Talk:Roy Meadow

Furor vs Furore

I changed this back to Furore from a different IP address yesterday and appended a comment that Furor was not a word in English. However, searching through various dictionaries (including Wiktionary) finds that it is - its just that I personally as an English person have never ever come across it spelt without the final "e". I am now confused...

148.177.129.212 10:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC) https://www.google.com/search?q=Furor+vs+Furore its the same word Mirddes (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of the material about the Clark case mentioned should be moved over to the page on the Clark case. The tone is also inappropriately POV in places and distinctly non-encyclopaedic! Blaise 08:33, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I think the material is balanced and factual with appropriate citations. I think any POV has been edited. The Sally Clark material should be transposed to her page but not moved. It is very relevant to Meadow's page. Limhey (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

statistics

73,000,000-1 what an ameauturish idiot -and the legal professionals for their unquestioning acceptance. -tali 28/01/06

This is not really helpful in editing the article. Lots of people have issues with Sir Roy's statistics. But as an expert he could well have been summarising medical research and used this as an example. Avoid knee-jerk judgement please. JFW | T@lk 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Tali's comment may be a little opinionated, but that's what the discussion section is (partly) for! Besides, we're dealing here with a quack who's wantonly destroyed dozens (if not hundreds) of lives, so it's understandable that one tends to view him as closer to Harold Shipman, than any kind of "good" doctor!

Quite right, so much evil has been caused in the world due to ego, arrogance and ignorance (ISIS, Nazi Germany, McCarthy...), and this guy belongs in with that lot. There is no excuse for his behavior; what I don't understand is why he was never tried for perjury, perverting the course of justice, or gross negligence. Morally he should be rotting in jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.205.255 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

In the 2003 Sally Clark appeal court hearing the statistical evidence was not fully argued. The judges did state though "if this matter had been fully argued before us we would, in all probability, have considered that the statistical evidence provided a quite distinct basis upon which the appeal had to be allowed." [1]They also stated that if the evidence that cot death didn't run in families was accepted it totally invalidated programmes such as CONI (Care Of next Infant) which aimed to reduce second cot deaths in families. Through his work with the Royal College of Paediatricians Sir Roy had been involed with setting this up.

Someone please tell me what "struck off" means in the first section. I have an idea from the context, but we Yanks are not always so keen on the British argot. Thanks. 64.178.101.32 05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See struck off. Like disbarment, but for doctors. -- Avenue 09:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very negative and biased overview of Professor Sir Roy Meadow's career and each time I try to amend it so that it reads more favourably and fairly, I am unable to do so and have been accused of "vandalism" for my efforts in highlighting these inconsistencies. Elizabeth Marsh 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In an interview on the BBC's Today programme on Dec 7, 2007, Prof David Southall commented that the statistics provided by Meadow in the Clark case were actually Department of Health statistics. Is there a reliable source for this allegation? If it is correct, the Meadow article should be amended accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe there has never been sufficient attention paid to the lawyers in this case. tali castigates "... the legal professionals for their unquestioning acceptance" and quite right too. You might argue that the prosecution were only doing their job (dubious) but both the defence barrister and the judge failed egregiously, the reason being, I guess, that they don't understand probability - which is appalling, but, alas, not at all unusual. Moletrouser (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To Elizabeth Marsh, belatedly, I disagree. His accepted misconduct and dogmatic arrogance had devastating effects on innocent peoples' lives and those of their families. This article serves the function to inform present and future medical experts, judges and lawyers of the dangers of being misled by such unfounded dogma. He may have done a lot of good work in his career but he will rightly be mostly remembered for his actions in these cases and his responses afterwards. Who knows whether by showing more humility and genuine remorse, spontaneously and in timely fashion, he may have had some positive influence on Sally Clark's tragic state of mind? Limhey (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added new link to RSS letter to Lord Chancellor Limhey (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath

I can't find the phrase "travesty of justice" anywhere in the official transcript of Lord Justice Judge's remarks in [[2004] EWCA Crim 1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/1.html

NotSaussure 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it does not appear. I have amended the section with quote and citation. Limhey (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sir Roy

An anon, 86.4.29.226 has been trying to change "Sir Roy Meadow" to "Mr Roy Meadow". He/she is also introducing typos, like "Meadows's", and "Meadows" and "meadow's".

Would the anon please state here what the problem is with "Sir Roy". If it's a Manual of Style issue, and if there's some policy that we don't use titles such as "Sir", that's fine. I don't claim to know all Wikipedia policies, but I'd like a link. However, since the anon is not just removing the "Sir", but is actively changing it to "Mr", I think it's unlikely to be a question of style.

