Monday, August 27, 2007

The Crime of Linking

Both Philip Dawdy and Aubrey Blumsohn (and others) have described the tale of Dr. Rita Pal, who committed the apparently serious offense of linking to a document on her website, lost her job (coincidence?) and is being further investigated by the General Medical Council. The linked document was the transcript of the case of Lisa Blakemore Brown, a British psychologist who was accused of misconduct. Feel free to read my tirade about the ludicrousness of how Blakemore Brown has been persecuted (1, 2).

The real killer here is that Pal's fitness to practice medicine is being questioned because she linked to a document that had not a thing to do with patient confidentiality and is entirely unrelated to Pal's fitness to practice medicine. Perhaps someone can explain how linking to a document makes one unfit to practice medicine...

Oh, did I mention that Dr. Pal has a blog where she frequently criticizes the British National Health Service? What a great way to silence a critic -- trump up a patently ridiculously charge in an attempt to crush her career.

Please read Dawdy's and Blumsohn's posts to get the whole story.

Update: A reader has posted a comment challenging the veracity of this story. I'm quite interested in seeing other comments on this topic as well...


1 – 200 of 248   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Excuse me? Dr Pal is not being investigated for a link at all - this is disengenuous information being blogged around the internet and of course Dr Pal can say that because the General Medical Council are gagged and cannot comment.

Please read the GMC regulations, because if you delve into their fitness to practise rules, you will see that it would have to far more serious than blogging a link.

CL Psych said...

Maybe you're right -- I'll follow the case and see what happens. The story seemed to break in a British newspaper and has been discussed further since.

You did not provide any sort of reasonable counterargument as to what else in particular might be leading to such an investigation. You seem to be implying that the GMC would not trump up a ridiculous charge -- we'll see about that, I suppose. I'm more than willing to eat my words if I'm wrong and I expect you're willing to do the same.

Anonymous said...

I second that, Dr Pal is not being investigated for this whatsoever. There are other matters pertaining to the Fitness to Practice.

Please read GMC regulations and in addition do not rely on information that has been posted on her blog site.

Word of advice, don't believe half of what she writes in relation to these matters and in relation to Lisa Blakemore-Brown.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately both posters are unable to provide any more information in relation to the case but have other evidence which is in the hands of the GMC and BPS and are essentially ongoing cases.

Furthermore without knowing the full history and the true facts of this story, it would be unwise to comment on what you only part of a picture which has been misconstrued.

After all, that is what you are taught in medicine isn't it?

In relation to the other case - there were other issues which related to Fitness to Practice and conduct and as the minutes stated one of four hearings amounting to some 1,000 pages of evidence. Dr Fieldman was giving his honest opionion about what he thought of the various correspondence and that included information which was received by him of a far later date.

I am though unable to provide you with any further information about the case.

Read the minutes properly and you will understand.

soulful sepulcher said...

Rita Pal left a comment on my blog that details information she wants people to know.

soulful sepulcher said...

Rita Pal left a comment in this post of mine:

"Doctor loses job: weblink to blame: High Court Battle ".

Let her words speak for herself.

Anonymous said...

""Doctor loses job: weblink to blame: High Court Battle "."

Yeh, she pull the other one. Don't believe all you read.

As I say wouldn't believe a word that woman says.

Dr Audrey Blumsohn desseted her to fight her own battles (her words) partially true - walked out of the case in April 2007 when he found out the real truth.

Anybody replicating any of this stuff needs to think twice.

Roy M. Poses MD said...

I don't know much about the specifics of this case.
Note that Dr Blumsohn has not deserted this case. He had a new post on it as of 25 August, 2007. See:

x said...

Dear All

Firstly, my thanks for featuring the issue. I am very grateful to you.

Secondly, its good to know that my harassers are currently posting material about me here as they have been doing on other websites. They are the assistants of the complainants.

Thirdly, the two issues being investigated at the GMC is as stated in the Register piece. There are no other fitness to practise issues as the Trust I worked raised no concerns.

To suggest there is any other matters of investigation is bona fide defamatory. Then I suspect the complainants would wish to suggest that there are "other" issues. The blunt truth is that there aren't. I have placed the last reference on my website if anyone wishes to view it. The last reference refers to me as a psychiatrist and states that there are no concerns.

The entire escapade is detailed on my blog

The fact remains that the complaint originated after I uncovered the fact that Lisa Blakemore Brown's emails enclosed in the complaint to the BPS had been tampered with. I now have the admission from Fiona Woollard and part of it is present on my blog.

Lisa and I share the same complainant by the way.

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn has only recently posted material about the case following the Register's feature. He has though known about all the issues since April 2007 as has Phil Dawdy.

It should be noted that initially I was accused of publishing the transcript by the GMC and the complainants. I then provided evidence that I did not do this.
I was then accused of linking to the document. The goal posts have moved on both charges consistently with each defence. The complainants and the GMC did not understand that I had "linked" to the document and that it wasn't published on my blog. This had to be explained to them in Jill and John language.

So the GMC can be seen to vary the charges as defences are put forward.

Perhaps it is now time to dye my hair pink because even that would hold up at present.

I find it rather amusing that one has to speculate about me when its very easy to simply visit my website to study the evidence which has been there for months including material about the second charge.

It is also very easy to email me. I am more than transparent. Public hearings are a matter of public record.

My complainants would like to believe that there are " other concerns about me" but quite frankly there aren't and there never has been. After the case is over, I intend to publish the entire complaint and all the GMC responses just as a matter of amusement rather than anything else.

It should be noted that the GMC attempted to covertly investigate my so called mental health - their high watermark was a typographical error I had made. So, one can see the motive of the GMC. We should though mention their taste for collecting copies of my websites, their constant visits to my blog and the fact they have felt that reading Stephen King books is an offence under Good Medical Practise :).

Yours Sincerely

Dr Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

Can we say "borderline"?

Anonymous said...

The truth :)

Does 12(2) ring a bell?

Doncaster.... ?

Data Protection Act 1998 disclosures

Confidentiality issues

Anonymous said...

Doing a job you weren't qualified to do.

Resigning.... not getting sack.

Anonymous said...

"I now have the admission from Fiona Woollard and part of it is present on my blog"

I doubt that you have and never will have permission to do so.

You are breaking the Data Protection Act 1998 and confidentiality issues by so doing so,

Please remove as requested e-mails containing medical information of which no consent was ever given.

You have been more than unreasonable in this matter and numerous requests have been made.

Anonymous said...

You also included on your blog details of the case including the paginated bundle of documents.

Meetings held in private are private and amongst other things the documents contained details of individual's medical conditions of individuals who had been through the Family Courts.

You had no right to disclose to third party and neither did Lisa without consent or knowledge of the individuals concerned.

So, Rita you are in the wrong and you should admit your mistakes.

And neither do you have to spell out to Fiona and Penny about confidentiality issues. They are extremely intelligent individuals.

Anonymous said...

In relation to defamation there is far more defamation on your site than anywhere else.

x said...

As you will see from the responses above, the complainants are rather concerned that what they did in Lisa Blakemore Brown's case is out in the public domain.

Letter dated 5th June 2007. Fiona Woolard refers to the emails enclosed by Penny Mellor within the complaint.

"I do not wish these to be considered in any future hearings as they are of dubious authenticity"

Of course, Ms Mellor's ability to assess information can be found on our website in her infamous domain name bungle.

Their website above more often than not breaches copyright
(DMCA) and is prima facie defamatory but what else can we say for those who are desperate enough to resort to such tactics.

As the author of this website will no doubt be aware, the colour red or bright colours are often used by a certain section of mental health patients.

The above are a selection of very desperate people.

For avoidance of doubt the email from my employer states "you were fired on 3rd May 2007".

I apologise for your forum being populated by my cyberstalkers. Obsessive psychopaths tend to act in this manner especially ones under threat.


Dr Rita Pal

x said...

This is a republication of the chronology from the blog.

Many of you who are new visitors may not have been party to the acrimonious relationship between myself and I therefore wanted to summarise it here prior to a minor summer break.
1. has always had the reputation of being a dysfunctional group responsible for harassing and abusing a number of doctors and other professionals.
2. Since 1998, the website hosted out of the UK has sported an anonymous moderator called M.C. who has in effect allowed defamatory, insulting and abusive comments about doctors to remain on their servers for years. Basically, MAMA is where everyone goes to call the doctor a murderer or accuse them of perverting the course of justice. Prof David Southall has been targetted by one Penny Mellor, a housewife, a campaigner of all things that gets her attention and a ex prisoner.
3. Since 2, complaints on child protection issues have increased phenomenally. Our Lord God the GMC has failed to recognise these vexatious complaints and has forced doctors to go through their procedures at the behest of this group.
4. The statistics prior to 2004 was as follows
Violence 31 %
Threats 67 %
Intimidation 77%
Formal complaint 35%
Informal complaint 33 %
( N =295)
5. The Royal College of Paediatricians statistics are as follows

n79% response rate (total 6072)
n14% (533 paediatricians) subject to a formal complaint (total 786)
nIncreasing from <20>100 in 2003
n79% (406 doctors) dealt with locally, 8% (59 doctors) to independent review and 11% (71 doctors) to GMC
6. Pre 2004 the GMC Complaint statistics were as follows

n 41% dropped
n 59% found unproven
n None upheld
7. The conclusion from (6) would be that the complaints were vexatious.
8. The GMC though have had no procedures in place to recognise this and continue to hound paediatricians.
9. In 2004 the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 were changed. This meant any complaint made against a doctor and taken up would be disclosed to ALL workplaces the doctor had worked at for the last 5 years. So for instance, if Penny Mellor called a doctor a murderer, that comment would in effect be circulated by the GMC everywhere. The GMC thinks nothing of this issue but has continued to do this to a number of doctors including myself.
10. In January 2007, Dr Aubrey Blumsohn raised the concern that Lisa Blakemore Brown was being mistreated by the British Psychological Society.
11. At the time, I was told by Aubrey that Lisa Blakemore Brown's complaint had been made by Ms Penny Mellor.
12. I looked into the complaint to find a huge proportion of unverified emails enclosed by Mellor. Lisa Blakemore Brown had been defamed by for years. Her livelihood at been assasinated and the credit for this goes to Penny Mellor who sought to silence yet another critic of hers.
13. The problem with the complaint was that someone had tampered with the enclosed emails. Blakemore Brown had told the BPS this and asked them to obtain the originals. The BPS failed to do so but accused Lisa Blakemore Brown of potentially having a mental illness. Of course, Lisa Blakemore Brown never did have a mental illness at all but was telling the truth.
14. Between January 2007 - April 2007 I started to ask some uncomfortable questions about who had tampered with Lisa Blakemore Brown's emails. The likely suspects where the two involved - Fiona Woolard and Penny Mellor.
15. Fiona Woolard continue to shake, rattle and roll. She changed her story a little short of 10 times with respect to the emails. She told the GMC that she had the original emails. Of course, no original emails ever manifested. Having had enough rapid questioning on this blog, Fiona Woolard backed down and told the BPS that the emails were unreliable. She wrote ( 5th June 2007)
" As these are dated 2003, I do not wish these to be considered in any future hearings as they are of dubious authenticity".
16. Between January 2007 - April 2007, the two suspects Penny Mellor and Fiona Woolard were increasingly fearful that their antics would be discovered and asked the GMC to silence me.
17. The complaint was instigated by the two individuals - because according to them the more people who complain against doctors, the more successful it is likely to be. This is what believes in. Targetted multiple complainants against doctors. This is what has happened to Professor David Southall and many other doctors. The issue is this - if one thing won't get the doctor, another thing will. This is also what has happened to me. Their idea was that if they complained to the GMC, I would stop writing about all their misdemeanors and boy do I know a lot about them.
18. Penny Mellor and Fiona Woolard and their cronies remain in limbo where the GMC complaint is concerned because the case is now going to judicial review whether they like it or not. Woolard has disappeared since her antics while I have had to ask lawyers to litigate. They are also both responsible for the loss of my job. I remain without a job due to the fact that there has to be mass disclosure of Ms Mellor's bizarre rantings to all and sundry. As every doctor will know, all application forms has to have disclosure of these complaints. So in effect, they have stopped me from working. Like every friendly neighboughood revenger, this is what they would call a success because afterall relishes in other people's suffering much like psychopaths do. Their aim though never did work, I continue to write and they continue to monitor. Mellor did though sent her little helper Brian Morgan to send me vile and abusive emails through this website. This included, threats to my registration, threats that I would be in prison, veiled threats on my life, they also cited that they knew where I lived and one of the most sickly comments was about lesbian breast feeding in prison which I apparently would have to experience. So they have gone to quite a long level to shut down what is being said. Of course, the issue is now worsening with Mellor facing a defamation trial, the GMC facing a judicial review and showing themselves to be a dysfunctional group of posters who care for nothing but themselves.
19. It is still my view that should be shut down until further notice. The group has significant problems and propagates hate against paediatricians and other professions in general.
MAMA is now the abuser and will continue to be until it results in one death after another in the medical fraternity.
20. Penny Mellor in the meantime failed to answer the following questions
a. She has not told us how many complaints she has made to the GMC. This she hides in her secret files. This though is a list of complaints
b. She has not denied an affair with John Hemming MP - her knight in shining armour. Hemming MP has not answered the question.
c. She has not answered the question about whether or not she tampered with the Blakemore Brown enclosed emails.
21. Her friends of course are Sharon Payne - contempt of court and also the lady who was hero worshipped following her efforts as masquerading as a worker to infiltrate Professor Southall's office to lift the files for copying and then return them.
22. Lastly, Penny Mellor is a ex prisoner, was found guilty by the criminal courts for conspiracy to abduct a child. She has heavy links to Scientology whom she admits helped her get psychs struck off. She said in an email "I don't know how you feel about the scientologists, they don't believe in drugging children, and get some bad press, however they are very keen to help any parent with autistic children who has been labelled, no strings attached, they have helped me get loads of MSbP psychs struck off... something to think about it can be done at your discretion but they do have alot of resources, doctors etc who help falsely accused parents"
and on the 5th June 2005 she said
"Here's the scientologists email address you want to talk to Brian Daniels and he'll do whatever he can to help you"
She therefore offers scientology contacts to board posters. The Scientology members then opt to attempt recruitment of said posters. She is alleged to have sent a scientologist to me although he was outed before he got past first base. His name was Fraser Kee Scott a very creepy character from . As soon as he was questioned on this issue, he ran away. He had lots of agendas but then he currently hides from an interview I wish to do with him. The problem with some people is that they assume I was born yesterday.
Penny Mellor was given the human rights scientology award for her campaigning work against msbp as a diagnosis rarely given to those who are not scientologists.
The cult of Scientology was exposed by the BBC Panorama programme. There is no doubt of the influence between Scientology and the board. The story comes together wonderfully because while the aim of Scientology Scientologists want "the global obliteration" of psychiatrists, who they say were to blame for the rise of Nazi Germany" I used to be a psychiatrist and Lisa Blakemore Brown is a psychologist.
If any scientologists are reading this - Mellor working on the behest of them or vice versa really has the same result. They purport to despise human rights abuses in their UK website but are quite happy for Penny Mellor to bandy around defamatory diagnoses. So again, while Mellor is able to bandy around all sorts of abusive language descriptions related to mental ill health as a way of discrediting people, we as doctors aren't able to question the psychological profile of her or her band of merry scientologists. Actually, we should have a new phrase for the Scientology
" A way to get your doctor struck off, we help you get there". And by the way, if scientology is given a bad name on here - then they should watch what company they keep. Scientology is though like a cult with fingers in many pies. Its all about contacts in the right places isn't it Penny?

x said...

This is an review of and resultant cyberbehaviour. First published on and the reason for these complaints against me.

Professor David Southall, the beleaguered paediatrician at the centre of the CNEP controversy, claims to have been the victim of a smear campaign.

According to an article by James Murray, published in the Sunday Express on 8th April 2007, outrage followed the Professor’s decision to set up covert video surveillance of children suspected of being abused at the Royal Brompton Hospital in London. As a result of his actions, many parents were prosecuted after being caught on film as they harmed their children.

The article goes on to say that, during his work in the field of child abuse, Professor Southall diagnosed some mothers as suffering from Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP), a condition in which some mothers injure their children in order to seek attention.

His diagnoses enraged some mothers, who bitterly proclaimed their innocence and formed a small group to actively campaign against the doctor. It is this tiny group of activists that Professor Southall now accuses of trying to destroy him.

Independently of, and indeed unaware of, Professor Southall’s intended revelations in the Sunday Express, NHS Exposed has been observing this group of activists for some time – with, it must be said, a mounting degree of concern.

In the interests of scientific inquiry, we conducted a brief experiment into whether this group can accurately interpret and analyse information when challenged. As is often the case with outspoken minority groups, the activists in question frequent an internet message board, facilitating easy observation of their stated responses, views and intended actions. We compared this group to a support group raising concerns about the MRSA superbug, which was able to study complex evidence and present it succinct, reasoned responses.

Unfortunately, in the case of the anti-Southall campaigners, we found that there appeared to be gross misinterpretations of evidence, a persistent failure to adequately research material before reaching illogical conclusions and leaps of “logic” used to extrapolate a given piece of evidence into a conclusion that was irrelevant to the original evidence.

Disturbingly, the group frequently made emphatic assertions on matters requiring a high degree of scientific knowledge and expertise in a number of fields, but were seemingly unable to back up their conclusions with an explanation of the scientific theory required to support their “conclusions”. Indeed, when asked to explain such underlying points, and how they had reached their conclusions, the group flatly refused, despite being asked to do so over a number of weeks.

Further, when we pressed for more information on these points, the group’s response was a swift and determined attack upon those who dared to question them. During the course of our research, we accrued a number of threats to complain to our web hosting companies, which may, or may not, have been carried out – if they were, we’re still online, and we’ve heard nothing of them from our hosts. There was also a fascinating discussion thread on how to find, contact and complain to the companies and individuals who advertise on NHS Exposed, presumably intended to impose financial hardship on those pesky folks who asked awkward questions. Finally, we managed to clock up at least three threats of complaints to the General Medical Council. We have little doubt that this article will result in renewed apoplectic outbursts from the group, and, if any of them are sufficiently interesting, we will update this article to document them.

We found the group to be highly motivated, well coordinated and energetic in launching such attacks against those who appear to question their position. Threats of (or actual) complaints to the GMC would be a potent deterrent to most medical professionals, and this appears to be the group’s weapon of choice against the individuals most likely to know (and say!) exactly how malformed some of the group’s assertions really are.

For this group, the prospect of inconveniencing a doctor who challenges them appears to be a form of “punishment” for this unthinkable transgression. Even a baseless complaint would, in many cases, cause the doctor concerned significant distress and this fact does not seem to have escaped the group. Rather, they appear to relish the prospect. It is regrettable that the much-vaunted Shipman Inquiry recommendations, which in themselves were well-intentioned, have spawned a situation in which a doctor can be harassed, haunted and hunted by a tiny but vocal minority, purely because he disagrees with them.

Indeed, our overall impression of all this frenzied activity against someone who questioned the group was one of a fox hunt – vicious, visceral and irrationally instinctive. The group pack appeared determined to pursue their quarry, using any means available, in the hope of bringing them down.

It may be that the influences of emotional distress, trauma and the consequences of hardship are potentially responsible for the disturbing behaviour exhibited by this group. Similar causes may be attributed to the group’s dislike and distrust of many doctors, although at no point were we able to ascertain logical evidence to show why the group considers these doctors to be inherently “evil”.

