John Hemming MP - The greatest threat to family life in the UK - a loathsome ,despicable and dishonest man with no merit whatever
It all started here - Sally Clark Part 1 21/07/04 Stolen Innocence: The Story of Sally Clark Reviewed. Stolen Innocence: The Story of Sally Clark by John Batt, Ebury Press 2004 ISBN 0091900700 336 pps.
Much had (and has) been made of the faulty statistical evidence provided at the trial by Professor Meadows, a professional medical witness, pediatrician and originator of the diagnosis in mothers of "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy".
Mothers do kill their children to attract attention he said. An unremarkable conclusion but one that met fiery antagonism by the raging feminist wing of of the burgeoning "New Women" who, like Sally Clark , a high powered solicitor at a blue chip lawyers, want both babies and careers.
As long ago as 1951 a doctor, Richard Asher described in The Lancet, the self-harming, wannabe patients who fabricated histories, signs, and symptoms of illness to gain hospital access and treatment after the fabulous Baron Munchausen who told wild traveller's tales.
Many years later in 1977 Professor Meadows of Leeds University borrowed the term to describe how mothers harmed children, indeed sometimes killed them. and called the condition "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy" (MSbP). The Royal College Of Paediatrics and Child Health have since 2002 preferred the more anodyne and less theatrical term Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII).
Meadows claimed at the Sally Clark trial that the chances of two children dying of natural causes was ;
1 At the committal hearings 1: 1 million.
2 At the trial he said it was 1: 73 million.
A massive difference , that went unchallenged by the defence and it appears slid easily past the Rolls Royce mind of Sally Clark's brief, Julian Bevan QC renowned as a prosecutor, and his Junior John Kelsey Fry. Statistical claims the Royal Society subsquently described as invalid. (Meadows was struck off for presenting this evidence by the GMC then re-instated).
Recalled by the jury to explain what had happened to the blood samples from the children the Pediatric pathologist Dr Williams explained “…the chemistry of blood is so unreliable after death as to be of no diagnostic value…”. Of the post mortem blood sample “…it was submitted for toxicological examination and would have been sent for viral studies”.
Cross examined by the defence, Williams claims that the appropriate microbiology reports had been provided to the prosecution (and therefore available under disclosure to the defence). This was a lie.
At Sally Clark's second Appeal January 28th 2003 (after 2 1/2 years in prison) Dr Williams was called to give evidence about these blood samples (which had been found and many leading docters said could suggest the first child died of a staphylococcal infection). He did not turn up. Sally Clark was immediately released. Desite popular belief Meadows nonsensical claims had nothing to do with the success of the appeal orchestrated by the fragrant, high powered and immensely well paid Claire Montgomery (who also acts for Mr Bernard Berzovsky when he applies for citizenship), although they were mentioned in the judgement.
By this time a most bizarre and unexpected intrusion had been made into the case of the death of the 2 Clark Boys. Channel 4 had made a film and broadcast it, prior to the appeal. Amongst the audience was Dr David Southall, a pediatrician with wide experience of FII.
He complained to the Police on the basis of seeing the programme, that Steven Clark, the husband and father (who had appeared on the original charge sheet but removed), had been involved in the death of his 2 children.
Dr Southall prepared a dossier but no action was taken. The Clark family complained to the GMC and eventually, after he refused the opportunity to recant, he repeated the accusation, so the GMC placed certain restrictions on his activities with children and parents.
Whilst Mr Steven Claark has had his fill of courts and family deaths, he has not yet taken steps to sue Dr Southall for libel, for publicly calling him a murderer.
Lord Patel has many hobby horses and the activities of pediatricians is way down the list , his interest in the Sally Clark case was the incompetent lawyers and the scandalous way the Defence and Prosecution , with the connivance of the judge withheld evidence in the trial.
During their searches of the Clark household Plod discovered evidence of payment for treatment of Mrs Clark for alcohol related problems, witnesses also spoke of her daytime drinking.
