‘Cover-ups' surrounding care of Nottingham attack killer, victim's mother claims
Valdo Calocane, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, killed three people – 19-year-old students Grace O'Malley-Kumar and Barnaby Webber and 65-year-old caretaker Ian Coates – and attempted to kill three more in Nottingham in June 2023.
A February report into the care received by Calocane detailed how he was not forced to have long-lasting antipsychotic medication because he did not like needles, and how other patients at Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust also went on to commit 'extremely serious' acts of violence.
Families of the victims met with Health Secretary Wes Streeting on Monday and said they told him they want the names of staff involved in treating Calocane to be made public.
Speaking on ITV's Good Morning Britain on the second anniversary of the attack, Barnaby Webber's mother Emma Webber said of Calocane's care: 'We quite often say, imagine anything that could go wrong, did go wrong and Wes Streeting actually, to quote him, he said 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'.
'That's appropriate but, actually, I would say it's simpler than that.
'I think truth is and once you've got the truth, then you've got somewhere to begin, and we're still getting cover-ups, we're still getting mistruths and we're still getting those push-aside emails 'well, the trust will deal with that, or the inquiry will deal with that'.
'But, no, we're not going to stop.
'I don't know when they'll learn that we will not stop until we get those answers.'
Ms Webber added that the families' calls for transparency were 'not a witch hunt'.
She said: 'I'm sure it can come across that we as families are just so vociferous in finding answers and trying to deal with our grief and our anger and rage at what happened.
'But it's much deeper than that, and it's greater than that, because there are individuals out there that they're posing a risk themselves, but they're posing a risk to the public, and we're not on a witch hunt in what we're doing.
'We do have the statutory inquiry coming up but that shouldn't stop individuals who, just as basic as failing to do their jobs properly, from being held to account, and that's through the professional means.
'I cannot understand how the NHS have not been able to confirm that anyone has had any disciplinary action against them for what they did or didn't do during his care.'
Grace O'Malley-Kumar's father, Dr Sanjoy Kumar, told the programme that the families do not have 'detailed answers' and called for 'full transparency' and 'true accountability'.
He said: 'At this juncture, I think it's turned into a national representation case for us, because I think what we've realised is that every family that goes through a horrific tragedy like us, they're not given answers, and they're given a lot of kerfuffle about what happened when, that's all very interesting, the timelines are interesting, but what we want is true accountability.
'Because when we have accountability, we can then have change and positive change for the country, and we've not had that, and that's been really, really frustrating.'
Calocane was sentenced to an indefinite hospital order in January 2024 after admitting manslaughter by diminished responsibility and attempted murder.
He was admitted to hospital and sectioned under the Mental Health Act four times between 2020 and 2022 because of his violent behaviour and refusal to take his medication, before NHS services lost track of him and discharged him in the months before the attacks.
Three reports, including one by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), described failings in his care but none included practitioners' names, Dr Kumar said after meeting Mr Streeting.
On Friday, the families of the victims will hold a memorial walk through Nottingham to remember their loved ones two years after their deaths.
They will meet at St Paul's Church in Lenton Road at 11.30am before walking to the two locations of the attacks.
During the interview with Good Morning Britain, Ms Webber said she had a 'visceral reaction' to returning to the city, adding that 'feels almost like it was yesterday' that the attack happened.
She added that the group wanted to 'walk in peace and love', and that anyone who wanted to join was 'very welcome'.
In a statement, Ifti Majid, chief executive of Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'We are committed to giving our fullest co-operation and support to the Nottingham Inquiry which has already begun to request documentary evidence from ourselves and other organisations in relation to the devastating events of June 2023.
'It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.'
