more trouble to point this out and get an epidemiologist or statistician in to demonmstrate how ill informed meadows was, especially as no known cause for cot death has been found so he how he could get away wth sayoing that although he did not know what killed the children he knew it was murder. Murder is also a legal term, and means the killer intended to kill the victim or cause them GBH and was in their right mind so to speak. How could he possibly decide what was going on int he mind of someone just by the fact they had three cot deaths. He also neglects to mention that in unexplained natural deaths (such as sudden death in adults), although no cause can be identified, there does tend to be more thna one case per family lending support for the genetic factors contributing.
It really was a poor show that the defence allowed him to get away with making these claims, when it shoudl have been very easy to rip them apart in five minutes.

Beth,
Have you thought about getting a solicitor to represent your son rather than you. Because of the doctor and school he was denied proper medical treatment as is his right, and risked having his right to a family life as guaranteed under the european human rights act removed. I know in cases where children have been taken into care falsy the parents have not had legal recourse, but the children have. You could speak to someone about taking it from this angle- perhaps go to a probono centre (I would avoid the cab, as this needs specialist knowledge)