In some instances, we saw evidence of "red rage" and "revenge", with no apparent evidence of logical thought or debate. Naturally, the issues frequently discussed by this group are highly emotive, and this appears to fuel further emotional responses from others. The language used is often crude and created to distress the victim substantially.

The aggressive, unreasoned behaviour demonstrated towards us and others by this group over a period of several weeks’ observation is, of course, nothing new. Any reader who has used any form of internet discussion forum for any period of time is likely to be familiar with the notion of a “flame war”. We are not psychologists, but this quote from a review of Holmer’s The Internet Regression seems particularly apt: “There is no doubt that people regress on the internet. Anyone who has been consumed by a flame war or visited some of the more outlandish "alt" newsgroups will attest to that. Cyberspace weds the highest intellectual functions and most primitive instincts of the human personality”

We strongly suggest that a psychologist should review the observed behaviour of the activist group in question, to assess whether the demonstrated patterns of behaviour may fall with the terms of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Unless and until such an assessment can be carried out, we would very strongly suggest that under no circumstances should individuals – be they medical professionals, persons involved in child protection or the general public – become involved with this group of minority activists. For those readers who have been wrongly accused of child abuse etc. there are alternative sources of support, advice and assistance, and we strongly suggest that you seek them out.

We should stress that NHS Exposed is neither pro nor anti-doctor for the sake of it. We approached this issue as we do with all issues that come to our attention – with an open mind and an interest in seeing the evidence. On each point, the activist members of this group were asked to state their case and show evidence to support it. That they did not do so, but chose instead to attack us, does not, in itself, demonstrate that they have no evidence to support their position. It does, however, suggest that they have no insight into the potential effect of their actions on others, or consideration for the possibility that they might be wrong in any particular case.

In general, we believe that internet support groups are an excellent thing, in that they allow geographically distant individuals to come together to exchange information, ideas and advice. This group, however, is a very clear exception. In our opinion, their behaviour poses a significant risk to healthcare professionals who disagree with them, and an at least equally grave risk to individuals who may have legitimate concerns about certain health workers. How are such individuals ever to express and prove their concerns in an environment where assertions are, apparently, made as fact without recourse to the underlying science? We believe that failure to recognise this group for what it is, together with continued propagation of its propaganda through media channels, may eventually come to represent a significant danger to the public. How long will it be before this group’s activities cost the life of an innocent doctor, harassed beyond endurance by complaint after allegation after threat?

That several members of this group have been involved in a contempt of court action, at least one of them has served time in prison and another extracted confidential documents whilst in the trusted employ of one of the doctors they accuse suggests that the rule of law has very little meaning for these individuals. The impression we received was that they will do whatever they feel is necessary in order to achieve their aims, and will be applauded for doing so by other members of the group.

Unfortunately, the stories put forward by this group appear to have an irresistible attraction for the media. Scores of column-inches are devoted to the antics of Professor Southall and others, while practically nothing is written about the dubious backgrounds of the vocal but otherwise vanishingly small group of activists who promote the story.

Even more unfortunately, the General Medical Council is infamous for paying close attention to so-called high profile cases. According to a little-known article in the Observer, published on February 6th 2005, “Senior General Medical Council officials knew of serious concerns about the paediatrician, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, before he gave evidence which led to at least two mothers being wrongfully jailed for murder.”

The article goes on to say that Isabel Nisbet, then the Head of the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Directorate, sent an internal memo to a colleague within the department, saying, “I realise that the RCPCH [Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health] have been trying to contact me for some weeks ... I fear that I shall need to be brought up to speed on the issues regarding Prof Meadow. Could you please add it to the list for the next "high profile cases" meeting?”

The key words here are “high profile cases” - perhaps the GMC could let us know whether they hold equivalent meetings for “low profile” cases? It has long been suspected that the GMC is more interested in being seen to do its job than in actually doing it, and that cases with a great deal of media attention are given special treatment. Indeed, in recent years, the GMC has even taken to entrapping doctors via journalists. The relationship between them is so close that it could well be argued that, in a high-profile case, the accused doctor is, effectively, guilty until proven innocent as far as the CGM is concerned. They are, to use a colourful term, burned at the stake in order to reassure the public that the GMC is actually doing something, while, in less “high profile” cases, doctors are let off despite strong evidence of misdeeds on their part.

Sadly, the price of protecting rather than earning their reputation is to deny accused doctors access to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial. The GMC claims to apply the criminal standard of proof to its hearings, yet, in a criminal trial, it would be necessary to appoint a jury whose members had not, and could not have, been influenced by media coverage of the events in question. It seems most unlikely that the panel members who consider cases such as Meadow and Southall have not read, or been influenced by media coverage – a situation that would be considered catastrophic in a criminal trial.

Unfortunately, the media’s point of view is necessarily almost always that of the layman, and it is heavily influenced by unscientific views of what is right or wrong. Further, it is open to influence from activists and pressure groups, who, through regular contact with journalists, promote their view of the rights and wrongs of the case. The implication is obvious – by making a loud enough noise, minority pressure groups with their own agendas can easily influence the media, and, through the media, the self-serving attitudes of officials at bodies such as the General Medical Council.

As if these concerns weren’t serious enough, a recent article by Catherine Williams LLB, of the University of Sheffield’s Department of Law, suggests that General Medical Council is failing in its duty to protect children. She states "We consider that the United Kingdom has no system for dealing with complaints submitted by parents who claim false allegations of child abuse". The article argues that the actions of the GMC conflict with current child protection laws and guidance for professionals.

Williams goes on to say, “By deterring doctors from raising concerns about a child's safety and giving opinions on child deaths, the General Medical Council may be increasing the risk of serious child abuse. It is unacceptable that to date the General Medical Council has refused training in child protection offered by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health”.

Again, this dire situation is self-evident. If a doctor raises concerns about a child’s welfare, the accused parent(s) may well seek support from the group discussed above, and, before long, the doctor will find themselves facing the GMC in the full glare of artificially induced media speculation and accusation. The GMC, a media puppet to the last, will feel obliged to show that it is taking a tough line in such matters, and the doctor’s career will be lost without trace.

Under these circumstances, it would take a very brave doctor indeed to raise concerns about a child’s welfare. Yet, many children continue to be neglected, and go unprotected. It is their heartbreaking stories that should occupy the column-inches currently festooned with dubious, frequently artificially generated hype about doctors who have dared to try and help children.

Victoria Climbie was one such case. This little girl was failed by just about every part of the social health services, and her death resulted in an important inquiry. But, amongst the self-importance and occasional selfishness of this particular group of activists, her name and its significance is more or less forgotten. Perhaps, in these circumstances, it is unsurprising that the NSCPP estimates that at least 32,000 children are at risk of abuse right now. After all, doctors are afraid to report suspected abuse, campaigners and activists are quick to complain about those who do, and the GMC, being more interested in maintaining its image, refuses even to contemplate training its staff on child protection issues.

It is clear to us that, for as long as too many people, groups and organisations have their own agendas, the people who will suffer the most are the thousands of at-risk children, closely followed by those who are brave enough to help them.

Finally, it seems that we are not alone in reaching the conclusions outlined above. We received the following email from a former member of the activists’ message board. In view of the methodology employed by this small group of activists, we have withheld the senders’ identity, and edited her message slightly to avoid identifying individuals, but the following is otherwise a verbatim extract from the email we received:

“There was a time when I once visited the [the group’s message board], for a few weeks only and I came to my own conclusions about the nature of it, the mode of expression, the lack of restraint etc.

Circumstances in my life have contrived to ensure that I have a toe in both camps of the debate with regard to child abuse / wrongly accused etc. and apart from any other considerations, this affords a unique perspective. On the one hand, the medical profession is assured of its position and on the other are those who have been wrongly accused. Each are equally vehement in their views. So it is all but impossible to ennervate robust debate that does not soon degrade itself by the very personal nature it often adopts.

Although I have nothing do with [the group] per se, I often look at the board as there are some useful links posted from time to time and some of the exchanges are so awful to witness that they are compelling by nature. Then there was the [username] debate, and so on and so forth. I did not really get to know [a senior board member] and whilst I recognise considerable intellect, I would concur with your list of assessments about the board and their take on the world.

For me, the issues are considerably more important than any of the personalities involved, although because of the nature of the subject-matter - always evocative, and the personalities involved, it rarely develops beyond the he said this to who and what, why and whom, although any debate is often conducted with a higher IQ than the average. But there is a bigger picture, and whilst [the group] may have a point, it is a very small point in a very large world. One question I ask sometimes is why their pain is seemingly more important than anyone else's. It is as if many cannot and do not want to move beyond victim status, which when there are many in the world who do not have the luxury of choice, saddens and angers me.”

Related links

Anonymous said...

You are the most rude and obnoxious person I have personally ever met and the only cyberstalker is you yourself.

You have harassed the two individuals who did not know you since January 2007 and there is nothing but a load of non-sense on your site which is defamatory in nature.

They do not have to by law give you anything or divulge anything.

Furthermore, it is highly likely that the bundle is likely to go to the Police to be investigated and analysed. Both individuals are more than happy to have their computers analysed and it is highly likely that the e-mails came from one source and were never tampered with.

So Rita, shut up for a change and stop sprouting such crap around the internet. Fiona was giving Lisa the benefit of the doubt.

You have the ability to make people ill and it is my understanding that this has happened.

Frankly, Rita, you are such a nasty person that I would hate to see you as my psychiatrist.

Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way Rita, Fiona has won her case and got a large proportion of patients reviewed with substantial changes to the way her medical condition is managed.

The complaint in relation to her son and her medical condition was upheld by the Healthcare Commission recently. Unfrotunately no other information will be supplied to you. She has only ever complained about one paediatrician and that was justified.

Furthermore, Fiona has never had any dealings with the Southall saga other than being a secretary many years ago.

Just for clarity she is not just a "housewife" and has always had a career as well as that of a carer.

And furthermore, you are not her doctor or consultant and neither does she have any personality problems whatsoever.

As usual you talk bollocks.

Anonymous said...

Dr Rita Pal is not a consultant psychiatrist and never has been.

Nor is it right to place a patient's details on the Internet without knowledge or consent.

In the letter to HM Prison, Dr Pal stated her title was Psychiatrist. Leading to the assumption that she was indeed a consultant psychiatrist.

In fact, Dr Pal's grade is Locum Staff Grade Psychiatrist. Isn't it usual to put one's grade at the bottom of the letter?

Locums are like temps and can leave at any time.

Freedom of expression, speech and opinion, fair comment apply to this blog :)

Anonymous said...

I see Rita you are taking a break from the said website.

At last!!

I guess you have a tendancy to make people ill and depressed.

So I guess there will be counter PAPs on their way.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Dr Pal will scan and post her letter of dismissal and the notification from the GMC which led to this.

Maybe she will scan and post her locum contract.

Maybe she will post here what she has said about Dr Blumsohn and John Stone on her blog, only deleting it from there almost immediately.

It has been saved.

She tells us Dr Blumsohn is responsible for what has happened to her.

Anonymous said...

Locum Staff Grade psychiatrist isn't the lowest grade at which one can work in a psychiatric hospital, but it's certainly one with zilch opportunities for progress to registrar or consultant without embarking on improving ones qualifications, which RP had no apparent intentions of doing.

She did not want to be a doctor, she wanted to retrain as a lawyer. No sign of any progress there. She says she's a writer, journalist as well, for whom?

All we hope is that she doesn't decide to retrain and follow in her sister's footsteps as a paediatrician (if she wins against the GMC and doesn't fulfil her promise to throw away the GMC registration).

x said...


As I stated misinterpretation of facts is usually going to come to haunt the above group. In any case, I shall leave them to their own world. There is a vast different between fact and fiction.

We should see whether their logic wins the GMC's case :).

R Pal

We ask ourselves what credibility an ex prisoner who is a housewife has.


Ref: T20010758

The Crown Court
Newcastle Upon Tyne

21st March 2002






For the Prosecution: MR. C. KNOX
For the Defence: MR. T. PARKIN

JUDGE WHITBURN: Penelope Mellor, please stand.
Penelope Mellor, you were convicted by a jury of a wicked conspiracy to abduct [XXXX] in February 1999.

A woman of ability, determination and tenacity, you have been a self-appointed advocate for those, amongst others, whose children are taken into care on the basis of what was known as Munchausens Syndrome By Proxy, now known as Fictitious Illness Syndrome. Your view, expressed to the Jury, was that this was a misdiagnosis, designed to cover up medical negligence.

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.

What is unforgivable is the way in which you manipulated for your own, as I find, purposes, the genuine distress of the [XXXX] family. I am quite sure that before they visited you, mother, grandmother and child, on that fateful weekend towards the end of January 1999, that there was never any plan to abduct the child to Ireland, so as to keep the child away from Social Services in Sunderland.

Steps were taken, monies were drawn, tickets obtained, and this only after another long early morning call by you. It was you who put them in touch with [XXXX], and it was he who visited you before catching the ferry to Ireland and meeting up there with [XXXX] and [XXXX]. It was very significant that that was the one aspect on which you admitted telling lies to the police. He then of course took the grandmother and child to Scotland, and then orchestrated the non-negotiable demands, to effectively ransom the child.

The child was kept away, and despite being with her grandmother, she must have been, and as the Pre-Sentence Report clearly says, disorientated and confused. She was kept away for over a month. You said in evidence that you were thought by some to be the Svengali, the one who pulled the strings, but that you only empowered those caught up in such a case by giving them the tools to fight.

In this case I have no doubt, having seen you giving evidence and having the whole of the case, that you were the architect, the Svengali of the whole plan. [XXXX], her mother and her husband, would never have been part of any conspiracy to abduct had they not met you, you counselled and advised them, and as a result encouraging them throughout this conspiracy.

I am sure that on the evidence, only as a result, they embarked on that fateful course, which inevitably led to all three, of hitherto good character, serving sentences of imprisonment; mother and grandmother nine months, and father, who played a lesser role, six months, they readily followed where you had pointed.

As the Court of Appeal Criminal Division pointed out in dismissing the appeals of [XXXX] and [XXXX] and [XXXX], those who act as you and they did commit a serious offence, especially where what is done is to thwart the orders of the Court in respect of a child or proceedings taken in respect of a child, by removing the child from the jurisdiction of the Court and assisting the continuing absence of that child from the jurisdiction.

It is, and it is to be emphasised, the interests of the child which are paramount. It is chilling to read in the Pre-Sentence Report the effect of that abduction upon that already emotionally damaged child. You have made clear your cavalier disregard for the injunction of the High Court, viewing them as gagging orders preventing what you regard as the truth from emerging. Certain it is that you were pursuing your own agenda; the difficulties of the [XXXX] family, their emotional fragility, their suffocating love for their children fitted in well with the campaign that you were waging.

A woman of 40, hitherto good character, a mother of eight children, ranging from an adult to a small baby, any Court must pause and anxiously consider whether a custodial is inevitable. Sadly, I have done so, and it is.

I take into account all the personal matters of mitigation urged upon me. I have considered the Pre-Sentence Report, which so well sets out your background, and I am most grateful to Mr Parkin who has pleaded your case so eloquently.

What you are being punished for is orchestrating an abduction of a child, in part at least for your own propaganda purposes; an abduction which lasted over a month, and was only resolved at considerable cost of scarce Police resources and by good detective work. An abduction which cost others, who were unlikely to have participated without your encouragement, their liberty.

The very least sentence I can pass upon you, Penelope Mellor, is two years’ imprisonment. Of that you will serve half. Take her down. I make no order for costs.

Paul Heathcote said...

This is the Dr Pal you seem to know so well.


Complainant found guilty of tampering with medical website
THE doctor at the centre of the sex scandal engulfing Shrewsbury's MP has
been investi­gated for tampering with an official medical web­site,
including linking it to an obscene porn site.
Dr Rita Pal, of Sutton Coldfield, was found guilty in November of a number
of complaints made by the website
an Internet chatroom for doctors which is linked to the General Medical
The official Internet reg­istry, Nominet, appointed an independent expert to
investigate the matter.
The expert concluded she had made "a quite improper and spurious attempt to
link the website to an internet porn site" and that she was 'guilty of
copying confiden­tial postings and putting them in the public domain."

Such a lovely person.

x said...

I believe the newspaper offered a correction :). There is a reason for that.

:). Checking facts is so difficult for yourselves isn't it.

R Pal

Anonymous said...

Paul Heathcote said...


DRS 01281


- AND -



Decision of Independent Expert

40. By contrast, the content of the generalmedicalcouncil site, and is insulting and offensive to the individuals concerned in my view. On any objective reading, the material published on concerning the Complainant and members of its staff has not been published with the intention of merely criticising the Complainant, but with a view to undermining the trust and confidence which users of the Complainant’s service may have in the Complainant, and with a view to influencing members of the public to view the Complainant, its business and its staff in an unfairly negative way.
41. In the circumstances, I find that the registration of the Domain Name was primarily for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the Complainant’s business. I also find that she has been engaged in a pattern of abusive registrations, of which the Domain Name is one.

42. In all the circumstances, I find that the registration of is an Abusive Registration in the hands of the Respondent, and order that the name be transferred to the Complainant.


Date: 14 November 2003

"Infamy, infamy they've all got it in for me"
Such a nice sane person

Anonymous said...

"Locum Staff Grade psychiatrist isn't the lowest grade at which one can work in a psychiatric hospital"

Der I believe it is House Officer :)

Anonymous said...

"I'm quite interested in seeing other comments on this topic as well..."

Well, you might be interested to see a little information on the person who initially brought this odd complaint.

I've posted a very quick summary at, but it seems to be just the tip of the iceberg. I've linked to other background info, specifically journalist Johnathan Gornall's article, and will add more as time permits.

It's well worth poking around the rest of Gornall's site for further information on the complainant, her sidekicks and their activities as many of them are no doubt posting on this thread.

Billy Seggars.

Anonymous said...

What if they are? Silly Beggar's site cannot be relied on any more than other websites.

"The story seemed to break in a British newspaper" you said.

It didn't.

It broke in a website, The Register.

A newspaper reporting this would not have relied on Rita Pal for her statements other than as anecdotal.

A reputable newspaper would have insisted on seeing the paperwork proving the claims.

Anonymous said...

Is this a 'get Dr R Pal day'?
Personally I think a certain crowd are getting a little worried.

What Rita posted on NHS Exposed about Ms Lisa Blakemore-Brown case is true.

Rita also posted A LINK to a tiny part of A transcript which was part of the first hearing. The LINK led to the site Furious Seasons which did have this tiny part of A transcript on it.

There seems to be a muddle on the internet at the moment so can I just enlighten readers here to some small FACTS.

The transcripts were about LBB's case, therefore they are not the property of the BPS, the GMC or any other organisation they are LBB's. After all they are about LBB.

If they belonged to the BPS and they were worried, dont you think LBB would be in serious trouble?? Well folks she is not. The men in blue have not arrested her and I'm afraid the men in white haven't carted off either, nope sorry to upset you, no straight jacket, even with all the the efforts of certain readers and bloggers here.

The fact of the matter is Penny Mellor did put a complaint in about LBB to the BPS. This did contain emails sent to her by Fiona Woollard. These were obtained by Fiona by her befriending LBB. Now somewhere in transit from LBB to Fiona to Penny to BPS, these emails WERE tampered with. This means for for those who do not quite understand they were altered and some LBB never wrote at all.