The Department of Health and Social Care has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Medics arrested at eco protests should not be struck off, say doctors
Doctors who are arrested while demonstrating at climate change protests should not be struck off, a union is being urged to say. A series of motions to be put before the British Medical Association (BMA) are calling for unwavering support to be given to NHS staff who take part in 'non-violent' eco action. If successful, the union would call for a ban on disciplinary proceedings being brought against activist doctors who are arrested for protest stunts that may include inflicting criminal damage on property and businesses. One motion submitted to the annual representative meeting in Liverpool, which begins on June 23, says the BMA should recognise ' climate change is a public health emergency ' so doctors 'have an ethical duty to advocate for direct action'. It adds that medics should 'condemn' any complaints or disciplinary actions brought 'against doctors who engage in non-violent climate activism'. 'Non-violent climate advocacy' It also calls for 'explicit protections within employment contracts… to ensure doctors do not face career detriment for engaging in non-violent climate advocacy'. Another motion asks BMA members to formally recognise 'that it is a mark of tyrannical regimes that they seek to destroy the careers of those who challenge them' and for the union to refuse to take part in any disciplinary action against medics convicted of 'forms of civil disobedience which do not involve violence to the person'. The moves follow a series of high-profile court cases that have seen doctors sanctioned for taking part in climate activism. In January, Dr Sarah Benn lost an appeal against the suspension of her medical license after she was jailed for breaching a court order by taking part in climate protests. She took part in three Just Stop Oil protests at an oil terminal in Warwickshire in 2022 before being suspended from practising for five months by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in April 2024. Dr Benn, who had worked in Birmingham and has since retired, sought to challenge the tribunal's findings at the High Court. However, a judge rejected her case after concluding she 'intended to act in a way that did not meet the standards of behaviour to be expected of a doctor'. Also in January, Dr Patrick Hart was jailed for a year after being found guilty of causing criminal damage after damaging petrol pumps with a hammer and chisel at an M25 service station. In total, 16 fuel pumps at Thurrock Motorway Services, in Grays, Essex, were attacked by Hart on Aug 24, 2022. When the doctor is released from prison, he will face a tribunal after being referred for a disciplinary hearing by his medical regulator, the General Medical Council. A spokesman for the GMC said at the time that Dr Hart was not currently suspended. Before he was sentenced, Dr Hart told the court: 'Right now, the greatest health threat to all of us is the unfolding climate catastrophe. 'It is the greatest health threat we have ever faced. All healthcare workers have a responsibility to protect the health of their patients. 'If we do not stand up to the oil and gas executives who are wreaking havoc on our climate and the politicians who enable them, if we do not end the burning of fossil fuels, then we will have failed as a profession and the health systems that we have developed over centuries will collapse. 'I will continue to fight against the death sentence of fossil fuels for as long as I have strength in me. I have no greater duty as a doctor at this moment in history.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
NHS survey overstates mental health crisis in children, say experts
A leading consultant has criticised official data that claims that more than one in five school children has mental health problems as 'nuts' and 'pernicious'. A new report by the Department for Education on the rise in pupils not attending school links it to increased levels of mental illness among young people. It cites NHS data showing that 21 per cent of children aged eight to 16 have a 'probable mental health problem'. The figure has been widely publicised and is part of the justification for the government's policy to put councillors in every secondary school. But experts warn that the calculation is based on 'subjective' questionnaire data and could be exaggerating the prevalence of mental health issues among young people. The Strengths and Difficulties survey used in the NHS data gives children multiple choice questions on their emotional state, concentration levels, conduct and relationships to assess their mental wellbeing. Pupils are asked questions such as: 'Have you recently felt capable of making decisions about things?'; 'Have you recently felt that you are playing a useful part in things?' and 'Do you sometimes feel anxious in certain situations?'. Response options are 'not true', 'somewhat true', or 'certainly true'. Children who score 17 or above out of 40 are recorded as having 'probable mental health problems'. However, Professor Dr Joanna Moncrieff, an academic at University College London and a practising psychiatrist for the NHS, has questioned the method and the labelling of children as mentally ill. 'Anyone scoring above the average in this survey is deemed to have a probable mental health problem – I mean that's nuts,' she told The Telegraph. 'It is a really good illustration of how misleading this whole mental health debate can be. Saying that the reason children are not going to school is because of mental health problems is oversimplifying to the extent that you are not saying anything. By saying it is a mental health problem, you think you've explained it, but you really haven't.' Dennis Hayes, a professor of education at Derby University and co-author of The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, described the data method as 'shoddy' and 'crude'. 'It is as bad as the little questionnaires in OKAY magazine,' he said. 'I went through some of those questions. One is 'do you sometimes feel anxious in certain situations?' Yes, all the time! So, I don't think this is the way to proceed.' Prof Hayes said children and adults are being taught to see normal anxieties as ' mental health problems '. 'Multiple choice surveys merely confirm a cultural belief that we are all unwell,' he said. 