Richard Nicholson, Erased Doctor

Vote Paddington Bear as the next GMC Expert
At least there is some relevance to paediatrics.

The GMC doesn't have to have high standards for their experts. Richard Nicholson was picked from the Bulletin of Medical Ethics. Mr DCH has not practised medicine for a long time. He has been hired by the GMC to criticise high flying consultant paediatricians.

It is a bit like the GMC hiring a Pre-Registration F1 to assess the performance of 3 top consultant paediatricians. Actually, the GMC might as well have hired Paddington Bear for the job. Slow clap for the General Medical Council for proving themselves unfit for purpose - AGAIN.

Read more at this link.

Len Tyler's Friendly Emails to Penny Mellor

Len Tyler is an interesting little man who lounges around the Royal College of Paediatrics responding to Penny Mellor's emails. We ask ourselves what Len Tyler has been doing fraternising with a ex felon but then he should watch the company he keeps because you never know which one of his emails may end up online. Len is the Secretary to the Royal College of Paediatrics, at least that is what he writes in the BMJ. Patricia Hamilton makes all sorts of excuses for Len Tyler. Patricia states "We give factual replies to anyone who asks genuine questions and it is not our habit to be discourteous under any circumstances. But this does not mean that we are happy with the situation".

The Royal College of Paediatricians, Patricia Hamilton and Len Tyler have refused us an interview, have refused to supply us with press releases and have refused to answer any questions put to them . We therefore assume that an ex felon has more rights of audience with the Royal College of Paediatricians than those wishing to question the inertia of the college that has lasted for more than a decade. An inertia that has subjected its doctors to substantial harassment by a dysfunctional group of mothers. An inertia that has now damaged child protection. This is further shown by the stance taken by Professor Alan Craft to move for a watered down AGM against the General Medical Council.


Our question is this, does the Royal College of Paediatricians put child protection first or does it continue to bow down to the whims of Penny Mellor, a ex felon and a liar. Len Tyler tells Penny Mellor "I have never doubted the sincerity of your beliefs". Is there anything sincere about someone who conspired to abduct a child? He was writing this to Mellor while paediatricians were being harassed by this group. Harvey Marcovitch had written this piece in 1999. Len therefore knew about the harassment of members of his college suffered yet he provided Penny Mellor with a response acknowledging the sincerity of her beliefs. As time has moved forward, we all now realise that there is nothing honest about Penny Mellor. Even her accusations are fictional and her mind moves at right angles to reality. Mr Tyler also states that he regrets he could not have worked closer with a ex felon who once conspired to abduct a child. Now that's child protection for you - perhaps it is a new style used by the Royal College of Paediatricians where they work hand in hand with ex criminals.

This is the email from Len Tyler to Penny Mellor

----- Original Message -----
From: Len TYLER <ltyler@rcpch.ac.uk>
To: <dare.tocare@ntlworld.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Southall et al knew and they said it was mother now whatare you
all going to do. WECHT IS WORKING FOR US NOW.

Dear Penny (if I may),

Thank you for your e-mail. If you wish to write to the Queen asking for our Charter to be revoked, that obviously must be your decision and you must form your own views as to the likely success of this action. I think however that you have badly misjudged the situation.

We have agreed to set up a working party on MSbP and have appointed a chair who, I think most people would agree, is fair and as open minded on the subject as you could hope for. The College has stated an intention to consult as widely as possible. Obviously I cannot guarantee that the conclusions of the working party will be to your liking, but I would have thought that you would have regarded its setting up - and the opportunity it offers for a debate - as a positive step. While, as you have observed before, your views and those of the College are not exactly the same, I have never doubted the sincerity of your beliefs; I have only regretted that we could not work more closely together for the good of children - which is after all what we are all striving for. Should you take the action that you propose, I think that it is unlikely to convince my colleagues that you are somebody whose views we should be actively seeking.

This is a personal communication, not intended for publication on your web-site (as you have sometimes published other College responses to your letters). If you choose to do so, however, I guess I can live with it.

With best wishes

Len Tyler

Yes, Len, you are going to have to now live with it because we think you are the weakest link. We have never received more than a one line response from Mr Len Tyler. Perhaps he has suddenly developed RSI following his rapid responses to Penny Mellor. We also question what other information has been flowing between yourselves and Penny Mellor.

Henshalls At the GMC

It has always been the case that the Henshalls case was always developed and executed by Penny Mellor. The Henshalls have always attempted to deny this but the evidence speaks for itself. Their case is a revolving one and they are lucky because they live in a well to do area, command high levels of legal aid, are represented by Irwin Mitchell and are essentially after compensation. One has to admire them for their tenacity to obtain this. It seems that it has been more elusive than playing the lottery. Nevertheless, the Henshalls do amuse me somewhat. They have disliked David Southall, Martin Samuels et al for many years. While patients died on Ward 87, the CNEP trial was being investigated and reinvestigated repeatedly by those they had instigated.

Their view of reality is somewhat interesting as shown by the BBC piece. It is also an example of who should be examined with more scrutiny. In this case, the motives of the complainants are rather interesting.

Their complaints were taken to the GMC again following their appeal success. It has basically been revolving around the GMC for years and years and should have technically been knocked out on the 5 year rule. Nevertheless, Finlay Scott always gives ex felons' cases the oxygen of publicity therefore the doctors are at the GMC next week. This is despite being cleared of any wrong doing by the Nottingham Study.

Double jeopardy lives at the General Medical Council. Mary O Rourke will be representing the doctors and everyone knows that Mary is known as the Irish Terrier who is extremely difficult to beat. We hope she wins this case for these three doctors. If anyone can win it, its Mary O Rourke. The interesting fact about this case is that the GMC have embarassingly hired a erased doctor as an expert in consent. His name is Richard Nicholson. We have to all observe the GMC's choice of experts with great amusement. Richard Nicholson had no comment to make and when all his Editorial Board were contacted, none wished to comment on whether his role as expert was a " ethical one". Infact, they all dissociated from him one by one. What does this tell us about the role of Mr Richard Nicholson? This is not to mention the clear potential conflicts and associations with the Mellor and Morgan. Those will be examined at a later date.


Professor HM Evans Dissociates from the GMC Expert.

I am indeed the same Martyn Evans and I may still be listed as a member of the Bulletin’s Editorial Board but I do not believe the Board is functional. To my knowledge the Board has not met for many years. Although I attended two meetings in the early 1990s at the time of the Board’s inception, I have not had any significant correspondence with the Bulletin or its Editor since moving to University of Durham in 2002 and probably not since the time of the Board’s brief active period. Only lethargy has prevented my removing my name from among those listed.

Can I make it clear therefore that I do not regard myself as linked to Dr Nicholson by virtue of the Board nor, for many years, in any other respect so far as I am aware.

I am not familiar with the case that concerns you nor with Dr Nicholson’s involvement in it. Nor can I take an interest in it now, as I am heavily over-committed already.

Yours

Prof HM Evans

Person Richard Nicholson

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Well Done Dr Rodney Gilbert

Dr Southall is reinstated on the register to Penny Mellor's disgust. In the meantime, Dr Rodney Gilbert is cleared of any wrong doing. After these false allegations instigated by Penny Mellor via the media etc, this vexatious complaint has finally been thrown out by the CPS. Again we ask ourselves how much public funds this lady has wasted. Over the years, it must be millions of pounds of taxpayers finances. Of course, the authorities would say that Penny Mellor lives in a democratic society and has her human rights. It seems no one else has rights apart from the vexatious complainant. No psychiatric assessment has been done of Penny Mellor and she continues to create imaginative complaints for all concerned. We are all surprised that an ASBO has never been considered for this woman.

Of course, complaint failures normally happen when the complainer does not have the ability to assess the evidence. It may be down to the minimal educational level attained by Penny Mellor.

Scores
Penny Mellor 0
Child Protection 2

CPS announces 'no prosecution' of Dr Rodney Gilbert

23 April 2008

The Crown Prosecution Service today announced that no prosecution will be brought against Dr Rodney Gilbert, the consultant in charge of the care of Joshua Taylor, who died aged 15 months from hypernatraemia, an excess of salt in his body.

Alastair Nisbet, Head of the regional CPS Complex Casework Unit said: "After detailed consideration of the evidence, including a report from an independent expert who was not previously involved in the case, I have decided that there is insufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect that Dr Gilbert would be convicted of any offence arising from his medical care of Joshua or from the evidence that he gave in the trial of Marianne Williams.

"My review of the evidence also concluded that there was no realistic prospect that the NHS Trust, or any other health professional involved in the care of Joshua, would be convicted of any offence."

Joshua's mother, Marianne Williams, was acquitted by a jury in 2006 of the murder and manslaughter of Joshua by poisoning him with salt.

After her acquittal allegations were made to Wiltshire Police that Dr Gilbert's treatment of Joshua had caused his death and that he had given untruthful evidence at Ms Williams' trial.

Those allegations were investigated by Wiltshire Police and a file of evidence was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Notes to Editors

1. Dr Gilbert is a Consultant Paediatric Nephrologist employed by the Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust.
2. The death of Joshua Taylor will now be referred back to the Wiltshire Coroner for his inquest to be resumed.
3. Media enquiries to CPS Press Office on 020 7796 8079.
4. The Crown Prosecution Service is the Government Department responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales. It is responsible for:
   • Advising the police and reviewing the evidence on cases for possible prosecution;
   • Deciding the charge where the decision is to prosecute;
   • Preparing cases for court;
   • Presentation of cases at court;

   The CPS consists of 42 Areas in total, each headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP). A telephone service, CPS Direct, provides out-of-hours advice and decisions to police officers across England and Wales. The CPS employs around 8,400 people and prosecuted 1,091,250 cases with an overall conviction rate of 83.7% in 2006-2007. Further information can be found on this website.

PACA "Our experience of the GMC responses to its errors lead us only to conclude that they are arrogant, intransigent and disingenuous"

Press Release from PACA – Professionals Against Child Abuse



PACA has had major concerns about the General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice procedures in high profile cases of paediatricians who have led the way in child protection work. PACA considers the GMC’s actions have reduced the willingness with which paediatricians will report suspicions of child abuse and engage in child protection work, including acting as expert witnesses. PACA has tried to engage with the GMC, but Professor Catto, President of the GMC, and Finlay Scott, CEO, have responded that PACA is "painting a misleading picture, thus adding to the very problem they say they wish to resolve".

However, last week, PACA’s concerns were overwhelmingly supported by a motion at the Annual General Meeting of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The motion listed the areas of concern (see below) and called for the GMC to review the Fitness to Practice procedures as a matter of urgency. They recommended involvement of the RCPCH, the Department of Health, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Social Services Inspectorate and National Children’s Bureau. Unlike the GMC, these bodies better understand the relevant legislation and practice.

PACA is now further disturbed by the GMC’s announcement that they failed to comply with its own regulations when they applied an immediate sanction against Professor Southall, resulting in his inability to work as a doctor. The GMC’s sanction led to Professor Southall’s immediate suspension from clinical and charity work, including his honorary medical directorship of the aid agency Childhealth Advocacy International (CAI). This sanction was applied in the absence of evidence that his clinical or CAI work had caused any harm and had in fact brought enormous benefits to patients. As a direct result of this sanction, Professor Southall had resigned from his consultant post at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire. Furthermore, the actions of the GMC against him have seriously impaired CAI’s ability to raise funds for its humanitarian aid work.