In a curious (presumably legal but nonetheless dodgy) deal it was agreed no evidence would be called about Mrs Clark's treatment and the need for it and as a quid pro quo as we lawyers say, she would not be able to bring character witnesses - denying, family, friends, work colleagues , nursing staff, doctors, domestic staff, employers, the opportunity to attest to her good character.
As this deal was unknown to the jury we can only speculate what they thought about a senior lawyer who could not produce a single character witness in her defence.
Anyway the saga has a long and wriggling tale which acheived some finality this week.
The Solicitor General Vera Baird, made a written statement to the House of Commons.
In February 2007 the then Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, announced a review of criminal cases in which Dr. David Southall had been a prosecution witness. It was said (not least by David Hemming MP) that in cases where he was a witness a hoard of 500"secret files", these Special cases (SC) files had been secreted and denied the defence.
"Dr. Southall provided all the SC files he held—a total of 4,344 files—in accordance with his undertaking to the GMC. " The review team (at what cost ?) found, "On reviewing these files in depth, the team found no grounds to suggest that there had been a failure to comply with the prosecution’s obligations of disclosure to the defence. "
A redacted copy (to preserve patient's anonymity) was placed in the House of Commons Library. So is effectively inacessible to the general public without considerable trouble.
In looking deeper, it is apparent that there is (and has been for many years) a small and dedicated group of anti-medical, anti Dr Southall activists with extraordinary Press access who have poisoned the public well of trust in doctors and social workers by relentlesly (and pointlessly) hounding Dr Southall.
The whole sick and sad story is detailed at NHS Expose
The leading light and most vocal critic is a lady called Ms Penny Mellor, She has served one year in prison for aiding and abetting the abduction of a child. She styles herself a “child advocate” and boasted in 2006 she had personally made no less than 30 complaints to the GMC against Professor Southall alone .
At her trial the exasperated Judge Whitburn in sentencing her said ;
Impervious to debate, convinced you are right, you have traduced, complained about and harried dedicated professional people working in this difficult area.I do not punish you for that, let me make it clear, however tiresome and eccentric your views are, the toleration afforded to you who expressed them, by those who hear them, is part of the price we gladly pay for living in a liberal democracy.
To this must be added complaints to the RCPCH, the Central Council for Nursing, Social Services, the Police, the NHS Executive, the Chief Medical Officer, the Health Minister and the Prime Minister. She has also made, or assisted other members of the pressure group to make, complaints against at least 22 doctors and other professionals, all of whom had spoken up for or otherwise supported the beleaguered Professor- or, at least, had challenged Ms Mellor’s view of him.
The GMC is not a civil court , it is a professional regulatory body. Had Ms Mellor brought so many failed complaints before the civil courts, Professor Southall would have long ago been entitled to ask the Attorney General’s office to consider making an application to have her declared a vexatious litigant.
The GMC cannot do this at present.
As a creature of statute, it is bound to follow the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, which enacts into English law the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 of the Convention sets out the Right to a Fair Trial, and R v GMC, ex parte Toth  1 WLR 2209 (QBD) clearly shows that the GMC is obliged to follow this requirement with respect to medical practitioners, at least.
Ms Mellor is, a skilled and expert press feed, and has been hugely successful in her anti-Southall crusade . In this she has been assisted by her long-time associate, Mr Brian Morgan. Mr Morgan, is described as a journalist and vice-chairman of the Cardiff and SE Wales NUJ. he appears always ready to leap to Ms Mellor’s aid when awkward questions loom, and is frequently to be found posting messages in support of Ms Mellor on internet discussion forums.
This is a list of known complaints in the last 10 years by Mrs Mellor and associates.
Click to enlarge.
The same goroup have made endless complainst to the same group of individuals to:
Research ethics committees who have passed research projects
Universities who have supported research
Editors of journals in which papers have been published
Various police authorities
Ministers in HM Government
Of the last group, one unpleasant person sticks out. John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD) is ever in the Vanguard and managed a spectacular (and of course privileged outburst ) in the House of Commons November 16th 2006.
