Blog Image

The Romiley Gazette

Experts Warn Against Overlooking Medical Conditions.

Parents of disabled children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sun, November 23, 2025 16:13

23rd November 2025

Paediatric advocates and healthcare ethicists say that the misapplication of FII can have serious consequences.
Dr. Helen Atwood, a medical ethics researcher (speaking generally, not about local cases), explained:

“FII is an important safeguarding tool, but it must be used with extreme caution. When communication fails, or when busy clinicians misinterpret persistence as problematic behaviour, families can be unfairly pathologised.”

Several national reviews of healthcare safeguarding practice have highlighted that parents—particularly mothers of children with complex or poorly understood conditions—can be disproportionately accused when they push for answers.

A Culture of Defensive Medicine?

Some parents believe that when mistakes occur—such as missed diagnoses, delays in treatment, or conflicting opinions—there may be a temptation within the system to shift the narrative toward parental behaviour rather than clinical limitations.

Healthcare professionals, however, caution that most staff act in good faith and under immense pressure. A local paediatric nurse told the Gazette:

“No one sets out to blame families. But stretched services, limited diagnostic resources, and communication gaps can absolutely lead to misunderstandings. That’s where better training and reflective practice are needed.”

The Emotional Toll on Families

The impact of being accused—even informally—of fabricating or exaggerating a child’s illness can be devastating. Parents describe:

loss of trust in healthcare services

fear of seeking further medical help

significant stress on family relationships

children going longer without proper diagnosis or treatment

Safeguarding procedures, while essential, can become blunt instruments if not accompanied by active listening and collaborative care.

Calls for Change

Advocacy groups and some clinicians are urging NHS trusts to adopt:

Clearer guidance on on when FII concerns should be raised

Specialist review panels before accusations are made

Mandatory second opinions in complex paediatric cases

Improved communication training to help clinicians differentiate parental advocacy from harmful behaviour

For many families, the solution is simple but often overlooked: listen to parents first.

“Parents know when something isn’t right,” said one father. “We’re not trying to tell doctors how to do their jobs—we’re just trying to get our kids the care they need.”



Tales from Stockport Council: The Parallel Universe of Local Democracy.

Innocent Mr Parnell RIP, Local Politicians, Padden Brook, Parents of disabled children, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, November 17, 2025 07:26

17th November 2025

Residents of Stockport are once again rubbing their eyes in disbelief — some in amazement, some in hay-fever, and some because they’ve been informed their sneeze constituted “anti-social nasal conduct” under the Council’s ever-expanding Rulebook of Peculiar Offences.

Yes, dear readers, welcome to another instalment of Tales from Stockport Council, that magical realm where bylaws multiply faster than potholes, meetings are held but people don’t attend, and bureaucracy spins so wildly out of control that even officials can’t keep track of who they’ve banned, re-banned, or accidentally un-banned again.

Sneeze Now, Pay Later

In the this chapter of civic surrealism, a Council Taxpayer found himself arrested for using public facilities “too publicly,” though no one can quite locate the policy document nor the officer who wrote it. Citizens are beginning to suspect that the Council’s real motto is:
“Welcome to Stockport: Proceed at Your Own Risk.”

The Ban Hammer Strikes Again… and Again… and Again…

The Council’s mysterious banning protocol — a system apparently modelled on Victorian séance procedures — has become so labyrinthine that even Council staff can’t explain who is on the list or why.

One insider was overheard saying:
“We don’t keep a list of banned people. We keep a list of people who might be banned. Or should be. Or were. It’s more of an evolving concept, really.”

Children’s Services: Performance Indicators? What Performance Indicators?

Meanwhile, the Directorate responsible for children and young people continues to set new records — mostly for missing its own targets. Observers suggest this may be because so many senior staff appear to have “external interests,” hobbies, or perhaps entire second lives.

Citizens have begun asking an increasingly popular question:
“If leadership spent less time on outside ventures and more time leading, would things improve?”

Meetings? Optional. Accountability? Optional. Tea and Biscuits? Mandatory.

Attendance at Council meetings has become… flexible. Sources report that elected members often vanish during by-election season, leaving empty chairs, absent apologies, and a stack of untouched agendas.

One councillor was quoted (off the record) saying:
“Why attend a meeting when you can attend a campaign launch? Priorities, darling.”