At least the GMC’s inability to follow their own rules was followed by their own admission that they had made an error, resulting in a cancellation of the suspension. However, it compounds their existing inability to regulate judiciously in cases involving leading child protection professionals. Given the GMC’s inability to recognise their error in erasing Professor Sir Roy Meadow from the medical register, described by a high court judge as approaching the irrational, and apologise to him, we have little expectation that the GMC will move forward with an urgent review of its procedures, as voted for at the RCPCH AGM. It is now time that the GMC reviewed the sanctions and erasure that they applied to Professor Southall's cases in 2004 and 2007 respectively. In the view of PACA, they were both incorrect judgments.

Currently the GMC will receive complaints from anyone (having no vexatious complaints policy) - it then investigates and prosecutes these complaints, sits in judgement on its own investigation and finally decides what penalty should be applied. This is hardly a fair or balanced process and certainly not one that fulfills a doctor's right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention. Our experience of the GMC responses to its errors lead us only to conclude that they are arrogant, intransigent and disingenuous in the way it attempts to defend the indefensible.

Motion for RCPCH AGM – York University, April 2008

The College has grave concerns about the actions of the GMC relating to proceedings involving child protection work directly or indirectly. These actions include:

1. The GMC erased from the register one paediatrician acting as an expert witness in a case where two children had died and where the mother was tried for murder. The erasure was quashed by the High Court, but the GMC have not acknowledged that the erasure decision was wrong and have not satisfactorily explained why they consider it is not related to the child protection field. As a consequence, paediatricians have been deterred from acting as expert witnesses in cases involving child injury or death, many of which would be classified as possible child protection cases.

2. The GMC sanctioned a paediatrician for reporting concerns to the statutory authorities for child protection and, describing the doctors’ behaviour as “precipitate” and criticising his evidence-based opinion given in good faith, found him guilty of serious professional misconduct and suspended him from further child protection work. This contravenes the stated professional and public duty to report child protection concerns and the latest guidance issued by the GMC itself. As a consequence, paediatricians now feel less certain of the correct way to proceed and may therefore be less likely to report child protection concerns.

3. The GMC erased from the register a paediatrician who was exploring with a parent the mechanism of death of their child at the request of social services in the context of care proceedings. The parent alleged that the paediatrician had accused her of murder, despite evidence to the contrary from the senior social worker present who along with the paediatrician took notes throughout the interview. As a consequence, many paediatricians are now more reluctant to participate in child death reviews or indeed explore with parents possible mechanisms for sudden death.

4. The GMC have repeatedly relied on an expert witness known to have opposing views to the doctor being investigated and who had advised contrary to that doctor in the first of the above cases. This raises serious questions about the impartiality of this expert, particularly as the GMC did not use any other expert evidence. As a consequence, paediatricians feel that GMC hearings in the field of child protection have not had the benefit of truly impartial advice representing current mainstream professional practice.

5. The GMC have undertaken a number of investigations on paediatricians who have already been the subject of investigations by other bodies and have been exonerated. The GMC have not inquired about such investigations, or have failed to take account of these previous investigations. We consider that this represents double jeopardy and demonstrates an unfair and incomplete process. As a consequence, paediatricians have become less willing to be involved in child protection work, knowing it may result in multiple complaints and investigations.

6. GMC registered doctors working in other specialties, who were convicted of various crimes, including assaults on children and viewing child pornography (offences which would render them unemployable as paediatricians) have been reinstated to the register. As a consequence, paediatricians feel treated more harshly than other specialties by the GMC.

7. The GMC does not automatically inform the doctor when it decides not to proceed with a complaint. College members know that complaints in child protection are rising and are under extreme and often public stress when they receive such a complaint. As a consequence, paediatricians are poorly informed by the GMC of progress in their own personal case.

8. The GMC is unwilling to state whether it has received multiple complaints from the same person(s) acting as part of a campaign against factitious and induced illness, quoting data protection legislation. Paediatricians have been asking the GMC to develop a policy for dealing with vexatious complaints and serial complainants. As a consequence, paediatricians feel the GMC is not taking their concerns on board.

For the above reasons, the College continues to have grave concerns over current GMC procedures for dealing with cases related to child protection. We call upon the GMC to review these procedures as a matter of urgency and involve in the review this College and other bodies such as the Department of Health, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Social Services Inspectorate and National Children’s Bureau, who have an understanding of the relevant legislation and practice, in order to support continued quality work by paediatricians in this field to the ultimate benefit of children and their families.

Related Links

1. Struck off Doctor Wins in Court.

2. Paediatrician Ban Lifted

3. Sally Clark Doc Wins Job Battle.

4. Kill Row Doctor Win In Court.

5. Overturns Ban on Doctor.

6. Overtuns Ban on Practise

David Southall Back on the GMC Register

Congratulations to David Southall. The GMC are rather sheepish today.

Scores

Penny Mellor 0
David Southall 1

Related Links

1. David Southall Reinstated

2. This is London.

It was featured on an interview on Central News. Penny Mellor forgot to dye the front of her hair which showed the fact she was actually natural grey and not a red head proving that everything about her is usually fake.

Well, as predicted by everyone and PACA, the rebound effect of the GMC's actions on child protection professionals is resulting in an increase in abuse in children. There is indeed a climate of fear. Professionals fear to raise concerns about the welfare of children.

Shock rise in violence against UK's children

NHS figures show there are now 22,000 hospital cases a year of deliberate harm to youngsters

• Jo Revill, Whitehall editor
• The Observer,
• Sunday April 20 2008
• Article history

About this article

Close

This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday April 20 2008 on p4 of the News section. It was last updated at 00:01 on April 20 2008.

The scale of violence against children has been revealed in new figures which show that in England an average 58 youngsters a day are being admitted to hospital after being deliberately injured. The numbers, contained in National Health Service data, suggest that the incidence of intentional harm against children may be rising. Five years ago some 16,600 were counted as having suffered deliberate harm, but the figure rose to 21,859 last year.

These figures, which show the numbers admitted to English hospitals with a deliberate injury, do not include those who are taken to casualty departments but then sent home, or who die as a result of the harm. Most of the children diagnosed with injuries are babies and toddlers, who are particularly vulnerable to violence from parents or carers.

For doctors, the situation is intensely difficult as they have to explain to parents why they are carrying out investigations on a child who has what appears to be suspicious fractures or burns. Now the NSPCC has begun to work with experts at Cardiff University to help staff to differentiate between accidental and deliberate burns.

They have produced images showing the difference, such as a toddler accidentally knocking a pan of water over themselves, and the telltale marks of cigarette burns or deliberate scalds.

It is thought that some 10 per cent of children in burns units are there as a result of deliberate harm.

Alison Kemp, reader in child health at Cardiff University, said: 'The numbers are high, and it is very hard to know whether they are really rising or not, because of differences in the way data is collected. But it seems to me that the rates of injury are certainly not going down. We can say that these figures overall represent just the tip of the iceberg. They only include those who are actually admitted to a hospital, not the ones sent home.'

Kemp said it was increasingly difficult to report child protection concerns because of worries that doctors could be accused of misdiagnosing abuse: 'You can imagine that this is one of the most difficult things to approach a parent with,' she said. 'No one wants to have that confrontation unless they are reasonably sure that something bad has been going on. But our ultimate responsibility is to children, so we have to find ways of making it easier to identify cases of deliberate harm.'

Enid Hendry, director of training at the NSPCC, said: 'Deciding whether a child has been physically abused can be a complex decision. The guidance will help GPs, health visitors and social workers to diagnose with more confidence whether an injury is accidental or abusive, based on current scientific evidence.'

The government announced recently that it will be monitoring the level of hospital admissions involving unintentional and deliberate injuries to children and young people as part of a new set of agreements aimed at improving children's safety.

A report from the National Children's Bureau warned last year that some children are being discharged from casualty departments and allowed to go home despite suspicious injuries such as a black eye or broken arm because they are not identified as being at risk.

Some hospitals do not have dedicated teams of children's social workers, even though this is officially recommended, making it much harder to investigate suspicious cases at an early stage.

Changes in child protection were brought in after the murder of eight-year-old Victoria Climbié, who died with 128 injuries on her body inflicted by her great-aunt Marie-Therese Kouao and Kouao's boyfriend, Carl Manning, in 2000, with local safeguarding boards comprising NHS, police and local authority representatives being set up to improve monitoring. However, there is concern that much of the abuse is still not being investigated.

Professor Timothy David and the General Medical Council

GMC Experts. Upside Down and Asleep

Timothy David and I don't really get on. The reason we don't get on is because I ask him too many uncomfortable questions. It is true that while he is probably able to respond to the great Queen Mellor, he seems unable to force his paw onto the keyboard to respond to any of my questions. This is amazing for a man who can otherwise write so much for the judges and for the General Medical Council. The great man told his sidekicks to inform me that he doesn't do "interviews". Clearly he was upside down on his ceiling contemplating his next move against David Southall.

The good thing about Timothy he wonders around the internet. He was found lounging on a health site not far away from here searching for " Penny Mellor blog". Of course, he would be searching for Penny Mellor, that's because he has not denied being in contact with this ex felon during his detailed work with the Attorney General and the General Medical Council. At present, Timothy David is subject to a GMC Complaint. There is no doubt at all that the General Medical Council will be slithering and attempting to figure out how they can save their prized bat. After all, he flaps his wings all over the place.

Personally, I am of the view that Timothy David is a swot. His expert reports waste forests of trees and even then cranes are required to transport them from one place to another. Clothes pegs have to be supplied to all judges just to keep them awake while they read his long winded reports. Butler Sloss, an infamous judge was severely critical of Professor David. The good professor likes to keep this secret. He prefers that the public should not be aware about his problems. Of course, he has made many accusations of David Southall. One is an accusation of lack of transparency. Now, we see further evidence of pot calling kettle black. He is so insecure of his conduct that he cannot even respond to his emails about his role at the General Medical Council. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to the GMC was denied. Professor David is coy, he is shy and he keeps his cards close to his chest. We conclude that he is certainly not transparent and keeps secrets. The problem with secrets of course is that they often end up on the internet. So what is in Tim David's GMC Secret File? Yes, after this article is posted we can all hear pins dropping at Manchester University. Again a frog will have jumped down Professor David's throat preventing him from speaking on the subject.


Professor David likes to think he is being the patient advocate or the hero. We then have to look at his pay packet from the General Medical Council in great detail and review which way he swings. Professor David likes the General Medical Council. That is because he slinks into their dirty laundry quite easily. The problem with the General Medical Council is their dirty laundry. Prof David though is such a generous man that he advises them on how best to take his colleagues down the General Medical Council steps. He was so eager to advise on the Southall cases that he tripped over his obligations on conflicts.


His rivalry with David Southall has been made obvious to all and sundry. Timothy wanted to be top dog and quite frankly it has to be said that David Southall has always beaten him in knowledge, attention to detail and looks. If anyone compares David Southall expert reports to that of Timothy David, it is clear whose reports are of a high standard. That is why David Southall's reports are succinct and why Timothy David has to ramble on taking 7 pages to explain an issue that should take 3 sentences. Timothy David likes to go for the rarest causes in the world. We all know in medicine that common things are common. Professor Tim David though likes to twist medicine to fit the case he is working for. Of course, as an expert he knows that his obligations should be to the court.

This was an interesting outline of what Professor David has been up to.

