If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
"Professor" Roy Meadow
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
0
Comments
Tip for today(and ANY day): Question everything,especially "experts".
seeker
That cunt should be in jail, six months for every month he put a woman inside wrongly. He should die in prison.
He doesn't even have the decency to say sorry. He is a cunt among cunts.
and what happened to this person - he should also be struck off, if it hasn't already happened
what is it that makes people behave like this?
it also highlights a some interesting issues about research, the use of statistics and the whole peer review process and scientific journal processes
So if the allegations prove themselves to be true, it's only because he used misrepresentative statistics which should always be taken with a pinch of salt rather than definitive evidence. Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it can't, after all.
Should he be struck off even though he has done a lot of good work as well?
That is hopelessly naive.
Juries take expert evidence at face value, they are ordinary people and are blinded by credentials and experience. The statistics will have been noted, and they cast a huge shadow on any defence case. The stats were hopelessly prejudicial to any defence case.
Yes, he should. His incompetence has destroyed families, and he should be punished severely for it.
The fact that he appears to not think he's done anything wrong makes things matters. If he admitted he was wrong and apologised like a man I would have more respect for him. He seems to think he was right, when he was not, and he needs to be taught a lesson.
Will be interesting to see what the GMC does now...
Symptomatic of the arrogance of the man. Five years inside for perverting the course of justice should help him.
He should still be punished severely. But remorse would make the punishment less.
Just because someone has done good things in their life surely this doesn't mean they should be treated with more leniancy when they do bad things?
But if he had the decency to admit he fucked up and admit he was sorry, and had the decency to believe that he was wrong and should never practise again, then I could respect him more.
It would take a lot of balls and I would have to give him some respect if he did this. His lack of apology just makes me believe he is a bit of a twat.
Because he has destroyed scores of lives by his lies and inaccuracies.
Why would I have some respect for him if he at least genuinely admitted his mistake and showed remorse? Because it takes a lot of courage to admit you ballsed up big time, and it takes even more to look someone in the eye and tell them that you are sorry.
Becuase at the moment we get the arrogance of "I've done nothing wrong" and no recognition of the impact which his actions have had.
If he cannot admit himself that he has done wrong, then he needs to have that reinforced for him, and the punishment should be severe. If he can see the errors he made and shows remorse for them, then that contrition should be recognised.
Sort of like this you mean?
The "police" who took the decision to kidnap.
The "CPS" who took the decision to prosecute.
The "jury" who took the decision to convict.
The "judge" who took the decision to imprison.
seeker
If he believed that these women were actually innocent, he would have not have got them thrown in prison. Paediatricians must see many children hurt by parents (come in contact with parents with munchausen's by proxy, URL=http://depression.about.com/cs/psychotherapy/g/munchausens.htm]definition[/URL)
I believe he was acting in what he believed was the best interest of others; and that his expertise has otherwise saved many childrens lives in the past.
No, I mean with some sincerity. And not under examination from his barrister trying to get him off.
seeker, will you ever ask an intelligent question?
kidnap? Wow thats a clever way of implying they have done something wrong. In fact in general I was going to rip this idiotic post apart but it seems barely worth it.
The point is as a professional he was supposed to be giving an impartial factual account. Saying what about if HE thought they were guilty and was acting in the interest of society is not the point.
Most professional codes of conduct do not allow this and he wasn't a judge, magistrate or jury so it wasn't his responsibility to make that sort of judgement.
It really isn't worth it.
Seeker's read "philosophy for dummies" and seems to think that murder laws are a terrible restriction upon his "freedom".
He does come across like he may have skimmed through it at some point long ago.
I'm amazed that the GMC let Robert Seabrook represent them and Roy Meadow.
Its quite unusual for a QC to prosecute and defend in the same trial, isn't it?
I`ll huff and I`ll puff and I`ll blow your house in
I almost ran to www.wearenotafraid.com but found a few verses of "Who`s afraid of the big bad wolf?" more helpful.
Don`t let me stop you "ripping it apart".In fact,I wouldn`t dream of it.That`s what it`s there for.
"Clever" ? That`s a contradiction of your assertion that it is "idiotic"
What part of kidnapping do you not understand? Do you happen to think that kidnapping is NOT wrong ? Unless you give yourself the label of "The Police" ?
A "professional" what ? "Expert" witness ? How can he give "an impartial factual account" ? Was he present at the time of the alleged offence ?
Wasn`t he giving his opinion ?
I could be wrong but as far as I know:
HE didn`t kidnap anyone.
HE didn`t force anyone into a court.
HE didn`t give an "enforceable" decision of guilt.
HE didn`t forcibly send anyone to a cage.
Tut,tut,Kermit,you really should know better than to make supposed factual comments about things you are not certain about.(Hey,isn`t that what Roy Meadow is accused of?)
Any "law" when taken to it`s violent conclusion is a "terrible restriction" on everyone`s freedom.(Go and have a review of your "social contract" postings,and you may agree with yourself
seeker
*Sigh*
Using clever was a sarcastic take on the way you manipulated the language you used to imply something you cannot prove.
A professional is somebody such as a chartered engineer, a doctor, a lawyer. If they are asked to provide information in their professional capactiy they must provide impartial evidence. By most professions codes of conduct a person can only give information that they are suitably qualified to give. If he gave statistics that were later found to be innacurate then he gave evidence that he wasn't suitably qualififed to give such information or masquerade that he was.
People cannot just call themself the police they are given that title by society.
Please stop boring me about spelling mistakes because I just don't care. If I'm tired or feeling lazy then I reserve the right to be a lazy twat and spell things wrong, skip punctuation and use atrocious grammar.
But when you are an expert you have a duty not to just make things up on the spot. That is perverting the course of justice, I would say.
The arguments about the police being kidnappers is ludicrous, even after what I have said in the other thread.
Drinks are on Kermit.