Financial Stewardship: The Mystery Deepens

Residents continue to puzzle over the Council’s financial stewardship, where eye-watering sums of money appear to evaporate into “projects,” “initiatives,” or “consultation phases” that never seem to result in anything except another consultation phase.

One rumour suggests the Council stores unused budgets in the same vault as last year’s missing performance indicators.

Conclusion: Welcome to Stockport—Please Bring Your Own Common Sense.

As the curtain falls on another dramatic week, one thing is clear: reality at Stockport Council is stranger than any fiction a writer could invent — which is precisely why Tales from Stockport Council practically writes itself.



Urgent escalation called after alarming care of child on paediatric HDU.

Care Quality Commission, Parents of disabled children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Fri, October 31, 2025 09:00

31st October 2025

A seriously concerned parent at Colchester Hospital has lodged an urgent escalation regarding the care of their daughter, here referred to as “the child” (to preserve anonymity), who is currently admitted and placed on what the hospital has described as a High Dependency Unit (HDU). Despite this classification, the parent says that monitoring, intervention and response to clinical deterioration fall well below recognised standards — and that this constitutes a serious patient safety concern.

Unacceptably unstable observations, and failure to escalate

The child has recorded repeated episodes of hypotension (blood pressure as low as about 81/45 to 90/50 mmHg) and bradycardia (heart rate of 46-50 bpm over several hours). In addition, she has exhibited seizure-like activity, profound fatigue, and severe unrelieved abdominal pain tied to faecal loading and bowel loop distension (confirmed by an X-ray).
Despite the severity of her condition and the HDU classification, no transfer to a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) or formal escalation under hospital policy (sometimes known as “Martha’s Rule”) has been initiated. The parent says the deterioration has been ongoing and yet not appropriately escalated.

Inadequate pain and seizure management

According to the parent, staff on duty have explicitly stated that “there is nothing that can be done tonight” in respect of pain control. This was said so the parent could sleep, but this would be impossible with a child in severe pain. Seizure events are reportedly not being actively monitored; the parent claims that when they raise concerns about seizure activity the response is dismissive. Disturbingly, the bedside monitor is said to have been silenced after seizure activity. In this particular child’s case, who lives with autonomic dysfunction and a diagnosis of Ehlers‑Danlos Syndrome, bradycardia — not tachycardia — is well-recognised during distress, making the comment deeply troubling from a clinical-standards perspective.

Failure to provide 1:1 monitoring despite HDU classification

Overnight images provided by the parent depict the child connected to a standard ward monitor, rather than a dedicated HDU monitoring system, and with no consistent bedside presence recorded. The lighting in the ward was dim, and the child appeared visibly in distress and exhausted — signs, the parent argues, of a lack of active supervision in a unit described as “high dependency”. They contend that the environment and care provision fall far short of what should be expected for a Level 2 paediatric HDU under the NHS England guidance for paediatric critical care.

Breaches of statutory regulations

The parent claims the following regulatory breaches:

  • Regulation 12 – Safe Care and Treatment: Ongoing deterioration without appropriate escalation or intervention.
  • Regulation 9 – Person-Centred Care: Failure to make suitable adjustments for a child with complex needs (including autism‐spectrum / neuro-divergent traits).
  • Regulation 13 – Safeguarding Service Users from Abuse and Improper Treatment: Continued exposure of the child to clinical neglect, despite repeated warnings and parental concerns.

Supporting evidence

The parent has submitted:

  • Vital sign records showing persistent low blood pressure and heart rate over hours.
  • Photographic evidence of the ward/monitoring setup, confirming that the care environment did not appear commensurate with HDU standards.
  • Documentation of clinician comments down-playing pain and risk despite abnormal findings.
  • A history of the child’s previous admissions with faecal loading, megarectum and bowel distension — situations that triggered escalation previously but apparently not this time.

Requested actions

The parent is calling for the following immediate steps:

  1. An external clinical review of the child’s current management and safety, ideally by a senior paediatric critical-care specialist.
  2. Formal notification to the hospital’s Critical Care Lead to review whether the child’s care environment meets HDU Level 2 criteria.
  3. Confirmation that the matter is logged as a Patient Safety Incident (PSI) and is being investigated under the duty of candour rules.
  4. A response at Care Quality Commission (CQC) level addressing whether systemic issues exist in paediatric escalation and pain/seizure management at Colchester Hospital.

