Skip to main content

Paediatricians keep digging

There are clearly some paediatricians who like the idea of not being responsible for their statements in court. After all there are fees of around £3000 a go for writing basic reports.

A group of paediatricians from the UK have supported an article written by an academic lawyer in a US Journal (see link).

To see the detailed article requires a subscription account. However, there is a clear conflict. According to the GMC only 3% of paediatricians have faced complaints about child protection work. At the same time it claimed in this article that 14% have faced complaints.

Review what happened in Oldham. Totally innocent parents were put through the mill. Their baby probably suffered as well. I am sure that the expert witnesses, however, have got their fee.

False Positives are a problem. False negatives are also a problem. Hence it takes a bit more thought than simply saying the expert witnesses need to be immune from complaint.

What we have is a situation in which a number of people (not all of the experts) make a good living out of being witchfinders. They make allegations that are not based in good evidence and analysis, these are then believed by the secret courts and then lots of money is made by all the professionals involved. The children and parents, however, suffer.

Not clever.

Comments

moira said…
I sent you an article stating that paediatricians were saying that Prof Southall and Meadows had a right to make comments about a child as the child comes first -not the parent.That the child protection states that it gives them the right to make any opinion about a child -as its in the child's best interests.

In other words they can make unprofessional comments based on no evidence but just gut feelings they have,or emotion which leads to all this injustice.

The article also stated that abuse prosecutions were up by 244% but the numbers of children on the at risk register was at its lowest for years and numbers of children on register had gone down.

I read an article that stated the exact opposite that children on the at risk register had gone up whilst prosecutions for abuse had gone down.

So where did the paediatricians get their figures/Why are they defending these rogue doctors.

Obviously there are conflicting reports and numbers.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…