Roy Meadow, who followed in the tradition of Matthew Hopkins (The Witchfinder General) , and David Southall, who shared that ancestry and that of Joseph Mengele combined, should have to account for the misery that they causedJohn Hemming is a fascinating man. A family man , he has a wife and 3 children. He also fathered after a 6 year affair a child by his researcher Emily Cox in 2005, a fact he managed conceal when he was elected . MP shags researcher is hardly a story but Mrs Hemming's reaction was. She told the Birmingham Post "He started having affairs about four to five years into our marriage." Her children aged 5,12,14 at the time would have been able to read that she also said that their father had as many as 26 affairs in 23 years.
On the subject of the pregnant Emily Cox, Mrs Hemming said: "She came round to the house about six months ago and I made it clear she was one of many and was unlikely to get him to herself."
This loathsome Lothario is so full of chutzpah .In October, a few weeks before the child was born, the MP voted for himself in the News of the World's Love Rat of the Year competition.
The above quote from Hansard is only one of many misquotes or unpleasantnesses about David Southall he makes under the cloak of privilege... he also calls social workers "child snatchers" a phrase wisely adopted by the Daily Mail.
His record of veracity is well document in a superb website, John Hemming MP The Truth behind the Facade , for example Lord Justice Nicholas Wall in June 2008 in a case in which Hemming was a witness for a woman whoswe child had been taken into care said:
"As to Mr Hemming, my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged.Lord Justice Wall also referred to criticism Hemming levelled against a clinical psychologist identified by the initials HJ - He said the allegations represented in his judgment "a wholesale and entirely unwarranted attack on the professional integrity of HJ for which, once again, there is no evidence what so ever."
"Speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence."
"Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them," he said.
Soon after the birth of his love child, Hemming was back in the headlines, this time telling the Mail on Sunday that "Gestapo" social workers had "harassed" Ms Cox as she went into labour, because she had told her doctor she had failed to register a stillbirth when she was a teenager.
Birmingham City council then discovered it was to be sued by one of its own councillors.
In December, Hemming MP issued a writ alleging Ms Cox had been "defamed, tortured and assaulted" by social services, who had, he claimed, breached her human rights. He was seeking £300,000 compensation, part of which he wanted to be paid personally by the individual social workers concerned.
It is almost impossible to believe this lunatic was elected or remains a member of the Liberal Democrat Party. The Cost to the public purse of this Neanderthal , his Justice for Parent and the self styled children's advocate Penny Mellor is incalculable.
But the incurious mainstream press fall for it - the Daily Mail ("Councils making millions in incentives after snatching record numbers of babies for adoption") or the Daily Telegraph ("System taking hundreds of babies for adoption") lapping up what Hemming has had to say on the subject, which has ranged from allegations of "social engineering on a grand a scale" to claims that "A thousand kids a year are being taken off their birth parents just to satisfy targets". Mother-to-be flees as social workers warn her they will take her baby away at birth
Daily Mail 21 November 2007 - an article that quotes Hemming ,"Mr Hemming is chairman of the Justice for Families organisation and believes councils are now taking more babies to meet Government adoption targets."
Also visit Cot death, infanticide & child protection a site run by Jonathan Gornall which has an extensive library and is described as a " site [that] serves as a repository for those articles and as a source of information relating to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, infanticide and the campaign against UK professionals working in child-protection services.
Justice for Families have a website and also here this happily reproduces speeches of David Hemming in the House of Commons 19th december 2006 where he says "The problem is that over decades he (David Southall) was allowed to continue to do research just as damaging as that of Josef Mengele, without proper action by the authorities. "
Those who have the patience can go the John Hemmings blog where for some curious reason he fails to post anything about the statement by Vera Baird about the investigation into the activities of Dr David Southall as a prosecution witness. ..."On reviewing these files in depth, the team found no grounds to suggest that there had been a failure to comply with the prosecution’s obligations of disclosure to the defence. " was a result which lying, devious, dishonest people like John Hemming cannot deal with.
Meanwhile we wait for Mr Steven Clark to sue Dr David Southall for libel for calling him a murderer. All it needs is a phone call to Schillings or Carter Fuck.