Southall Guilty

[Bunglie]

I am so very pleased that he has been found guilty on most of the charges. I do not understand how he did what he did to the Clarke family.
What disturbs me is that he has not been struck off. There is still the posibility that he could just be reprimanded.
If he were allowed to continue to practice would you trust him and take your child to him?

Sorry, Bunglie, I didn't see this and have just posted on the other thread. I will go and get it!

YES! Sky News

He

But isn't this what he and Meadow were encouraged to do - only from reading someone else's notes about a person rather than seeing them on TV - all along???? What is the difference really?

YESS!!!!!! Strike him off, or preferably string him up!

Ummm -- can I sound a note of caution?

I am also called upon from time to time to give professional evidence in court, although not in the field of child protection.

IME in expert witness work there is a very difficult line to be drawn between sticking your neck out on the one hand, but on the other hand being so mealy-mouthed that you don't really say anything useful.

The latter is a far more comfortable option, as you won't be hauled over the coals for it. Clearly it seems as if Professor Southall has made an error of judgement for which he can reasonably be criticised, but aloha's last post seems to me to be unnecessarily inflammatory.

I sometimes have to steel myself to write reports containing strong opinions because I know that it will result in my spending three days in the witness box under hostile cross-examination. It would be much easier to fudge my conclusions and write a non-commital report which didn't put me in the firing line when the sh*t hits, as it inevitably does.

But if I and other experts always took the line that attracted the least criticism, then those terrorists, rapists, murderers against whom the evidence is less than straightforward would always walk away. I am sure that sometimes I make mistakes, and I am always aware of that possibility; I write reports when I am asked to do so in the knowledge that I am a fallible human being doing the best that I can under complicated circumstances.

Like most other mothers, I cannot imagine anything worse than being forcibly separated from my children. In this case it appears that professional mistakes have resulted in grave injustice, which I would not seek to defend. But would the world be a better place if all medics refused to take on this kind of work because of the public lynching they faced if they were to make a mistake?

Oh, but frogs, have you read the lost mothers threads? They're heartbreaking, they really are. And what happened was disgraceful in an awful lot of cases it seems: children were taken from their parents by 'experts' who hadn't even met the family in question! In closed courts, with no right of appeal! How can that be justice?

But frogs- he drew his conclusions from a TV programme. That is completely indefensible.
I did hear once something (incorrect) that was said about me to my son's school (before he went there), by a professional who had never met me or my son. IMO that was completely out of order and extremely unprofessional. It couldn't have led to my child being taken away from me, but chinese whispers can cause serious damage.

MSBP is extremely rare- and irresponsible professionals have cause untold damage to far too many families for too long. For a while it has been the case that if you are involved with services for any reason (eg disabled child) you run a real risk of being accused of MSBP. The people do need stringing up in my opinion.

Yes, I know, I know -- the mere thought of anyone taking my kids away from me gives me the red mist, and I find the thought that it should happen to any one unjustly truly appalling.

But I've also heard the most awful nonsense talked on TV and radio about cases that I've been involved in, so I'm aware of how things can be made to look to suit a particular media perspective.

In the case of Roy Meadow the thing that really rang alarm bells for me, and which wasn't picked up by the media, was the fact that all the cases seemed to involve him acting for the prosecution. In contrast, most of the experts that I know make a point of keeping a balance between defence and prosecution cases, precisely to guard against accusations of coming to each case with a preconceived agenda.

I find the idea that someone would approach these very complex and sensitive legal cases solely from the point of proving their own pet theory completely outrageous, and the fact that the legal system supported them in this for so long is also horrifying. But these are complicated failures involving individuals with outsize egos and a legal system designed to serve the side that puts on the best show rather than trying to find out the truth.

I still don't find talk of stringing up to be a helpful approach in analysing what went wrong here or how it could be prevented next time.

I don't know what to say Frogs, I see your point re the prosecution and never the defense. I had not thought of that. But what I would like to know is if it rang alarm bells in your head did you do something, or are you doing something about it now to prevent someone like meadows from ever doing this again? I think if you have the strong opinion that you do have you should put your words into action and it sounds like you are in a position to do so. Have you done anything?