Anyway, this is dedicated to Prof Timothy David as he with his colleagues at the General Medical Council visited this website today. One would think they would both have better things to do like formulate vexatious complaints at the GMC for the welfare of doctors. They are though more interested in why anyone would write fair comments about David Southall. Is this because they have taken part in amusing themselves at the vilification of David Southall. Well, now they should wipe that smile off their faces because they have more skeletons in their closets than David Southall has in his entire house. The truth about Professor Timothy David is rather more disturbing than he would have us believe. He is coy about his role in the David Southall case - that is because we both know that he was wrong.

Related Documents

1. CPR Protocol Expert Witness.

2. Toth v Jarman - Disclosure of a Conflict of Interest

Person Timothy David

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Final Motion for RCPCH AGM as Edited by Professor Sir Alan Craft

Motion for RCPCH AGM – York University, April 2008


The College has grave concerns about the actions of the GMC relating to proceedings involving child protection work directly or indirectly. These actions include:

1. The GMC erased from the register one paediatrician acting as an expert witness in a case where two children had died and where the mother was tried for murder. The erasure was quashed by the High Court, but the GMC have not acknowledged that the erasure decision was wrong and have not satisfactorily explained why they consider it is not related to the child protection field. As a consequence, paediatricians have been deterred from acting as expert witnesses in cases involving child injury or death, many of which would be classified as possible child protection cases.

2. The GMC sanctioned a paediatrician for reporting concerns to the statutory authorities for child protection and, describing the doctors’ behaviour as “precipitate” and criticising his evidence-based opinion given in good faith, found him guilty of serious professional misconduct and suspended him from further child protection work. This contravenes the stated professional and public duty to report child protection concerns and the latest guidance issued by the GMC itself. As a consequence, paediatricians now feel less certain of the correct way to proceed and may therefore be less likely to report child protection concerns.

3. The GMC erased from the register a paediatrician who was exploring with a parent the mechanism of death of their child at the request of social services in the context of care proceedings. The parent alleged that the paediatrician had accused her of murder, despite evidence to the contrary from the senior social worker present who along with the paediatrician took notes throughout the interview. As a consequence, many paediatricians are now more reluctant to participate in child death reviews or indeed explore with parents possible mechanisms for sudden death.

4. The GMC have repeatedly relied on an expert witness known to have opposing views to the doctor being investigated and who had advised contrary to that doctor in the first of the above cases. This raises serious questions about the impartiality of this expert, particularly as the GMC did not use any other expert evidence. As a consequence, paediatricians feel that GMC hearings in the field of child protection have not had the benefit of truly impartial advice representing current mainstream professional practice.

5. The GMC have undertaken a number of investigations on paediatricians who have already been the subject of investigations by other bodies and have been exonerated. The GMC have not inquired about such investigations, or have failed to take account of these previous investigations. We consider that this represents double jeopardy and demonstrates an unfair and incomplete process. As a consequence, paediatricians have become less willing to be involved in child protection work, knowing it may result in multiple complaints and investigations.

6. GMC registered doctors working in other specialties, who were convicted of various crimes, including assaults on children and viewing child pornography (offences which would render them unemployable as paediatricians) have been reinstated to the register. As a consequence, paediatricians feel treated more harshly than other specialties by the GMC.

7. The GMC does not automatically inform the doctor when it decides not to proceed with a complaint. College members know that complaints in child protection are rising and are under extreme and often public stress when they receive such a complaint. As a consequence, paediatricians are poorly informed by the GMC of progress in their own personal case.

8. The GMC is unwilling to state whether it has received multiple complaints from the same person(s) acting as part of a campaign against factitious and induced illness, quoting data protection legislation. Paediatricians have been asking the GMC to develop a policy for dealing with vexatious complaints and serial complainants. As a consequence, paediatricians feel the GMC is not taking their concerns on board.

For the above reasons, the College the College continues to have grave concerns over current GMC procedures for dealing with cases related to child protection. We call upon the GMC to review these procedures as a matter of urgency and involve in the review this College and other bodies such as the Department of Health, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Social Services Inspectorate and National Children’s Bureau, who have an understanding of the relevant legislation and practice, in order to support continued quality work by paediatricians in this field to the ultimate benefit of children and their families.

Princess Meets Professor Sir Alan Craft

The Princess's facial expression was captured as she met Ex GMC Commitee member Professor Sir Alan Craft.

Royal College of Paediatricians - Vote of No Confidence in the GMC

Professor Sir Alan Craft and Friends.
Uncle Craft Playing His GMC Card

Everyone knows that recently a number of paediatricians voted for a "No Confidence Against the GMC" Motion at the recent Royal College AGM.

It should be noted that the vote was unanimous with 2 abstaining out of 300. It is also vital to note that the "watered down" version of the "Vote Of No Confidence"motion was done by none other than Ex General Medical Council Committee member and Trustee Professor Alan Craft.

Thankyou Professor Sir Alan Craft for your allegiance to your previous employers. Time they voted you off the Royal College given your inaction during all the time you spent as Commitee member and Charity Trustee for the General Medical Council. Having watched all your colleagues go down the GMC steps one by one for the last ten years, Uncle Craft did little to help the cause. It is of course time Uncle Craft took his editing pen and retired. No one is sure what function he serves anymore. Perhaps he likes editing and watering down motions. In the last 10 years, Uncle Craft failed to ensure there was a vexatious policy at the General Medical Council. Infact, we all wonder what he was doing there for all these years. Drinking coffee with the rest of them while hundreds of doctors lives were ruined. Well, at least old Crafty can retire with his pension in hand.

For all other purposes apart from Uncle Craft's editing skills, this was a Vote of No Confidence Against the General Medical Council.

RCPCH statement - Annual General Meeting (AGM)

For immediate release

Dr Patricia Hamilton, President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH):

"The proposed vote of no confidence was not supported by the AGM. Instead the wording was amended to read 'the College continues to have grave concerns over the current GMC procedures in child protection.' This amended motion was passed by the AGM, but still has to be taken to Council for a final decision. We look forward to continuing to work with the GMC to resolve these issues."

The amended AGM motion now reads:

For the above reasons, the College continues to have grave concerns over the current GMC procedures for dealing with cases related to child protection.We call upon the GMC to review these procedures as a matter of urgency and involve in the review this College and other bodies such as the Department of Health, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Social Services Inspectorate and National Children's Bureau, who have an understanding of the relevant legislation and practice, in order to support continued quality work by paediatricians in this field to the ultimate benefit of children and their families.

Radio 4 and Finlay Scott

GMC's King Scott Does His Makeup Before Radio 4

Dr Nigel Speight infamous for his excellent piece in the Guardian was against Finlay Scott was against Finlay Scott on Radio 4. [37 mins into the tape] yesterday.

While Nigel appeared as the honest man out of the two, Finlay appeared to slime his way out of the questions put to him by the interviewer. Of course, Finlay does not mention the connection between Sally Clark's case and Penny Mellor. But we all know of this connection. Finlay Scott also does not tell us the association between the Henshall case and Penny Mellor. Finlay Scott a man hisses away in his Scottish accent really isn't doing well in his new found job of dysfunctional patient group advocate. He has never thought about the welfare of patients since he took up the job of top dog at the General Medical Council. Infact the welfare of the public has been the last thing on his mind. Finlay Scott though is doing his best to shift the blame onto PACA. Of course, everyone knows the General Medical Council very well. It was afterall the General Medical Council who kept Harold Shipman on the register after he became a convicted serial killer.The General Medical Council who merely suspends doctors who are on the sex offenders register. Thats because they feel that sex offenders are more acceptable than child protection professionals.

Nigel Speight tells the world that the paediatricians in trouble at the General Medical Council were doing their job. Indeed, that is right. All of them including Dr David Southall acted according to protocol and for the safety of children. If anyone has seen Dr David Southall work, they will know that he works completely by protocol and according to the book. Infact he has always been known for his methodical nature and attention to detail. Penny Mellor of course is not aware of these protocols because she doesn't know how medicine works. She does though know how to make false allegations repeatedly. This is what she does to all and sundry and that is probably why she has a forensic psychiatrist report tucked away somewhere. The Forensic Psychiatric report is private apparently. Well not as private as she thinks.

So in summary, it is important to understand that there are campaigners in the world who are able to assess and analyse information. Penny Mellor is not one of them. By the time the authorities come to realise this, a large amount of tax payers finances will be spent. Then Finlay Scott knows how many complaints by Penny Mellor were taken up and how many doctor's lives were made miserable. Of course, King Scott of the General Medical Council will be requiring rather a lot of makeup to cover up the misdemeanors of his organisation.

Finlay Scott Under Fire. Mr Scott Tells Us a Story

Source BMJ

By the Royal College of Paediatricians

Finlay made the unprecedented attempt to bare all all thoughts on child protection in the latest GMC News. Finlay can often be economical with the Truth. He has been economical with his statistics. This is what he said

Chief Executive Finlay Scott says paediatricians’ concerns about
the GMC’s procedures are unfounded.

"It is being suggested in some quarters that the GMC's fitness to practise procedures are unfair to paediatricians engaged in child protection work. It is most important that the facts are understood. Paediatricians attract complaints like other doctors. But it is untrue that large or disproportionate numbers of paediatricians are represented in our fitness to practise procedures. Between April 2006 and December 2007, we received 8,400 enquiries or complaints about doctors of all specialities. Of those complaints, eight were about paediatricians connected with child protection work. In the course of investigation, one of the eight doctors entered into voluntary undertakings related to their health, without the need for referral to a fitness to practise panel. The other seven cases were also concluded without referral to a fitness to practise panel and with no effect on the doctor’s registration. It is extremely rare for a paediatrician to appear before a panel in connection with child protection work. Since 2004, panels have considered more than 600 cases. Only two could reasonably be said to have been about paediatricians involved in child protection. In a third case, Sir Roy Meadow was an expert witness in a criminal court. It has been suggested that the GMC does not understand the special nature of the work of paediatricians. This reflects a misunderstanding. When we are investigating a complaint, we can – and do – take advice from specialists where appropriate. The material available, including expert opinion (where appropriate), is considered by two case examiners – one medical and one lay – who will decide whether to refer the case on for adjudication. It has also been suggested that fitness to practise panels are not qualified to judge cases involving paediatricians because they don’t include specialists in child protection work. As it happens, this line of argument about the composition of panels was considered and rejected by the High Court in 2006 ([2006] EWHC 2468 (Admin)). But, more importantly, it would be potentially unfair to the doctor if expert opinion was given in private by a specialist panel member. The key point is that expert opinion should be given in open session so that it can be tested by both sides. This is what happens in the courts. We are committed to processes and procedures that are fair, objective, transparent and free from discrimination. And the facts suggest that, in general, we live up to that challenge. But this is not to claim that everything works perfectly. We recognise that the investigation of some complaints can take too long before a decision is taken. Even where the doctor is not referred to a fitness to practise panel, a protracted investigation, and the associated uncertainty, undoubtedly cause stress and strain. We have worked hard to reduce delays but we face particular problems in securing transcripts from the Family Courts. We will continue to press for improvement. Meanwhile, it is far from helpful when pressure groups – claiming to speak for doctors or patients – paint an inaccurate picture of our work. Doctors can be confident that we view each complaint or enquiry on its merits, without fear or favour. The motives of the complainant do not influence the decisions taken; and our guidelines and rules are in the public domain. The figures demonstrate that our processes and procedures are capable of distinguishing where there is a real problem. Of course we understand that it cannot be inanyone’s interest if paediatricians are deterred from undertaking vitally important child protection work. Equally, it cannot be in the public, or the profession’s interest, if the GMC does not act when doctors practise incompetently or inappropriately. Our critics are trying to create the impression that the GMC is intent on unfairly persecuting paediatricians involved in child protection work. Nothing could be further from the truth; and, by painting a misleading picture our critics risk creating, or adding to, the very problem they say they wish to resolve."