As no one has ever seen original emails not even the BPS we do not know who tampered with them, but clock is ticking and we will.

As for Psych BPS used which the transcript was about. For the information of everyone here. He said 'paranoid flavour' this is NOT paranoid, mad, bonkers, barking, looney. Oh and guess what bloggers out there, especially those associated with, he never even assessed her, ever, not once. However, another independant one, did four times and guess what he found her to be sane, that's right nothing wrong and wrote four reports stating this.

x said...

"A reputable newspaper would have insisted on seeing the paperwork proving the claims"

Perhaps someone ought to email the Register and ask them what paperwork they saw :) :) :) :)'s nominet result was superceded by R Pal v :) Which settled out of court. Again we get our facts skewed Mr Paul Heathcote. It is this poor attention to detail that is a flaw in the group from

I believe you detailed your case and your collar bone to Eady J didn't you? Wasn't it a initial negligence case that didn't settle but one that you lost outright? That is a pity isn't it.

A mere carpet fitter and a housewife making judgments on the qualificatons of doctors and psychologists when they could never achieve anything in their 40 or so years on earth. This illiterate behaviour shows throughout the failure to assess information accurately. I would suggest an OU course myself.

We must though mention a little about the MDU :)Someone had a novel way of entering their website Paul :) or don't we all wish to go there.

R Pal

Paul Heathcote said...

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Dr Pal doesn't want to be a doctor anyway - she describes herself as a 'former doctor'.

Has anyone assessed Dr Pal? Why don't you Clin Psychs google her, go through her postings and post your diagnosis as to her mental health here.

x said...

I suspect they may be interested in you as a specimen Paul :).

Seeing red are we????

This is your roll call

1. Breach of DMCA
2. Defamation. I would quite like to see the defence for your assertion of "tampering" :)
3. Breach of Harassment Act 1997 injunction in GOSH v Chaudhari.

:) It is all building up.

Then there is Brian Morgan. Cybersquatter, sender of abusive mails - shall we produce some of the mails sent then? I am positive the psychologists would have a view on these mails, don't you?

All becoming a bit desperate for yourselves isn't it? The phrase "clutching onto straws" springs to mind.

R Pal

Anonymous said...

Something that really mystifies me in all this. NHS Exposed has being going a while now, it has always been popular but now its dynamite, the whole world and his army talking about.

The only link I can see really is a certain psychologist.

Why the interest? A truthful, hard working lady, who tries her utmost to help families.

Here you are all arguing over her case and the Dr who stuck up for her. Mmmm has anyone noticed that a certain person ia missing? She is quietly getting on with her work. Yes I did say work, the work that you thought you had comletely destroyed. Oh dear nearly, not quite though.

I am afraid the complaint didnt actually get her stuck off, even though a certain person has put it out left, right and centre that it did, no re phrase 'SHE DID'. Its a lie.

The thing is that it was said at hearing that Ms Mellor said that she had received daily abusive emails from LBB for 18 months. Thing is the complaint did not include one. This was Ms Mellors complaint and yet the only emails included with it, were a few LBB written to Fiona, a few tampered with emails that LBB was meant to have written to Fiona, a few LBB had never seen that she was meant to have written to Fiona and a few emails from a *** ****. No actual emails anywhere from LBB to Ms Mellor. Yet complaint was all about abusive emails LBB sent to Ms Mellor. I think the reason they weren't included was (so the complaint said) they were too terrible to show.

Well Penny, please, pretty please, can we see one? Oh go on, don't be a spoil sport, just a glance.Pleeeeese

x said...

The Penny Mellor complaint on LBB is interesting. It ought to be published at some point. Lets look at the rest of the complaints by the same group shall we? Just that some of us don't go away quietly do we Ms Mellor.

Tell us what the outcome of these complaints were and other complaints made. For avoidance of doubt Ms Mellor has kept silent on this issue consistently as have the GMC.

Doctors referred to the GMC by Mrs P Mellor according to Internet and other data

1. Dr Frank Bamford, MD, FRCP, DCH, Hon.FRCPCH, FFPHM, DPH
Retired Consultant Paediatrician and Reader in Paediatrics, Manchester University
2. Dr Arnon Bentovim, MB, BS, FRCPsych, FRCPCH, DPM
Honorary Consultant Child Psychiatrist, The Child and Family Consultation Service, London
3. Dr Sir Iain Chalmers MB, BS, MSc, DSc, DCH, FRCP Ed, FFPHM RCP.
Director UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Oxford.
4. Dr Paul Davis, MB, BCh, MRCP, DCH, DObstRCOG, FRCPCH
Consultant Paediatrician, Cardiff Community Healthcare Trust
5. Dr Dewi Evans, MB, FRCP, DCH, DObstetRCOG, FRCPCH
Consultant Paediatrician, Singleton Hospital, Swansea
6. Dr David Foreman, MB, ChB, MSc, FRCPsych
Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, N Staffordshire health Authority and Senior Lecturer in Child Psychiatry, Keele University
7. Dr Danya Glaser MB, BS, FRCPsych, DCH
Consultant Child Psychiatrist, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, London
8. Dr Edmund Hey, MA, DM, D Phil, FRCP, Hon.FRCPCH, DCH
Retired Consultant Paediatrician, Newcastle upon Tyne.
9. Dr David Jones, MB, BCh, FRCPsych, DCH, DObstRCOG, FRCPCH
Consultant Child and Family Psychiatrist, The Park Hospital, Oxford and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Oxford University
10. Dr Mike Lowry, MB ChB, FRCP, DCH, FRCPCH
Consultant Paediatrician, Sunderland District General Hospital and Honorary Clinical Lecturer Newcastle University
11. Dr Harvey Marcovitch, MA, FRCP, DCH, FRCPCH
Consultant Paediatrician, Banbury Hospital and Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, Oxford University, Editor, Archives of Disease in Paediatrics.
12. Professor Sir Roy Meadow, MA, BM BCh, FRCP, FRCPE, DCH, DObstRCOG, HonFRCPCH, Past President RCPCH
Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Leeds, Past President Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

13. Professor Peter Milla, MSc, MB, BS, FRCP, FRCPCH
Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Institute of Child Health, London and Consultant Paediatrician, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, London
14. Dr Evan Picton-Jones MB, BCh
General Practitioner, Crymych, Wales
15. Dr Keith Prowse, MD, FRCP
Consultant Physician and Medical Director, North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust (complaint by Mr and Mrs Henshall)
16. Dr Chris Rittey, MB, BCh, FRCPCH, MRCP
Consultant Paediatric Neurologist, Ryegate Children's Centre, Sheffield
17. Dr Martin Samuels, BSc, MD, FRCP, FRCPCH, DCH
Consultant Paediatrician N Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke on Trent and Senior Lecturer in Paediatrics, Keele University
18. Professor Joe Sibert, MA, MD, BChir, FRCP, DCH, DObstRCOG, FRCPCH
Professor of Community Child Health, University of Wales, Cardiff
19. Dr Robert Smith, MB, ChB, FRCPCH, FRCP
Consultant Paediatrician, York District Hospital
20. Professor David Southall, OBE, MD, FRCP, FRCPCH
Consultant Paediatrician N Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke on Trent and Foundation Professor of Paediatrics, Keele University
21. Professor John Stephenson, MA, DM, Hon.FRCPCH, FRCP, DCH
Consultant in Paediatric Neurology and Honorary Professor Glasgow University

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

22. Peter Blythin
Head Nurse, North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

23. Elaine Chase
Southend Community Care NHS Trust

24. Jane Noyes RSCN
MRC Clinical Fellow, Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation, University of York

25. Teresa Wright RSCN
Clinical Nurse Specialist, North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

Other nurses involved in covert video surveillance at N Staffordshire Hospital:
26. Anona Turner RMN, Cert. Group Analyst Psychotherapy., 1d, Mildred Street, Salford, Lancs, M7 9HG (18/7/92 to 19/7/92).
27. Annette Smith SRN, Riceyman Court, Bradwell, Newcastle, Staffs ST5 8LE (16/7/92 to 31/7/92).
28. Kath T Howarth, 77 Lane House, Traivden, Colne Lancs, (16/7/92 to 31/7/92).
29. Jennifer A Clark, (16/7/92 to 31/7/92)

Anonymous said...

"What if they are? Silly Beggar's site cannot be relied on any more than other websites."

Is it not the case that the complainant, and her sidekicks, spend a great deal of time contributing to the forum on the website, amongst others?

Thank you for confirming that the material they spew forth there is unreliable, though I suspect that wouldn't come as much surprise to anyone who's read it.

On the other hand, court judgments are pretty reliable, and, by your own reasoning, so are "reputable" paper publications like Hospital Doctor. As I have already said, see Mr Gornall's website for a reproduction of a relevant article from HD.

Billy Seggars.

Anonymous said...

Does Hospital Doctor adhere to and is it disciplined by Press Complaints Commission protocols as to reliability and accuracy?

Does the Guardian?

Will RP produce an authenticated copy of the charges against her at the GMC.

Will RP produce an authenticated full copy of her Judicial Review application against the GMC?

Will RP produce an authenticated notice of dismissal from her trust?

Will she paste these with the forensic authentification witness signatures on her blog site?

Will she append the documentation supporting her claim that Aubrey Blumsohn put her up to whatever it was has been going on?

After all, this is what it is all about.

Anonymous said...

Nobody to my knowledge is citing postings on websites as reliable - they are opinions. I mean look at the provable fabrications posted on RP's sites. However what is being said about RP on The Register has been given the authenticity of researched mainstream journalism.

Clin Psych will have doubts and will be checking I'm sure. As will Aubrey Blumsohn.

I bet he's asked RP for evidence of what she's claimed and I bet she's not handed it over yet (he has his own GMC registration to consider and I bet too that he wants to keep his, unlike RP).

Anonymous said...

Would you believe RP even cited an entry on Wikipedia as reliable scientific counter-statement on a newspaper blog recently attacking people who actually would go and do the proper research?

She claims to be a doctor, scientist, journalist. None of these would do that.

She did. Says it all.

Anonymous said...

"A mere carpet fitter and a housewife making judgments on the qualificatons of doctors and psychologists when they could never achieve anything in their 40 or so years on earth. This illiterate behaviour shows throughout the failure to assess information accurately. I would suggest an OU course myself".

You are so rude, obnoxious and heinous individual.

You stated you wished to leave medicine on the BMJ years ago and on your site.

You have not provided details of your qualifications or your scanned letter of resignation or your contract of employment as to how long it lasts.

Anonymous said...

Oh and as for Fiona befriending Lisa - rather the other way round and she supported her and wasn't a complainant.

In any case, it is not normal to discuss people's medical conditions when they are Expert Witness. In fact, it is against Family Law proceedings.

LBB seems to have a thing about people like Sharon. For instance. It sends them into a frenzy. The issue of consent and confidentiality comes in here.

There are restrictions about posting about people's private lives. Check the EU law about that - RP's site goes above and beyond what is reasonable in 'a democratic society', porportionality, privacy and a balance.

Oh and journalists should have a balance of what is being discussed and contact other side.

RP doesn't, she is not a journalist or a lawyer.

Just what are your qualifications in law Rita... read a few dusty old law books on Defamation and Judicial Review and can't even get those procedures right.

Anonymous said...

Rita Pal is not qualified in law, show me a place anywhere where she has stated she is a qualified lawyer.

The information LBB stated ON all those years ago and THE email in the BPS complaint, that was so kindly sent to Ms Mellor by Fiona was about her and what happend to her. Thus making it her story, her side of things.

Every one knew about Sharon's condition, it was all over Everyone was worried about her because she vanished when she was supposed to be having life saving surgery. Turns up she was large as life and quite healthy in Liverpool telling lies about LBB to another professional. LBB has the proof on this one. So therefore I think she is quite within her rights to tell her story and her side to who ever she likes especially in a PRIVATE email. It was Fiona Woollard who broke confidentiality here by sending her private email on to Ms Mellor.

Can I just add, to clarify situation. Yes, Fiona Woollard did support LBB and send BPS a letter which I believe IS part of the bundle, only to get herself out of trouble. The emails had been passed on, it looked good to then support LBB and may I may I had here THE letter went in a year later. Please, it is not my fault, its that naughty Ms Mellor, I support her honest I do.

You do not have to be a complaintant to be part of a complaint. Ms Mellor made Fiona a part of that complaint when she passed on the emails. I think the phrase may be 'Accessory'.

BTW if your house was trashed by someone and court documents stolen wouldn't you be a tinsy wincy bit cross, especially when you trusted that person and was trying to help her case? Let's face it it would not be the first time a certain lady stole documents would it? CAI ring any bells?

The truth will out.

Paul Heathcote said...

"We must though mention a little about the MDU :)Someone had a novel way of entering their website Paul :) or don't we all wish to go there."

That's right Rita. At your request I joined for free as a medical student under my own name and address. I got access to 'members only' parts of the site and gave you my username and password so you could mooch around in it.
You were the one who thought you might be being talked about by the MDU.
You were the one who wanted me to pay for a second year so you could continue to 'mooch around' in their site.
The only thing I got out of it was a bill for £14.00. A lot of money for a mere carpet fitter.

Paul Heathcote said...

Perhaps I should mention the time you asked me to take out a full page advert in the Stoke Sentinel in my name so you could have a go at a hospital because the paper refused to take ads from you.

Anonymous said...

Well now thank you John Smith, we now know who 'PARKER' really is. Please for anyone reading this who has no clue of what I am on about please be my guest and do read this is bitching site about RP and LBB. Very nasty but run by a very nasty gang of posters.

Rita Pal is a Dr who does require evidence to support what she says. Her site is very informative and done in a fun way the only difference with this site and the above is her site is written by her and SIGNED by her.She owns up to what she says that is called 'putting your money where your mouth is'.If she was lying and to this degree she would not be winning cases but losing them and probably be behind bars by now. members, well lets narrow that done to two in particular have a thing about putting your name to what you say. Another member has jusmped on the bandwagon and also says this. Only difference is the site is for parents accused of child abuse. A very sensitive painful area for them and their children. None of the members that bully parents to disclose details on that site are falsly accused.

The reason that this little gang now hide, not putting their name to what they say now, whether its here or there, is because they lie.As Rita Pal is taking them to court for defamation it would be a little silly to sign their lies wouldn't it?

Paul Heathcote said...

Rita Pal said:

"3. Breach of Harassment Act 1997 injunction in GOSH v Chaudhari."

Go on then Dr 'I think I'm George Carmen QC" Pal report me. You say a crime has been committed so as a law abiding citizen you have a duty to report me. Get on with it. If I'm arrested today, charged and subsequently fined, imprisoned or have my assets seized then everybody will know you are a force to be reckoned with. However, if you fail to report me today, have me arrested and charged with breaching said injunction you must agree to stop blogging. I think that's fair. Deal or no deal?

Anonymous said...

If 'John Smith' is a QC, then he is on rocky ground. He is writing a blog which libels two professionals.I am personally extremely shocked to learn that this blog is entertained and indeed owned it seems by a QC.Even more worrying if he compares himself to 'Thunderbirds puppet'.Mind you I can see a glaring similarity, he certainly has had his strings pulled.

The case pivitol in all this is that of Lisa Blakemore-Brown.The complaint in question is that of a Penny Mellor. The problem is who breached who's confidentiality. If the main email in all this if only sent by Fiona Woollard to Penny Mellor,it would be bad enough but it wasn't, it was sent to many.
This was an email containing personal information about Lisa Blakemore-Brown, it had her story in about a course of events. It also contained personal details about her marriage, her health conditions and her struggles. Now just about the whole world has a copy some even more than one copy.

This was a serious breach of Lisa Blakemore-Brown's confidentiality by Fiona Woollard. There is also evidence that other emails were tampered with, that went as part of the BPS complaint.

The sending of this email to others was a cruel deliberate act of malice by Fiona Woollard.

Anonymous said...

Predates the GMC complaint being opened. This isn't a link it is a paginated document from the BPS hearing.

Furthermore Dr Pal goes onto state:

" I have just printed out a section called " Material Received in Relation to Complaint Matter raised by Ms Mellor" presented to the British Psychological Society against Ms Lisa Blakemore Brown. ( Page 194-215) of the bundles that are currently at the hearings. "

This material could only have come from LBB or her lawyers - the BPS did not release them to anyone else, far more than a link, in the UK it is illegal to process personal data without the express permission of the owners, that would be the BPS and the author of the e-mails - No such permision was granted. Dr Pal has not only linked private documents she has them illegally and has processed them on her computer illegally.

Here Dr Pal talks about how she deliberately flouted the reguslations that she is bound by to provoke a complaint to the GMC and then squeals all over the internet that she's a "victim" of a vendetta in relation to a "complaint about a link"

Not true, she set herself up to be disciplined willingly and knowingly in order to gain attention for herself.

"Much of this is part of an experiment to see how much it takes to threaten me with the GMC. It is also to establish the knee jerk reactions taken to refer a number of paediatricians to the GMC."

She also talks about how she doesn't even want to be a doctor - so why all the fuss?

"Actually, I should really give my registration back to the GMC because I am bored with it anyway. I keep it simply because its a bit like a little trinket. I have never cared about my registration. The problem with that is this - you simple walk the earth not being fussed about anything much apart from siding on the right side."

If she felt so stronly about her registration then she should have just resigned.

But oh no, what she does is to quote certain parts of her website and leave out the salient bits that prove that not only did she set herself up to be the victim, she doesn't have the balls to put her money where her mouth is and resign, she just whinges around the net that she is the victim, when the evidence proves that she in fact inflicted the wounds herself - isn't that a form of Munchausen?

x said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Dr Pal and Ms Blakemore Brown can threaten, posture and attack all they like.

The courts will see all the evidence.

They will be exposed for who and what they are, much of it by their own hand - if anyone can be bothered to properly research what they have said publicly and verify those assertions.

What needs to be examined in depth is their agenda and motives, which are far far from being altruistic.

People would do well to check the authenticity of what Ms Blakemore Brown states as fact on her blog e-mail the publishers.

Perhaps further light would be shed on this saga.

Just because somebody says something doesn't make it true.

x said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
x said...

"Just because somebody says something doesn't make it true"

I believe Ms Penny Mellor knows about that. The judge in her case tells us that she once lied to the police.

It would be a major travesty of justice if we found that the media in the UK had been featuring rubbish eminating from a website with as much credibility as Clinton's impeachment on Lewinsky. Of course, a group whose credibility is in tatters will no doubt wish to silence the whistleblower.

Fiona Woolard, you are quite right about the courts really. details how many times to changed your story on the Lisa Blakemore Brown email enclosures. I read a story today about a man who tampered with emails and one who was found guilty of perverting the course of justice.

So lets get back to basics

1. Who tampered with the emails
2. How many complaints has Ms Penny Mellor made that have gone nowhere.

Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

Lisa Blakemore Brown File

This is a document called the David Lindsay Report

Respondents Name and Case Number Lisa Blakemore Brown
Complaint date 3rd May 2003 / 1 June 2004

We quote David Lindsay

" I was not impressed with the complaint from Penny Mellor as it appears to move in a quarrelsome, jealous campaign which has little to do with the respondents practise and complaint and would appear to be an attempt to embroil the BPS in their quarrels"

Anonymous said...

From nhsexposedblog. The Many Faces of Fiona Woolard known affectionately as Lady Tottington Smythe. Niece of Sir George Charles who was ex GMC and BMA. She mentioned this in her complaint to the GMC.