In short, the parent believes their child has been placed in a unit flagged as “high dependency” yet has received care that appears to fall substantially below expected standards — risking serious harm. They are urgently seeking external oversight and assurance that the child is safe and that appropriate escalation is underway.



Questions Raised Over NHS Handling of Complex Immune Disorder Case.

Parents of disabled children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Fri, October 10, 2025 04:10

10th October 2025

A complaint submitted to Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUHFT) has drawn attention to potential gaps in how rare immune dysregulation disorders are managed within the NHS, after a parent alleged their child’s abnormal test results were repeatedly downplayed or misinterpreted.

Correspondence reviewed by the Romiley Gazette shows that the parent — who has asked to remain anonymous to protect their child’s privacy — contacted the Trust’s Patient Advice and Liaison Service and Data Protection office earlier this week. The complaint details concerns about the handling of their child’s case by several consultants over the past year, including the failure to follow national standards for specialised immunology care.

According to the complaint, the child has persistently elevated IgE levels, abnormal T-cell function, and positive autoantibody findings — all indicators of potential immune dysregulation. Despite this, the parent alleges that recent consultations continued to suggest “parasitic infection” as a possible cause, even though diagnostic tests from other hospitals reportedly ruled this out.

Medical documentation referred to in the complaint includes reports from a tertiary centre confirming no parasitic infection and describing systemic symptoms such as rashes, fatigue, and night sweats. The parent claims that at a recent hospital visit, no physical examination was performed despite these ongoing issues.

The parent’s submission cites the NHS England Service Specification for Specialised Immunology (E03), which requires tertiary immunology centres to:

“Provide lifelong follow-up for all patients with clinical or laboratory evidence of immune dysregulation, regardless of whether a genetic mutation is identified,”
and to “accept and monitor cases referred by secondary centres where there is functional immune abnormality, such as cytokine autoantibodies or raised IgE above 2000 kU/L.”

The complaint argues that these criteria are clearly met in this case and that the lack of ongoing specialist monitoring constitutes a breach of the national standard.

Experts in clinical immunology, speaking generally to the Gazette, say the case highlights the difficulties faced by patients with complex or rare immune system abnormalities.

“These are not straightforward conditions,” said one consultant not involved in the case. “They often cross the boundaries between allergy, immunology, dermatology and infectious disease. When test results are ambiguous, there’s a real risk of patients falling between specialisms.”

The complaint also raises questions about data accuracy in medical records, after the parent alleged that certain abnormal results had been described as “normal” or omitted from summaries sent between departments.

The Gazette understands the family is seeking reassessment under a tertiary immunology service and has asked NHS England to review whether the case meets the criteria for national oversight.

As awareness grows of rare immune dysregulation syndromes — conditions that can mimic allergy, infection or autoimmune disease — the case underscores a broader challenge for the NHS: how to ensure that complex laboratory data translate into consistent, long-term patient care.



One Year And Forty-Two Days On, And The Romiley LibDems Have Still Done Nothing About The Schweinerei At Padden Brook. In fact, they have let it get worse.

Local Politicians, Padden Brook, Parents of disabled children, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Tue, September 23, 2025 07:12

23rd September 2025

We pay our local LibDem politicians £457,502 per annum plus expenses to represent us. Are we getting value for money?

Wildlife crime, destruction of habitat of dormice, hedgehogs, bats, owls and other precious creatures, rubbish dumped on the sight causing blight in the area, investigation into the bulldozing and other disruption of unstable land holding up 24 houses. Why do local residents get no response from the local LibDem politicians? It is a Local Wildlife Site/protected visual amenity land untouched since the 1960s.

This was how it look August 8th 2024.

We pay our local LibDem politicians £457,502 per annum plus expenses to represent us. Are we getting value for money?

Wildlife crime, destruction of habitat of dormice, hedgehogs, bats, owls and other precious creatures, rubbish dumped on the sight causing blight in the area, investigation into the bulldozing and other disruption of unstable land holding up 24 houses. Why do local residents get no response from the local LibDem politicians? It is a Local Wildlife Site/protected visual amenity land untouched since the 1960s.

This was how it look August 8th 2024.

19th August 2025

We pay our local LibDem politicians £457,502 per annum plus expenses to represent us. Are we getting value for money?