The Royal College however states as follows

"Please read the article from the GMC and let's carefully consider this and our own complaints survey from 2004. The GMC Letter tells us that of 8400 complaints about doctors in all specialities only 8 related to paediatricians and child protection work. All 8 of these were closed without referral to fitness to practise panel with 1 agreeing to voluntary undertakings without referral to a panel. The RCPCH survey asked paediatricians [3879] if they have ever over their whole careers been subjet to a complaint related to child protection, 533 doctors reported 786 complaints 79% dealt with locally, of which 9% recieved publicity and 3% upheld. 71 doctors [86 complaints] were referred to the GMC. At the time of the report 59% were found unproven 20 % were ongoing and none were upheld"

Many years ago, a article in the BMJ said as follows

"
"Eventually the government, the NHS Executive, the hospital, the General Medical Council, and its nursing equivalent all took her complaints seriously. Now the complaints have been dismissed, but never, at any time, has sheor the publicseen the evidence that led to their dismissal. That is not public accountability. She has been subjected to it, but she has never had it herself. Allegations were lodged with the police and with the GMC that consent forms had been forged. These have also been dismissed, but nobody knows why. Were the forms fraudulent, or were the complaints about them fraudulent? We are not told. The GMC has now decided on a public review of Professor Southall's management of three cases of child abuse at some future date. One case occurred 12 years ago. Justice delayed eventually becomes justice denied""

We present the Complaints roll call made by Penny Mellor and her associates

Psychologist

Lisa Blakemore Brown.

Doctors

1. Dr Frank Bamford, MD, FRCP, DCH, Hon.FRCPCH, FFPHM, DPHRetired Consultant Paediatrician and Reader in Paediatrics,

2. Dr Arnon Bentovim, MB, BS, FRCPsych, FRCPCH, DPMHonorary Consultant Child Psychiatrist,

3. Dr Sir Iain Chalmers MB, BS, MSc, DSc, DCH, FRCP Ed, FFPHM RCP.

4. Dr Paul Davis, MB, BCh, MRCP, DCH, DObstRCOG, FRCPCH

5. Dr Dewi Evans, MB, FRCP, DCH, DObstetRCOG, FRCPCH

6. Dr David Foreman, MB, ChB, MSc, FRCPsych

7. Dr Danya Glaser MB, BS, FRCPsych, DCH

8. Dr Edmund Hey, MA, DM, D Phil, FRCP, Hon.FRCPCH, DCH

9. Dr David Jones, MB, BCh, FRCPsych, DCH, DObstRCOG, FRCPCH

10. Dr Mike Lowry, MB ChB, FRCP, DCH, FRCPCH

11. Dr Harvey Marcovitch, MA, FRCP, DCH, FRCPCH

12. Professor Sir Roy Meadow, MA, BM BCh, FRCP, FRCPE, DCH, DObstRCOG,

13. Professor Peter Milla, MSc, MB, BS, FRCP, FRCPCH

14. Dr Evan Picton-Jones MB, BChGeneral Practitioner, Crymych, Wales

15. Dr Keith Prowse, MD, FRCP

16. Dr Chris Rittey, MB, BCh, FRCPCH, MRCP

17. Dr Martin Samuels, BSc, MD, FRCP, FRCPCH, DCH

18. Professor Joe Sibert, MA, MD, BChir, FRCP, DCH, DObstRCOG, FRCPCH

19. Dr Robert Smith, MB, ChB, FRCPCH, FRCP

20. Professor David Southall, OBE, MD, FRCP, FRCPCH

21. Professor John Stephenson, MA, DM, Hon.FRCPCH, FRCP, DCHConsultant in Paediatric Neurology and Honorary Professor Glasgow University

22. Dr John Chapman who wrote in the BMJ (2005) ( added to the list on 10th May 2007)"I posted a response yesterday. I did not include my email address deliberately. This morning I have received an email from Penny Mellor who is reporting me to the GMC and the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health for a perceived breach of patient confidentiality. Beware" Penny Mellor stated " Finally unless you have obtained permission from the family to give details of the case in which you were an attending doctor, I do believe that you have breached patient confidentiality by leading the reader of your response to the article in which the child's name appears" (2005)We would like to know what happened to Dr John Chapman Penny ? Did you win the complaint or not?

NURSES referred to the UKCC by Mrs P Mellor and her associates

Peter BlythinHead Nurse, North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

Elaine ChaseSouthend Community Care NHS Trust

Jane Noyes RSCNMRC Clinical Fellow,Teresa Wright RSCN

Clinical Nurse Specialist,Other nurses

Anona Turner RMN, Cert. Group Analyst Psychotherapy

Annette Smith SRN,

Kath T Howarth,

Jennifer A Clark,Editors criticising Ms Penny Mellor

Dr Rita Pal Editor NHS Exposed.

GMC Comment on Vexatious Complaints.

Paul Philip of the GMC stated "When questioned about vexatious complaints for this article, Paul Phillip, the GMC's director of fitness to practise, said: 'The whole situation relating to serial and vexatious complaints is a difficult one.' But he added that the GMC was introducing a new IT system this year which would make it easier to flag and identify patterns" (9.3.06)


Finlay Scott and Paul Philip continue to protect Penny Mellor despite her habit of vexatious complaints. All FOI requests requesting the numbers of complaints made have been denied. Finlay Scott also omits the statistics for the number of complaints that have made it past the registrars stage of the GMC's procedures causing havoc in the doctor's lives. The GMC has also failed to pay attention to the 2005 admission of recruitment difficulties. In 2006, the BMJ stated as follows "As well as an estimated 30% vacancy rate for designated doctors in child protection, there is also a severe shortage of doctors willing to act as expert witnesses in child protection cases"

The Executive Summary of the January 2007 Report into complaints against Child Protection Professionals [ Royal College of Paediatrics] is interesting as it shows the problems doctors face . There has been a serious problem for the last 10 years. The GMC have had 10 years to get their system in order to protect doctors against vexatious complaints. Even though articles have been written about it, the problem has been ignored by regulatory bodies like the General Medical Council. In the last 10 years, Finlay Scott has been unable to ensure there was a vexatious complaints policy at the GMC to protect doctors. He has been asked the question repeatedly over the last year and he has a judicial review to deal with regarding this problem. Finlay Scott though fails to deal with this important issue and glosses over the serious problems currently wasting GMC funds [ doctor's subscriptions].

Executive Summary of Investigation into Complaints against Child Protection Professionals.

Child protection is a complex and emotive area for any professional. A Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) survey (2004) i demonstrated that paediatricians in the field are often the targets of unfounded complaints and that the number of such complaints was rising. Although over 97% of complaints were subsequently unproven, the survey identified that complaints had a profound impact on the professional and private lives of some paediatricians and had influenced their willingness to undertake future child protection work.
The findings of this survey prompted a more detailed qualitative study to explore the nature and impact of complaints made against paediatricians in relation to child protection. The research undertaken was commissioned by the RCPCH as part of an ongoing programme of activity to support doctors working in child protection.

Semi-structured interviews with a representative sample of 72 paediatricians drawn from the 2004 survey were conducted during mid-2005. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and the transcripts thematically analysed with NVIVO software. The sampling method used enabled the inclusion of a broad spectrum of paediatric experiences and the complaints discussed varied both in relation to the nature of the complaint and how far they progressed through the system. It is acknowledged that a limitation of the study was that the views of complainants were not sought, mainly because of ethical and practical difficulties of identifying complainants within the project time frame.

The College Research

Division has recently received funding for a project involving parents that will be used to complement the findings from this study.The study identified common themes in relation to complaints and considered strategies that might minimise complaints. It also highlighted the more general concerns expressed by paediatricians about their roles in safeguarding children, including educational and training needs.

Safeguarding children – the paediatric role

• Child protection is just part of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. While effective child protection is essential, the primary focus for all agencies and individuals should aim to proactively safeguard and promote the welfare of children so that the need for action to protect from harm is reduced ii. However, where there is evident harm or the risk of suffering significant harm then there may be a need for professionals to act in order to protect the child.

• Child protection work is very different from other areas of paediatrics. Respondents suggested that those not directly involved with child protection issues do not fully appreciate the difficulties and complexities.

Complaints Against Paediatricians - January 2007

11. Safeguarding children can be a challenging and emotive area of work for paediatricians.
The consequences of not recognising abuse can be devastating, so it is understandable that
some may balance their decision on the side of caution when considering whether or not to
make a referral to social services. However, the impact on families of an inappropriate referral can be equally devastating and this tension sets child protection work apart from
other clinical assessments.

Understanding complaints

• Many paediatricians interviewed accept that complaints are a recognised risk of the job
when child protection issues arise.

• When a child with suspected non-accidental injury presents directly to the paediatrician, it
is the paediatrician who initiates the referral to social services. Paediatricians are aware that
this responsibility brings the risk of complaints.

• Paediatricians are aware that the evidence-base behind many physical signs of abuse is weak, and that this places them in a particularly vulnerable position. They sometimes feel under pressure from other agencies to be able to make a definitive decision about non-accidental injury.

• Paediatricians highlighted the particular difficulties of safeguarding children where there were concerns relating to emotional abuse, neglect or fabricated or induced illness.

• Many complaints were triggered by the process of making, or excluding, decisions about possible non-accidental injury. Some parents clearly feel aggrieved when a non-accidental cause is considered even if subsequently ruled out, particularly when a second opinion did not agree with the original diagnosis.

• A small number of complaints may have occurred because of failure to follow good practice. Following the best practice outlined in Government guidelines ii as well as the Child Protection Companion (RCPCH, 2006) could help to minimise these complaints.

• The research highlighted the personal toll complaints can take. Paediatricians have been threatened, received threatening and unpleasant letters, been attacked, stalked, spat on,
and accused of child abuse and even child murder.

• The complaints process, particularly that of the GMC, causes considerable concern for some paediatricians. The process can take too long to resolve, with little or poor communication from the investigating authority on the progress of the complaint.

Communication

• Communicating concerns of abuse to parents changes the normal collaborative partnership
between doctors and parents, and paediatricians reported finding this a difficult area.

Complaints Against Paediatricians - January 2007

12.Communicating child protection concerns to parents or to members of the multi-disciplinary team often resulted in a complaint.

• Multi-agency working clearly still presents some challenges. Multi-agency and multidisciplinary working is extremely important. It is the most effective way to safeguard children; it facilitates clear lines of responsibility; it offers parents and families more appropriate support and can lessen the burden of individual accountability. The Children Act
2004 and the updated guidance for all agencies offered in Working Together to Safeguard
Children 2006 ii should encourage the development of more effective and accountable
multi-disciplinary teamwork.

Training

• Paediatricians feel very strongly that appropriate training and practical experience for doctors at all levels are vital components to enable children to be better protected.
• While the new RCPCH child protection training packages for SHOs are welcomed there
are concerns about how this initiative could be encompassed and developed within the reduced working hours.
• Appropriate training for more senior members of staff including those already working in
child protection is urgently required.

