Southall struck off

[ElenyaTuesday]

See here

Southall

That's a very good article, MM. It gets right to the heart of the issues that need to be addressed.

"Southall wasn't actually a paediatrician. He was a researcher. He had no paediatric qualifications."

There's an interesting thread here on the Mama board edam, including people who have been involved in the case.

www.msbp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2633

They are arguing that the child protection angle is a complete smokescreen and Southall's interest was always about getting children for his research, which was why he accused mothers of MSBP. Certainly some of the stories from people who've been accused by him fit that particular explanation.

The fact that he never bothered to qualify as a paediatrician would also fit - if he was really interested in helping children he would have trained as a consultant paediatrician, instead he was interested in making a name for himself through the media and publishing research papers. Of course he still needed to get himself research subjects.

Are you saying he wasn't even a paediatric consultant???!!

I think that isn't quite right- I'm sure he was employed as such though?

There are more details here BB. Apparently he was appointed as an honorary consultant paediatrician -

davidsouthallexposed.blogspot.com/2007/11/david-southall-and-his-qualifications.html

Thanks Elizabeth I missed that one!

FFS! SO he wasn't even supposed to have any clinical contact with children except under the supervision of another clinical paediatrician?

....and concerns were raised in -get this-1986??!!!.....and no-one noticed?????!!!!

I am speechless and THAT doesn't happen often.

Article in the Times today makes some good points:

[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3019109.ec e]]

hmm, I get a '404' error when trying to view that page - any idea which section, Xenia, so I can find it via the Times site?

According to the GMC charge sheet, his registered qualifications are :

SOUTHALL, D
MB BS 1971 Lond;
MRCS End LRCP Lond 1971 SR

MBBS is a basic medical degree. MRCS is membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (Edinburgh, I think) - another basic qualification. LRCP is again, basic level membership of the Royal College of Physicians.

So, what qualifciations does he actually have in paediatrics?

"I am speechless and THAT doesn't happen often."

It's just shocking isn't it? And there's all these paediatricians lining up beside him, when he's not even one of them.

Crazy.

Here's the link I think, edam -

ross clark article

So he's basically Claire Verity with a medical degree; a random scrubber off the streets with a narcissistic streak a mile wide and a yen for self-publicity.

Qualifications thing shocked me - I interviewed him when I was a reporter, and there was no question from anyone that he wasn't a bona fide consultant paediatrician.

I can't remember what the formal/traditional quals for a consulant paed are, but usually you need a fellowship to gain a medical/surgical consultant post - FRCS or FRCP or whatever. Seems he went sideways, getting senior lecturer post as a researcher and then an honourary consultant post. He should have been supervised for any patient contact by a proper consultant paediatrician... but seems to have gained a consultant post and national prominence as a paediatrican without this, somehow.

One of the news or comment pages. Search Southall on the Times site. There were two articles but the one I meant was by a father who has a mentally disabled daughter. Aged about 12 she began suddenly pulling her knickers down in school (as they do - mental age of 2 becoming an adolescent). Her special school said would you like some parental advice or something and that instead meant they sent round people who seemed to have convinced themselves there must have been abuse by the father. They are only able to talk about it because it never went further than that otherwise the cloak of secrecy that protects social workers etc would have come down and stopped the article being written. He wrote about Southall and others too and the fact we need more regulation of those people with these huge powers.

I'm so [shocked] by this- haunte by the thought of poor Sally Clark ...she might have be alive still if this bastard had been stopped in his tracks earlier.

STILL fuming about the fact that concerns were raised in 1986!!!

He has a basic doctors degree...perectly good qualification.....but NO fellowship which is what you need to be a consultant.

So they shunted him sideways into a research post & suddenly he becomes a Professor??

Okay, let me get this straight: if the family speaks out, they go to prison, right?

But whilst they are in jail, they could still get word out, could they not?

Because you know, if someone came and took my kids, I'd gladly go to jail shouting.

I'd continue to call out, too, until I was silenced.

And I've got a very loud voice and a big gob .

Dig deeper & you find more inconsistancies...

" According to our records, the JCHMT (Joint Committee on Higher Medical Training representing the 3 UK Colleges of Physicians (Edinburgh, Glasgow and London) and now know as the Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board) accredited Dr David Southall as completing training in Paediatrics on 1st May 1988 .
We did not accredit him as a Consultant Paediatrician - we could not/cannot do that. To become a Consultant in the NHS you need to be appointed to a consultant post in open competition. As I expect you know there is a statutory instrument governing the appointment of consultants."

Yes expat me too!

But they have ways of gagging you (sometimes literally) & often these families are scared, not as articulate or confident of their "rights " as you or I. Aslo if they go to jail, the children are more at risk of being taken into care because mother's a jailbird...I'd not risk it!

i hear you, bb.

i just get soooo angry when peoples' emotional suffering, lack of opportunity to have perhaps achieved enough education to help them articulate themselves well, vulnerability or sense of fear are taken advantage of to rob them, in mrs clark's case, of her life.

curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.

Expat, the scary thing is that Sally Clark was a solicitor. She had all the advantages of being middle class, educated and knowing her way round the legal system. Yet the bastards got her - so what chance does someone poor, who might not have done so well at school, has?

expat it's not just that the family aren't allowed to speak out.

The media is not allowed coverage. So any newspaper printing the story, and TV programme covering it, any internet site allowing it to be discussed, would be breaking the law.

Hence the total, unaccountable power these dangerous people have.

oh and afaik, I think an MP wouldn't even be allowed to mention it in parliament - because a constituent talking about it to his/ her MP, would have broken the law. Not sure about that one though.

Expat - me too that's why I have joined this band wagon so vociferously (?sp) since the details of the FL case have come out on here. The more I research the more I am horrified both as a mother & an (ex) healthcare practitioner at the unending practice of secrecy within our Family Courtst/CP / SW professions.

I cannot say it enoough. If we do not have openess , accountability & transparency in all these area then we are insulting not only the majority of good,concientious practitioners but the children & families they are supporting and protecting.

Edam you areright you'd have thought Sally C had a fighting chance but she was being attacked as a mother not a professional & her training was probably in another field & all her experience deserted her when faced with it in a personal context

I'm not sure all her experience deserted her, I suspect she and certainly her family (her father is an ex-senior policeman, IIRC) fought with everything they had. But the fanatics are so powerful even the advantages of education and respectability can't save you.

Exactly edam & that's what's so frightening!

Look at Fran Lyon for example. if people like her & Sally Clark can't fight back for what is right, then as you & Expat say, what chance have less advantaged families got?

This morning's Observer sigh

observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2224554,00.html

You note that Speight concentrates solely on the incident with "Mrs M" and carefully ignores the other, equally serious, charge of damaging the integrity of medical records.

I feel a letter to the editor coming on. Doubt they'll print it, though.

MM

It's the lack of press coverage and restrictions on family speaking out as well as reporters not allowed into family hearings that needs to be changed. The risk to children adn families of their dirty linen being aired in public is in my view much less than the risks of justice not properly being seen to be done in public. Secrecy is too protective.

Of course it's not easy being an expert witness and members of my family often are and find it can be tough. I would hate to do it. A lot of people avoid it even though the work is there because of the risks and stress.