Ms Wollard was first featured on this blog here. It was really a very simple question. We asked her where the original emails she had forwarded to Ms Mellor were. Ms Mellor is of course the complainant in the Lisa Blakemore Brown's case. Arch complainer with her side kick Ms Fiona Wollard decided to make a complaints about Ms Blakemore Brown together ( one complaining and the other supplying the emails).
That was many years ago and these two intrepid twosome assumes that none of us will notice the pattern of complaints. In Lisa Blakemore Brown's complaint there are parallels to the one's written about me. Both talk about the importance to Ms Mellor's reputation. Our question is this, why are the two getting so fizzy? Ms Wollard threatened to refer me to the GMC around that time period.
On the 21st March 2007, Ms Wollard wrote on the MAMA board
"Nor have I made a complaint against nor have I made a complaint about you to the GMC"

By the 26th March 2007 she had emailed the GMC to complain.
On the 23rd March 2007 she stated
"For your information, I do not have ANY copies of e-mails as I repeatedly said I am NOT a complainant"
In this email she tells the GMC 26th March 2007 that
" I have not lost them I have the emails"
On the 24th March 2007, she states "
There may well be a possibility that I have kept copies on a floppy disk or paper copies of my previous computer"
On the 24th March 2007 she emails again and states "I have ALL the paper copies of ALL the e-mails but the rest are highly likely to be on floppy disk i.e. they are available electronically. I do not have the time to deal with this. I do not have to give you them, you are not her lawyer nor do they relate to you".
I then ask her again for the electronic copies of the emails as she now states she has them.
She states "I have then electronic copies, all of them but then again I do not have to give YOU anything".
She then mentions a selection of emails that are unrelated to the one's attached to the Mellor complaint. The only question I ask her in response to her flurry is where the electronic copies are.
In her agitation she emails me repeatedly as described here .

On the 24rd March she states "From a Christian point of view, I would not wish ill of anybody". She then proceeds to refer to me as a psychiatrist. Here she says "Obviously as a psychiatrist ............................................................................
She then tells the GMC two days later " I would be grateful if you would please do something about this doctor who is allegedly a psychiatrist"
On the 23rd March 2007 she stated " Actually, your comments made me smile! Make sure you eat lots of Chocolate over the Easter time. You know it gives you spots and make you fat :) Fair and reasonable comment"
Three days later she told the GMC " I have asked the website owner to remove the thread without success, I have also asked for the removal of comments without success".

She also states " I wish this blog to be removed AND That no further comment to be made about ongoing proceedings and that she is brought to task about some of her conduct". I have " top PA positions and feel strongly that it is derrogatory and unbecoming of a psychiatrist".

She adds as a throw away comment that the GMC's rabbit ears suddenly pricked up on " May well be due to the close family connection that I have with Professor Sir Charles George, I am his neice".

[ GMC insert - forward on impulse speed without checking]

This woman is training to be a lawyer. Perhaps someone would take the liberty of forwarding the link to the Law Society and also her PCT.

The GMC have made no comment on examining Ms Wollard's emails which show a discrepancy and fluctuation in what she states. Indeed. they have not requested to see the said emails.

The original electronic copies ( related to Lisa Blakemore Brown) have never been forwarded to anyone and no one has seen them. Yes, please note she fluctuates between "yes" and "no".

She tells the GMC " nor am I supplying them but I have them as they will simply go on the website". If they is no difference between the exact emails written by Ms Blakemore Brown and the emails forwarded by Ms Wollard to Ms Mellor then there would be no requirement to publish them and besides I could easily publish the entire complaint in total . Maybe its important to do so as there are a number of accusations of theft in there.

This was the simple question related to the emails that has resulted in two complaints against me, one again against Lisa Blakemore Brown. This is only the behaviour pattern for those who wish to prevent me from writing about them.

In our next analysis of documentation this week, we look at the claim she made to the GMC and whether that is established by the evidence. It should be noted that one of the same group has placed yet another complaint in about Lisa Blakemore Brown. Anyone who supports Ms Blakemore Brown and anyone who criticises her is down for the chop. Is that why you stated in your posting recently that your medical connections were "watching". While they do so, please tell them to click on a few ads :) and ensure you pass the blog and website URL everywhere. Nothing like free publicity is there :).

Oh and I would be grateful if your medical connections could teach you Fiona on grammar and punctuation. I have an excuse in that I am asian but you dear are English with all your top high flying connections that you name drop into a GMC complaint to engage it forward. JL the grammar king is due to place his hat on to write a critique of the typing ability of this Top PA. Well, in my books - glorified secretary.

Anonymous said...

I will say this again for the benefit of the thick.

The Transcripts do not belong to the BPS. They are Transcripts that belong to Ms Blakemore-Brown. Her property. Ms Blakemore-Brown can give them to who she likes, by law.

As the Transcript that went up on Furious Seasons was a part of a Transcript of one of four hearings and about the findings of a Pyschiatrist that has never met Ms Blakemore-Brown why is Penny Mellor, Fiona Woollard and co worried. Ms Blakemore-Brown is fine about it, not worried and neither are the BPS. So what is the problem???? Is it that you are worried about further evidence that cannot be refuted going up?? Evidence that may incriminate you?

BTW the publishers of her book are bent that is why she recieved no royalities and book disappeared in a puff of smoke. What she says is 100% accurate.

Oh and David Lindsay is right in what he says.

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal do please expalin to the worldwide web why your assertions about the GMC complaint don't stand up to any scrutiny.

Please explain why it is you state yo provoked a complaint to the GMC and why you are now stating you are a vicitm.

Please explain why you have lodged a pre action protocol for defamation, when you have done nothing but defame those that don't agree with you almost daily.

Please explain what gives you the right to place personal medical data on the internet regarding Mr Heathcote and Ms Woollard without their permission and is that not in breach of GMC regulations?

The rest is just smoke and mirrors - you create a trail of threats across the web to detract from the fact that you fell on your sword, it was never held over you - you are a victim of your own making.

Just for once you answer the questions.

x said...

Questions from irrational people cannot be answered by rational ones.

Mr Heathcote's material is a public judgment. Ms Woolard's material is plastered all round the internet. As I say irrational people never make rational judgments.

Dr Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

Readers please go to the read the posts and then ask yourselves is the above comment not a case of 'the pot calling the keetle black'.

The whole site is littered with posts giving out personal details on professionals including medical diagmoses that the main contributors are not qualified to give.

This includes private personal details about vulnerable grieving parents.

It seems the same group are unhappy Rita, when you retaliate. So if they demand an answer to the above you should demand an answer from them.

What gives you the right Penny Mellor, Fiona Woollard et el?

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal

That isn't an answer you are evading the questions - your own words on your own blog state that you don't want to be a doctor, you do not recognise formal qualifications, that you set yourself up to see if you would be complained about and then threw your teddy out of the pram when it happened screaming "victim victim"

My questions are not irrational.

You have been caught out, you're assertions are provably untrue.

Answer the questions Dr Pal.

Anonymous said...

MAMA board members aren't doctors and bound by the same rules as you.

x said...

The rules and the world according to Dr Penny Mellor is as follows

" When in doubt, accuse the doctor of breach of confidentiality for uttering anything in the public domain. No one will know we haven't read the GMC's regulations on confidentiality. Even the GMC hasn't a clue about their own rules"

The list of doctors above - the majority have been accused of breach of confidentiality in one way or another.

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)

Just one bit of evidence showing what a house wife assumes is not always true. The issue here is the complete lack of education in analysis and conclusions. So lets put this another way - how many doctors has Mellor driven out of their jobs and how many have had nervous breakdowns.

While defamation and slander has been ongoing for years on hosted in the US/Canada, over 10 years doctor after doctor has faced the GMC on Mellor's behest.

Dr Rita Pal

x said...

From Hospital Doctor

Trial by media

The untold story behind the unrelenting media persecution of Prof Sir Roy Meadow is how a committed group of campaigners successfully managed to build the issue of his statistical evidence in the Sally Clark trial into a widespread belief that Münchhausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) was a 'now-discredited theory'.

At the opening of Sir Roy's High Court appeal last month against the GMC's decision, Mr Justice Collins said the Sally Clark case had been 'presented by the media as Sir Roy's evidence having caused a miscarriage of justice. That's manifestly unfair'.

That criticism failed to surface in all but the medical press and, when Justice Collins finally handed down his judgment, restoring Sir Roy to the medical register and reversing the GMC's finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct, the response in the media was strangely muted. The decision, after all, did not sit easily with the public perception of 'Meadow the monster' that the media had helped to create - a perception not difficult to conjure against the background of such perceived failures of regulation as the Bristol heart babies affair.

Most readers of national newspapers also did not read Justice Collins's rebuke of the GMC's fitness-to-practise panel for criticising Sir Roy for 'undermining . . . public confidence in doctors who have this pivotal role in the criminal justice system'. Why? Perhaps because the judge continued: 'If the full facts are taken into account and the media campaign based on a lack of knowledge of all the circumstances is ignored, that comment is unjustified.'

Good faith

He further defended Sir Roy's conduct as an expert witness saying: ''The fitness-to-practise panelspecifically found that the appellant had not intended to mislead the court and that there was no evidence of any calculated or wilful failure to use his best endeavours to provide evidence. He had acted in good faith.'

Justice Collins appeared to suspect that the GMC panel had allowed itself to be influenced by inaccurate media coverage, but The Guardian was among the papers that ignored this intriguing possibility.

What it did find room for the day after the judgment, however, was an interview with Penny Mellor, the woman who has been heavily involved in the campaign against Sir Roy and MSBP for the past decade, and who has been behind many of the complaints that have been levelled against doctors working in the difficult field of child protection.

Under the headline: 'Tireless voice vows to continue speaking out', Mrs Mellor was introduced as 'the mother of eight, lauded and criticised in equal measure for her campaign to expose Sir Roy as an overzealous child-snatcher'.

Actually, that was a touch harsh: Mrs Mellor has pretty much only been lauded in the press and frequently quoted as a self-styled 'child advocate' - a curiously Orwellian job description for a sworn defender of women accused of harming their children.

She told The Guardian that, in the wake of Sir Roy's reinstatement, she was helping five families to bring actions against him at the GMC. 'This isn't about a witch-hunt,' she said, but added: 'I can't sit back and watch doctors put forward malevolent theory as fact.'

It's not the first time Mrs Mellor has been lionised in the press. In London's Evening Standard, on 24 February 2003, she was billed as 'the scourge of the child-snatchers' and, on this occasion, described as a 'child welfare campaigner'. The piece was by David Cohen, the same journalist responsible less than a year later for an interview with Sir Roy's first wife, Gillian, headlined: 'He doesn't like women, says ex-wife'.

If ever there was a moment when it became clear that, for the press, Sir Roy had become fair game, this was it. Sir Roy, Gillian was reported as saying, was a misogynist. So how did MSBP come to be accepted by the media as a 'malevolent theory'? If the tactic was to discredit the syndrome by smearing the man behind it, it was a complete success.

By February 2002, the label was already so tainted that a besieged Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Heath (RCPCH) deemed it necessary to tell its members that, henceforth, 'fabrication or induced illness by a carer' was the preferred term.

However, there was no doubt in the mind of the RCPCH working party that reported that month that the notion that some mothers did secretly harm their children remained as valid as it had been when Sir Roy first articulated it in his 1977 paper entitled 'Münchhausen's syndrome by proxy - the hinterland of child abuse'.

The DoH wasn't far behind. Six months later, in August 2002, it issued a supplementary guidance document entitled 'Safeguarding children in whom illness is fabricated or induced'.

Media myth

It is difficult to see how the media myth that MSBP was thoroughly 'discredited' could have persisted after it received such a resounding vote of confidence but, again thanks partly to selective reporting, it did.

It didn't help when, in February 2003, Earl Howe, opposition spokesman on health in the House of Lords, accused Sir Roy of inventing a 'theory without science . . . one of the most pernicious and ill-founded theories to have gained currency in childcare and social services'.

By January 2004, when Angela Cannings successfully appealed against her convictions for murder, the entirely separate issues of Sir Roy's use of statistics and the very credibility of MSBP had been inextricably conflated by the media. With hindsight, it appears that even the Government, caught in the headlights of the hue and cry, was stampeded into inappropriate action.

A story in the Sunday Telegraph on 19 January 2004 was typical, reporting the suggestion that, in the wake of Mrs Cannings's successful appeal, the Government was to review 5,000 Family Court cases supposedly tainted by 'Sir Roy's now-discredited theory of Münchhausen syndrome by proxy'. A comment by Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Children, poured fuel on the fire: 'The theory that some mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves has been largely discredited as a result of a series of high-profile court cases.'

In vain did the Crown Prosecution Service try to stem the mounting post-Cannings hysteria by pointing out that Mrs Clark's convictions had not hinged on Sir Roy's evidence. Feeding on the Government's suggestion that as many as 5,000 civil and 300 criminal cases might have to be re-evaluated in the light of the failure of the Clark and Cannings convictions, and the acquittal of Trupti Patel, the newspapers tore Sir Roy to shreds.

'The scale of the injustice he contributed to makes the false convictions of the Guildford Four look like trivial technical problems,' wrote The Observer on 25 January 2004. The Daily Telegraph went further, saying: 'He and his friends may be immune from prosecution for the consequence of the opinions they have so sedulously expressed in court, but that does not mean they cannot be charged with wasting police time.' The Times contented itself with condemning Sir Roy's 'crazed theories'.

Interesting story

All the national papers, however, appeared to miss one interesting story in that spring of 2004, which was covered in The Auditor, the monthly journal of the Scientology movement. It reported that, on 24 April, its Citizens Commission on Human Rights - the arm of the Scientology movement aimed at 'investigating and exposing psychiatric human rights abuse' - had staged a ceremony in East Grinstead, Sussex, to present awards to individuals who had 'worked to expose human rights abuses in the mental health field'.

The journal reported: 'Penny Mellor was honoured for her vigorous campaigning to expose the psychiatric label Münchhausen's syndrome by proxy . . . a national scandal that involved widespread oppression by healthcare professionals.'

Mrs Mellor had certainly paid a price for her 'vigorous campaigning'. In March 2002, the 'child advocate' was sentenced to two years' imprisonment by Newcastle Crown Court for conspiring in January 1999 to abduct a child suspected by doctors to be the victim of a mother with MSBP.

Mrs Mellor denied the charge, but the judge described her as 'the Svengali of the whole plan' and told her: 'What you are guilty of is orchestrating the abduction of a child for your own propaganda purposes.' She served eight months in prison.

Despite the over-excited propaganda that filled the newspapers throughout the early part of 2004 ('Thousands of wrongly convicted parents' was a typical headline), the much-heralded review of cases, far from overturning hundreds of supposedly unjust judgments, in fact yielded very few cases worthy of reconsideration.

Yet, when this news broke, the media preferred to present it as it has now presented Sir Roy's successful appeal against the GMC - not as a vindication of an unfairly hounded doctor but as a blow to campaigning parents. On 28 December last year, the Daily Mail contorted itself to produce this headline: 'Review ordered following disgrace of expert leaves hundreds in prison'.

Similar vilification

Sir Roy has experienced vilification similar to that endured by Prof David Southall and Dr Martin Samuels, paediatricians at University Hospital North Staffordshire in Stoke, after their child-protection work attracted the attention of campaigners in 1999.

Mrs Mellor, although neither a patient nor the parent of a patient of any of the doctors concerned, was also behind accusations levelled against them. Among them was that Prof Southall 'instigates care proceedings in order to appear as an expert witness, for which he is paid a phenomenal amount of money', and that he accused mothers of MSBP in order to procure babies for experimentation.

The charges were deemed so serious by North Staffordshire NHS Trust that both men were suspended for almost two years while two separate inquiries unravelled the truth and concluded that there was no foundation to any of the allegations.

In November 1999, Dr Harvey Marcovitch, then a consultant paediatrician at Horton Hospital, Banbury, and editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood, had written in the BMJ of his horror at what he had found on a website called Mothers Against Münchhausen Allegations (MAMA).

He reported: 'It was full of attacks on named paediatricians and child psychiatrists, and diatribes against two judges, an MP and various social workers. The accusations included perjury, conspiracy to defraud, attempted blackmail and child abuse.' One posting, signed 'Penny', compared Prof Southall to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who had experimented on Jewish children in Auschwitz concentration camp.

Vexatious complaints

In January 2002, Prof Southall and Sir Roy were two of the 18 doctors, mainly paediatricians, who signed a letter to the BMJ, headed 'GMC must recognise and deal with vexatious complaints fast'. In it, they made clear that they had been targeted by a group that had resorted to a campaign of vexatious complaints in an attempt to destroy their careers.

All 18 signatories had, according to postings on the MAMA website, been reported to the GMC by the same small group of people.

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.

In February 2003, an exonerated Dr Samuels wrote to the BMJ to highlight how abusers and their supporters were 'increasingly adept at using complaints procedures and the media to attack professionals'.

The media, he said, 'with only one side of the story, parade parents who claim to be falsely accused. On the other hand, they heavily criticise front-line workers who make mistakes.' The cause of the bias was a 'highly complex campaign that is attempting to discredit paediatricians involved in the detection of complex child abuse, particularly fabricated and induced illness'.

Determined campaign

Current exchanges on the MAMA website demonstrate that, at the same time as Mrs Mellor was accusing Prof Southall and Dr Samuels in 1999, she was also complaining to the GMC about Sir Roy. Postings in the wake of Sir Roy's High Court exoneration last month, by someone calling herself 'Penny Mellor', make plain a determination to pursue the campaign against him.

At 5.48pm on Friday 17 February, the day Justice Collins had handed down his judgment, she wrote: 'What are the GMC going to do . . . I know what I'm doing and, for the record, the next wave of complaints have nothing to do with evidence given in court and are not "priveleged" [sic] Thanks, Justice Collins, the GMC did us no favours when they struck him off - bunch of incompetents.'

Although Mrs Mellor had insisted in The Guardian that morning that: 'I have already had confirmation from the GMC that these cases will proceed', the GMC told Hospital Doctor that no such decision had yet been made.

Harold Shipman

Mrs Mellor told Hospital Doctor that, in total, she had complained to the GMC about four doctors, including Sir Roy and Prof Southall, but that Prof Southall was her 'bête noire', about whom she had made at least 30 complaints. Although none had ever come to a hearing, she insisted that 'they are in the process of going through'.

One thing that is certain is that Mrs Mellor is, indeed, 'tireless'. In addition to the GMC and at least one NHS trust, over the past decade she has complained about Prof Southall and others to everyone ranging from the RCPCH, the Central Council for Nursing, social services and the police through to the NHS Executive, the Chief Medical Officer, the Health Minister and the Prime Minister.

It remains to be seen whether, in the interests of child protection professionals everywhere, authorities such as the GMC and the police will ever grow tired of her - and whether the media will ever tire of being so easily persuaded that, inside every eminent doctor, is a Harold Shipman awaiting exposure.

Anonymous said...

So this this gives them the right? This gives them the right to destroy careers, lose people their homes, tell lies, libel and slander innocent professionals? Oh whoops so sorry, they are not innocent are they, you with no careers, no Governing Bodies, and all the rights of the world say so.

I think you may find that Dr Pal may have sacrificed her own career to prove a point, one she proved exceptionally well I might add. Say one word against the MAMA clan and bye bye career because Ms Mellor the campaigning housewife will complain.