Resources

• A shortage of resources to undertake child protection work is a common problem. In some
cases this indirectly resulted in complaints such as when there was no private space to talk
with parents or examine children or when a lack of availability of specialist staff out-of-hours
required families to stay longer in hospital than was otherwise necessary.
• Effective child protection takes time and yet insufficient time to do the job properly was
often cited as one of the main causes of problems. Despite the recommendations in the
RCPCH job descriptions for named and designated doctors iii, iv there is still considerable
variation between NHS trusts in terms of time allocated for child protection roles.

Support

• Paediatricians working in child protection need more support. Support needs identified
include personal support and mentoring from colleagues, support from trusts when a complaint has been made as well as general support from the College and other national
bodies.
• Good local support networks and forums for discussing difficult cases may encourage good
practice. Using such resources should be seen as a normal part of child protection work and
not a sign of professional weakness.

Complaints Against Paediatricians - January 2007
13 College role

• Paediatricians see an important role for the College in raising the profile of child protection
work with the public. Increasing knowledge and understanding about child protection and
the role of paediatricians could help to alleviate fears and misconceptions within the general
public. Furthermore, encouraging a dialogue between paediatricians and families could work
towards effective partnerships for safeguarding children.

• There is extreme concern about the media reporting of recent cases against paediatricians
and the vilification of colleagues. It is seen as essential for the College to take a more
proactive stance in relation to specific cases ensuring that both paediatricians and the media
have accurate information about any high profile child protection complaint.

Conclusion

This research has identified elements required to reduce the number of unfounded complaints
while ensuring that children are safeguarded and that both paediatricians and families feel fairly treated. Some of these elements would appear to be easily put into place, others less so.
However the important message is that while paediatricians accept safeguarding children can
make them vulnerable to complaints, unless some of the issues highlighted in this research are
addressed there will continue to be a reluctance to take on essential child protection roles.

Recommendations from the College

Training and education

• There is an urgent need for ongoing child protection training for consultants and others
already working in child protection. Although training materials for career grade doctors are
currently in development, interim training courses should be put into place during this
development phase to fast-track child protection training for those already working in
the area.
• The child protection training packages should include components to enable doctors to
understand the boundaries and limitations of other professionals involved with the child
protection process as well as modules and role-plays in relation to court appearances.
• There is an urgent need to increase the training for those working in child protection on
effective communication with families. This training should be informed by an understanding
of the parents’ perspective when there are potential child protection concerns.

Complaints Against Paediatricians - January 2007

14• Attendance at multi-disciplinary and multi-agency training courses at local level should be
mandatory to enhance the effectiveness of child protection teams. Where these are already
in place the College could facilitate the sharing of locally developed training materials via its
website.

Time pressures

• An audit of designated and named doctors would identify workload pressures and evaluate
job descriptions in relation to RCPCH recommendations. The findings of such an audit would be of use to individual members in their negotiations with trusts in ensuring an appropriate time allocation for child protection work.

Support

• The RCPCH leaflet v on sources of support and advice should be updated and disseminated
more widely.

• The RCPCH should consider developing a list of members with experience in child protection who can provide mentoring and support for individuals.

• Child protection networks should be developed to allow advice to be given in the management of all cases and consideration should be given to the need to have two doctors
involved in decisions to make formal referrals to social services.

Information and media

• The College should work with other organisations such as the NSPCC and Children First to
develop good quality information for the public on the role of paediatricians in child
protection.
• The College should exploit any opportunity to raise the profile of child protection work and
the role of paediatricians in the media.
• The College should provide accurate information to its members in relation to legal rulings on court findings.

Complaints Process

• The College should continue to engage with the GMC, National Clinical Assessment Service, the Ombudsman’s office, and NHS trusts to improve the handling of complaints against paediatricians and to ensure fair service standards are set in relation to communication with the paediatrician and timely resolution of the complaint.

Complaints Against Paediatricians - January 2007
15
• The College should explore the feasibility of implementing the recommendations of the
Working Party on Fabricated or Induced Illness vi in relation to complaints. The recommendation that complaints from the family in relation to a child protection case should
be first investigated as a complaint against the employing health or social service department is particularly important.

Evidence-base and primary research

• The College should continue funding both primary and secondary research to improve the
evidence-base for the physical signs of abuse.

• There is an urgent need to undertake more research that considers the families’ perspective
to the child protection process and develop ways to communicate concerns more effectively with parents. The College intends to undertake research in this area.

COMPLEX WEB

Extract from Response to a Report of a review of the research framework in North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust (The Griffiths Report), released by the NHS Executive on May 8th 2000 Dated 23rd September 2000

4.3 Origin of the inquiry.

Comment

"The Review began because there were complaints about the conduct of research trials in North Staffordshire". [Part One]

Response

Mr and Mrs X, one set of parents making complaints, have made very public their views that 1) they were not told that CNEP was being offered to their children as part of a randomised controlled study, 2) they believe that CNEP caused brain injury to their child and 3) they had not signed consent, alleging that it was forged.

It is evident that parents have to cope with extreme stress when their child is critically ill. Evidence was also presented to the panel outlining that during this stressful period some parents enrolled into another published study had no recollection of having signed a consent form. It is therefore possible that Mr and Mrs X genuinely believed that they had not signed a consent form. However, some of the following information does not support the claims of this family.

During the recovery of their daughter from neonatal respiratory failure, Mr and Mrs X received a letter and completed a questionnaire on maternal child bonding. It is not possible for them to have failed to understand that their daughter had been entered into a controlled study of CNEP. A letter was sent to them beginning " "Dear [NAME OF PARENT(S)],
You will remember that shortly after [NAME] was born you kindly agreed to enroll him/her into our study comparing negative pressure respiratory support with standard treatment. As part of this study we have devised a questionnaire which attempts to compare the effect of these two methods of treatment on the way you were able to relate to your baby."

Mrs X replied to this questionnaire and indicated that in her opinion CNEP was more effective than standard treatment.

Mr and Mrs X stated in a letter in October 1999 to the British Medical Association the following: "..this group of parents who have raised concerns about the clinical implications of CNEP, have no connection whatsoever with Mrs Penny Mellor or Mr Morgan who are apparently campaigning on child abuse issues". The Guardian newspaper on 13th October 1999 published a correction in response to a letter from Mr and Mrs X concerning an article in the Guardian of 11th October reviewing the campaign against my child protection work. The correction was written as follows: they "would like to make it clear they have not criticized Southall's work in child protection and have no connection with those who have campaigned against Southall's work on Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy".

However, evidence for the existence of a connection is as follows:

· Mr and Mrs X's story first appeared in an article by a reporter called Brian Morgan in the Sunday Independent on 11 May 1997. The same reporter Mr Brian Morgan is quoted as saying in the Mail on Sunday on April 5th 1998 the following: "his and the mothers' aim is to see Southall struck off the medical register, his work discredited and a public inquiry instigated".
· In a letter to my employer on 3rd June 1997 and given to me, Mr and Mrs X wrote the following: "Why then would he slowly suffocate my child with his machine and lie in order to cover up what he had done? How many other babies like… have been subjected wrongly to this torture and when will he realize that it is the case of the pot calling the kettle black and that he has no rights criticizing Mums for how they look after their children when he experiments on hundreds at a time in the name of science even with knowledge of adverse effects. Have the courts seen the photographs of the tiny babies who were strangled by the neck seal on his gentle form of ventilation? ".
· In April / May 1997, Mr Brian Morgan, and Mr and Mrs X wrote similar letters to the Editor of ‘Pediatrics’ criticising my work in North Staffordshire
· In June 1997, Mr and Mrs X wrote to Keele University, Mr Brian Morgan's letter to Pediatrics was mentioned, the response of the editor to Mr Brian Morgan was quoted and Mr Brian Morgan was described as a friend.
· In March 1999, Mr Brian Morgan, Mrs Penny Mellor and Mrs X all wrote electronic responses to an article in the BMJ about my humanitarian aid work in Afghanistan [33]
· A person calling herself Penny posted on the internet on 25 April 1999 details of the alleged problems with Mrs X's consent form:
"Re:Negative Pressure
The previous respondent has been very circumspect with what they said, it is not an allegation but a fact. Mrs X's (one of the mothers taking action) consent form that she was supposed to have signed two hours after the birth of her daughter, had the name of her child on the form…..except that her and her husband had not even chosen a name for their child at that point. So who signed the form? Who entered her child's name? GMC responses please… Also all you British lawyers and QC's whom I have heard look at this site and know who I am will you finally have the ***** to help? Just in case any of you are in any doubt, The Mr and Mrs X's were due for CVS according to an inside source. What would have happened then? Accused of putting her on a bit of research machinery in order to damage her……are there any lengths these people will not go to….?".
· A person calling himself Brian Morgan posted the following on the MAMA website on 28th October 1999:
o The CNEP scandal emerged because the X family in Staffordshire were told by a doctor looking at medical notes belonging to their brain damaged daughter CHILD"S NAME that she had been in a study, as if they already knew knew about this.
o They didn't, and this led to them getting hold of further documents, one of which purported to be a research consent form signed by Mrs X, with CHILD"S name on it, spelled incorrectly as NAME.
o The problem for the hospital is that the parents did not decide on a name for several days and NAME was not even thought of initially.
o The other problem is that the form needed to be signed between between 2 and 4 hours after birth - during these hours Mrs X was in recovery from anaesthesia following a C section.
o Her signature on the form is perfectly formed - not the sedated scrawl you might expect from somebody still out for the count.
o Hardly informed consent. And as Dr NAME the medical director admitted on TV it was not possible anyway.
o The hospital has still to explain how her signature appears on this form.
o This is the theory though - Mrs X got her own notes from the hospital and (I can confirm this) there are a number of consent forms for other procedures she underwent - you can see clearly as a bell where someone has tried to alter the forms and then tried to correct the alterations - but most interestingly - one consent form Mrs X knows she signed a good while after CHILD"S NAME was born is missing. Work it out.
o This scenario is duplicated to some degree or another in other cases I have researched.
o The X family did a major amount of work on their case and on a number of other cases that came forward on the back of articles in their local newspaper.
o This first of all resulted in a General Medical Council investigation being set up, and then the Griffiths Inquiry set up by the NHS Executive in the West Midlands on the insistence of the then health minister Baroness Hayman.
o Then when this was underway Penny Mellor took her concerns about false allegations of child abuse and other very serious allegations about child protection work of doctors at North Staffs and elsewhere to the same team.
o A number of other investigations have been set up, in all around 6.
o I haven't done more than scratch the surface of what my own research and the X family's research into CNEP has shown.



Professor Griffiths and the Panel made clear their acceptance of Mr and Mrs X's criticisms. In the Sentinel newspaper (local to Stoke), it was stated on 10 May 2000: “The dogged determination of Mr and Mrs X drew high praise from Prof Rod Griffiths as he delivered his stinging report on child health research in North Staffordshire. Professor Griffiths … said: ‘we were impressed by their attitude’…”


In a recent local newspaper article Mr and Mrs X signalled their intention to claim damages from the North Staffordshire Hospital for many millions of pounds.

AGM RCPCH MOTION - NO CONFIDENCE AGAINST THE GMC

Motion for RCPCH AGM – York University, April 2008

The College has grave concerns about the actions of the GMC relating to proceedings involving child protection work directly or indirectly. These actions include:

1. The GMC erased from the register one paediatrician acting as an expert witness in a case where two children had died and where the mother was tried for murder. The erasure was quashed by the High Court, but the GMC have not acknowledged that the erasure decision was wrong and have not satisfactorily explained why they consider it is not related to the child protection field. As a consequence, paediatricians have been deterred from acting as expert witnesses in cases involving child injury or death, many of which would be classified as possible child protection cases.

