folly - he is banned from child protection work.
Finally, he did NOT remain professional. He used confidentiality as an excuse to peddle untruths without having to account for himself. Did you see the family where social services had scoffed at Southall's accusation? Because he insisted the mother of a child with serious allergies had made it up and had MSbP? Even though the allergies were well-documented and some attacks had happened at school, when the mother was not present? The documentary maker asked him about that and he told some dreadful, obvious lies. Which the maker put to the child - now an adult - who said WTF?
His claims about Mr Clark were not professional. It is deeply unprofessional and wrong for someone who had a reputation as an expert, and so whose views carried weight, to accuse someone of being a murderer based on a TV programme, having had no access to the court papers, the case history or ever meeting the man. Sally Clark's child was deprived of her mother not only while the mother was in prison but because that experience left her mother broken as a result of the psychological strain of the horrific treatment meted out to her. She died, prematurely, within a few years of being cleared. And then Southall tried to take away her father, too.
And it's an outrageous slur to claim Sally Clark was guilty. Read up on the case before you dare to attack an innocent woman who is now dead, and can no longer defend herself, FFS. The reason she was wrongly convicted was that Roy Meadows misled the court, claiming three cot deaths = murder. A claim that is a. untrue and b. he had no right to make, not being a statistician. The courts eventually recognised that. It's appalling that anyone continues to peddle lies the poor woman.