Skip to main content

Daily Mail story on David Southall

Following Rachel Pullen's story being public I have been contacted by more people who are being messed about by the system.

In essence the "experts" generally avoid being held to account. The story in the Daily Mail continues another of those examples.


jkgornall said…
What a tremendous coincidence that the Alexander story should re-surface in the Mail just a week or so before the resumption of David Southall's GMC hearing, in which the Alexanders are one of four families with complaints!

Oddly enough, it was on November 16 last year, just two days after Southall's hearing got under way, that Mr Hemming chose to make an extraordinary speech in the House of Commons, in which, from behind the protection of Parliamentary privilege, he compared Dr Southall to Matthew Hopkins, the witchfinder -general, and to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who experimented on children. He also chose to name the Alexanders and the other families, presenting their anonymisation at the hearing as a GMC attempt at secrecy, when it fact it was a requirement of the family courts in the cases.

(That speech can be found here: )

It would seem likely that Mr Hemming, or one of his fellow activists, was instrumental in placing this latest timely story in the Mail, no doubt as a crude piece of propaganda designed to generate media support and interest once the hearing resumes on November 7.

The issue before the GMC concerning the Alexander family has, however, nothing to do with the wild allegations they have been making for years, and that have been repeated in the Mail. The GMC has, in fact, considered and dismissed as unsustainable the family's claims that Dr Southall secretly experimented on their son, Lawrence, and that this might in some way have been responsible for the disabilities he now suffers as a 21-year-old.

Instead, the GMC is considering only the somewhat technical issue of whether or not Dr Southall and his colleagues were right (almost 20 years ago) to have kept special case files in certain cases and whether or not these files were available as part of the general medical records of these patients.

The real charges against Dr Southall concerning the Alexander family (in GMC documents referred to as "A") can be read here:

... and details of the "A" family case here:

The Mail story itself is fantastic garbage. At one point it states: "The present inquiry, overseen by Attorney General Baroness Scotland, wants to find the answer to a crucial question: were Lawrence's parents — and many others — falsely smeared as child abusers so that Dr Southall could put their children into care and use them as guinea pigs in deeply contentious medical experiments, which many would argue were also deeply immoral?"

This is simply a wild misrepresentation of the purpose of the inquiry, set up (after agitation by Mr Hemming and his colleague Penny Mellor) by the previous attorney-general because of the suggestion (made by Mr Hemming, etc) that information contained in so-called s/c files might not have been before juries in child-abuse cases. The report of the attorney-general on this review is expected shortly.

As for Mr Hemming's glib assertion that professionals as Dr Southall are not accountable, well, they clearly are: Dr Southall is before the GMC, after all, and, to date, thanks to the activists with whom Mr Hemming consorts, has so far faced an astonishing total of more than 30 separate investigations of one kind or another.

Quite clearly Mr Hemming would like to see him answering more charges than those the GMC has seen fit to bring, but thankfully Mr Hemming is only an MP and not in charge of the GMC. Perhaps Mr Hemming will not allow the GMC to do its job and not make further attempts, as he did last year, to interfere unfairly with that process.
escape said…
J. Go and read the book PINDOWN by Theresa Cooper available on Amazon, then maybe you will see why some of us are trying stop children being experimented on. She has the documentation and evidence, she would sue had the laws not been changed so she becomes out of time.
john said…
There are many unanswered questions here that must be answered.

The cover up must stop.
"The cover up must stop?

Oh please.

Perhaps Mr Hemming would like to take this opportunity to set out clearly his allegations against Dr Southall. I don't think this forum is protected by Parliamentary privilege, but I'm sure that won't prevent Mr Hemming demonstrating the courage of his convictions. Well, Mr Hemming?
Penny Mellor said…
Mr Gornall I am NOT a colleague of John Hemming - secondly I had no hand in the Daily Mail piece, if you had read it carefully, you might just have realised that it was written some time ago as it didn't mention Sally Clark's upcoming inquest.

As to your comments about the timing, I could equally point to "coincidences" regarding Prof Stephenson's recent piece on child protection published in ADC as being pro Southall propaganda being published, coincidently, just before Dr Southall's hearing starting.

Finally and much more importantly, if you are questioning the veracity of the piece that was written by Sue Reid, take it up with her.

As far as your doctor friend is concerned perhaps you might want to investigate the claims he has made at the GMC and on his CV regarding UNICEF, maybe when you've had your answers you will have a clearer idea as to who tells porky pies, because it most definitely is not the parents or their now grown children
Penny Mellor said…

"What a tremendous coincidence that the Alexander story should re-surface in the Mail just a week or so before the resumption of David Southall's GMC hearing, in which the Alexanders are one of four families with complaints!"

Oh, what a tremedous coincidence that Mr Gornall failed to say he had published a pro Southall artcile in Hospital Doctor just prior to the Southall hearing.

How marvelous to see that Mr Gornall belongs to the band of "do as I say and not as I do" brigade.

Does anyone else see the sheer hypocricy?

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…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…