2. The GMC sanctioned a paediatrician for reporting concerns to the statutory authorities for child protection and, describing the doctors’ behaviour as "precipitate" and criticising his evidence-based opinion given in good faith, found him guilty of serious professional misconduct and suspended him from further child protection work. This contravenes the stated professional and public duty to report child protection concerns and the latest guidance issued by the GMC itself. As a consequence, paediatricians now feel less certain of the correct way to proceed and may therefore be less likely to report child protection concerns.

3. The GMC erased from the register a paediatrician who was exploring with a parent the mechanism of death of their child at the request of social services in the context of care proceedings. The parent alleged that the paediatrician had accused her of murder, despite evidence to the contrary from the senior social worker present who along with the paediatrician took notes throughout the interview. As a consequence, many paediatricians are now more reluctant to participate in child death reviews or indeed explore with parents possible mechanisms for sudden death.

4. The GMC have repeatedly relied on an expert witness known to have opposing views to the doctor being investigated and who had advised contrary to that doctor in the first of the above cases. This raises serious questions about the impartiality of this expert, particularly as the GMC did not use any other expert evidence. As a consequence, paediatricians feel that GMC hearings in the field of child protection have not had the benefit of truly impartial advice representing current mainstream professional practice.

5. The GMC have undertaken a number of investigations on paediatricians who have already been the subject of investigations by other bodies and have been exonerated. The GMC have not inquired about such investigations, or have failed to take account of these previous investigations. We consider that this represents double jeopardy and demonstrates an unfair and incomplete process. As a consequence, paediatricians have become less willing to be involved in child protection work, knowing it may result in multiple complaints and investigations.

6. GMC registered doctors working in other specialties, who were convicted of various crimes, including assaults on children and viewing child pornography (offences which would render them unemployable as paediatricians) have been reinstated to the register. As a consequence, paediatricians feel treated more harshly than other specialties by the GMC.

7. The GMC does not automatically inform the doctor when it decides not to proceed with a complaint. College members know that complaints in child protection are rising and are under extreme and often public stress when they receive such a complaint. As a consequence, paediatricians are poorly informed by the GMC of progress in their own personal case.

8. The GMC is unwilling to state whether it has received multiple complaints from the same person(s) acting as part of a campaign against factitious and induced illness, quoting data protection legislation. Paediatricians have been asking the GMC to develop a policy for dealing
with vexatious complaints and serial complainants. As a consequence, paediatricians feel the GMC is not taking their concerns on board.

For the above reasons, the College considers it has no confidence in the current GMC procedures for dealing with cases related to child protection. We call upon the GMC to review these procedures as a matter of urgency and involve in the review this College and other bodies such as the Department of Health, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Social Services Inspectorate and National Children’s Bureau, who have an understanding of the relevant legislation and practice, in order to support continued quality work by paediatricians in this field to the ultimate benefit of children and their families.

Southall Resigns. GMC To Blame

The letter listed below was written by David Southall to North Staffordshire NHS Trust. The BMJ features a piece on their vote of No Confidence in the General Medical Council. The motion argues "The motion argues that paediatricians are more harshly treated than other specialties, citing cases in which other doctors escaped removal from the register after convictions for assaulting children and viewing child pornography".

The negligence of the General Medical Council and Prof Timothy David ultimately resulted in Dr Southall's resignation in the interests of patients. It is a sad day because the patients he has treated and saved and the respected unit he has developed has not to date developed a campaign to prevent his resignation. Baroness Golding states that he was a rare voice for abused children. He was also a highly respected doctor at the top of his profession. No doubt, David Southall will continue his fight to protect children and his campaign to ensure child protection specialists can raise their suspicions without fear from repurcussions. Effectively, whistleblowing has far more protection than raising concerns within child protection. Penny Mellor of course can crow about this empty perceived victory on her part. As a dysfunctional serial complainer with a vivid imagination and a matched forensic psychiatrist report [ undisclosed], she has coordinated a dishonest campaign to rid the profession of those who will protect children against child abusers. Mellor's work can be viewed on http://www.wickedconspirator.blogspot.com/ as Scientologist Award Winner.

It is extremely sad that the General Medical Council has sided on a dishonest complainer's case. Moreover, they still do not have a vexatious complaints policy. Dr David Southall is a victim of Harassment via a patient campaign group. This issue has never been examined or raised within the journalistic forums/media. It is more of an advantage for the media to publish false lurid material that has no basis in science.

The United Kingdom has lost its pioneer in child protection. There is now no one left to protect vulnerable children. The repurcussions of these actions will not be obvious until the care of vulnerable children is compromised.

-------

Letter of Resignation

Dear Rob and Margot,

I am writing to tender my resignation as a locum consultant paediatrician at your hospital. I would like this to take effect from the end of June 2008 when hopefully the next round of GMC hearings comes to an end. As you will know from our discussions, I do not feel that it is in the interests of the parents of acutely ill children attending the hospital and/or the junior medical staff that I supervise, for me to continue to work at this time.

The actions of the GMC over the last 10 years or so will have left the public and some of the nursing and medical staff unsure as to my integrity and ability. In an emergency, it will never be practical for a lengthy explanation to be given about the truth behind the accusations against me and therefore there will always, I think, be some doubt over the quality of the medical care that I can give as long as the GMC’s findings of serious professional misconduct are in place.

I am really sorry that it has all ended like this. I feel very proud to have been part of one of the most progressive children’s units in the country and have always felt greatly supported by most of my colleagues, medical, nursing and in management. I know you both understand the complex reasons behind my resignation and I am grateful to you both for helping me to take it forward in this way.

Very best personal wishes



David Southall

Family Life Meltdown

The Daily Mail features an interesting issue today. A judge criticises the manner in which families are fracturing.

"Family breakdown is a "cancer" behind almost every evil affecting the country, a senior judge will declare today. Mr Justice Coleridge blames youth crime, child abuse, drug addiction and binge-drinking on the "meltdown" of relations between parents and children"

Continued here.

The Article Pulled Off the Guardian by Bill Bache

The baby battleground
Saturday May 7, 2005 The Guardian
by Bea Campbell

David Southall is a highly eminent paediatrician, best known for making an on-the-spot diagnosis of murder watching television. He was at risk of being struck off but wouldn't recant.

In his only interview, he tells Beatrix Campbell of his priorities in child care Saturday May 7, 2005 The Guardian David Southall is Britain's premier expert on the suffocation of children - he has witnessed parents trying to smother their babies, and stopped them. He has also entered legend as the doctor who picked up the phone after watching a television document and accused a man of murder. The document, shown in April 2003, was about Sally Clark's upcoming appeal against her life sentence for the alleged murder of her two baby boys, Christopher and Harry. In the course of the programme, the children's father, Stephen Clark, described a frightening episode while his wife was out shopping and he was alone with 10-week-old Christopher in a hotel room - he heard the baby choking, he said, and then saw blood pouring from his nose. It was a week later that the baby died.

The paediatrician, watching his television, was suddenly alert. He thought he was hearing a culprit and he did something that put his professional life at risk: he made a call to child protection services in Staffordshire. He told them he feared that Sally Clark had suffered a miscarriage of justice, and that the safety of her third son might be at risk - the child, born in November 1998 while Sally was on bail awaiting trial, had first been taken into foster care and had now returned to the full-time care of his father. When Southall's concerns were passed on to Sally Clark's defence lawyers, Stephen Clark immediately protested to the General Medical Council (GMC) that Southall should be struck off. The GMC took up his complaint and Southall eventually appeared before its Fitness to Practice Panel last summer accused of "precipitate and irresponsible" behaviour. Stephen Clark was the first witness.

He and his wife were both successful lawyers. Both had been arrested after the death of eight-week-old Harry in 1998 ignited fresh inquiries into the death of Christopher. Sally alone was charged with murder a few months later. Southall's intervention after the document "was deadly serious, and it could have some very, very serious consequences", Stephen Clark said. He could have been arrested. Both he and his wife were innocent of smothering the boys, he insisted. Another witness was Paul Blomeley, who had been the prosecutor in the criminal case against Sally Clark. He said that Southall "was at pains at all times to make it clear that the information he was providing to the police was limited" because he had not seen all the data. Blomeley had understood that the timing of events described in the document was crucial to Southall's argument: in the paediatrician's experience, choking and bleeding followed "immediately after a traumatic event" and, unless some other disease was involved, a nose bleed was "highly indicative of smothering".

It was the evidence of Professor Tim David that yielded what was described as the GMC's "most serious charge" against Southall. Appearing as expert medical witness both for Stephen Clark and the GMC (as Richard Tyson QC appeared as a lawyer both for Clark and the GMC), he accused Southall of offering no caveat in expressing his judgment, of being dogmatic and inappropriate. He told the GMC "it was clear that the police had no intention of taking the matter further", but he had been asked to investigate. His evidence ranged from his observations about the Clark babies to criticism of Southall's watershed research published in the American journal Pediatrics. Southall's conclusion, he said, was "crippled by lack of information". Paradoxically, David shared Southall's timing template; "We completely agree about that," he said. If the baby had been smothered that morning in the hotel, then bleeding would be immediate. But he decided that the baby had not been smothered. He preferred his own theory: spontaneous bleeding caused by a rare lung disorder, known as IPH. Then it was Southall's turn.

He pointed out, "There had been two children whose deaths [at that time] had been attributed to intentional suffocation by the criminal court." There was a constellation of other injuries associated with deadly shaking or suffocation, and there was an absence of any evidence of an attempt to get help. He argued that his action was sponsored by "the logic" of the hotel incident, the evidence of other injuries and the absence of disease or disorder to explain the deaths, together with his own experience. The failure to get medical help, he said, was "the same as the kind of thing that happens when parents do not bring their babies along with fractured femurs - because they are responsible for it." Taunted by the question: why weren't there other experts appearing before the GMC to back him up, he suggested to the panel that many were in a similar plight. Clark's complaint to the GMC coincided with what he felt was a sustained campaign from accused adults that was creating a crisis in the paediatric profession.

It also coincided with a personal crisis in Southall's career: when he was watching that television programme he had already been suspended by his employer, the North Staffordshire Hospital Trust (while an inquiry was carried out into a trial he carried out on a new kind of ventilator for older babies). Southall's boss, the trust's medical director, Dr Pat Chipping, told the panel she had been astonished by his intervention in the Clark case because of his suspension . He had agreed to do no child protection work without contacting her first. If he had, she said, "I would have contacted the police on his behalf." The suspension gave synergy to the charges. Tyson, the GMC's QC, concluded, "This case is about David Southall's dogmatic belief in his own expertise, which he brought to bear in a case in which he intervened in a high-handed fashion, largely on the basis of watching a programme on TV." The GMC concluded that he had been irresponsible, and that he'd breached the terms of his suspension. That compounded his false accusation against Mr Clark, based only upon a theory, without meeting either of the Clarks, without consulting the court papers or the medical experts. For his serious professional misconduct Southall was to be banned from child protection for three years.