I would syill like to know how many mumsnetters would take their child to see him if he were NOT struck off. I do not see that he could ever be trusted by a parent again. so what good is a reprimand. I think he should be hit in his pockets where it hurts and that is where a lot of parents have been hurt also. Because not only did they loose their children, but even with legal aid, you still loose all of your savings and assetts, just to loose your case. I do not begrudge a penny, I would have done anything to get my children back, but lets see how he feels having to loose everything, because we can't take his children, I would not want to. Every child deserves a loving parent. Despite his appauling judgment and assumptions I can not say he is a bad father, but I would like to see him hit where it hurts. His job or his pocket!

Bunglie - I'm afraid I've had to hide my identity for this, although I've posted on your threads before, as my job involves working with the family court system so posting this here could be considered a conflict of interest. From what I've overheard I think it's very unlikely that even if Prof Southall is not struck off (and I'm afraid the probability is that he won't be - just restricted in his activities to less controversial areas) his credibility as an expert witness will be so low that he isn't likely to get involved in court work again. If nothing else that will hit him in the pocket, as someone who gets a reputation as an expert witness who can get the results the prosecution wants can make a fair amount from it.

Just a quick post, Bunglie, as I'm trying to finish off some work before going away.

The trouble with the legal system in this country is that there is no definitive agreement on what constitutes an expert. In my area there are several people who are known to tell any party who is prepared to pay them pretty much whatever they want to hear. Their evidence can be challenged, can even be ruled out by particular judges, but that does not prevent them getting instructions in another case from somebody who is unaware of the previous one.

This situation is exacerbated by the fact that there is much more demand for this type of work than there are people qualified and willing to carry it out, so the rogue operators will always have a market.

In the MSPB cases it strikes me that two things were going on with the Meadow et al. In the first place they were using the legal system as a platform for expounding their own pet theories. All academics have these, and can be heard getting carried away by their own cleverness at any professional conference. The danger here is that they extended this (in itself harmless) ego-trip to the legal system where they were playing with people's lives.

The second crucial factor is that because their theories suited one side in our adversarial legal system, and because the professors involved were presumably good performers in court, they will have been able to earn substantial sums of money, doing this.

Clearly they are at fault for (a) having an inflated sense of their own wonderfulness and (b) being greedy for the money they could earn holding forth about their ideas. BUT the only reason they were able to do this is because it suited the legal system for them to do so.

So the short answer to your question, Bungle, is there is absolutely nothing I could have done or could do now about it, because I wouldn't be telling anyone in the legal system anything they don't know already. This isn't meant to sound harsh to you, just reflects my own cynicism about the system.

frogs, there is an enormous gap between muttering to your friends about having seen something on tv that you think is load of nonsense and acting in your capacity as a professional and calling up the police and convincing them to arrest someone soley based on what you saw on tv.
I agree that there is a problem with the legal system, particularly the family courts, but that absolutely does not excuse Meadows and Southall and others from testifying to things as truths that even I (with a minor in biology and a few university level statistics classes) can see are patently untrue. The family courts need to be reformed, but those doctors need to be struck off and punished for all the evil they have brought on so many innocent families.

Frogs,
Thank you for your honesty. I do understand with what you are saying and I can see that it is the judicially system that is PARTLY at fault. ie had we not have the system that we have then it would not have promoted Meadows etal, to be able to behave in the way that they did. The system supported them in otherwords.
However, I still think that what Southall did warrants being struck off. Hed did not just think something privately from a TV programmee but his inflated ego must have led him to believe that others would believer his ludicrous story that has caused so much hurt amd pain.
Sofia puts it far better than I can.
I say, bombard the GMC, as mothers, and demand he is struck off.
Ooooh......Am I being to , you know , shall of crawl back under my rock I am sure it is the same one as by frogs pond! Anyone got a link to the GMC, for emails

frogs you don't find talk of stringing up helpful as you are not emotionally involved in idvividual cases. Aloha has become emotionally involved in Bunglie's case so she has, I've seen how easily it can happen (and the wheels have been set in motion in the cases of several people I know via email- especailly those hom education SN child- seems to make you fair game- although I only know one person who had her child removed).