This BBC article about him begins with "Professor Sir Roy Meadow", and refers to him as "Sir Roy" thereafter. See also here and here. I see no reason to doubt that he is "Sir". If there's some reason to remove the title, I think it should be discussed here. ElinorD (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not the anon! To me, the Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names suggests that, after the first naming, he should be referred to as "Sir Roy" or "Meadow" but not "Mr Roy Meadow" or "Professor Meadow". I prefer "Meadow". I would not change from "Sir Roy" if it were being used consistently, but it is not. Thincat 10:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Meadow", although the BBC article refers to him as "Sir Roy" after the first mention, and I like that. I did have a problem with the systematic changing of "Sir" to "Mr". ElinorD (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed "Professor Meadow" to "Meadow" (in accordance with Manual of Style) and "Sir Roy" to "Meadow". In the latter case the MoS does not seem to be definitive but I think consistency is desirable. For guidance I looked at Michael Woodruff (a recently featured article) that uses the surname, and David Attenborough (everyone's favourite knight) which is almost entirely surname although "Sir David" appears twice. What is good enough for them should be more than good enough for Meadow. Thincat 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Profit?

"He certainly profited greatly from his many court appearances as an "expert witness"". I can't find any evidence of this. Maybe the language should be more moderate. Workerbee —Preceding comment was added at 13:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed this sentence together with "Many people consider Meadow to be personally responsible for her death." Even if the latter were true and backed up by citations it is a description of public opinion which adds little to an understanding of Roy Meadow. There is plenty in the article which condemns Professor Meadow in the description of his evidence to the original trial. Doodlebuggy12112 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

I hold no brief for Roy Meadow - and I think that the lessons tragically learned then about society's obsessions could profitably be applied to the more recent eruptions of hysteria about different kinds of child abuse. However, I must comment that Judge Danforth in Arthur Miller's play does not proceed falsely and recklessly at all. He is a scrupulous representative of the law, struggling to apply it in a case where some of the testimony is false and vindictive - but above all, where society's assumptions are based on a fallacy. That is the tragedy.

Rogersansom (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added my original comments regarding his excuses for the delay in giving an apology. Then current guidelines completely undermine the second part of his excuse. The comments were accurate, relevant and cited a reliable reference. The highlighting of 'apology' was a deliberate style method of linking to the GMC's view of apologies at the end of the paragraph. In view of this, the comments should not have been labelled as editorialising or removed in this fashion. That action should be reserved for bad faith edits and/or vandalism. The correct and courteous procedure would have been to raise the concerns or difference of opinion here. Limhey (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added more to the subject of the delay in apologising for his actions. It is particularly relevant as I now read (from lawyer Marilyn Stowe's blog) that had he been more gracious then Sally Clark's father would not have referred him to the GMC. Limhey (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Tags

I have removed the 'multiple issues' tag dated Dec 2011 as the issues appear to have been resolved. Limhey (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roy Meadow/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This entry is without merit for it has been compiled not to elucidate useful facts about a distinguished living person but to perpetuate the campaign to discredit him so that the truth is buried with the murdered children he did so much defend. Editing is pointless because the edits are immediatly removed by people to whom a lie is a virtue. I will learn more about how to challenge this and come back. (Epidermoid (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)) I have no wish to get under Epidermoid's skin but his/her criticism is not supported by the established facts. This is a very important article in that it clarifies, on the record, the devastating, and in Sally Clark's case fatal, effect that arrogant, factually incorrect evidence of 'respected' but over-zealous 'experts' can have on the course of 'justice'. The fact that Epidermoid has chosen to ignore the findings of the appeal courts and describe the children in these cases as having been murdered is what is really without merit. Limhey (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 04:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sally Clark suicide?

“Sally Clark, who was wrongly convicted of the murder of her two baby sons, and later committed suicide”

No she did not. The links provided for that claim don't say anything of the sort, and the next link says that the coroner ruled the opposite to be true. Where did this come from? 2A0E:1D47:4115:4800:8D21:E50E:36A:1CE1 (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Now trimmed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Breathtakingly dishonest - says who?

This text:

This opinion, minimising the effect of Meadow's evidence, was described by a leading Queen's Counsel not involved in the case as "a breathtakingly intellectually dishonest judgement".

is a very close paraphrase of several sources and comes from here [2] or else the site that source quotes. However nowhere are we told who said this. That who template can't be answered. We have no idea who said that. All quotes in Wikipedia must be attributed so this should come out, but the following sentence depends on it too. Any suggestions on a rewrite? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Is http://www.mojuk.org.uk/ regarded as WP:RS? If not, we should not be including this in any case? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Very good question. No is the answer. I misread it as "ministry of justice" and thought it was some kind of appendix document about the case, but it is clearly not that. I'll make an edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)