I put it to you, it you not Dr Pal who throws the toys out of the pram it is yourself with all your little playmates.

x said...

Diagnose and Be Damned. A chronology of Mellor Morgan and cohorts

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal you have publicised your campaigns across the internet - so has professor Southall what is more you do not seem to have any problem disclosing confidential data.

As to the "poor little me and my fellow doctors routine" it doesn't wash - Southall Meadow et al and now you have no compuction what-so-ever when it comes to claiming guilt without having the facts to hand and in the cases of the Clarks, the Cannings and all the other parents all of the above had partaken in the annhilation of those people's reputations, with impunity, using privelege in the courts to stop them from being sued - you reap what you sow.

Parents/campaigners/contributors to MAMA are NOT doctors - your point is moot - you ARE a doctor - YOU signed up to keeping patient data confidential and YOU provoked a complaint. YOU engineered the destruction of your own career.

Blog reports about Mr Morgan and Mrs Mellor all you like, it doesn't detract from the truth, you have misled everyone about how the complaints against you came about, you have lied about what your part to play in it was and you have allowed people to believe you are the injured party.

Now answer the questions and stop prevaricating.

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal has not defended herself properly at all, she has evaded the questions put to her.

Paul Heathcote said...

The Scribe said...

"Questions from irrational people cannot be answered by rational ones."

So why do you keep asking questions?

"Mr Heathcote's material is a public judgment."

You said of me:

"Men with part collar bone aren't real men afterall."

Please let me know where in any public judgement with my name on it (yes judgement has an 'e') it says I am not a real man because I only have part of a collar bone.

Anonymous said...

I have been researching and Dr Pal only recently became "concerned" about the MAMA board, she hasn't mentioned a word about this for the last ten years.

A bandwagon jumper perhaps?

Paul Heathcote said...

A description of Dr Pal as she appeared in court from alt.politics.british

"despite Pal effectively putting the court in a spin with
her usual dramatising: sniffing, tearful voice, Damsel in Distress and the
helpless victim."

So that's how you do it!

Paul Heathcote said...

Anonymous said...

"If 'John Smith' is a QC, then he is on rocky ground. He is writing a blog which libels two professionals.I am personally extremely shocked to learn that this blog is entertained and indeed owned it seems by a QC.Even more worrying if he compares himself to 'Thunderbirds puppet'.Mind you I can see a glaring similarity, he certainly has had his strings pulled."


'compares himself to a Thunderbirds puppet'?

Where did you get that load of rubbish from?

Had a few too many this afternoon have you?

Anonymous said...

Has Mr Heathcote been arrested yet?

Has Mr Morgan been reported to the police?

Paul Heathcote said...

I have not been arrested as yet but even if they come for me they'll not find me. I'm having a few beers in the Cherrytree Pub and wont be home until about 8.00pm.
Seriously though, Dr Pal wouldn't know how to go about having me arrested. I know my local police force would find her entertaining but there are far worse things to be than a figure of fun.

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal has jumped on to the MSBP bandwagon at the end to say that these people have been defaming doctors for years.

Conveniently she begs them to complain to the GMC to get her struck off, after all, she wanted to leave the profession - her words stated in the GMC.

Well, the GMC are continuing to investigating the complaint with or without the Judicial Review.

Rita Pal has a habit of stabbing people in the back anyway at the last moment which is probably what will happen.

Anonymous said...

No doubt said action was to draw attention to Dr Pal's former fight with the GMC.

All perfectly timed, planned and executed.

Anonymous said...

Just for information, Fiona would be more than happy to have her computer analysed.

How about Lisa Blakemore-Brown? I understand that this was requested by the BPS.

Furthermore, the e-mails have been provided to LBB both electronically and manually in 2005.

Further evidence can, of course, be provided to the regulatory bodies including the Police, Courts and appropriate legal authority. No request has been made.

Unfortunately, Fiona does not recognise Dr Rita Pal as to any legal authority whatsoever and does not have to provide these to anybody but the regulatory bodies and/or Courts as requested.

But as no request has been forthcoming by either the GMC, BPS, the Police, the Courts, the Official Solicitors, she will not part with them. Neither is she a complainant in the case.

As for defaming doctors, Fiona has only ever been around since 2003 and never has complained about Professor Southall or any of the doctors listed above or has been accused of child abuse. That is fact.

There is a difference Rita, you are governed by your regulatory body and matters pertaining to discipline and fitness to practice should be addressed to them.

Whether Fiona has them or does not have them,, no reasonable person could be expected to keep e-mails that were four years old of which she was not party to the complaint.

Anonymous said...

Neither does Fiona have to answer any questions on her blog by someone who is unknown to her that approaches her in the most rude and unprofessional manner directed by one of Lisa Blakemore-Brown's sidekicks name of Christina England.

To say harassed and manipulated by these two individuals for years would be correct.

And frankly Fiona is not remotely interested in said story about Sharon and was fed up hearing about it.

Would you give something to someone that approached you as if in a temper tantrum and was a strange like that and then went on and on.

The answer is that most reasonable people would not.

If someone came up to you in a 'hizzy fit' and defamed you in the manner she did. The answer is no you wouldn't.

Anonymous said...

Dr Rita Pal tells it as it is.How things should be told.

Watching you all here, bitching away is an eye opener.

Lisa's case was brought about by a complaint by Penny Mellor to the BPS. Penny Mellor mainly uses as her soap box, although a little quiet of late, I hope she is not sickening for something. Still never mind I am sure there are plenty on MAMA board to diagnose.

The reason Dr Pal got interested in the activities on MAMA board ( is that most of Ms Blakemore-Browns case centered around that board. There was libel on there as far back as 2003

One of Fiona's classic posts from 2004
under the name 22q11fiona

The only person that has been feeding these lies is the professional who has been on that board.

Nobody else, we have ALL th emails relating to this. I thought Karl that you were intellegent enough to see through all of this - obviously not certainly not since said individual has been to Australia.

They have spun you a long yarn to believe their story.

Yes, we have different versions from THAT e-mail address and they are from that professional themselves.

By the way, did you ever realise that revealing confidential information on an individual without consent is wrong? That's what the professional DID. The mention of somebody's name sends them into a frenzy at 1 a.m. in the morning.

I am not bitter in the slightest but hey when you are told a lot of lies from the professional person person who then forwards said e-mails on to the person that is cut and pasted so they are not wrong.

I don't need that CRAP in my life from that professinal either and can't believe somebody would STOOP so low.


Oh dear Fiona, we still have all those posts.

I just gave the game away though haven't I because you worded one of comments on this blog almost the same, something about a FRENZY.

Perhaps the 'yahoo post' should come next jog your memory.

Anonymous said...

For those that don't know Fiona Woollard, she lost a child in 2000 and went through the grieving process.

The last person she needed in her life was Lisa Blakemore-Brown and Dr Rita Pal. She asked Lisa Blakemore-Brown to stop e-mailing in 2003.

Fiona has not been at all well and has had impact on her health.

I would not be at all surprised if Dr Pal would find a counter-action against her.

As a Dr Pal is a so-called "caring psychiatrist", perhaps she should allow Fiona to be able to get on with her life - just like her consultants are doing.

She does not have mental health problems but has a complex medical diagnosis which at times has been life-threatening of which is exacerbated by stress.

Please leave her alone to be able to get on with the rest of her life however short it may be and requests once again for the removal of her medical information on

This has caused considerable anguish to parents who have children with the same condition looking at information on a website which defames individuals who have disabilities by someone who is a psychiatrist and many will have to take their child to a psychiatrist.

If you have a case then bring it, then if you don't shut up and get on with your life and that goes along with going to the Police with the appropriate evidence which, of course, you haven't got.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

PS I am sure the local police would find both of them jolly entertaining and have a good laugh but then again they get plenty of time wasters in the middle of the night

"What e-mails of 4 years ago"

"My house xxxx years ago".

Their response "Your joking!" " You a wasting police time".

Now come on, get real and get a life.

Paranoid, by the way is an ordinary English word in the English dictionary and can be used by anybody.

Paranoid "flavourings" is the same as saying "It's a bit paranoid". Fair and reasonable comment and freedom of expression, opinion and speech apply.

Anonymous said...

Much before 2003 actually... there were libel posts before that date...

Blames Southall, Meadow, Eily Lilly. You see we have all those e-mails from that professional. How they went to California and had no money in 2003.

You see blaming people for destroying her career including Brian Morgan, Penny Mellor, Sharon Payne, Eily Lilly, Southall, Meadow, Jan Loxley-Blunt, Liz Lucy. The list is a bit endless and the latest victim is Fiona Woollard.

The e-mails were, of course, never tampered with but were from her.

FRENZY is an ordinary word meaning flurry in a rush. It is not defamatory and can be used in ordinary language.

One is entitled to have an opinion and freedom of expression that is not liable.

After all, you Rita campaign for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression and yet it doesn't apply to anybody else but you!

Anonymous said...

"Her" as in Lisa Blakemore-Brown

Fiona gave her the benefit of the doubt and she was manipulated by Lisa Blakemore-Brown and Christina England.

All those telephone calls with the mention of Mellor. Geeze enough to make anybody ill.

And Fiona didn't need that crap and doesn't need it now. Those comments were how she feeling at the time - forgot her father in hospital at the time.

God, your living in a time warp.

Please leave her alone, there are 1000 pieces of other evidence.

Anonymous said...

There is, of course, individuals who provoke one another.

I believe the word 'provoke', 'manipulate' is exactly what happened. Provoked by others and manipulated by others whilst she was actually grieving for her own child.

But bulling on 'lein on property' is just about as low as you can get, it is called blackmail.

Anonymous said...

I see Dr Pal has refrained from answering the questions

1) What are your psychiatric qualificiations

2) Do you have the 12(2) or not?

3) What are your legal qualifications?

Yet to be answered, of course, despite numerous questions!

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal answer the questions.

Why are you JRing the GMC for a complaint that by your own admission you engineered and for a license to practice you claim not to want?

Isn't that an abuse of process?

Answer the questions please Dr Pal.

Anonymous said...

Dr pal .. we know you're out there you've just checked a blog on MyT.

How should we view your refusal to take the stand or as the US put it pleading the fifth?

Dr Pal these are questions that will be put to you at some point in a more formal setting.

Dr Pal, Doncaster, the African doctor who got the 12 (2) instead of you, would you like to comment on that?

Did you disclose to Worcestershire Trust that you were under investigation by your governing body as required under the contracts for a locum in the NHS?

When they did their routine check with the GMC as required annually and found out you were under investigation, did that then cause you to have to resign?

Dr Pal is the processing of confidential e-mails that contain personal medical data on your blog an offence under the DPA?

Dr Pal is it true that Mr Toth did all the legal donkey work for you at your previous JR involving the GMC and that you have claimed credit for something that you didn't do?

Dr Pal why won't you answer these perfectly rational questions about the veracity of what you claim across the web?

Anonymous said...

PS Now the boot is on the other foot, it's not nice is it Dr Pal?

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, NHS Exposed has not featured the argument in full because any comments other than her own are deleted and are derogatory and defematory. There is no balance.

Perfectly rational questions which require rational answers by Dr Pal.

Dr Pal continues to refuse to answer them yet claims harassment and victimisation by the group and that they 'lost' her her job. Rather as the previous poster suggested that she resigned.

Perhaps Dr Pal would like to scan in her the letter from the Trust which she delights to do on other occasions.

In addition, Dr Pal could post the judgment about what happened at the Employment Tribunal at Doncaster to see if she actually won the case.

In due course, they will, of course, have to be answered at the GMC.

The investigation is continuing despite a Judicial Review.

Anonymous said...

I understand too that Dr Pal has no consent or authority to publish medical information from Ms Woollard or Paul Heathcote and is an offence under the DPA.

Perhaps Dr Pal could remove the said comments as any reasonable person would consider this to be unreasonable, considering that she is not their doctor.

Failure to bring actions wtihin a specified timescale is an abuse of process as is bringing repeated similar such actions before the Courts vexatious litigation.

Any actions brought by either individuals will be struck out and failure to bring an action within the timescale laid down by the Limitation Act 1980 as fair, just and reasonable.

Both individuals have failed to abide by the rules of the Court process and also of the CPR in Pre-Action Protocols. The Courts take a dim view of such actions and the failure to negotiate alternative dispute resolutions.

Dr Pal is no suchauthority with any legal entity or authority, she is no different than any person on the street.

Furthermore requests for individuals to stop harassing one is an offence, they continue to do so is harassment under the Harassment Act

Requests have been made on previous occasions for this to stop. Unfortunately, it has continued and measures may well be taken to address the issue of harassment formally by the Police.

Please abide and respect the rule of law, due process, confidentiality and respect for authority.

With many thanks.

Anonymous said...

Can someone explain who can do what by law to who?

The last post confused me totally as first the writer started with Dr Pal then went on about 'either individuals' which could mean two or more depending on which word you look at.

The police do not look at posts on blogs or forums especially ones where names are not signed.

Anonymous said...

Just zapped over to My Telegraph, what is all the fuss about? So just because Dr Pal is a Dr she cannot have a bit of laugh on the internet? She is just having fun, lighten up. This is 21st Century not the Dark ages.

If what Dr Pal talks about on My Telegraph offends you, dont read it.

Anonymous said...

MyT not funny, just plain cringeworthy, it is 2007 and women aren't seen as being all about bras and big boobs. This might have been funny during the Benny Hill period but not today, it's dated.

Dr Pal needs to address the specific questions put to her on this blog.

Anonymous said...

DR PAL: Since the year 2000, I have worked as a locum psychiatrist, usually completing short-term assignments of only a few weeks. I originally qualified from University College, London in 1998, and was working as a pre-registration house officer in Stoke-on-Trent between August 1998 and January 1999. The bundle I will refer to during this period is my bundle I sent yesterday. It is the bundle dated --

Uhhhm, bit confused here, coz the lady hath been stating that she was a "psychiatrist" which most people assume to be a qualified consultant and actually she was part time all the time????

I think this answers the question about training and qualifactions.

In 2004 dr Pal didn't have a clue about any sort of legal proceedings yet claims to have "won" her case against the GMC single handedly - did she then mislead Justice McKenna?

DR PAL: Given the vast quantity, I’m a bit overwhelmed by all the paperwork, I was wondering whether you would be providing me with some time to seek legal advice and obtain a lawyer. I’m usually pretty okay to do paperwork, but on this point I concede that I am certainly not good enough to represent this case. I reasonably can’t be expected to go through the two bundles in the timeframe that I’ve been provided with. I did try and explain yesterday with respect to that. I’m certainly not a lawyer and I’m not as good as my opponent with respect to case law, but I do feel that given my right to work is being --

JUDGE McKENNA: (Inaudible) one of the issues I have to determine --

DR PAL: It is, really, it is, because if the case is struck out then I can never work as a doctor properly. I can’t get a permanent job and I can’t carry on with my career. It’s not fun working two weeks here and two weeks there for fear of repercussions. That’s the way I’ve lived for three years. I know the General Medical Council certainly didn’t(?) follow(?) the Bristol(?) inquiry findings, neither, the Shipman(?) findings about whistle blowing, and certainly don’t really care about the protection, indeed, my (inaudible) complaint I made about the very distressing e-mail, which they took no action on or talked to me about. It was an e-mail sent by a gentleman who was very antagonistic to the whistle blowing that happened in Stoke-on-Trent.

Anyhow, I now realise that that was the source of the various rumours that were made. I cannot go through all the case law at this point, but if what my opponent says is correct then I certainly wouldn’t be suffering from the repercussions of being considered mad and being questioned by various people I work with, which has been ongoing for many years now, and the reason for me bringing this case is because I do want my life back and my career back. I do have a lot at stake, and I would like to have the time to obtain a bank loan and to get legal representation because I think that’s what I deserve.

JUDGE McKENNA: It is very late in the day to decide that --

DR PAL: I understand that. I certainly understand that, but I hadn’t realised that I would be bombarded with so much paperwork within two days. Even --

JUDGE McKENNA: That is not the right representation of the situation is it? You have known since October at least the broad outline of the thrust of the defendants’ arguments because they are set out in the notices of application?

DR PAL: My --

JUDGE McKENNA: Let me finish, and in the witness statements. You have known since December, at the absolute latest, the substance of the exhibits to the witness statement. Granted, the authorities you have not had, and I do understand that, and I am concerned about that. You have also had the skeleton argument, which actually sets out in a very thorough and lucid way how the defendants say on each on every one of your claims. That should have assisted you in your preparation.

DR PAL: The skeleton arguments were forwarded to me on 24th February, and they were completely different - they were actually completely different - from Mr Crawford’s witness statement --

JUDGE McKENNA: They are not different. They address different issues, but what is in the skeleton argument is the legal basis of the defendants’ applications, which expands upon what is in the notice of application, which makes references where appropriate to the evidence, and actually would have, should have, assisted you in preparing your defence. It is actually something that they did not actually have to do. Miss Collier could simply have turned up today --

DR PAL: I understand that.

JUDGE McKENNA: -- or yesterday, and put the argument she did without having given you any advanced warning of what it is she was going to say.

DR PAL: I certainly understand that, but unfortunately I made an error of judgment on my part and felt that I could deal with this case, but I just can’t, and my ability isn’t good enough for it. I didn’t have that realization before and I have learned something new over the last two days. I fully respect your opinion about that.

Anonymous said...

How is it that it is not ok for part of LBB's transcript to appear on a site, even though this is material belonging to LBB and yet part of this transcript can appear here in a comment and be used to bully.

LBB's transcript was put up as part of an informative article to outline the injustice done to her in her case, this is done to bully and harrass Dr Pal.

The posters here are bullies.

Anonymous said...

The Telegraph is a respected British newspaper, the MyT blog is part of it, it's not a red top, like the Sun or the Sketch, you do not expect to come across the kinds of images Dr Pal has posted there.

The question is, would you like to be treated by a psych who posts this kind of material? Also one who is ageist, sexist, anti housewife, anti carpet fitter, anti just about anybody from the class of person who has disagreed with her approach or even the downright insulting remarks she has made about them.

I would at least like to know whether they did or not. Maybe some patients would prefer that kind of doctor, that's up to them.

Anonymous said...

The transcript for Dr Pal has always been in the public domain and her hearing was not "heard in private" How is it bullying if Dr Pal has said one thing on the worldwide web which is then disproven by her own testimony in a case?

Dr Pal made her own bed now she's having to lie in it.

Beware your lies will catch you out.

Anonymous said...

Ah but isnt the argument here that she is not a pysch?

Its not hard core porn and politicians, actors and many other public figures post a lot worse. If it was as bad as we are led to believe I doubt very much if the Telegraph would let it remain.

As for Transcript, ok so hearing was not in public. My question was how is not ok for part of one Transcript in one case to be posted and ok for another?

LBB is ok with it and so are BPS.

The Transcripts are the property of LBB they do not belong to anyone else. LBB can pass a copy to who she likes and if it goes up to inform the public of injustices done in her case then that is ok.

The Transcript has been there now since Feb it has not been removed neither is it going to be. Whether Dr Pal had a copy in advance is not relevant because the Transcripts were LBB's and Dr Pal is involved with looking into her case.

The only piece of the Transcript that went up on Furious Seasons is the part involving the evidence given by the Psychiatrist employed by the BPS. The only reason people posting here are angry, is that it makes them and what they say look very stupid indeed. It also does not make the Psychiatrist or the BPS look to good either.

Anonymous said...

