Page 10 | Southall struck off

Heathcliffscathy · 09/12/2007 22:42

this has turned a bit surreal tbh.

i am not an david southall apologist.

i have been commenting on the glee. that's it.

i also feel that that area of healthcare is particularly open to attack by it's very nature.

Elizabetth · 09/12/2007 22:42

"calling you waspish is hardly passive aggressive elizabethh"

Eh, no, it was your earlier remarks coupled by the disingenuous "I'm not attacking you" stuff that fitted that description. I thought you were attacking a few people in a passive aggressive manner actually.

bossybritches · 09/12/2007 22:43

No he is not, he is being backed by a few sychophants who are still dazzled by his arguements- & he has not treated his patients or their families with compassion or done his research thoroughly.

Elizabetth · 09/12/2007 22:50

"i have been commenting on the glee. that's it."

That's the problem Sophable, you're off-topic. This thread is about David Southall and the actions of his that led to his striking off the medical register.

Perhaps you should think of starting your own thread about the "glee" as it is pretty much trolling here.

candypandy · 09/12/2007 22:54

Am about to go and do big pile of ironing but can't without giving a bit of support to Sophable. I totally and absolutely and profoundly disagree with her, and to be honest don't really know how rules about MN threads work, but she does have a right to put her point of view and it seems odd to suggest this is not the right place.

LittleSleighBellasRinging · 09/12/2007 22:54

Sophable, I find it very strange that you appear to be unable to see that taking a child away from its loving parents is not in its best interests. This is something that must be avoided, in the child's best interests as well as in the interests of justice, as strenuously as a child being left in the care of parents who horribly abuse him or her. You appear to acknowledge the latter evil and be quite sanguine about the former. I think most parents (I won't say people, because I think until you become a parent you are unaware of the symbiotic nature of a healthy parent/ child relationship) agree that both are equally awful. One isn't usually preferable to the other. But if the general consensus moves towards a perception that it doesn't matter if children are taken away from loving families because it's worth the risk, then this is a terrible thing for children and families. And it will not help victims of abuse, because resources will be being wasted.

bossybritches · 09/12/2007 22:55

Ah well your company is stimulating as ever ladies but the hour is late & I must away to my bed.

Enjoy the late night chat!

Heathcliffscathy · 09/12/2007 22:56

of course that is terribly wrong bella.

no question.

Kathyate6mincepies · 09/12/2007 22:57

I agree Candy - in fact if anything I would rather have this discussion here than on a separate thread.
I quite like that I have been made to think about whether/why I am gleeful.

Kathyate6mincepies · 09/12/2007 22:59

also going to bed - goodnight!

LittleSleighBellasRinging · 09/12/2007 23:01

Well I don't feel gleeful, I feel grimly satisfied. But it's not enough. One megalomaniac paediatrician is irrelevant really, if it doesn't affect the secrecy of the family courts.

Soph, "no question" is wrong though - I think there is a bit of a feeling that OK, it's terrible if people like Sally Clarke and Angela Cannings are the victims of false allegations of child abuse, but it's the price we pay to protect children.

But it shouldn't, and mustn't be the price we pay. It is too barbaric.

candypandy · 09/12/2007 23:01

goodnight
wish i was going to bed
ironing ugh

PaulaYatesbiggestfan · 09/12/2007 23:02

i have to agree with sophable
had southall been involced with victoria climbie this would be a different thread
heavy handed folk like southall would and could cause much upset heart ache and heart break to adults..
swing a bit the other way .....it is helpless children who suffer

PaulaYatesbiggestfan · 09/12/2007 23:02

i have to agree with sophable
had southall been involved with victoria climbie this would be a different thread
heavy handed folk like southall would and could cause much upset heart ache and heart break to adults..
swing a bit the other way .....it is helpless children who suffer

LittleSleighBellasRinging · 09/12/2007 23:05

PaulaYates, Sally Clarke's helpless children suffered too. So did Angela Cannings. So did Donna Antony's. But that suffering's OK, right?

PaulaYatesbiggestfan · 09/12/2007 23:08

sorry to say this but in degrees 'yes'
that they suffered is very sad but to suffer at the hands of a mother is worse

Elizabetth · 09/12/2007 23:10

Who's to say that Southall would actually have spotted the abuse of Victoria Climbie? That's quite a big leap to make. He seemed to specialise in accusing parents of MSBP based on no evidence whatsoever and without even having met them.

It got lost in the other thread but he once accused a mother of having Munchausens Syndrome by Animal Proxy because some puppies that belonged to her were found strangled and he decided that she must have done it in order to get attention from the vet. It turned out later that her husband was disturbed and he had killed the animals, but not before the poor women had nearly had her children removed from her.

What we are hearing here is merely the tip of the iceberg.

LittleSleighBellasRinging · 09/12/2007 23:14

But Paula, those weren't the options available to them. They weren't being abused by their mothers. They were being loved, and nurtured and cared for. And then their mothers were taken away from them.

I bet they don't agree with you, that that's OK.

PaulaYatesbiggestfan · 09/12/2007 23:16

i am not inferring southall would have spotted victoria climbie - i just think there will always be human error in these difficult difficult cases
personally - if there had to be error- i would rather my children be protected rather than me
over simplifying - i am sure but you get the gist

Heathcliffscathy · 09/12/2007 23:17

with dads that strangled puppies because they were disturbed.

sorry but that is so weird!

i'm off to bed.

Ozymandius · 09/12/2007 23:18

Victoria Climbie was covered in bruises and in a pitiful state. Meanwhile Southall was happily accusing decent people of a dubious mental illness on the basis of something he watched on TV - that's really got nothing to do with protecting real victims of abuse. It's just creating different victims.

LittleSleighBellasRinging · 09/12/2007 23:18

Taking a child away from a loving family isn't protecting them.

It's abusing them.

PaulaYatesbiggestfan · 09/12/2007 23:21

if i means genuinely abused children are protected then it is a risk worth taking

in my very experienced in this field opinion

expatinscotland · 09/12/2007 23:22

I need to agree with Ozy here.

My SIL was adopted from care.

And it was far different from these cases.

She was born to heroin addicts.

But if you think that nullified her adult misery, guess again.

She didn't stay a child.

He never felt compelled to apologise because he does not feel he wronged others, despite now overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There are people like this in the world.

And they are the stuff of nightmares.

And I have worked with their victims. Over and over. And will always do so because I have NOTHING in this world to offer them but my strength and to tell them that I believe them, whatever it's worth.

Maybe FA. Maybe everything.

But there is something intrisically wrong with someone who can't say, 'I'm sorry. I was wrong. I apologise.'

Ozymandius · 09/12/2007 23:23

If it means genuinely abused children are protected...only taking children into care and fucking up their whole lives because you are obsessed with a probably fictional adult mental illness, doesn't protect real abused children at all.