Lofty Abuse Professionals Exposed

Southall Finally Struck Off Paediatrician David Southall was yesterday struck off the medical register after twice accusing parents of murdering their children.

Thank goodness.

At last the public is beginning to wake up to the horrors that arrogant, incompetent 'child experts' are inflicting on thousands of innocent families.

And it is just not acceptable for these so-called experts to avoid significant consequences simply on the grounds that they had 'good intentions' and/or that they were exercising their duty to look after the welfare of the children and/or that they do not have 'a duty of care' to anyone else.

Indeed, if people are allowed to hurt innocent others on the grounds that they were simply trying to look after 'the best interests of the children' in their care etc etc then, presumably, and for example, parents could happily steal, defraud and cheat others in order to give their children a better quality of life!

We could all go round saying that what we are doing is "in the best interests of our children."

Indeed, killing judges might well be "in the best interests of our children." Killing child abuse experts might well be "in the best interests of our children." Killing the Prime Minister might be "in the best interests of our children."

So much misery has been caused to our society by thousands of officials claiming to be acting "in the best interests of our children" - while, in fact, doing inestimable harm to them - that this phony mantra, which is used to justify all sorts of unconscionable deeds, needs to be thoroughly discredited.

In my view, people who are continually prepared to cause significant harm to innocent others, and who do so, need to be brought to book; regardless of whether or not they claim to have had good intentions.

Now, of course there are situations wherein genuine and unavoidable mistakes are made, and in some cases harm must be caused to innocent others in order to save others from a far worse fate. But when it comes to the alleged "welfare of children", there are thousands upon thousands of innocent others whose lives are seriously damaged every year in the UK by the activities of over-zealous and largely incompetent so-called child abuse experts.

Indeed, the last time that I looked at the figures - which was about 10 years ago - 40,000 innocent families were being investigated closely every year on the grounds that they were suspected of child abuse.

This is not only morally unacceptable, it is causing monumental harm to the whole of our society and, hence, to our children. 

Furthermore, if - as is so often claimed by these people - "the best interests of our children" must be considered to be more important than anything, or anyone, else, then they can have no complaint if they, themselves, are heavily trampled upon by others who believe the same.

And, in my view, trampling very heavily upon such people would very definitely be "in the best interests of our children".

Finally, for my less able readers - of which there are many! - let me spell it out more simply.

Would these child-abuse zealots find it acceptable to kill a healthy man in order to harness one of his internal organs so that it could be transplanted into a child in order to save its life?

Presumably not.

Well, why not? After all, according to these people, the well-being of the child is far more important than the well-being of anyone else.

As such, the life of the child is more important than the life of the man. 

So, why not kill the man and save the child?

Well, I presume that the child-abuse zealots would not find it acceptable to kill the man in order to save the life of the child. It would be going too far!

And so the question is really this.

How much hurt and damage are the child-abuse zealots prepared to inflict on innocent others in order to "protect children"?

And my answer to this question is simple.

They have already gone way too far - and they are not currently protecting children. They are harming them, and they are harming everyone else.

I have received a number of emails over the years - some of them polite, some of them not so polite - concerning my view that the psychiatric profession is not an honourable profession and, also, that many child abuse 'professionals' deserve to be taken to task very strongly for their incompetence and their mendacity.

For example, in my last short piece concerning this issue (somewhere on the front page) I expressed much satisfaction that Dr David Southall - a paediatrician whose various bunglings and false accusations hurt very severely some innocent parents - was finally struck off the medical register by his own colleagues and can no longer practice medicine in the UK.

My piece brought in a few emails of mild protest, and so I am now going to respond by justifying even further my point of view.

Firstly, amongst other things, Dr Southall actually accused a father of killing his own child following a media interview wherein the father was, in fact, merely defending the mother (his wife) against an allegation that she, herself, had murdered the child - something which she had not done.

On the basis of this interview - which I saw - Southall accused the father of murdering his child! It was utterly ridiculous. There was nothing in this interview to suggest anything of the sort. 

Southall was behaving more like a clairvoyant than a doctor or a man of science, and, in my view, his behaviour was absolutely outrageous - particularly given that lofty people like him nowadays have the power to sway the judges and juries into convicting people of serious child abuse - including murder.

And, clearly, I am not alone in thinking that his behaviour was outrageous.

After all, the professional governing medical body - the General Medical Council - a body which bends over backwards to protect its own members - struck him off. So I am not alone in finding the antics of this man to be thoroughly unacceptable. There are, clearly, many professionals who agree!

Furthermore, I also heard him being interviewed after he was struck off - and I was not impressed. He is an arrogant man who not only believes that he is far more 'expert' than, in fact, he is, but he is quite prepared to ruin the lives of innocent others on the basis of his erroneous beliefs.

But he is not alone in doing this.  In other words, he is not an exception!

When it comes to the child-abuse industry (and, as we know, in the abuse industry in general) there are many 'professionals' who are very determined to convict as many people as possible - men mostly - in order to expand their empires, to make money, and to empower themselves. These people are not trustworthy, and they are not honourable; (e.g. see Shameful Therapists).  