And so, the paediatrician who probably knew more than anyone else in Britain about adults suffocating children - described by Tyson as "extremely distinguished" - had been found to have gone too far and was sent into professional exile. Southall is not allowed to talk about the Clark case, but he can talk about his life. Up until now it is a narrative of extraordinary success shadowed by constant hostility. "It has been ruinous for my family, for me, my home, my career and for child protection," he says briskly. He won't let you linger on his tribulation; he doesn't present himself as a victim. He does not have the decorous demeanour you'd expect of a professor and a consultant. He is direct, drives a scruffy old red BMW, wears ramblers-casual - fleece and boots. He feels supported by his loved ones and supported by his peers in the profession. His passion for paediatrics has taken him into war zones in Europe, Africa and Asia - he was awarded the OBE for his work setting up children's healthcare systems in areas of armed conflict.

But in the past there have been people who kept files on him, quarry the internet, network, picket his hospital, steal his records. Child protection is hazardous work, provoking hostility in some and scepticism in others. "Child protection professionals live by procedures," an expert witness involved in the Southall hearings told me, "but there is no procedure for this situation. There is an expectation and a duty to report abuse. But only if they see it with their own eyes. They're not expected to do what he did, they're not expected to be Miss Marple or Amanda Burton in Silent Witness. And we are not accustomed to professionals trying to bring the certainty of a diagnosis to a social situation." Southall's appearance before a GMC panel happened at a time when the GMC itself was under fire. In the wake of several scandals, memorably its failure to stop Harold Shipman's murderous career, the GMC had had to restructure itself, and be "more responsive to the public". The government set up a Council For Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) to oversee it.

After the GMC announced its sanctions, it was expected that Southall would never work in child protection again. But this did not satisfy the CHRE. The council appealed to the high court to review what it regarded as the GMC's leniency: it wanted Southall struck off so he would be unable to practise medicine any more. At the high court in March this year, Southall again appeared, as he did during the GMC trial, a solitary figure under the gaze of a public gallery packed with his adversaries. This time the GMC and Southall were on the same side, resisting his removal from the medical register. He had only once transgressed - and that was in the Clark case, said the GMC, by not giving his boss prior warning. The CHRE insisted that the public needed to be reassured that even eminent men could be controlled. It was not to be mollified by the regard in which Southall is held among his peers. He was given an unprecedented standing ovation at the Royal College of Paediatricians annual meeting in the spring of 2004, shortly before his GMC trial, when he delivered an address, "Is Child Protection Too Dangerous for Paediatricians?".

More than a hundred testimonials were sent to the GMC, including tributes from current and past presidents of the Royal College. To remove him, they said, would be to lose an eminent and esteemed doctor. But the council deemed his offence to be even more dangerous because if he expressed a view, it was likely to be taken seriously. Southall was single-minded, intent on doing what he perceived was right for the child, regardless of the cost to himself, and regardless of the cost to the family if he turned out to be wrong. But the council's appeal was a punishment too far for the high court judge, Andrew Collins. He noted Southall had made no retraction and shown no remorse for his "seriously flawed allegations" in the Clark case, but ruled that the GMC had acted reasonably in allowing him to continue to work as a paediatrician. Instead of striking off Southall, the judge proposed a tightening-up of the GMC's original sanctions. Southall survives. Why doesn't he say sorry? Why doesn't he stop? "I could not have coped with this if I had not experienced something personally terrible," he explains. "It was the war in Bosnia.

You toughen up. I toughened up." When civil wars broke out across Europe after the cold war, he was asked to go into the ruins of Sarajevo to bring out children who could not get medical help, and then UNICEF recruited him for two years to go into concentration camps and refugee camps. "I had close calls - being shot at in aeroplanes, at checkpoints. I never thought I'd get out, to be honest. It's not just me, it happens to all aid workers in armed conflict. You become a fatalist, whatever is going to happen is going to happen. This is crap compared with that. In war the forces are physical, but this stuff is emotional, institutional. For an unarmed aid worker it is fear, with this it is not so stark. "What is happening to the children is worse - the most vulnerable children in the world are the children who lose the protection of their parents." Despite the findings against him, Southall sees himself not as intransigent, but as an optimist. "I always have been. I have a feeling that if you don't give in because you're right, then they won't win." Southall, now aged 56, did not set out to do child protection work. It began when his work as a paediatrician user name not allowed in respiratory illnesses brought to his attention children who, inexplicably, stopped breathing.

He wanted to know why. He found out when he extended the physiological recording of their bodies, to covert video surveillance (CVS) of parents and babies when they were alone together. The video cameras showed what had never been seen - secret suffocation. Caught in the act, beyond reasonable doubt, and all in the unlikely sanctuary of hospital. Not that we didn't know that mothers murdered babies. But we've always wanted not to know it. Murder investigations weren't Southall's field, but children struggling for survival were. His time in intensive care, for example, led him to challenge "what intensive care was doing to children and babies - there wasn't enough attention to the suffering they experienced to save their lives. What mattered to me wasn't just whether they survived but that they didn't suffer so much." He began an audit of an intensive care unit: "Every time a needle was stuck in, drips or tubes or drains put into every orifice, we audited what preceding painkillers or sedatives were given. In the vast majority of cases there was nothing." His paper on children and pain published in 1992 shocked doctors and changed the way hospitals addressed children.

At London's Royal Brompton hospital, he had worked in the 1980s on two fronts: babies' "apparent life-threatening events" - when babies stop breathing and go blue - and nonintrusive respiratory support for very sick, often older, children. Janet Ophoven, one of the premier forensic paediatric pathologists in the US, says, "The natural next step for someone with his background and science would be to stumble on the realisation that some parents brought their children to medical attention fabricating the children's complaints." The encounter with this "rare and weird thing" was followed by the discovery that "it wasn't rare but it was weird", she added. "These parents were incredibly smart." Southall's work on breathing brought such parents to his attention. It began when a child was sent to him in 1986 after suffering recurrent near-death episodes. Southall called in a throat expert to check the possibility of an airway obstruction. "But there was no obstruction. I thought, oh my God, maybe it's the mother, because she was always present when the attacks started." Everyone was worried, "but without hard evidence there was nothing we could do." A group of consultants, nurses and police set up a hospital video suite to observe mother and child. "We knew that children lose consciousness only after 60 to 80 seconds if they stop breathing," said Southall, so the pact was: intervene after 20 seconds. Southall recalls, "It took six days. It was horrendous. I was on the point of resigning." On the sixth day, however, suddenly "the mother took a T-shirt and forced it over the child's face and suffocated him." Staff intervened and the baby was saved. The research was published in 1997 in Pediatrics, the world's leading journal in the field. "We were very impressed by the size and scope of the study," says the editor, Dr Jerold Lucey. "It was ground-breaking work, and we thought: this is the way to go!" The paper influenced medical practice in the US, and in Britain Southall's team were described as having "revealed the grim world which has been intermittently explored over the last 100 years", by the stately British Medical Journal in 1998. "Now, however, the filmed evidence exposes what was previously available only to professional imagination."

Children were harmed "coolly and callously by parents who appeared concerned and caring". But by the time the BMJ published that accolade, covert video surveillance was over in Britain. Some professionals recoiled from the ethics of the videos - they jeopardised trust between paediatricians, patients and public, they said. "They mean adult public," replies Southall's colleague Martin Samuels, "not child public." And yet, the adult public tolerates surveillance almost anywhere; there are cameras in streets, car parks, banks and corner shops. When the human rights group Liberty canvassed public opinion on CCTV it was surprised to discover mass support. "Southall's crime is producing video evidence that forces people to confront something they don't want to believe happened," says Professor Sir David Hall, the recent reforming president of the Royal College of Paediatricians. What was in the videos was a parent bearing down on a baby, its limbs flying wildly in a fight for life. Southall and Samuels are part of the revolution in awareness that began in the 1980s when the celebrated Sheffield paediatric pathologist, the late John Emery, began to explore the mysterious sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Emery trawled the records of dead children, found suspicious signs in some cases, and when he presented postmortem evidence to certain parents they confirmed that they'd killed their babies. Emery proposed that more than 10% of the annual SIDS rate might be explained by murder. Over the course of a decade the parents of 39 babies were referred to the CVS suites at the Royal Brompton and North Staffordshire hospitals.

Life-threatening attacks were recorded in 33 cases. All were followed by prosecutions. A child psychiatrist noted to me that doctors also began to rethink the bleak lives of survivors, "the children who didn't die: they endure tubes up every orifice, tests of everything, unneccesary operations, x-rays, scans. They can't go to school, can't have friends, their bodies are entirely medicalised." But if Southall had established a forensic gold standard, he had also collected enemies. His unit was getting referrals from all over the country, "but each time, we banked up adversaries". The adversaries were few in number but awesomely succesful. Southall and Samuels have analysed a period between 2000 and 2004: a group of five people dispatched 455 emails to the BMJ rebutting articles by a dozen targeted doctors.

Almost 20 doctors have been reported to the GMC by the same group of people. The resistance was led by Brian Morgan, a Cardiff journalist who has chaperoned accused adults through the complaints system of the GMC for more than a decade. He broadcasts his expertise and the élan of his campaign across the world. He would not talk to me, although he offered to write his story himself. Morgan collaborated with document-maker Roger Bolton on a television exposé of video surveillance. He appeared again with a group of accused mothers in 1996, picketing a paediatric conference on induced illnesses in children, or Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, as it was often known. By this time, in the light of his experiences in Bosnia and other war zones, Southall had set up an aid agency, Child Advocacy International (CAI), based at North Staffordshire Hospital Trust in Stoke. It was in 1996 that the anti-surveillance campaigners pulled off their most audacious sortie, orchestrated by a woman who said she was the wife of a military man: Sharon Payne said she knew of Southall's work in Bosnia and wanted to help. She became a familiar figure in the charity's office. Payne had become involved in campaigns supporting parents accused of fabricating or inducing illness in their children. Together with a group of other mothers she had made a complaint to the Suffolk police about Southall. "Police investigate child abuse expert", reported the Sunday Times in January 1995. It claimed that the NSPCC had tipped off Suffolk constabulary. But the NSPCC had no record of this, and Suffolk police had already decided there was nothing of a criminal nature to investigate.

The stories were wrong, but they provoked one funder to withdraw from Southall's research on SIDS "because of adverse publicity". Emboldened, it was then that Payne infiltrated CAI. When Southall left for Bosnia in August 1996, she and a companion copied more than 40 files on children from his office. This might have gone unnoticed had it not been for a grotesque mistake. There was a note on the consultant's desk from his staff. A patient, a baby, had died, and knowing that he'd want to contact the parents, the colleague added their telephone number. Payne seized the initiative and rang the parents: Southall meant surveillance, she warned. Morgan also telephoned the couple and warned them to watch out, their paediatrician would be spying on them. The grieving parents were aghast.

Their baby had died of meningitis. They contacted Southall, who recognised Morgan's number. Morgan and the raiders were then in trouble with the courts. They'd distributed children's confidential document - medical and legal - to politicians, the press and accused parents, and to the GMC. The women were found to be in contempt of court. Morgan fought and lost a legal battle over his right to publish. The women were given suspended prison sentences for failing to return all of the papers. A gotcha note was later left under Southall's door, "HaHaHa. Love from the girls". Morgan and accused mothers - they called themselves "munchies" - organised a demonstration outside his department, a nonedescript 1960s single-storey office in the labyrinthine tangle of the hopital site, to warn off parents. Covert video surveillance was finished.