"The fact of the matter is Penny Mellor did put a complaint in about LBB to the BPS. This did contain emails sent to her by Fiona Woollard. These were obtained by Fiona by her befriending LBB. Now somewhere in transit from LBB to Fiona to Penny to BPS, these emails WERE tampered with. This means for for those who do not quite understand they were altered and some LBB never wrote at all."

That's defamation - there was no tampering of emails. Yet another conspiracy theory from legal beagle (woof ;) ) Dr R Pal - speciality: litigating, experience and understanding of the law, zero, biting off more than she can chew 10 out of 10, underestimating the opponent 10 out of 10, failing to recognise that she contributes to her own demise 10 out of 10, not seeing "it coming" 10 out of 10, inability to properly understand human behaviour 10 out of 10, inability to grasp action and consequences 10 out of 10

Anonymous said...

MyTel did remove one disreputable close to porn posting, about Visible Panty Lines.

Comparing oneself (a doctor) with other trades and professions who have posted 'non hard core porn' as RP has done will not wash. RP is a doctor, you would be very hard pressed to find another registered medical practitioner posting these kinds of images.

It's not hard core porn, but some of it is porn or so close to it that the GMC might be asked to adjudicate.

MyTel have deleted dozens of RP posts and comments, where she has simply defied clear guidance (even if not explicitly stated)and that is wholly par for the course for her. Her postings should come with a health risk, any dialogue with her should.

And as for who might have tampered with emails, not that anyone has been proved to do so yet, just look at the Nominet findings against RP.

Anonymous said...

"LBB is ok with it and so are BPS."

BPS evidence they are OK with it please.

Sorry to say this, I read the transcript and it makes LBB look really bad. Guess it's down to interpretation eh, certainly when I canvassed opinion about it from people who have no knowledge of the case, they all thought she was, you know ... certainly nobody I know would want that up anywhere.

The problem with all of this is Dr Pal just couldn't leave it all alone and fight with dignity and integrity, she resorted to the usual bullying and threatening to attempt to get more information, vitriolic attacks, personal comments and lies all formed part of her attempt to "get noticed".

Nobody really cared about LBB or Dr Pal until these methods were resorted to and Dr Pal went too far and now, inevitably, she's going to pay the price.

Paul Heathcote said...

I still haven't been arrested yet;)
C'mon legal beagle make it happen.
You accuse me of contempt of court ,AGAIN, (how many times is it now?) then do nothing.
Are you all 'fur coat & no knickers'.

Anonymous said...

One feature of this to be considered, it's just a question, is whether when a member of the public does complain against a doctor, justified or not, is it appropriate for the doctor to mount a public, internet based campaign of vilification against the complainant?

Would this be disincentive for people to make complaints?

Making a complaint against a doctor is a legitimate part of the process of protecting the public.

The GMC is not self- or pro-active in bringing complaints. It relies completely on outsiders taking matters to them.

What RP has been doing, deliberately it seems from the record, is attempting to disarm the GMC.

Much though she may hate it and the profession, this is not appropriate behaviour.

Will the history of this go before the court hearing her JR?

Paul Heathcote said...

Dr Pal said to David on

"With respect to your ramblings - hey I am not the one on propranolol
and I am certainly not the one with a dubious history with social
services! If I was as low as you are, I would publish everything there is about you David.....Are you sure you are not a nutter? Takes one to know one matie ! I wonder what we would find in your medical records?"

Looks to me like she made a veiled threat to access his medical records - if she hadn't already done so.

Anonymous said...

Ok, BPS not breaking open bottles to celebrate but the BPS can do nothing about it and that has been proven. It is LBB's case, her Transcripts.

Blimey, do the Transcripts have an opinion poll attached, if so where can we all join in?

As for no one caring about LBB, oh please. If no one cared then why is it wherever she goes and whatever she says it is immediately destroyed? Why do certain people to this day send emails about saying she is evil? Why do we hear tales of people reading somewhere that she has been ' Struck Off'. That I read on a blog only yesterday. If people dont care they stick two fingers up and say nothing?

I think it is because certain people are afraid of the truth coming out and her being right all along.

No I dont believe this happens to all people who make complaints against professionals. I would still urge people who have a complaint to complain. I do believe though a doctor or a professional who feels that a complaint is unjust have the same right to declare their innocence as any non professional.

As for porn I have seen nothing that particularly offends me but that it is not to say it may offend others.One thing though one should have a sense of fun, a sense of devilment and avoid being prudish, far worse seen on TV and on prime time TV.

Anonymous said...

Ms Blakemore Brown ain't "all that" sorry to burst your bubble and having read the transcript, she ain't all there either. Do you all seriously think that the world of big pharma tremble at the knees at the sound of her name? It would be funny if it wasn't so scary. Jeeez talk about grandiose and dellusional.

Evidence that the BPS are happy for the transcript to be posted on the internet please.

Let's have some sunlight

Dr Pal answer the questions.

Anonymous said...

"As for no one caring about LBB, oh please. If no one cared then why is it wherever she goes and whatever she says it is immediately destroyed?"

Huh? OK this is really weird let's add paranoid to the list too.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't paranoia what it's all supposed to be about?

Tell me RP how you square the circle of supporting LBB and DPS when LBB claims DPS has destroyed her?

Actually you have gone a bit silent on the DPS front. Finally seen the light have you?

Not that matters whether you have or not, it's what the academics and professionals promoting your cause think that matters.

And it's tricky for Blumsohn as you have very publicly on your health risk blog put him on the garlic and stake through the heart list now.

He hasn't made a blog statement on that yet.

You know there comes a moment RP, it's always unpredictable, when opinion formers turn.

Anonymous said...

Rightee been researching, this is what I don't get, Ms Blakemore Brown and Dr Pal claim that Ms Mellor is behind Ms BB's discplinary hearing before the UK BPS.

However this is contradicted by Ms BB's statements to the press in 2005, in which she seems to be saying big bad pharma are behind everything - crazy, yup, whole thing is a little crazy.

Crazy because it's paranoid

Crazy because since when was a psychologist qualified to conduct medically based scientific research?

Crazy because Ms BB has never been published in PUBMED or any other scientific magazine and seems to be making sweeping statements based on a hunch.

Most of all though just plain crazy, looks like on crazy person supporting another crazy person, common theme being that they both support each other in that craziness, looks like co-dependent relationships going on here.

Me, I'm just crazy in that normal sense, you know doing the odd left field thing, this however is out there along with alien abductions.

Perhaps they should set up a support group or something they could call it

World's Most Wanted (well that's what we like to think anyways)

I'm being driven out says second expert to link autism and jabs

By Daniel Foggo

(Filed: 02/10/2005)

A former government adviser who has controversially linked infant
vaccines to autism in children claims she is the victim of a
disciplinary action "witch-hunt".

The child psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown believes that her
outspokenness has made her enemies in the pharmaceutical business and
in the Government.

Ms Blakemore-Brown, 57, has expounded the theory that diphtheria,
tetanus and pertussis innoculations routinely given to babies at two
months could be linked to autism and a range of allergies. She is
facing disciplinary charges after being officially accused by the
British Psychological Society of being potentially unfit to practise
and of being paranoid.

She says she is the victim of a "witch-hunt" and believes her situation
echoes that of Dr Andrew Wakefield, the gastroenterologist whose
research linked the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to a national
rise in autism.

This resulted in a widespread campaign to discredit his work and
culminated in his being forced out of his job.

Ms Blakemore-Brown has been ordered to attend a confidential hearing
later this month where a panel will decide on her future.

Until last year, the DTP innoculations given to British babies
contained a perservative called thiomersal, which is made of 50 per
cent mercury.

Ms Blakemore-Brown has backed the stance of several scientists who
claimed that excess levels of mercury in an infant's body could be a
precursor for autism.

She has also widely criticised the medical establishment for falsely
accusing cot death mothers of murder.

She has denounced what she says is a tendency within health agencies to
label the parents of genuinely autistic children as having Munchausen's
Syndrome By Proxy.

This is a controversial condition widely diagnosed by the now disgraced
professors Roy Meadows and David Southall.

Between 1996 and 2002 Ms Blakemore-Brown repeatedly wrote to Tony
Blair, the prime minister, and ministers warning that miscarriages of
justice were happening to women convicted of killing their babies as a
result of having MSBP, when in fact the fatalities were cot deaths.

A number of women jailed for this have now had their convictions
overturned on appeal.

Now Ms Blakemore-Brown, who has works as an independent educational
psychologist assessing the needs of children and adults with autism and
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, says that a whispering
campaign against her has caused her to lose business.

As a member of the BPS - of which she is also an associated fellow -
since 1987, if she is deemed unfit to practise she will be stripped of
her chartered status and will in effect become an outcast within the
"I have made enemies in the past 10 years, of that there is no doubt,"
she said last night. "Things have gone on which seem beyond
coincidence, such as people hacking into my e-mail account and some
years ago a woman stole documents from my house and tried to access my
bank account."

The decision by the BPS to bring Ms Blakemore-Brown before a "fitness
to practise" hearing stems from a complaint made by a client who
alleged that she failed to liaise properly with her after assessing her
son for ADHD.

Last night, the BPS refused to comment.

x said...

:) :) :)

What a complex web they weave :) :)
Reminds me of a rubbish tip really.

Dr Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

"What a complex web they weave :) :)
Reminds me of a rubbish tip really."

Dr Pal answer the questions.

You can't answer the questions can you - there is no answer to setting yourself up to be complained about and then whining when it happens is there?

There's certainly no answer to processing personal data without permission.

There is most definitely no answer when it comes to breaching patient confidentiality.

Great thing about the judgement linked on this blog, is it shows that you know the DPA which means you can't excuse your behaviour.

Then there's the little matter of not being able to hold down a job, even prof Southall managed that with all the allegations and publicity levelled at him.

Is that because within a couple of weeks the trusts worked out that you are nothing more than a trouble maker?

As I understand it doctors, when under investigation, have to provide details of previous employers, according to your testimony, yours must resemble the Yellow Pages.

Just a play locum psychiatrist really aren't you? Nothing more than a GP wannabe.

x said...


1. Dr pal .. we know you're out there you've just checked a blog on MyT.

Response - really?

2.How should we view your refusal to take the stand or as the US put it pleading the fifth?

Response - who is pleading the 5th? I have stated that should any professional require the evidence they are free to email me and I shall provide the evidence to their questions. That does not look like pleading the fifth does it? :)

3.Dr Pal these are questions that will be put to you at some point in a more formal setting.

Really, how interesting :). I look forward to it. Do the questions come from a good looking lawyer? :)

4.Dr Pal, Doncaster, the African doctor who got the 12 (2) instead of you, would you like to comment on that?

:) :). I believe those responsible for his approval are presently being investigated in detail by the GMC. Moreover, he has been given a warning due to criminal activity. The editors of this website may wish to visit and look up Frederick Kamyuka.

5.Did you disclose to Worcestershire Trust that you were under investigation by your governing body as required under the contracts for a locum in the NHS?

Which contract is that then ? :) :)Please outline this.

6. When they did their routine check with the GMC as required annually and found out you were under investigation, did that then cause you to have to resign?

No, I was fired. It is monthly checks for locums :). You ought to get your research on par.

7.Dr Pal is the processing of confidential e-mails that contain personal medical data on your blog an offence under the DPA?

Please outline the "confidential medical data" stipulated? :)

8.Dr Pal is it true that Mr Toth did all the legal donkey work for you at your previous JR involving the GMC and that you have claimed credit for something that you didn't do?

a. I have never had a JR against the GMC. This is the first one.
b. You should therefore relate your question to (a) and I believe my solicitor and barrister did all the work in the final hearing for (a).
c. Mr Toth has though assisted in many matters. We though wrote the particulars of claim initially without any input from him. They were amended by Robert Jay QC and then again by Sahota Solicitors.

d. You may wish to contact Mr Toth who will clarify these issues for you.

If anyone wishes to ask me any questions, could they please research their material better than the above. Its simply quite tiresome responding to dim witted formulations of questions.

Dr Rita Pal

x said...

"there is no answer to setting yourself up to be complained about and then whining when it happens is there?"

How does one do that then? How does a doctor "set themselves up" to be complained about.

I note that when a doctor defends themselves it is called "whining". The two complainants Ms Fiona Wollard niece of Sir Charles George and Penny Mellor ex prisoner asked the GMC to stop me from writing. Why would I therefore ask both complainants to stop me from writing.

Highly illogical and irrational.

Dr Rita Pal

x said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
x said...

Lisa Blakemore Brown

Given that Lisa is not here to defend herself, I ought to place my experience of her down here.

For avoidance of doubt, Lisa Blakemore Brown is not mentally ill.

Secondly, Lisa Blakemore Brown is a friend and always will be. It was out of my concern for her case that I supported her and still do.
I do know that Lisa has been a victim of substantial repetitive complaints from This arose out of vendettas and disagreements. I believe most of the complainants don't even know why they have complained. Ms Mellor was concerned that Lisa Blakemore Brown had been critical of her. That was the reason for the initial complaint.

Lisa Blakemore Brown is a competent and well liked psychologist and a specialist in her area. I am not party to the advanced knowledge she has in her area. I am though aware that she is a victim of a vendetta from this group out of jealousy and lots of factors.

For many years Lisa Blakemore Brown has been subject to the BPS's fitness to practise procedures. Penny Mellor has been and is in close contact with the British Psychological Society. The BPS the organisation who should recognise the pattern of complaints, its motivation etc have taken advantage of these frivolous complaints to discredit Lisa Blakemore Brown.

The psychiatrists involved have also been involved with the GMC. The modus operandi has been to silence an uncomfortable critic.

The complainants have shattered Lisa Blakemore Brown's life and it is only now that she has been piecing her life back together. They have also relished in her suffering and sought to make matters worse for her.

As I have said, there is no rhyme or reason for their complaints. Like spoilt children, they have continued their vendetta upon one professional after another. The professionals find it difficult to effectively defend themselves and by this lack, the complainants have continued undettered much like spoilt children without discipline.

Lisa Blakemore Brown and I find ourselves caught in a spiral where other professionals have fallen into. Most professionals have not recovered from the sequelae of onslaught. We though aim to fight this to the very end with or without the support of our colleagues.

Finally, Lisa Blakemore Brown is one of the best psychologists in the UK. She cares about her patients. She simply had the misfortune to be kind enough to try and assist They have repaid her with the destruction in her livelihood.

It is likened to the behaviour of Paul Heathcote towards myself. I was the only doctor to support his case effectively yet he has now sought to attack me consistently without remorse. Mr Heathcote though is a lost man where he has blurred the line between good and bad.

In effect, no good deed goes unpunished and in the end the worst of humanity is viewed in this group. Some would call it the dark side.

Finally, Lisa Blakemore Brown is my friend. Friends never desert each other no matter what the onslaught is.

Dr Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

"Finally, Lisa Blakemore Brown is my friend. Friends never desert each other no matter what the onslaught is."

Trouble is Dr Pal, she's only been your freind for the last 9 months, prior to that you had never heard of Lisa Blakemore Brown.

You've had many such "friends" over the years, people whom you have offered to help and then turned on when they disagreed with you, however this time I suspect you may just have found a "true" friend as characteristically and egotistically you are very very alike.

Dr Pal the DPA and processing of data ..

Your multiple jobs at two and three weeks at a time since 2000?

How does that add up to being qualified to assess anyone's mental health?

Anonymous said...

"Litigation friend"

I suppose one might have to choose between Professor Southall and Lisa Blakemore-Brown in the end given that Lisa has always maintained that Southall, Meadow and Eily Lilly destroyed her career.

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal states that she has studied law.

Dr Pal's judgements and transcripts that she has in fact limited knowledge of case law in particular in relation to journalism, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, Judicial Reivew.

Dr Pal has failed to state what law qualifications she has.

I was interested to read that Dr Pal was indeed part-time and could only find work a few weeks at a time.

I am surprised if she was so good that she wouldn't have been kept on.

Anonymous said...

Please outline the "confidential medical data" stipulated? :)

The content of Ms Woollard's private correspondence to you via e-mail that you that contained private details about her current state of health that you subsequently published on your blog site.

Details about Mr Heathcote and his health problems which you published on MyT blog site.

Details of Sharon Payne and her health problems and a threat to "investigate" which is being interpreted as you will attempt, illegally, as a doctor to obtian medical records relating to Ms Payne.

You did not have permission to do any of the above and neither did your newly found friend have permission to divulge that information to you.

As the DPA queen you must know that you and your friend are in serious trouble, after all, as you are fully aware the Data Commissioner has a criminal investigation team made up of ex police officers, who visit people whom allegations (vexatious was the word in one case) are made about and coincidently then happen upon the blogs upon which the breaches took place and leave with a completely different brief to the one they began with.

Shall I go on?

Anonymous said...

Ms Blakemore Brwon I tell you, there's a saying, when you lie down with dogs you get fleas, however this time you may just catch rabies.

Dr Pal, it is my opinion, that you are harming Ms Blakemore Brown's reputation far more than anything anyone else does, her association with you is ensuring that those that have previously supported Ms Blakemore Brown are not inclined to do so any longer.

Your blog site is just one big cess pool and anyone who would be associated with the type of comments you keep making up there is going to be viewed very dimly.

MS Blakemore Brown I urge you not to publicly ally yourself with Dr Pal, your case stands on its own merits, you will win, Dr Pal is losing you any support you have out there, there are those of us who cannot condone Dr Pal's behaviour, it is extreme.

x said...

1."Trouble is Dr Pal, she's only been your freind for the last 9 months, prior to that you had never heard of Lisa Blakemore Brown"

The spelling is "friend". We have known each other longer than that :).

Rest of the issues have been responded to in the past. As it is the rest of the issues are also misinterpretations of factual evidence.

Dr Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

In fact, your newly found friend Ms Blakemore-Brown had no authority to release medical information in relation to Ms Sharon Payne and other cases to Ms Woollard.

The information only went to the indiivduals named in the e-mails and it was up the individuals concerned what did with said e-mails.

Mrs Woollard was never a complainant and would never have divulged this information to third party without consent of said individual.

These were, after all, Family Court cases of which Lisa Blakemore-Brown had no authority or consent to divulge and it was this behaviour that strange behaviour of said professional.

These e-mails can, of course by the appropriate authorities. Dr Pal, is not one such authority to analyse e-mails.

Ms Blakemore-Brown also claimed in 2003 that someone had hacked into her computer. The same allegations seem to materialise each time.

Anonymous said...

BTW Rita, several professionals of different walks of life have found your blogs rather strange and odd...

Anonymous said...

I thought you said Dr B, the consultant who gave you a reference was a true friend.

I haven't seen Dr Coleman recently - how is she? Has she deserted you?

Anonymous said...

Anyway, the boots on the other foot now isn't it?

No wonder you need a chocolate break to recharge the batteries.

Must do some researching on the effects of having too much chocolate... and what happened at Doncaster.

x said...

:) :)

Dr Rita Pal

x said...

Ask Doncaster :)

Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

Paranoid is also an ordinary English word used in the English language but then again it can be a song :)

So take your pick!

Anonymous said...

"Rest of the issues have been responded to in the past. As it is the rest of the issues are also misinterpretations of factual evidence."

No they are not - you, as a doctor swore never to reveal patient confidentiality,and yet, with impunity, blogged private medical data on the internet.

Lisa Blakemore Brown circulated e-mails containing confidential details about family court cases to third parties, without the consent of the families or the courts.