And I am going to prove it to you.

Yet again!

In the mainstream media, following the striking off of Dr Southall, the 'professional' defenders of Southall - and he himself - kept claiming that the reason that there was so much outrage over what he had done was because there were various activists who were conspiring against child-protection paediatricians (such as himself) in order to tarnish their reputations and - here it comes! - that these activists claimed that there was NO SUCH THING as child abuse! i.e. that child-abuse never happened.

I heard Southall make this claim in an interview, as well as two other paediatricians.

This is an outrageous and dishonest claim, and it is designed to portray as idiots and/or as liars, all those people who think that the child-protection industry has gone too far.

Furthermore, there was some implication that those who complained about the antics of the child-abuse industry were, themselves, merely trying to cover up their own abuse of children.

In other words, these paediatricians have been purposely implying that those people who disagree with what they are doing are, themselves, child abusers.

Indeed, after Southall was struck off, a letter was sent to the Guardian newspaper from a large group of lofty individuals - paediatricians included - who, apparently, are "Professionals Against Child Abuse".

Here is one of the statements that they made in their letter, ...

"There is a determined campaign to deny the existence and reality of child abuse in all its forms, led by a small group, aided and abetted by some journalists and politicians."

Read it again. Carefully!

These child abuse 'professionals' are stating, quite categorically, that Southall - and professionals such as themselves - are being persecuted by a group of individuals (which includes journalists and politicians) who deny the existence and reality of child abuse in all its forms!!!!!

Well, let me tell you. There is no such campaigning group. 

It does not exist.

And if, indeed, there did exist such a group, then it would have absolutely no power of persuasion at all - and certainly it could not launch any effective campaigns - because no-one who was to claim that there was no such thing as child abuse would have any credibility at all.

And so what we have going on here is a smear campaign being conducted by the "Professionals Against Child Abuse" in an attempt to discredit and demonise all those people who are concerned about their incompetence.

And they are trying to smear very horribly all those people who are unhappy about some of the things that they are doing - viz; by suggesting that these people are so stupid that they do not believe that there is such a thing as child abuse and/or that they, themselves, are abusers of children and that they are simply trying to cover this up.

This is the kind of smear tactic that the abuse industry has employed - with much success - for decades - and it is designed to intimidate people away from protesting about what they are doing.

"If you do not support us, then you must be an idiot, a child abuser, or a wife-beater - or whatever."

And this was no single error of judgement made by Southall and his cronies. I have heard the same type of accusatory messages touted across the media by the same type of 'professionals' over very many years. 

Indeed, the above letter to the Guardian was signed by about 25 of these 'professionals'.

So, this was no error of judgement. It was a purposeful attempt to demonise all those people who are not happy about the way in which these professionals are making abuse accusations on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence - in Southall's case, an innocent TV interview!

Now, most readers of this website - and other intelligent folk - are not going to be bamboozled by these nasty tactics but, unfortunately, the world is not made up of such people. Mostly, the world is made up of people who have not got a clue about the devious machinations of the abuse industry, and they will readily believe whatever 'doctors' claim - no matter how outrageous these claims might be.

Indeed, one only has to recall the general public's willingness to believe in all the Satanic ritual abuse nonsense that many of these very same 'professionals' were talking about not so long ago in order to see just how gullible are most people. 

And then there was all the recovered-memory hocus-pocus.

And - if I might remind you all - the thoroughly-discredited ink blot test is still used by many 'professionals' working in the abuse industry.

But - lest I lose the point - let me re-state that there is no "determined campaign to deny the existence and reality of child abuse in all its forms, led by a small group, aided and abetted by some journalists and politicians."

And, even if there was such a group, the majority of people who are complaining about the antics of those in the child-abuse industry are, clearly, not any part of it.

In other words, this letter to the Guardian is an attempt to deceive, and it has been endorsed by some 25 "Professionals Against Child Abuse" - the idea being to intimidate and demonise decent people who think that the child-abuse industry has gone too far.

And this deception was no mistake. It was an unconscionable tactic that many 'professionals' in the child-abuse industry have used time and time again over the past few decades in order to intimidate into silence those people who might wish to complain about them; many of whom, I am sure, have been falsely accused - or had suspicion cast upon them - by such 'professionals'. And for these 'professionals' to try to cast even further suspicion on to such people is absolutely contemptible. 

AH

PS John Humprhys on the BBC's Today programme on R4 referred to these people as "child-abuse zealots".

PPS I suppose I should state that, of course, there are very many 'abuse professionals' who do a damn good job - I know some of them! - but, quite frankly, unless they get their houses in order and stand up against those in their own profession who are prepared to damage most horribly the lives of innocent others on the basis of insufficient evidence then they will only end up bringing themselves and their profession into further disrepute - and deservedly so.

My advice is that professionals do not damage horribly the lives of innocent others in their various quests; because, if they do this, they can hardly complain should others decide to do the same to them.