if you have sat on the wrong side of a professional's arrogance- and there is no protection against that (degree from Oxford, PhD from York in a Science subject has not been enough to stop me being treated as an idiot) then you do begin to loathe these people. I know a few I would say I loathe with every inch of my being. If their arrogance had led to my children being removed I cannot imagine how I would feel about them. Ultimately their actions have destroyed lives and led to the removal of children from entirely innocent parties- and what do they get for this? Pretty much a rap on the knuckles and a "naughty boy". It's not good enough.

Jimjams, you beat me to it by a few seconds, I would email the GMC as I find it incredible that he will not be struck off. What he did was destroy a fomily and it is sending messages to others that if they make a similar rash judgment (ridiiculous!), that they will only get a rap on the knuckles.
Did you see the faces of Sally Clark and her husband, they were broken people, not the prosessional that she had been,that man destroyed them and I say hit him where it hurts, and not just his pockets!!!
Bunglie I would email the GMC, Any link?
To answer your question I would not trust that man around my child or any of my family, but he will probably go abroad and earn pots of money and not realise what he has done.
Good to see you so positive Bunglie.

email for gmc for subjects relating to "Doctors' fitness to practise" is [email protected] (from this page )

I've sent an email Bunglie, saying much as has been said here. and it basically says 'STRIKE HIM OFF'.
Lets see if Mum power can make a difference?

Oooh I emailed just to say that I think he should be struck off because he can not be trusted around people to paractice anymore, and if they did not do that they should fine him. I am a coward though and did not give my name....sorry.
But I do think if the office is bombarded with emails from outraged mothers they might think again!!!!!

Is this also to do with the hiding of the medical info that their first child actually had meningitis, but as they "knew" she had killed her 2nd child they didn't bother using that evidence.
Makes me ill.
Short answer no, I know what I'd do if I did see him though.

I know it will make people feel that they are doing something to help by emailing the GMC< but when I mentioned this to my husband he said it is actually a waste of time and might even be counterproductive. The medical profession, rightly or wrongly, clings very fiercly to its right of self regulation and if they get a lot of amails from people they would regard as 'emotional mothers' then it may well harden any resolve NOT to find Southall guilty of SPM. If you want to do something then contacting your MP or WRITING, (silly, but it does make a difference, they will listen better to a letter than an email) to the GMC in a clear and reasoned manner would make more difference.

I know it is ridiculous but it is how the medical profession works.

Good point Suzanne,
Yep, I have no problem emailing my MP, but I have found that it pays to print out the email and post it as well, because they do not always answer emails.
MP it is then.
Thank you for that!

Sorry got your name wrong, SUSAN!

Interesting piece (by a doctor) in today's Telegraph

Southall is a consultant paediatrician at my local hospital (although not sure if he is currently practicing or suspended).

I would not allow my children to be referred to him, although some parents think he is an excellent doctor(?) and at least until recently he has had support locally. I really do not see how he can continue to practice, he is now infamous not just for this case but for covert video survelliance of parents and also CNEP ( a type of ventilation for prem babies) which are/have been investigated by the GMC. How could you trust him?

Luckymum, I can not comment on his skills as a doctor,the sad thing is he may be an excellent doctor. But, he did abuse his position and certainly has poor judgment, when it comes to his professional ethics.
I posted the following ... on another thread, maybe it is a bit flippant and for that I apologise, but I really do want to see the GMC take some sort of responsibility as well as the judicial system, which does also need to be reviewed
*I was accused as you know of having Munchausens Syndrome AND munchausens syndrome by proxy.
I wish I could tell you how the Judge reached his decission,(gagging order!), but what I shall say is All of the findings he applied to me can and should be applied to Southall, Does that make him a sufferer of his own syndrome? But he does fit the profile applied to me, down to a 'T'.
Ironic or what? Southall a sufferer of MSBP. "
I think this illustrates how ludicrous the system is that allows this to happen.