You Dr Pal and Ms Blakemore Brown continue to process personal data by transmitting e-mails from the BPS hearing to each other and then publicise the fact on your blog, detailing what e-mails you have, which have been cross referenced and do contain personal data which you were not entitled to see.

Why can't you hold down a job Dr Pal, do you deem your patient's rights to confidentiality in such a cavalier way too?

No Dr Pal huff and puff all you like, this house is made of reinforced steel, you'll never blow it down. You have met your macth this time and it's yourself.

x said...

The worst issue about illiterate people using mental health as a mode of abuse is an insult to patients who are actually mentally ill. I believe life is difficult enough for people with real mental health problems without using the term as a stigma

Dr Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

Now let's look at the Mr Monk's letter.

It was Dr Pal who planted this on the Internet and broke patient confidentiality nobody else.

x said...

"You have met your macth this time and it's yourself"

Thumping on the keyboard are we Fiona? Watch those spelling errors :)

Anonymous said...

You astound me Dr Pal stating that illterate people using the mental health mode.

That's is exactly what you are doing.

Neither are illerate and neither have mental health issues neither is having a mental health issue a stigma anymore.

Your living a time warp, there are forward thinking mental health trusts who don't think like that anymore.

x said...

"It was Dr Pal who planted this on the Internet and broke patient confidentiality nobody else."

It was not one of my websites.

Misconception number 62 by the complainants no doubt.

Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

LINKING is not the point!


You still placed the information in the public domain without consent of third party

Anonymous said...

Or the individual concerned whose medical data that it related to.

Anonymous said...

The 12(2)?

Anonymous said...

"I believe life is difficult enough for people with real mental health problems without using the term as a stigma"

What do you mean "with real mental health problems"?

Now there are certain mental health problems that do cary a stigma, Narcisstic Personality Disorder and Sociopaths and quite rightly so.

Believing that one is so important that the whole would spend their lives trying to destroy them qualifies as what?

Using vulnerable people to further one's own agenda's and manipulating people at their most vulnerable to garner further attention for themselves is called what?

Dr Pal, there are tests for personality disorders on the internet with ticky box thingies, I won't put up which of the criterias you qualify for.

Now let's get back to business, you still haven't answered the questions relating to not wanting to be a doctor yet JRing the GMC, posting confidential medical data on the internet, stating on your own blog that you deliberately engineered complaints to the GMC about you and why you did that and the little matter the "link" not being the only part of the investigation isn't there Dr Pal, or are you being disengenuous again?

You didn't "link", you posted contents of a paginated legal bundle that was no longer relevant to the proceedings as that evidence had been struck out - ergo it then fell back into being confidential to only the parties concerned.

You are also facing another charge I believe, the more serious one of misleading ...

Just part truths again Dr Pal?

Answer the questions Dr Pal

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal you are not listed as a data controller.

It is an offence to process personal data relating to anyone unless you are exempt, you do not qualify for exemption and as you are not a data controller, in processing personal medical data and the contents of e-mails that contain personal data about third parties, you have committed an offence under the DPA.

x said...

:) :) :) It is all going wrong in the Mellor camp isn't it?

By the way, why doesn't the reader who questions the veracity of the allegations provide us with evidence from the GMC that these are not the only allegations :). There is no point in making such assertions without any backup is there?

In any case, I have the letters from the GMC :).

Dr Rita Pal

x said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

My my we have been busy. I go to work (yes some of us do have employment) and look what happens.

An awful lot of you against poor Dr Pal all because she supported Lisa Blakemore-Brown. Same happens every time someone comes along and supports LBB.

The problem is when Fiona did her 'good will gesture' and passed these emails to all the people she was trying to help, who were mentioned in them, she didnt think that they might just be sent on them by them.In the end the personal emails that LBB sent to her friend Fiona became a round robin and now all and sundry have copies. So what makes you think that LBB passed them to Dr Pal?

'Crazy' was mentioned rather a lot in one comment here.So please rather than be coy could we actually know who it is that's crazy? By name would be good.

You see if it is LBB that is crazy why is it when she had full assessments and all paperwork and medical records read by an independant Psychiatrist he said he found her to be mentally stable?

Are there others you also think crazy? As this comment seem to indicate another person. Is it just Dr P and LBB?

Now all these emails Dr Pal posted on her blog, all the medical conditions mentioned in these emails are common knowledge. The author of these mails who seems just a bit aggitated actually has post after post mentioning her condition on MAMA and BMJ and various others sites. Her condition is common knowledge.

x said...

For avoidance of doubt Editor

Ref SF/C1-142013376 There were two complaints - From Fiona Wollard and Penny Mellor. Fiona Woolard is niece of Sir Charles George ex GMC Education Committee member.

Dear Dr Pal,

Further to my letter dated 23rd April concerning Ms Mellor/Woolard's complaint.

I write to clarify the issues we are investigating under our fitness to practise procedures. We are considering two issues, the breach of confidentiality in relaton to publication of confidential minutes of the British Psychological Society on the website NHS and your use of the title Psychiatrist as you do not hold specialist registration with us.

I confirm that we are not dealing with the issues raised concerning harassment and defamation, as these are matters that should be dealt via the courts. I did inform Ms Mellor/Woolard of this in my initial response letter to her and she returned the consent under these terms.

I hope I have been able to clarify the issues we are investigating and I look forward to recieving your employer details form

Yours Sincerely

Mr Stephen Farnworth
Investigation Officer.

That would mean every psychiatrist in the USA who is not on the UK specialist register would not be able to use the title psychiatrist.

My latest reference cited me as a psychiatrist.

Following evidence that I did not publish the transcript, it was then moved to "linking".

I hope this clarifies any questions regarding this matter. I also confirm that the GMC have not responded to say the investigation will continue and neither have they added to these two allegations.

I apologise for not being able to discuss this further.

All the rest of material and evidence is part of the judicial review. Moreover, questions I have not responded to are either a part of a confidentiality order or questions that have no basis in evidence or law.

I have responded to these issues as a mode of defence.

The Lisa Blakemore Brown campaign was Aubrey Blumsohn's brainchild. Aubrey Blumsohn and Lisa Blakemore Brown had a disagreement in April 2007 leaving the repurcussions of his work for me to deal with singlehandedly. While Aubrey Blumsohn continues to feature the issues on his website they have been merely comment. He currently plays no part in active support for Lisa Blakemore Brown or myself. I believe this should be made clear.

The transcripts etc were in possession of John Stone and Aubrey Blumsohn. They were then published by Furious Seasons. All parties knew of my predicament in April 2007 and have only recently featured it. I am though grateful to them for finally featuring it while keeping silent for many months.

Many thanks for the debate on this issue. I am grateful for it although I consider the vast majority of the remarks from the complainants/posters to be irrational, misguided and false and a product of misunderstandings in science and law.

Dr Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

With regards to Fiona's medical condition, it is for Fiona's doctors to write a paper annoymously when given consent by her.

Fiona has not given consent to Dr Pal to release any information in relation to the complaint.

Fiona has also contributed to the MAMA Board and the BMJ to help and support others. In addition, she has published papers, contributed to books and spoke at a Conference on the condition for the education and advocacy and support of others.

Whilst it is well known what it is, this is done for the above reasons. She has won her Healthcare Commission case and gained improvements in the way it is managed.

But what is not on is for Dr Pal to belittle a person with a medical condition and place it on her website with out Fiona's knowledge or consent nor is discussing her private life. It is very different from Fiona placing information pertaining to her in a support group than it is for Dr Pal.

Fiona's doctors would not do this and neither should Dr Pal.

Fiona only deals with consultants who have knowledge of the condition and who have many years expereience and has been assessed by two psychiatrists and is perfectly normal.

Furthermore, there was no round robin e-mails and the e-mails only went to the people mentioned in them, it was up to them to deal with them. It was their medical information being abused.

There is a difference, Dr Pal is registered as a doctor and abides by the rules of the GMC in relation to the DPA. She has also divulged details of the complaint on her site.

Ms Blakemore-Brown also is a professional and should abide by the rules of the Family Court as an Expert Witness and those of the BPS.

Anonymous said...

Fiona has also asked repeatedly for the removal of the medical information as the comments are derrogatory to those that have the condition and would cause many parents additional stress which they do not need.

Fiona is asking you once again to remove said information.

Over the last few months, Fiona has been ill and is requesting that the bullying stop.

It might be nice out of respect for the medical profession to actually address her uncle correctly. Googling him, you will realise that his title is far more than 'Former Chairman of the GMC Education Committee!"

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal

As you are aware, the GMC screening process is not up to par (Arpad Toth), you are also aware that what somebody puts into a complaint to the GMC doesn't neccesarily get worded correctly in the complaint to the doctor.

If the complaints do not resemble in any way shape or form what was originally said, it then (under Toth) leaves it open for the complainants to JR any decision taken by another body.

You state you are JRing the GMC, should that decision go in your favour, then that decision could be JRed too, as the complaint that was sent to you is not neccesarily the complaint that was submitted.

It matters not what was sent to you, as you are perfectly aware, if the governing body failed to exercise their duties properly when drafting the complaint, then any findings made in your favour are more than likely going to be challenged.

The complaintant(s) would appear to have vigorously defended your assertions of what the complaints were about, it would appear, on the face of it, that the GMC have not presented their arguments as the complainants themselves had put them - ergo, your attacks on the complainants are without merit.

You too need to ensure that you have all the facts, I am sure this is going to run and run.

Anonymous said...

Neither did Fiona make it clear to Dr Pal that she could not.

Fiona is and always has been well aware of how NHS Exposed operates. Dr Pal tells things as they are, the facts and she backs the statements she writes, which last night she clearly did here.

I can not see how something spread around Internet sites by Fiona can be confidential medical information. Please point me to where exactly Dr Pal belittled Fiona. Is Fiona saying that because she has a medical condition she can say what she likes to who she likes and is above the law? I do not think a court takes into account someones medical condition if they break the law, except if they plea insanity.

I didn't say that Fiona sent a round robin of emails, I said that Fiona sent personal emails that LBB sent to her to several people who she says were included in those emails. They then sent those emails on.Lets put it like this I have three copies of an email which I now know is included in the BPS complaint. I also know of three others not included in that email who have copies.

Fiona must realise just like she has she has passed emails on to others, the same is very likely to be done to her emails and I am pretty sure to mine to.

Fiona feels it is 'not on' to speak openly about her private life on a website and yet feels it is absoultely fine to speak about LBB's private life. This goes for her marriage and HER medical condition that she is now fortunately over.

Fiona has been openly libelling and slandering LBB for years. Is it any wonder that LBB has lost nearly everything?

Remember this phrase from you post Fiona Yahoo Board 2004

'I have also had dealing with her through the I am sceptical of her and am very aware of her lack of knowledge. She is clueless about syndromes and genetics even those associated with Autism!'

oh and this one same post '

It is no wonder that she was struck off by the British Psychological Society because I would have been furious about not receiving a report I had paid for.'

But she wasnt struck off Fiona was she?? Never has been not now not then. Still trying are we, thought oh dear cannot get her struck off lets go for fitness to practise, I know Paranoia. Is that the reason her emails were sent on? That and the fact that LBB threatend libel after that post.

She is not mad, crazy or paranoid and you Penny and the rest of you all know that dont you?

Anonymous said...

Someone kindly put a newspaper article written by Daniel Foggo about Lisa Blakemore-Brown in the Sunday Telegraph on 2nd October 2005.

Two things happend very early that day.

First I received an email from Penny

Dear ......

It really isn't a good idea to lie to the press about what you are going before your disciplinary body for, since when was I a mother of a child with ADHD? And since when was I a client of Lisa's?


Then this went on the MAMA board in a response to that article.


Lisa Blakemore-Brown Sunday Telegraph 2nd October 2005

Penny Mellor 02 October 2005

Except for one thing JJ, the truth is very different, 'mother with ADHD child driving the complaint' I hardly think so, very dangerous to go out there and publicise the case and even more dangerous to lie about the very high profile complaint.

Penny Mellor

The problem was Lisa didn't lie she was speaking about another part of the complaint and not about Penny at all. Daniel Foggo is a very renowned journalist and would have checked that out.

Penny Mellor with her facts wrong libelling Lisa in public and to me in email.

This is one of many examples

Anonymous said...

The law is very clear, if Ms Woollard revealed details of her medical condition, she is the "pateint" and can do so, replication of anything that Ms Woollard put in the public domain is allowed, what is illegal about the postings on Dr Pal's site is the public disclosure of medical data contained in a private e-mail without the express permssion of the person about whom that data applies - particularly if you are a doctor or any other professional that is involved in patient care.

The fact remains that there is and was a breach of confidentiality and in the case of Ms Blakemore Brown, those breaches are even more serious as they related to cases in which she was the expert.

Neither Dr Pal or Ms Blakemore Brown, both of whom are professionals who have patients, are registered data controllers and the processing of personal data is also unlawful.

Processing e-mails which contained information that related to cases in which Ms Blakemore Brown was the expert to Dr Pal who is a medical professional, who then proceeds to list the data on her blog without permission of those about whom that data applies is an act that not only is unlawful under the DPA it also requires that Dr Pal and Ms Blakemore Brown are required to register with the Data Commissioner to even have this type of data, whether it is in this case or any other case in which these two professionals involve themselves.

Under the Act, every organisation (data controller) that processes personal information (personal data) must notify us, unless they are exempt. Unless you're exempt, failure to notify is a criminal offence. This section gives details of notification requirements and exemptions.

Data controllers are required to inform the Information Commissioner of certain details about their processing of personal information. The Commissioner uses these details to make an entry describing the processing in the Public Register of Data Controllers, which is maintained by us.

The main purpose of notification and the public register is to promote openness in the use of personal information.

Notification helps data controllers to be transparent and open about their processing activities, and also helps people understand how their personal information is being processed by data controllers.

If you're a data controller, you're usually required to notify the ICO. This involves your details being added to a public register of data controllers and costs £35 each year.

The law is the law, it isn't about either party's interpretation of those laws, it is simple and definitive and laws have been broken. Neither Dr Pal or Ms Blakemore Brown can skirt around these matters.

Their actions are unlawful, it isn't up for debate. The evidence is there, on the internet, it has been assessed by barristers who specialise in these areas and their legal opinion is that both party's (Ms Blakemore Brown and Dr Pal) have acted unlawfully.

Lawyers acting for other interested party's have also identified further matters that fall into the remit of PACE.

I hope this clarifies the situation for the people reading this blog, there are and have been clear misrepresenations of the laws that govern this area, albeit it may well be that Dr Pal and Ms Blakemore Brown are unaware of these facts, if that is the case, then there is room for some leniency, to allow both parties to rectify the situation and register as data controllers.

I will check the register in a week's time to see if this has been done.

Both these professionals offer services on their websites which clearly falls within the remit of the Data Protection Commissioner.

Anonymous said...

I see that Mrs Mellor's private e-mails are yet again being published on the internet, I will be advising my clients to take matters further with the appropriate authorities now, as seemingly, the advice I have tried to give and the leniency that has been shown is of little value.

x said...

"As you are aware, the GMC screening process is not up to par (Arpad Toth)"

I believe my JR does not concern the screener therefore R v GMC Ex Parte Toth is not applicable there.

I do have the full set of documentation sent in by Ms Mellor and Ms Wollard. I believe I have all the facts :). Both parties were aware of the streamlined allegations and consented to it. Therefore their challenge to this is slightly diminished by their own actions.

All challenges welcome in any forum, at anytime or day.

Dr Rita Pal

x said...

"The law is the law"

Yes it is. As is exposing two people who clearly presented "dubious" emails to the British Psychological Society.

We ask ourselves - who is the most to blame - the person exposing these issues or the person actually conducting these issues maliciously in the first place.

As John Major would say - lets get back to basics - who tampered with the emails in question? The short listing involves three people potentially. There is no point bleating on about DPA breaches etc etc. Lets ask ourselves who altered the emails enclosed in the Penny Mellor complaint on Lisa Blakemore Brown.

The above can threaten all they like but the bottom line is that the above question does not go away does it? Even chasing me through the GMC and the courts does not make the above question disappear.

Dr Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

Out of date October 2005

Oh and I am not a professional, no governing body except Mothers Union and Flower Guild and if you report me to them you will do me a favour, also I have no assetts.

Lock me up if you can

I put the wording on the email not who it was to or your email deatils, or headers and footers.

It was heresay that I even had the email that was until it was confirmed which proved my point. :)

Anonymous said...

"Dubious e-mails" I think not.

Avoiding the facts of unlawful behaviour, now we see the trail burning as they run.

Dr Pal's assertions are based on suposition, perhaps Ms Blakemore Brown hasn't been entirely truthful, do bezzie freinds tell all?

No dubious e-mails of questionable authenticity, just a bereaved mother bullied into a corner in which she would have done and said anything to get you, Dr Pal, you Ms Blakemore Brown and you Christina England of her back, now that is far far more serious a matter thatn that which you portray on this blog and my advice to Mrs Wollard would be to report the whole menage a trois to the police.

Anonymous said...

You claim bullying Fiona? I put to you that you put yahoo post up then Lisa Blakemore-Brown threatend libel and you hatched a plan with Penny Mellor.

Oh and by the way the BPS have never at any time asked for Ms Blakemore-Brown's computer to be analysed.She was happy at all times for this to happen, still is.

You can report anyone you like to the police they will not be interested.

You have libelled and slandered LBB for years.

You know something an impressive list of people were given earlier went something like LBB said the following ruined her career.

Eli Lilly, Southall, Meadow, Penny Mellor, Brian Morgan, Liz Lucy, Sharon Payne, Jan Loxley-Blount and Fiona Woollard.

Just because you think Lisa is paranoid does not mean that all these are not out to get her.

Anonymous said...

"Eli Lilly, Southall, Meadow, Penny Mellor, Brian Morgan, Liz Lucy, Sharon Payne, Jan Loxley-Blount and Fiona Woollard.

Just because you think Lisa is paranoid does not mean that all these are not out to get her."

Uh hhmm did somebody mention paranoia?

Why would Mrs Blakemore Brown feature so high on a list of "to do" things for some of the people listed here?

What would make anyone think that Ms Blakemore Brown is so important in other people's lives that they would bother?

Who is she anyway? A google search produces some facts about her, as far as I can see she is just a psychologist who happens to have some strong views about a couple of things, who has published one book and written a few letters. Hardly an "enemy of the state".

Unbelievable that these two insignificant professionals (in the scheme of things) deem themselves to be so important that so many other people would spend all their time "doing them down", they're so full of their own self importance that they can't see how this looks to the bystanders. I can't imagine any scenario in which Eli Lily would have any interest in Mrs Blakemore Brown, she's hardly Erin Brocovitch now is she? Or maybe she thinks she is ...

That transcript from the UK BPS posted on this website ain't that far from the truth, if what is being posted here is coming out of Mrs Blakemore Brown's mouth.

Anonymous said...

There is a poster here who thinks herself far more important than anybody, even more important than anyone in that impressive list.

I remember her saying to me that we are all irrelevant. One day the whole country will see what she has been doing.

Well that was two years ago I am still waiting and other than libelling good doctors and professionals haven't seen anything outstandingly specific.

Quite frankly with all the day to day things she has to do, the thousands of emails to answer, all the people she helps, soup kitchens she attends and we mustn't forget all these court appearences and research she does, I cant see what time she has left to do anything outstanding but as the saying goes 'time will tell'.