Wildlife crime, destruction of habitat of dormice, hedgehogs, bats, owls and other precious creatures, rubbish dumped on the sight causing blight in the area, investigation into the bulldozing and other disruption of unstable land holding up 24 houses. Why do local residents get no response from the local LibDem politicians? It is a Local Wildlife Site/protected visual amenity land untouched since the 1960s.

This was how it look August 8th 2024.



Essex Parent Challenges Council Over Hospital Neglect Safeguarding Duties.

Essex County Council, Parents of disabled children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, September 22, 2025 07:45

22nd September 2025

An Essex parent has formally challenged Essex County Council over what they say is a “systemic failure” to recognise hospital-based neglect as a safeguarding issue.

The parent, whose two children have complex medical needs, alleges that local safeguarding processes are being wrongly limited to concerns about parenting or home circumstances – leaving children unprotected when harm arises from hospital care.

“The law is clear,” the parent said. “Section 47 of the Children Act requires a safeguarding enquiry whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. It does not limit that duty to parenting issues. Neglect can also occur within institutions – including hospitals.”

The parent points to Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018), which explicitly includes “institutional or systemic neglect” as a potential trigger for a Section 47 enquiry.

In this case, hospital records reportedly show repeated failures, including concealed abnormal results, failure to investigate faltering growth, unaddressed bradycardia and zinc deficiency, and an unperformed biopsy for Hirschsprung’s disease.

Despite this evidence, the parent claims the council has “minimised institutional harm” by categorising these as “health complaints” rather than safeguarding concerns – meaning no formal multi-agency Section 47 enquiry has been convened.

Concerns Over Disability Assessments

The challenge also highlights concerns about disability assessments. Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, disabled children are automatically defined as “children in need” and entitled to specialist assessment.

“Essex is relying on a generic Common Assessment Framework (CAF), which is not designed for disabled children,” the parent argues. “The Ombudsman has ruled several times that councils must conduct proper disability assessments – this is a legal duty.”

Calls for Action

Before taking part in any further meetings, the parent has asked the council to provide:

  • Written confirmation that hospital neglect is recognised as a safeguarding trigger.
  • Details of how their children’s cases will be escalated to multi-agency safeguarding meetings, with hospital safeguarding teams involved.
  • Confirmation that statutory disability assessments will be provided under Section 17.
  • Agreement that they may be accompanied by an independent advocate, funded by the council, in line with the Children Act complaints procedure.

The parent also stresses that, under the Care Act, they are entitled to an advocate whether or not they are making a formal complaint. They argue that this should be considered a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010, as they have a diagnosis of ADHD and are likely to become anxious or overwhelmed if upset by comments. They also report difficulty processing and retaining all information in meetings without either having them recorded or an advocate present.

The parent says that without these steps, the council’s current approach is “procedurally unsafe and contrary to statutory guidance.”

Essex County Council has been approached for comment.



Essex County Council Accused of Breaching Statutory Duties in Delayed Social Care Complaint.

Parents of disabled children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Wed, September 03, 2025 07:05

3rd September 2025

Essex County Council Accused of Breaching Statutory Duties in Delayed Social Care Complaint

Essex County Council (ECC) is under fire after a very worried parent issued a formal warning over what they describe as “drift and delay” in handling a statutory Stage 2 social care complaint under the Children Act 1989.

The complaint, agreed in early July 2025, is already in danger of breaching maximum timescales set out in government guidance. According to statutory guidance, Stage 2 investigations must be completed within 25 working days, or in “exceptional circumstances” no later than 65 working days.

The parent says Essex is on course to exceed that statutory limit, despite repeated reminders of the urgency of their case.

In a strongly worded open letter, the parent demanded:

  • Written confirmation of which Complaints Manager is overseeing compliance.
  • The identity of the Adjudicating Officer / Senior Responsible Officer (Head of Service or Director) required by law to consider the report.
  • A fixed timetable, with the Independent Investigator’s report and ECC’s adjudication completed by 16 September 2025 at the latest.

Failure to meet this deadline, the parent warns, will trigger an automatic request for a Stage 3 Review Panel and a referral to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) for investigation into maladministration, delay, and the impact on their family.

