Southall struck off

[ElenyaTuesday]

See here

Southall

Paula, it appears he had no ability to make distinctions otherwise.

He got on something and it appears he saw nothing else.

And scarily, there are people still like him still out here, doing what they do unchecked and cloaked in secrecy and that is wrong.

expat your words made me cry - very very true

An HTV report on David Southall and his breathing experiments on babies and the secret special case files he kept:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh1Us9CWDlk

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVaOZ9NhW0k&feature=related

I think that saying that children who are not being abused should be taken away from their parents on the offchance, so that children who are might be protected, is on a par with saying that it's worth banging up innocent terrorist suspects, if it protects the public from real terrorists.

It's simply immoral and unjustifiable. But it doesn't surprise me that someone who works in the field has those views.

you are slewing my words

Am I?

Sorry if you think that. But your words are: "if i(t) means genuinely abused children are protected then it is a risk worth taking

in my very experienced in this field opinion"

I don't know which bits I've slewed?

Please don't be offended if I don't respond tonight, I'm thinking of going to bed now!

Most of the time children are rightly taken away when they are. It's not like 90% of cases are wrong. So usually it's okay but we need more appeals and check and openness too but that would require the public to accept the openness too and I'm not sure they would if they were being investigated or were having a disputed contact hearing in court after a divorce.

The idea that Southall et al are victims, or the subjects of a hate campaign, is laughable. The 'prosecution' - Southall et al - have resources and respect that is not accorded to the parents. That's why Roy Meadows was able to get away with his ludicrous statement that the risks of three cot deaths were 73m to one - because everything he said, no matter how barking, was taken as gospel.

Even worse, parents are gagged and prevented from seeking to overturn miscarriages of justice. If there's a court order and the judge specifically tells you you are not allowed to talk to your own MP, it's a. an abuse of democracy and b. makes it impossible for you to defend yourself. Even if you do somehow manage to keep going, the authorities will say 'tough, your child has been adopted'. That was the line the government took in the review of cases involving Roy Meadows in the family courts.

Southall and Meadows brought their own falls from grace on themselves, by their arrogance and deliberate rejection of medical ethics and good practice.

I'll save my sympathy for Sally Clark's family and all the others who were wronged. Sally's daughter lost her mother for four years and eventually got back a broken woman who then drank herself to death. How the hell is any child supposed to survive that? Donna Anthony lost everything - she had to stay with her lawyer when she got out of prison because she had no-one.

Meanwhile Meadows and Southall have plenty of support and still retain some prestige. Meadows even managed to convince the Court of Appeal that the legal body that regulates doctors had no right to judge him on his work as an expert witness - work that he only got because he was a doctor! That's how much power these guys have. The authorities protect their own.

Parents who have their children taken away aren't even allowed to talk to a counsellor to help them cope. Seriously. \they could be put in prison for it.

Compassion & transparency-not.

The gagging is appalling. I'd move to a country where I wouldn't be gagged I think or I'd hire people to help me find my children and then slip my children out of the country.

The family courts need to work on the same test as the criminal court - you need to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that the child is at risk - NOT on the balance of probabilities. Taking a child away is on the same level as sending someone to prison - in fact a prison sentence may be quite short and may well have far less of an impact than losing your child(ren). And the secrecy needs to go - these decisions need to be transparent.

Southall deserves to be struck off but I fear he will be reinstated by the courts in the same way Meadows was. Hey ho....

Changing the burden of proof is a tempting thought, Helly, but I can see why there is a lower standard for the family courts - the argument would be that if you have to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt some children may be harmed. I dunno, would be helpful if there was any way of knowing how many cases would have met the criminal standard and what the likelihood is that changing the burden of proof would increase risk.

In the family Courts the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities however-it is well established law that the more serious the allegation then the more cogent the evidence needs to be before any finding is made. Thus if the fact to be found involves sexual abuse-the quality of the evidence has to be extremely good to satisfy the burden of proof.

I understand what you say about the criminal standard, but as Edam rightly says in family proceedings there is more than the consequences to the adult that are in issue.

An example to consider. If a child were to sustain life threatening injuries whilst in the care of one or both parents and they say nothing. Then unless a jury can be sure of which one of the parents did it, both would be entitled to be acquitted-unless strong evidence of joint enterprise.

This could not be allowed to happen in the Family Court-because if neither parent is either found to have caused the injuries or is found not to have caused them-ie nobody knows who it was -then that child goes home. Even though it is clear that one of those parents seriously injured the child.

chipkid, I'm sure there's been a change in the law to deal with cases where children are injured but each parent blames the other. There was a case not too long ago where both parents were sent to prison. So I'm not sure how that sort of problem affects the burden of proof - it's been sorted out, I think.

you may be right Edam-I don't do criminal law-but I had recent experience of a case where historically such an acquittal was achieved-in that case it was a murder charge and the baby was dead.

It may have become more like the family Court scenario-where you look to see if it is possible to exclude a parent from causing the injuries or they both remain in the frame.

God that would be so horrific if one of the parents was telling the truth about the other one killing the child, but then they both got sent to prison because it couldn't be established which one was lying and which one was telling the truth. Imagine being in that situation.

In the Times:

Southall defends himself.

women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3029385.ece

Is it me or is he, by implication, still asserting that Stephen Clark murdered his two sons? Refusing to apologise in this particular instance certainly seems like it.

And, I notice, still no mention of the SC files.

MM

I see it's an interview with him rather than him writing what he chooses to write. I know very little about him or the case but certainly this thread and comments on it which appear libellous to me in places where they do not just describe facts, just result in anyone reading it think there is indeed a witch hunt.

If it leads to more openness in the family courts etc as indeed I think he is saying he wishes there were -for 10 years he's not been allowed to speak about things it would be much easier to get clearer pictures of things. To achieve that you would need a consensus that we are all happy to have accusations against us made public even if they are false.

"He is at ease with his conscience, convinced that he has never falsely accused parents of child abuse: ?I have admitted that I got it wrong many times in terms of failing to recognise abuse, and believing that something was a medical problem instead of abuse. But have I ever got it wrong by falsely accusing parents? I don?t think so. "

How amazing to be so convinced that you've always been right.

I wonder how many of us could say the same about our own professional lives.

The desperate desire to retain the title of Professor is quite telling imho.

And since it mentions Penny Mellor's conviction for 'conspiracy to abduct a child', I think it's only fair to point out that this was Penny Mellor helping a family to "abduct" their own child - ie go on the run with the child to prevent her being taken by SS after MSBP allegations.

But have I ever got it wrong by falsely accusing parents? I don?t think so. "

This is a direct quote from Southall himself. If he has never got it wrong then the implication is there that the Clark babies were, in fact, murdered, no?

As I understand it Social Services investigated and decided that the third Clark child was perfectly safe with her father.

MM

You need the wisdom of Solomon in these cases. I'm just glad I don't work in this field.

"But have I ever got it wrong by falsely accusing parents? I don?t think so. Because I know how terrible that is for the parents, but mostly for the children."

Molesmother i think you could interpret it this way - it's not wrong to falsely accuse a parent, because it's terrible for abused children to be abused, so however terrible it is for an adult to be accused of abuse, it's OK because it means you won't miss the genuine cases of abuse. If that's what he means, then it's not libel.

(It's wrong of course - accusing innocent people doesn't mean you'll cover the guilty ones too - only by accusing all parents of abuse could you cover the guilty ones - but it's the argument which I think people who work in that field tend to be sympathetic to.)