I could explain to you exactly why Lisa Blakemore-Brown is hounded but I am sure you already know, try researching vaccines and Thimerosal for a clue if you really dont.Or perhaps read her book that is if you can get one.

Take a closer look at who she says is out to destroy her. Eli Lilly makers of Thimerosal and the first Drugs company to add to vaccines without full clinical trials. Meadow involved in meetings with the Joint Commitee on Vaccine Damage in 1980's. He knew all along there was serious problems with vaccines and children were dying as a result.Then look at his and Southall's involvement with MSBP. Then we have Penny Mellor out to get Southall and Meadow at any cost. The other people in list are or have been members of with exception of Jan whom I am not sure.My opinion is jealousy and wanting to be Top Dog. But that is only an opinion.

Lisa wrote about her findings and links to vaccine damage mentioning Eli Lilly in her book.

Anonymous said...

The meetings Meadow was involved in were entitled

Adverse Reactions to Vaccinations and Immunisations.

Anonymous said...

"Lisa wrote about her findings and links to vaccine damage mentioning Eli Lilly in her book."

When did Mrs Balkemore Brown qualify as a scientific researcher?

I see no reference on the GMC medical register that she is qualified to publish her findings, which at best can only be seen as anecdotal and woirst totally misleading.

Thimerosal as a Preservative

Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see "Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials" and "Thimerosal Toxicity", below).

At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.

Prior to its introduction in the 1930's, data were available in several animal species and humans providing evidence for its safety and effectiveness as a preservative (Powell and Jamieson 1931). Since then, thimerosal has been the subject of several studies (see Bibliography) and has a long record of safe and effective use preventing bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines, with no ill effects established other than minor local reactions at the site of injection.

"doctor" Blakemore Brown stated this is the piece about her being hounded out

"Until last year, the DTP innoculations given to British babies contained a perservative called thiomersal, which is made of 50 per cent mercury."

50% of 0.1% is?

The information Mrs Blakemore Brown presents in the article by Mr Foggo, is a gross misinterpretation of the facts, clearly tailored to suit her claims which do not stand up to scrutiny - the article makes it appear as if a huge amount of mercury is present in the vacinne, when in fact this is simply not true. Furthermore Mrs Blakemore Brown fails to give the reasons behind the use of thimerosal in the first place and that was to clear pathnogens that previously had been responsible for a number of deaths.

If this is the quality of evidence upon which people are asked to rely, then I am afraid that, based on the article alone, I would not believe anything Mrs Blakemore Brown says until she has provided all the evidence to support it.

With that in mind, if there are other parts of the hearing that Mrs Blakemore Brown has, then let's see all of it so that we can assess the evidence as a whole, rather than formulating an opinion on just the one piece.

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal

Is it not the case that Wocestershire NHS Trust did their routine check on you, they were informed that you were under investigation and that you had failed to inform your employers of this fact in breach of the NHS contracts for locums and that it is this, your failure to tell your employers (despite the fact you had plastered it all over the internet) that led to you losing your job and that you have been misleading everyone into thinking that others lost you your job?

As bloggers can see, being under investigation does not lose you your job as a locum, failing to tell your employer you are under investigation does.

Yet another lie Dr Pal?

20. Fitness to Practice

You must inform NHS Professionals (Doctors) if you have been the subject of any fitnessto practise proceedings in the past, or if any fitness to practise proceedings are being contemplated, by a licensing or regulatory body in the UK or another country and of any referral to the National Clinical Assessment Service. This includes providing details of any practice restrictions or changes in your GMC/GDC registration. This information will be treated in confidence and will not debar you from carrying out Locum Doctor Contract of Engagement – Doctors Assignments unless NHS Professionals (Doctors) considers that it renders youunsuitable for carrying out Assignments.

Failure to disclose such information may disqualify you from carrying out Assignments,or result in summary dismissal/disciplinary action and referral to the General MedicalCouncil/General Dental Council.

x said...

I don't work for NHS Professionals :).

Note in your little book Penny - must try harder :).

Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

Note please

I said Her findings not THE findings.

No, she is not a scientist she is an Education Psychologist and an Expert in Autism.

HER findings were done in relation to when child had vaccination and the begining of the child's problems. Her cases mainly were children with Autism. As she was finding so many children with Autism began to show symptoms after a vaccine, she looked up what went into vaccine and saw Thimerosal was an ingredient. Thimerosal or Mercury is a poison. It does not matter the quanity as it was used in many vaccines and collects in the body.

Anyone is allowed to write anything.

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal this is the DoH code of conduct for the NHS that employs Locums and Locums who are employed by the NHS no matter who the agency is.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

My name is not Penny but you can call me that if you wish.

Anonymous said...

All agencies use standard terms and conditions of contract of employment.

Perhaps Rita, you should go back to the drawing board and look at the small print on your employment contract whomever it maybe with.

Anonymous said...

As for self-employment, professionals generate their own reputation and have to generate their own income through appropriate channels.

Furthermore, Fiona has never been on any ADHD, Autism or vaccine damage support groups of which Lisa is an expert. No interest whatsoever.

2004, I am afraid is out of date and anybody is entitled to freedom of speech, expression, differences of opinion and fair comment.

However, Lisa Blakemore-Brown is not a data-controller nor is Dr Pal and have breached the said DPA.

Commenting on the fact that autism is found in syndromes is correct and is fact.

The one thing you have to prove about defamation is that it is true or not true and that the defamation actually is brought within a year. This has not happened. Full disclosure by the BPS will have to be made.

Further stating someone has committed a criminal offence when in fact they have been bullied and provoked for many years into retaliation is wrong.
Both of the indiivduals concerned knew Fiona was ill, had major health problems and had suffered not just one bereavement, an Inquest but two. They manipulated her into believing that the e-mails were dubious. Fiona has never had a criminal record and does not intend to get one.

In fact, dubious is not exactly what went to the BPS. You changed the wording didn't you Rita to suit your own grounds?

This has also been done by the three individuals to ensure that Fiona gets a criminal record, is unable to work with children or progress her career.

That's not nice is it?

Attempts have been made to defraud Fiona by the comments 'lein on your property' That amounts to blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.

No attempt has been made by the individuals to remove said weblinks, all of which could be done within 5 minutes.

Chrstina England more than befriended Fiona. During which time, much personal information about her life was divulged. This was misleading and mean. The only object was to get the e-mails and has been ever since.

Anonymous said...

Fiona was also used by the Group to attack Penny. Often when she was most vulnerable. Time and time again, she was rung up.

Fiona was used by the Group to produce a paper and was introduced by Charles Pragnell. She felt it was too much and wished to leave. Ever since then it has been a nightmare and has wanted to walk away on numerous occasions.

But constant telephone calls from Christina England drew her back in. We must not forget the numerous e-mails between Charles Pragnell and Christina England on the subject of Penny Mellor.

There are also 87 others from Lisa Blakemore-Brown during this period.

All of them are now blocked from her e-mail address at the request of her husband.

Anonymous said...

During April 2007 attempts were made to bully Fiona by Dr Pal demands to have these e-mails caused her to be very ill.

Dr Pal also requested details of Fiona's psychiatric diagnosis by e-mail knowing that Fiona was attending a pscyhiatrist a week later. This was an attempt by Dr Pal to ensure that Fiona was ill during the hospital appointment.

During May, attempts were made to extract support for Lisa and that letter. Threats were made by Dr Pal of 'leins to property' and court action.

Charles Pragnell posted regularly on as Cassie and Lisa Blakemore-Brown posting as raven2 regularly made derrogatory postings towards Penny Mellor, Sharon Payne, Southall, Meadow, Eily Lilly over a number of years.

Anonymous said...

Fiona had not been on the MSBP com Board for quite some time and was simply getting on with life, trying to get better and is not remotely interested in the Lisa saga.

People make their own professional reputation and the complaint was brought by a mother whose had a child with ADHD.

Fiona isn't that mother.

Anonymous said...

This is about breaches of confidentiality and data protection, processing of medical information without consent.

And of course 12(2) qualification.

Anonymous said...

"HER findings were done in relation to when child had vaccination and the begining of the child's problems. Her cases mainly were children with Autism. As she was finding so many children with Autism began to show symptoms after a vaccine, she looked up what went into vaccine and saw Thimerosal was an ingredient. Thimerosal or Mercury is a poison. It does not matter the quanity as it was used in many vaccines and collects in the body.

Anyone is allowed to write anything"

She can't pass it off as scientific fact and neither can she mislead newspapers, Thimerosal is not mercury it is 50% methylmercury of which only a fraction goes into a vacinne.

Why is it then we have not seen huge rises in Autism amongst those whose diet is predominently fish, specifically Omega 3s? The Med, according to this theory, should be full of autistic people, yet it isn't. Where does this leave the theory?

All the research being conducted in this area actually shows that most methylmercury toxicity comes via the food chain specifically in omega 3 fish.

Research on pubmed.

Now if omega 3 fish oils are said, and the they are, to help eleviate some of the symptoms associated with ASD's then it is a circular argument. Either it helps ASD or causes it.

Mrs Blakemore Brown's "research" is deeply flawed. And if, as she and others here claim, she has such a high standing and regard within that community, she can't just write "what she likes" it's irresponsible.

Anonymous said...

The group mentioned on the Yahoo Post was a MSBP support group and ran by Jan Loxley-Blount.

Very easily manupulated this Fiona Woollard. So far she has been manipulated by LBB, Christina England, Dr Rita Pal now Charles Pragnell and I have sight of emails from an ex poster of which shows she says she was manipulated by Penny Mellor and also Liz Lucy.

I have also been told that she is going into Law. If she is this easily manipulated she should go into a less challanging career as she wont last a day in court.

I dont think anyone is trying to get Fiona a criminal record I think she is managing this all by herself.

As for Lisa passing herself off a scientist she never has. She doesnt just spout things off she backs anything she says with documental evidence and research papers.

As for the world not being full with Autistic people actually it soon will be. 1 in 6 children are now diagnosed with Autism or ASD.

Anonymous said...

"As for the world not being full with Autistic people actually it soon will be. 1 in 6 children are now diagnosed with Autism or ASD."

Yes and all those professionals diagnosing it are making a miont as are the drug companies who supply the products to "help" them.

What a load of crap.

Please cite the scientific evidence and by that I don't mean the ramblings of a mother on her blog site. (Very easily identifiable by the way.)

Now stick to the points.

Dr Pal 12 (2) Doncaster?

Dr Pal and Mrs Lisa Blakemore Brown breaches of the DPA?

Lies about how people lost their jobs?

Not a flame war at all, just don't lie.

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal

Breaches of DPA is a criminal offence.

As is passing yourself off as a psychiatrist when in fact you have not achieved the 12(2) R v Ghosh applies. It is called deception.

Attempts to defraud, conspiracy to defraud is also a criminal offence.

You have clear problems in understanding the issues of bereavement including that of children and false allegations of MSBP, this is an area of clear development need.

You pass yourself off as a psychiatrist yet fail to understand the emotions of losing a child including vulnerablility because of ill health.

Fiona Woollard actually whistleblew on the Group much like she has done on genetics.

The Yahoo group was actually owned by an American not Jan Loxley-Blunt.

Further Jan Loxley-Blunt should have been governed by the DPA too.

Fiona didn't like what she saw and left. The endless stories about Sharon wasn't why she joined, she joined to help people.

One can also contribute to one's own negligence it is called Contributory Negligence - passing e-mails to third parties like Law Lords was done by Lisa Blakemore-Brown on that very night to her solicitor copied into loads of people that she didn't even know as does placing the minutes of her own demise.
There is no case.

There is also no case against Mrs Woollard just Dr Pal's and Ms Blakemore-Brown's personal vendetta against her.

Anonymous said...

Stick to the points and just don't sprew your rubbish Dr Pal.

Dr Pal 12 (2) Doncaster?

Dr Pal and Mrs Lisa Blakemore Brown breaches of the DPA?

Lies about how people lost their jobs?

You had to leave didn't you because the Trust found out that you, in fact, did not have the 12(2) when it was a requirement for your job.

Not a flame war at all, just don't lie.

Anonymous said...

Lies about the fact that Lisa Blakemore-Brown lost business when in fact she had no money in 2003, Meadow and Southall and the drug companies all led to the demise.

The minutes of the meeting say as such.

The e-mails play a miniscule part of the whole case and it was the BPS who took Lisa Blakemore-Brown.

Question, then why isn't she allowed to do Expert Witness reports - she left hmm.

Now, Dr Pal answer the questions above about the 12(2).

The only person liable to get a criminal record is you!

x said...


Which section would you wish to refer in order to support your attempted argument :)

Rita Pal

x said...

"You had to leave didn't you because the Trust found out that you, in fact, did not have the 12(2) when it was a requirement for your job"

You are obviously not in this planet dear :).

Rita Pal

Paul Heathcote said...

Ladies, ladies, please. Would it help if I asked my sisters friend to ask his sister who works in HR in South Yorks Strategic HA to find out exactly what happened?

x said...

Yes Paul, you do that and let me know the result :).

R Pal

Anonymous said...

You haven't got the 12(2) have you Rita.

Just spinning a line.

Two or three weeks down temporary work rather like holiday cover. Oh, yes, that's part-time.

Not enough experience to get 12(2).

Just what exactly did happen at Doncaster.

Let's say Discrimination.

Perhaps you would like to look up the Fraud Act 2006.

Anonymous said...

A black African doctor got it instead of you.

"Would it help if I asked my sisters friend to ask his sister who works in HR in South Yorks Strategic HA to find out exactly what happened"?

I think so, or maybe Beechcroft :)

x said...

Yes, do ask Beachcroft :) and as I say let me know the outcome.

R Pal

Anonymous said...

You have not answered the questions about the 12(2) you.

You haven't got the 12(2) have you?

And were put on the spot when the Trust rang the GMC and found that you were "Under Investigation".

You didn't tell them which is a requirement of your Terms & Conditions of Employment.

x said...

"You didn't tell them which is a requirement of your Terms & Conditions of Employment"

What were they then :) :)

R Pal

Anonymous said...

Maybe reading the small print might help.

Obviously failed to read it.

So it is non-sense that Ms Mellor and Ms Woollard lost your job because it could have been lost anyway.

Anyway, how long was it for two weeks, three weeks..."I suppose jobs come and go"

As a temporary member of staff both sides can terminate an employment contract at any time.

x said...

"So it is non-sense that Ms Mellor and Ms Woollard lost your job because it could have been lost anyway"

Really?? Thats a novel interpretation isn't it. Are the two complainants having serious problems in accepting that they were solely responsible for the escalating events that caused me to be fired.

"Anyway, how long was it for two weeks, three weeks"

June 2006 - 3rd May 2007

:) :)

The above stipulations made by anons are statements so no matter what I say you will believe whatever is within your minds. That is what people with fixed false beliefs have a problem with :).

Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

You have not got the 12(2) have you and it was a requirement for your job.

The Trust rang up and found that you were not on the specialist register are you?

You also claimed to be a psychiatrist. You are not you are a Locum Staff Grade Psychiatrist very different from a saying Psychiatrist which assumes that you are a Consultant Psychiatrist.

This is misleading and as I saying R v Ghosh and deception.

You have difficulty in telling the truth at the best of times and have planned this for many years.

x said...

"You have difficulty in telling the truth at the best of times and have planned this for many years"

Interesting concept given that is all about the truth :). As for plans, I often plan 24 hours in advance and no more :).

But if we turn to the judge in Mellor's case. I believe he tells us Mellor lied to the police :).

Worcestershire NHS Trust has always known I was not on the specialist register :).

R Pal

Anonymous said...

The only problem that you are having is that you have stated clearly on the BMJ and your own site that you did not want to be a doctor.

Then please leave the profession.

Answer the questions in relation to the 12(2) Dr Pal and stop using people for your own litigation battles of which you planned.

x said...

:) :) :) Clearly so far out of touch our poster could not reach reality with a very long stick.

Rita Pal

Anonymous said...

Dr Pal you just keep running your mouth.

You haven't answered any of the pertinent questions, you avoid them.

I just wonder if you kept jumping from job to job because the bad smell you leave in your path catches up with you wherever you may go.

You are a sorry excuse for a doctor and a human being, your blog isn't about truth your blog is vitriol.

You and Mrs Blakemore Brown deserve each other.

Paul Heathcote said...

"Yes, do ask Beachcroft :) and as I say let me know the outcome."

I can't ask Beachcrofts - they don't like me. I'll stick with SYSHA if you don't mind. What do you want to know? However Rita, you must promise to stop calling me naughty names.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to read the Mellor case in Court. This proves yet another of her lies about the beleaguered Lisa Blakemore-Brown.

I read with my own eyes that Mellor said Blakemore-Brown had been the one who abducted the child in Sunderland, that she went to prison to protect Blakemore- Brown because she was suffering from breast cancer and she would prove it in her Appeal.

Can Penny Mellor provide the Appeal notice with evidence of this ?

x said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
x said...

You are a sorry excuse for a doctor and a human being, your blog isn't about truth your blog is vitriol"

I believe that is why we are all here - because I exposed all of you in tandem :).

You see, demeaning a website isn't going to take some important questions away like who tampered with Lisa Blakemore Brown's emails? Neither is it going to remove the fact that the common complainant in Lisa and my case is Penny Mellor. The contents of the complaint were both aimed at silencing what we had to say about her. Housewives who have never achieved anything in their lives apart from a prison sentence often become unconfident when challenged.

R Pal

x said...

"I'll stick with SYSHA if you don't mind. What do you want to know?"

Just anything you can find.


x said...

"I can't ask Beachcrofts - they don't like me"

I can see why now.

R Pal

Anonymous said...

The important issue here is that both LBB and RP have broken patient confidentiality and the rules of the Family Court and is an offence.

There was a breach of the DPA.

Neither are data controllers.

Anonymous said...

No money in 2003?? minutes of meeting??

Please enlarge I am intrigued.

The BPS btw found NO CONDUCT ISSUES to answer to.They found no problems with LBB's professional conduct. The issue of breaking patient confidentiality was not an issue because she did nothing wrong.

'All the professionals who diagnose Autism make a mint'

Where do you get this notion? Please site your evidence? I am sure it will make interesting reading.

You see you have been prattling on for days here with not one piece of evidence between you. So come on you have demanded constantly answers to your questions and evidence which you have been given. Your turn, fairs fair.

I would like to see documentation of where it states, or at least a web address with research stating professionals who diagnose Autism make a mint?

Where is the proof of where exactly Lisa Blakemore-Brown has broken patient confidentality.

I want to see where your evidence states what money she did or did not have in 2003.

Also these minutes of this meeting?

What meeting?

Ms Woollard sends emails to Ms Mellor who then sends the BPS a complaint containing these mails. This complaint contain mails that by the time they reach the BPS are tampered with, then Ms Woollard makes a complaint about Dr Pal and then when both professionals lose everything which was her aim, she wants the world to feel sorry for her. Then when she then is accused of being party to the fall of both professionals careers she tries to say SHE is the VICTIM.

Take responsibility for your actions Fiona and grow up.This is not a playground.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately where there is a breach of confdentiality.

Transcripts are minutes of meetings.

Grow up, people can read... this is not a playground which you seem to think it is.

Far more in the minutes. Anyway, full disclosure of the 1000 pages will be required.

Professionals take responsibility for their own actions and have responsibility under their code of practice for confidentiality.

LBB is not a data controller she was an expert witness. She has responsibility to the Families and the Family Court.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 248   Newer› Newest»