|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
Fran Lyon - What Is The Truth? Janet Snell wrote a very interesting critique of the latest Hemming / Mellor production on this website. The lady caught in the middle of the publicity spin machine is Fran Lyon. Janet wrote, "Why should we care about what Mail readers think? Well, for one thing it helps stoke up real hatred against social workers. The story of Fran Lyon prompted one person to write a blog headed "Save a life, Shoot the Social Worker"". This is startlingly similar to the threats of intimidation, violence and hatred instigated on paediatricians by members of msbp.com. The targets these days are social workers involved in child protection by means of incitement of hatred against them. Janet though also stated the following "On September the 20th we will be running a feature examining the way Fran Lyon’s story was hijacked by the Mail (and the Telegraph) through no fault of her own and how key facts about her psychiatric history were omitted." Of course, a threat to expose the truth has had an interesting reaction in all concerned. Mr John Hemming MP who spearheaded the Fran Lyon story and features it on his website added a number of threats "Could Community care confirm if they are about to reveal confidential medical information concerning Ms Lyon's in their magazine? Could they also confirm they have consent to release confidential medical information?" So apparently, social workers can be attacked with one sided stories but no one can defend themselves. If they do defend themselves Mr Hemming MP threatens them. In fact, this is what we see on the questions below. I suggested quite rightly that if there was an objection to disclosure of medical data then perhaps Fran Lyon could kindly obtain her records and publish them on her campaigning website. That way cynical people like us who wish to view the evidence are able to read it first hand without the media spin placed on it by Ms Penny Mellor and John Hemming MP not to mention the gloss added by the newspaper journalists. The public always call for doctors to be transparent. Let us see Fran Lyon be as transparent about the documentation within her case. I find it rather curious that the Mellor team and her band of merry oddballs instigated the removal of the list of questions below. After the list below was posted, "posts from a whole range of contributors were getting more personal in nature and drifting off the original topic" according to the moderator. I wasn't witness to this but nevertheless, it shows us beyond reasonable doubt that anyone questioning the authenticity of a Mellor / Hemming story is attacked. Of course, there are always two sides to every story. One is the truth and one is Mellor / Hemming's version of the truth. List of Questions for Fran Lyon 1. There has been talk of medical documentation etc. There have been a number of people who have threatened Janet on a few issues. I would therefore be grateful if you would seek copies of your reports, scan them in and publish them.Let us make our own minds up. 2. I would quite like to see all the medical reports/social services records in your case. While no one else can publish them, you can. 3. You state the following on your website: "the chance to prove myself, the chance for change, the chance for the facts to be presented, the chance for calm and reasoned discussion". I would therefore like to see the facts. I don't mean newspaper articles or the material propagated by Mellor or Hemming MP but the real facts. Please therefore will you scan and publish all the documentation you have. 5. Your website has http://www.wardrobehudson.co.uk/askingforachance/Home.html. Again this website has a series of media sensationalised articles and no actual evidence. 6. You joined msbp.com on the 22 Aug 2007 and by the 6th September 2007,the media featured the story. 7. I am of the view that while your story may have merit, at present I see no concrete scientific evidence. Moreover, while you have an interesting cause, the company you keep is less than impressive. One is the support of an MP who is a serial philanderer and the other is ex-prisoner Ms Penny Mellor. Does this tell us something about your choice of people? 8. The Telegraph quotes the case "pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of "emotional abuse", even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way". You state "He is not a psychiatrist and cannot possibly make assertions about my current or future mental health". Many parents who do emotionally abuse their children do not have mental health problems so why is the psychiatrist point relevant here? NB The papers then go onto say "even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way". My question is, what are "psychiatrists" treating you for and what are they treating you with? 9. I would quite like to see the following placed online so we as scientists can make up our minds independently ( There is nothing to prevent Fran Lyon from disclosing her own data). a. The subsequent psychiatric opinions b. The paediatrician's letter c. The full medical notes d. The full social services notes ie the reasoning as to why such a decision was taken. e. Any decisions made by Social Services. I am sure you will have all the above documentation for the public's view. Quite frankly simply because you say you will be a good mother does not mean I should believe you. In fact, nothing in the media currently suggests to me that you are right. Had you campaigned on your own, I would have had a little more faith but the company you keep and their credibility means we would all need to see the evidence from your file. I though wish you all the best in the future. I apologise for not being a walkover and as gullible as the rest of the public. Those on our website show us the papers and the evidence. We never believe a person's word just for the sake of it. The public should never be led by the nose by an serial philandering MP and his side kick ex prisoner colleague.
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