In 1997, however, Southall and Samuels published the story - Covert Video Recordings of Life-threatening Child Abuse: Lessons for Child Protection. It was acclaimed across the world. Meanwhile, in Britain, Morgan and the mothers were lobbying organisations that supported his research on infants' life-threatening illnesses to withdraw their funding for his research and children's aid agency. Some did. In 1998, another opponent emerged - Penny Mellor, an ebullient, full-on adversary with time and money and a passion. Her allies regard her as heroic, but she worries them, she embarrasses them, they say she's "a nutcase" and laugh. She laughs, too. She also inspires and energises them. Her admirers regard her as a latter-day suffragette. That's because she's been to prison in her campaign against Southall. Mellor reckons Southall's work is "very anti-mother". She echoes a suspicion that medical men play God and pathologise women's distress. Paradoxically, mothers who murder babies have historically been exempted from the capital crime of homicide. The special category, infanticide, calls attention to the dangerousness of motherhood: it can make some women lose their minds, it makes some mothers murderous. The childcare barrister David Spicer offers a stark reminder: "citizens of the UK are more likely to die a violent death in the first year of life than at any other age." "I get really upset when I'm accused of misogyny," says Southall. It was his work in war zones that revealed "what was happening to children and women - men with heavy weapons, often drugged or drunk, undertaking armed conflict for complex and dubious political reasons: nothing was barred. It is all about power - a lot of men are interested in power over women and children."

He added: "Abuse is always associated with power, and when you come to the interface between women and children, power is there, too." From 1999 Mellor's scattergun protests were directed at the lord chancellor, the home secretary, the GMC, Southall's employers, the chief constable, MPs and her website readers. She accused the judges of colluding with doctors. She put posters around the hospital and organised pickets. In August 1999 she pounded the government and the trust with amazing allegations, "I have more document evidence that David Southall murdered babies." She accused him of "major corruption" and "conspiracy to abduct". Not long after, it was Mellor who was convicted of "conspiracy to abduct a child". She and a group of adults abducted a nine-year-old girl from her Sunderland home. This girl's brother had been taken into care. He had suffered multiple medicalisations, before his doctor concluded that his illnesses had been fabricated. Southall was consulted and agreed. The family and supporters decided that the girl should disappear in case she, too, might be taken into care. The girl was spirited away to Ireland. When Mellor was jailed in 2002, the judge described her as the Svengali who orchestrated the "conspiracy". She had "used a child for her own propaganda purposes". He sentenced her to two years. She served eight months.

The child's mother, her grandmother - three of whose babies had died in childhood - and her father were jailed. Southall had been invited in 1992 to go to North Staffordshire where the infant mortality rate was high. He user name not allowed in breathing and pain relief for older babies. He refined a ventilator that had already been tested in the US, to replace the traditional treatment offered to older babies, which required a painful tube through the nose or mouth to take air into the lungs. The new method, CNEP, worked on keeping the chest expanded to stop the lungs collapsing in the first place. The two ventilators were compared during a hospital trial at Stoke during the early 1990s, involving 224 babies. Outcomes for very young older babies were similar, but among older babies, often born older, the new ventilator enabled them to spend significantly less time needing oxygen.

Deborah Henshall had already had five older babies, all of whom had survived, when she gave birth to a 28-week girl in 1992. "I was an expert," she says, "I knew what to expect." But her baby lived only 60 hours. Less than a year later, after spending six weeks resting in hospital to prolong her next pregnancy, she gave birth at 32 weeks to another girl. Like her sister she breathed with the help of CNEP. Unlike her sister, however, she survived; she is disabled and is now at secondary school. Her father Carl, a mild-mannered former miner, and her mother, a former care worker, are now full-time carers. Their home in a village near Stoke has a cupboard in the sitting room that houses the archive of their campaign against Southall. They blame him for the death of one of their daughters and the disability of the other. Henshall denied giving her consent to CNEP. Then - when her signature was found - said it had been forged. Police found no evidence. Her case against Southall - that the ventilator damaged her children - has been rejected at by the hospital's own inquiry, but in her grief and anger she is both inconsolable and indefatiguable. She has a complaint against Southall pending with the GMC In 1999, Mellor's allegations - that Southall was a trafficker, profiteer, and killer, that he instigated childcare proceedings to earn "a phenomenal amount of money" as an expert witness, and to "use" children for his own research - coincided with complaints about the effect of CNEP on older babies. Southall was subject to simultanous professional and personal conduct inquiries. He was exonerated on the personal conduct count - he was able to prove, for instance, that his income as an expert witness was invested in Child Advocacy International. However, he and his colleague Martin Samuels were summarily suspended in 1999 when the government appointed Professor Rod Griffiths to investigate CNEP. His report admitted not seeing all the necessary document, but it yielded headlines proclaiming: "28 babies killed in hospital experiment". Griffiths claimed that the trial had been inadequately set up, was not peer reviewed, that staff weren't up to it. His report repeated claims that consent had not been given. Griffiths's report was denounced within months of publication in 2000 by two medical scholars, Sir Iain Chalmers, director of the Cochrane Centre, an evidence-based research institute, and Edmund Hey, a retired consultant neonatalogist. They did see copies of the key research papers and consent forms, and concluded that the trial had been well conceived, ethically approved, peer reviewed and professionally debated. "Almost every statement" about the CNEP trial in the report was "ill-informed, misguided or factually wrong," they concluded. There were demands in the House of Lords that the government withdraw Griffiths's report. The government refused. There was furious correspondence in the paediatric journals. But CNEP was done for in Stoke. And the two doctors were not reinstated until 2001. The child protection professions have been both empowered and undermined by the Children Act 2004. It requires a "partnership with parents", but leaves other issues unresolved. What if a parent puts a child's life at risk? What if a parent deceives the doctors? What if doctors are smeared? In the US, the editor of Pediatrics, Jerold Lucey, says, "It is crazy that a paediatrician can't say: 'I have a theory about this person, you should investigate him.' We have a law that, if you suspect child abuse, you must report it." Lucey explains that most states have adopted this kind of legislation both "to encourage professionals, and protect professionals from being sued for taking action to protect children - over here you could be sued if you didn't."

The Southall case is one of several shaking the GMC's rickety scaffolding. According to Professor Sir David Hall, "What we're seeing is a regulatory process designed for a bygone era." In this context, the Royal College of Paediatricians last month endorsed mandatory reporting. Meanwhile, Penny Mellor has referred the North Staffs Trust's medical director, Dr Pat Chipping, to the GMC, too. The trust is standing firm. It has said publicly that it will no longer co-operate with Mellor or Morgan. Regardless of the GMC decision, it asserts Southall's right to have intervened in the Clark case "as a citizen": he was not, in fact, breaching the terms of his suspension, the trust told the CRHE. The GMC will this year be hearing more complaints against Southall. Southall seems immune. He says his earlier work taught him that "it is one thing for a child to endure great pain, but if a child also has its parents, particularly its mother, alongside, if it knows it is loved, then the child has got hope. But if your number one person doesn't want you around, doesn't love you, hates you, harms you, then you've had it. There's no hope. The worst the world can do to you isn't as bad as this." That, he says, is what moves him and makes him do his job.

GMC Under Fire Again

This article sometime ago outlined the GMC's failure in Child Protection. The GMC recently admitted to only minimal training for their panel members including Conservative Party member Jacqueline Mitton who sat on GMC v Southall in 2007. How many children's lives have been compromised by the GMC's inability to understand the issues involved in Child Protection. It should be noted that towards the end of 2005, the GMC Press Office had a secret meeting with Penny Mellor and her associates.

Paediatricians 'lost trust in GMC'

Paediatricians have lost confidence in the way the General Medical Council (GMC) handles child protection cases, it has been claimed.

Delegates at the spring meeting of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) later this month will debate a motion of no confidence in the GMC's procedures for dealing with complaints involving child protection.

The motion, signed by 32 members of the college, lists eight areas of "grave concern", and urges the GMC to initiate a review of its policy on child protection matters.

In particular, the motion calls for more protection for doctors against vexatious complaints and serial complainants.

Child specialists feel the GMC is not taking seriously their concerns about multiple complaints being made by individuals mounting campaigns, the document continues.

A leading member of the college said the way the GMC dealt with paediatricians was making many afraid to report suspicions of child abuse and could be putting youngsters at risk.

Dr John Bridson, a retired consultant paediatrician and senior fellow at the RCHPH, said: "The people who drafted this motion are concerned about proper care of children and the way the GMC is working. We feel it is not always coming to the best conclusions for children."

Many child specialists feel deterred from acting as expert witnesses as a result of the GMC's treatment of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, according to the motion, which will be discussed by RCPCH delegates at their meeting in York on April 16.

Prof Meadow, once an illustrious paediatrician, was struck off the medical register by the GMC in 2005 for giving mistaken evidence that helped convict the late solicitor Sally Clark of murdering her two children.

He later won a High Court battle, with the judge saying the GMC should not punish experts over evidence given in good faith. Mrs Clark's conviction was eventually quashed by the Court of Appeal.

Mellor's Obsession with Rodney Gilbert

We see the scientologist award winner and her puppet pandering to the media about Rodney Gilbert. Both attempting to twist and influence a criminal assessment by the CPS their way. The local Hampshire paper typically presents the tale of a mother represented by Bill Bache. She gives the public a story of woe and heartache and places the blame for the entire issue at the door of Rodney Gilbert. As with most people like her - revenge is good especially when one is possibly chasing a compensation claim. It is of course amazing how many tears one can float out when money is at stake. Of course, as with all cases by Mellor, a criminal prosecution is essential so that a claim for potential compensation succeeds.

This has been seen time and time again with her actions against all child protection professionals. In truth, Mellor has failed miserably to ensure doctors are imprisoned. Instead, she was imprisoned herself. Of course, dirt is being thrown on Rodney who only tried to do his job in child protection. Does this case mean that every doctor who raises a concern and where there is an innocent verdict, should be prosecuted? Clearly Mellor thinks so. Mellor though has a tiny mind and is short sighted so her minimal understanding of matters will enable this entire issue to fall in the gutter with all her other ideas. If Mellor is right then every expert in the opposite of the verdict should by default be reported to the CPS. What we should do first and foremost is report Waney Squier in the Henderson case. That is because Waney's view was opposite to the verdict. Infact, Waney ought to be reported to the General Medical Council for the manner she has conducted herself. Of course, no one is a obsessive serial complainer as Mellor is. As time progresses, she is showing delusions of grandeur. Mind you, we will wonder where her infamous Forensic Psychiatric report is.

Gilbert will be found innocent. Thats because he is innocent. Mellor tries to place her own assumptions of what little she knows. Her favourites are perverting the course of justice and breach of confidentiality, fraud etc etc. These are all scientology words by the way designed to cause the public question. Oh dear, low and behold, look what she says on her blog site

" Actually the allegations were not just about the potential involvement of Gilbert in Joshua's death, they were about perjury and perverting the course of justice - Did Gilbert inform his trust of that?" Wow, thats not bad prediction eh. Mellor is much like a broken record - she goes on and on and on with the same record.

Time the Mellor was investigated herself for many issues in perverting the course of justice because she is afterall a continuous liar. No one can believe anything she says at any point in time because in the end she fabricates evidence to her own choice. So we assume that if the police drop the case against Rodney Gilbert then Gilbert has a claim against Mellor for harassment under the Harassment Act 1997 plus Defamation as it has been plastered in the newspapers. Of course, the one woman that will be liable for maximum damages is the lady with the crying game story. We are all positive that defence union lawyers are waiting on the wings poised to legally seek the remedy for Rodney Gilbert.