The case is further complicated by the family’s exceptional circumstances:

  • One child is in hospital under ongoing monitoring for complex health needs.
  • Another requires consistent immunology oversight.
    Despite this, the parent alleges that ECC has withdrawn disability social care support, intensifying safeguarding pressures.

The letter also raises serious additional concerns. The parent accuses Essex of:

  • Ignoring multiple referrals to its Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) — the statutory officer responsible for managing safeguarding allegations.
  • Allowing local health commissioners to strip out essential bowel care provision — support that had been ordered to remain in place by a SEND Tribunal ruling in 2023.

Campaigners argue that these allegations point to systemic failures in Essex’s children’s services.

“This is not just delay — it is statutory non-compliance, a failure of accountability, and a breach of duty of care to vulnerable children,” the parent wrote.

The Romiley Gazette has approached Essex County Council for comment. At the time of going to press, no response had been received.

Fact Box: What the Law Says

  • Stage 1: Informal resolution, normally completed within 10 working days.
  • Stage 2: Independent Investigation. Must be completed within 25 working days, or in exceptional cases no later than 65 working days (Getting the Best from Complaints: DfE 2006).
  • Stage 3: Review Panel must be convened within 30 working days of request.
  • Oversight: The Independent Investigator (II) is supported by an Independent Person (IP) to ensure fairness. A Complaints Manager oversees the process, while a Senior Responsible Officer must issue the council’s final adjudication.
  • Escalation: If timescales are breached or procedure not followed, complaints can be referred to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).


Ongoing System Failures in Essex Mental Health Care: A Parent’s Fight for Safeguarding

Parents of disabled children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Wed, August 27, 2025 16:23

27th August 2025

As the Lampard Inquiry continues to investigate the tragic deaths of more than 2,000 people under Essex mental health services, one parent is raising urgent concerns that the same systemic failures are happening right now—this time to her daughter.

The Inquiry’s terms of reference are focused on those who died in mental health wards, or within three months of discharge. However, families in Essex warn that children and adults currently living in the community are being failed by the very systems designed to protect them.

The Case of a Young Girl Left Without Support

The mother, who cares for five disabled children with complex needs, says her daughter has been wrongly removed from the Dynamic Support Register (DSR)—a system intended to identify and support people with autism or learning disabilities at risk of mental health crisis. She explains:

“Her CETR [Care, Education and Treatment Review] flagged her as high risk, but the Integrated Care Board (ICB) has decided she’s not at ‘immediate risk’ and removed her from the register. This ignores NHS England guidance and dismisses the CETR recommendations.”

The CETR identified several urgent issues:

  • No school placement, with her Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) ignored—fueling her mental health decline.
  • No tuition provided, despite Essex County Council’s legal duty under Section 19 to ensure education for children unable to attend school.
  • No health budget, despite repeated requests and statutory duty under the Children and Families Act to fund agreed therapies.
  • No carers’ support, despite her mother’s role as sole carer for five disabled children, with no personal assistant in place.

“Bureaucratic Ping-Pong” Between Agencies

The mother describes being caught in a cycle of blame between Essex County Council and the ICB. Each points to the other for responsibility, leaving her daughter without education, health provision, or mental health safeguarding.

“This is exactly the type of neglect the Inquiry is investigating. The only difference is that my daughter is still alive—and at risk.”

Despite submitting over 14 safeguarding referrals (LADO requests)—including for her other children—none has been actioned. Complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) have also stalled, with the Ombudsman deferring back to the Trust, which she claims blocks investigations unless complaints are narrowed to terms they set.

Call for Immediate Intervention

The mother is calling on Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the Lampard Inquiry, and NHS England to urgently intervene:

“Children and adults like my daughter remain at risk of system failure with no safety net. The failures in Essex are not just historic—they are happening today.”

Campaigners argue that while the Lampard Inquiry is essential in learning lessons from past deaths, it must also shine a light on the ongoing systemic neglect that leaves vulnerable people unsupported and unsafe in the community.

A Wider Crisis in Safeguarding

This case highlights what many families in Essex have long reported: children and adults with autism and learning disabilities falling through the cracks of fragmented systems, despite clear statutory duties to provide education, health, and care support.

The failures currently under investigation may not only be echoes of the past—they could be the warning signs of future tragedies if urgent reform and accountability are not enforced.

#DisabilityRights #LampardInquiry #TransformingCare #Accountability