'It's a terrible and destructive thing. It creates introverted children and young people who can't cope.' Prof Moncrieff said labelling children can limit them: 'People think they've found an explanation, but they haven't; they have just acquired a label and labels can be really pernicious because they limit you,' she said. 'You think 'I have this thing, therefore I can't possibly do this and I can't possibly do that'. It is really worrying.' Another academic, Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent, argued that children who registered concern about their lives, or the state of the world, were not necessarily exhibiting signs of mental illness. 'What used to be called problems of life, problems of existence, are now framed in the language of psychology, and we tend to medicalise our personal problems,' he said. 'So, we no longer have shy people; we have people with social phobia. We no longer have kids who are just very energetic; we have ADHD. We are inciting young people to feel unwell. To me, the mental health industry is actually complicit in creating a mental health problem.' Long waiting lists Concerns have also been raised that the data method, and others like it, could be leading to a crisis in the already overstretched Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), leaving referrals with the most serious mental health conditions stuck on long waiting lists. Almost one million children and young people had active referrals for CAMHS in England, figures from 2022-23 show. A third were on waiting lists, while 40 per cent had their referral closed before accessing support. Nearly 40,000 children experienced waits of at least two years. The most common reason for a referral for mental health treatment was cited as anxiety. 'I don't work with children, but we have quite a lot of young people coming through from CAMHS and we are absolutely overwhelmed with referrals,' said Prof Moncrieff. 'I would say anecdotally that there are people coming through who are less unwell (than in the past). Then we have the whole question of how we help; is it really helpful or might it be harmful? I don't think it is a good thing for lots of people to be on antidepressants or other forms of drug treatment.' Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, has pledged to provide school counsellors in all secondary schools in England. Campaigners say this does not go far enough and want mental health professionals at primary level too. But Prof Moncrieff said the move could have unintended negative consequences. 'The worry is that they could end up identifying and labelling more kids and sending them off to CAMHS,' she said. 'The best case scenario is counsellors reduce the need because pupils have someone to talk to and that helps. But I do worry that we have such a mental health-obsessed culture now that most people think they are doing the right thing by labelling children and referring them.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Diane Abbott is both an old Leftie and a true Tory
Whenever MPs legislate some monstrosity, we are often assured that the debate reflected 'the House of Commons at its best', as though an odious bill is rendered less odious by everyone having observed parliamentary niceties. Anyone seeking such solace after the approval of Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will have a search on their hands. Friday's debate only confirmed what a wretched, incurious and insubstantial Parliament we have, with few exceptions. One of them is Diane Abbott, the Mother of the House. She used her allotted time to make one final plea to her colleagues not to take the NHS into the killing business. It was a speech both practical and humanist but marked above all by scepticism. Abbott lodged no religious objection. She is not, she pointed out, implacably opposed to assisted suicide; she simply could not vote for such a dangerously flawed piece of legislation. Abbott spoke a language Leadbeater displays no fluency in: doubt. She told MPs she 'would not put my life, or the life of anyone dear to me, in the hands of a panel of officials'. As for those who asserted that assisted suicide would always be voluntary, she accused the Bill's supporters of failing to consider people primed to defer to authority, who would 'think that, because their doctor raises it with them at all, they are being guided in that direction'. Pro-suicide MPs might not 'take seriously' such concerns but 'anyone who knows how institutions work should be watchful of it'. Here was a socialist warning against excessive deference to public sector bureaucrats and sainted NHS doctors. She showed an up-close understanding of the state's flaws that could only come from someone who has spent a career advocating state intervention. There is no conservative like an old Leftie. The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington says she came into politics with hopes of being 'a voice for the voiceless'. Who, she asked her colleagues to imagine, 'could be more voiceless than somebody who is in their sick bed and believes that they are dying?' We all probably know someone who doesn't want to make a fuss or be a burden on their loved ones. 'Within the family,' Abbott said, 'the most powerful coercion is silence: it is the failure to answer when a question is put'. How many people will fall silent and go along with what they imagine to be in the best interests of the people around them? We are about to find out. What we can take a guess at is the demographic profile of those who will respond in this way. It will be older women, socialised to put their husband and children first. Women from minority religious and ethnic backgrounds, communities where it is traditional for men to do the talking and the decision-making and for women to be talked to and have final decisions presented to them. Such people exist beyond the ken of a House of Commons populated by privileged graduate professionals, those who, in Abbott's words, 'have for the entirety of their adult life been confident in dealing with authority and institutions'. What about those who don't share that confidence? When you legislate with only Esther Rantzen in mind, you're going to overlook a lot of people. Diane Abbott didn't just give a good speech. MPs give good speeches all the time. She took a stand at an hour of great moral failing and made the case for social conscience at a time of personal vanity. When a future Parliament comes to reckon with what this Parliament has done, it will look back with contempt upon a fit of callousness posing as compassion.
