Page 1 of Roy meadows struck off.

The pedeatrition has been found guilty of serious missconduct in the case of Angela Canning and has been struck off.

All the best,

Dr 42%er.


It`s not easy being different. It`s not easy being cool....but somehow I manage....

......at the grand old age of 72 :/

Wouldn`t surprise me to see some law suits heading his way now...

-------------

News Editor and Reviewer
www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk

Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way, turn...

And those who dance will spin and turn,
And those who wait will wait no more,
And those who talk will hear the words,
And those who see will fade and die,
And those who laugh will surely fall,
And those who know will always feel their backs against the thin wall...

At 72, Meadows must have done his medical training back in the 1960s when paediatrics was the exclusive preserve of old farts who thought babies only became human beings around five-years-old and the standard reaction to a miscarriage was "never mind, mrs X, you can always have another".

He may be eminent in his field, but his past record with regards these cases has demonstrated an enormous arrogance on his part of his own infallibility and a complete disregard for the mental and physical wellbeing of the bereaved parents.

I say good riddance to bad rubbish, as even though he is 72, in Doctor`s years that makes him middle-aged and capable of a lot more damage.

J Mark Oates

So is the consensus that he lied under oath in being an expert on something he was not? There must be a public interest in prosecuting him for this as these women could have spent thier lives in gaol because of his wrong comments?

This item was edited on Friday, 15th July 2005, 23:09

God anyone think he killed the chiildren.

I beleive he was mistaken & he then compounded that mistake many times over condemning women to a life sentance in prison in some cases, where they would be regarded as much the same as child abusers in a male prison.

Hes lucky, he has had the disgrace of being struck off, those whose innocent (& already suffering from the loss of the children) lives he ruined on the basis of "expert" testimony & who have had to live with far worse for the years they spent in prison.

He can still go home tonight to his comfortable house, though he may not want to show his face in the village pub. Never once knowing the indignities of prison life.



I quite like the Helpdesk people in a benevolent (as opposed to malevolent) way as they do some valuable work in preventing us being inundated by every halfwit who can work a phone.

This item was edited on Saturday, 16th July 2005, 12:59

Well, he blamed the mothers of doing so, even though he based his `testimony` on outdated and severely flawed evidence.
Quote:
Once is accidental, twice is suspicious, three times is murder
You can`t base any kind of binding legal testimony on pretentious bulls*** like that

============================
Been nowhere
Done Nothing
Stole the T-shirt


My Collection

Quote:
Well, he blamed the mothers of doing so, even though he based his `testimony` on outdated and severely flawed evidence.
Was he the Judge and jury ...No, and what was her defence team doing at the time,not proving his evidence was outdated and flawed,and did he believe in the evidence he was giving ....Yes
Hindsight is a wonderfull thing,anybody know the odds of two children dying of cot death in the same family ?

Quote:
Was he the Judge and jury ...No, and what was her defence team doing at the time, not proving his evidence was outdated and flawed
To do so they would have had to find another expert to rubbish what he was saying, AND have the money to go look for them, and pay them to come to court.
NOT that easy.

It only happened when one of the women was a lawyer, her husband was a lawyer, and he knew where to start looking to get help in proving this old fart was an idiot, and could use his own lawyers practise to do it.
Other wise they would ALL be still in prison.

Cracking toast, Gromit!