Afternoon:
14°c
The daughter of the GP who is being investigated over the death of Baby P has spoken out for the first time in defence of her father.
Ifeoma Ikwueke, 26, said her “kind and gentle” father Jerome is an easy target and has been made a scapegoat.
Dr Ikwueke, 63, saw baby Peter 15 times before his death in August 2007. He was the first medic to raise the alarm, but is being investigated by the General Medical Council over whether he could have blown the whistle sooner.
The father of six from Haringey is suspended and could be struck off if the GMC finds evidence of gross misconduct.
Ms Ikwueke, who also works as a doctor in a London hospital, said: “It seems it is the NHS against one man. So much has been printed about my father and implicated him in a light that is untrue. He is too kind and gentle a man to retaliate, so they have stripped him of a practice he has spent the last 20 years building without any evidence he did anything wrong.
“He has been targeted as someone who no matter what must be punished.” She said she decided to speak out after judges ruled that Jason Owen, a lodger in Baby P's home when he died, could be free in two years.
Owen lived with Baby P's mother Tracey Connelly and lover Steven Barker in Haringey for five weeks before Peter's death. Speaking about her father, Ms Ikwueke said: “Was it his job to take that poor baby into our house, because that is all he did not do.”
Describing the ordeal as “emotionally draining”, she added: “My father is a very easy target. He has not said anything to anyone about all of this. He believes in goodness and that if you haven't done anything wrong nothing bad will happen to you.”
In an open letter to her father, sent to the Standard, Ms Ikwueke wrote: “You, like many pure souls before you, are persecuted not for anything you have done, but because of the anger, guilt and fear that breeds in the hearts of those seeking blame.
“People are so deeply saddened in their own lives that they look outside of themselves for the cause of their problems.”
She said that she was “paralysed by disbelief, anger and fear” as her father was investigated.
She added: “You feel very powerless. You watch this happening to someone who has done so much for you your entire life.
Reader views (16)
I don't believe anyone involved was innocent except baby Peter himself! too many people failed him! the social workers should be the 2nd to blame after the parent and her pathetic excuse of a man! get with it people this shouldn't happen!!!!
- Amy Marzolf, lees summit, mo
Smfh - The police did not advise social services to send him home, they wanted him kept in care but social services overuled them. The reason why the police were involved and aware? Because this doctor raised the alarm.
- Sally, Sheffield
I completely agree with her. He was the only professional in this sad case who actually did try and get some help for baby P, he warned people but the other professionals he warned who were supposed to take over from there messed up. He sent him to hospital with a full alert for child abuse, the hospital ignored this and sent him back home.
I think people calling for him to be sacked haven't actually read the full story and are just having a knee jerk reaction without all the facts. He was the one person who tried to help him and he's being punished, it's so unfair.
- Sally, Sheffield
Blame the three who abused him! Where is the rightful sentence for them?! They knew what they were doing. The justice system in this country needs major change!!!
- Micheal Dale, cambridge uk
@ frank
He did not send the baby away with a broken back, he referred the baby to hospital (citing a 'full alert', by the way) which is all a G.P can do. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a G.P's surgery and Hospital?
This 'incompetent professional' has been practising in the UK for 20+ years without a single blemish to his name.
In case you forgot he actually raised the initial alarm on baby p!
- Cn, london,uk
what I can't understand is the term "at risk register" How can we stand by and let so called professional people put defenceless young children onto such a register?
- Maddy, Gedney Drove End UK
I'm sure he will get off, it's the GMC not the Law Society who seem to take the public interest to insane levels.
- Sidney, West London
Frank. Home Counties.
This very good, well respected GP did not send Peter home with a broken back.
He raised concerns regarding Peter to the relevant authorities when he had occasion to examime him at another time, well befor Peter was failed to be examined by another doctor, in a different place. because that doctor 'deemed' Peter to be 'too cranky' to be examined !
That doctor missed the oportunity to discover that poor peter had a 'broken' back.
Peter's mother was probably going from doctor to doctor because she was trying to hide the reality that Peter had sustained injuries time and time again and she didn't want the fact that the injuries were the result of him being 'attacked' by his abuser, (or abusers) to be exposed.
People who abuse children are very devious and very clever at playing the system in order to hide what is happening to the children !
- Darnthesafetynet, London W11 1NR
@ Frank
"He sent the poor child away with a broken back for gods sake!"
Does your local GP have an X-ray machine in his/her Surgery??? If not, then they usually REFER you to hospital - it was at HOSPITAL that this injury was missed...
"No, an incredibly incompetent medical 'professional' whose license to practise in this country should be revoked immediately."
Please explain on what basis you would revoke his license, as I for one would be interested to know.
- James, Scotland, GB
@ Smb, London, UK
".. refered Peter for further investigation." (referred)?
He sent the poor child away with a broken back for gods sake!
".. an easy target and has been made a scapegoat."
No, an incredibly incompetent medical 'professional' whose license to practise in this country should be revoked immediately.
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
Can someone explain to me, why is this man still being targeted!? As a GP what else was he meant to do! If a GP's suspects abuse all they are allowed to do(by law) is alert the social services and the police. He did both, and the police advised social services that the child should not be returned back to his mother! But he was....
And yet this doctor is still to blame??
It seems that the one person out of all this that might have actually done his job properly may still be being punished while the man who actually killed Peter gets out of jail (with a brand new identity and protection to boot)! How is that justice....
- Smfh, London, UK
It is wrong to blame the doctor.
It is wrong to blame the social worker.
It is wrong to blame the lodger.
It is wrong to blame the mother.
I have read arguments minimising of denying the responsibility of almost every party involved in the death of baby Peter.
A defenceless infant was tortured to death by sadist adults while the whole range of state services failed to prevent this. But none of those involved are willing to admit that they are in part responsible.
No-one is willing to accept accountability. And that is why this country is becoming a broken society.
- Danny, London
Is his daughter then a fully qualified doctor or social worker? Is she in possession of exculpatory evidence or was she simply there on every occasion, she seems very sure that her father is innocent. I find it very bizarre then that the GMC feel that they can make a case against him and I'm sure if this young lady were to give all of the evidence she obviously has to the GMC then all the charges would be dropped. No?
- Bob, Cheam
Many of US who have had the terrible EXPERIENCE of having to report the 'seen' abuse of children, to the relevant authorities, fully understand how it was possible for Peter to be enabled to be slowly tortured to death whilst being OVERLOOKED by the responsible child protection people.
We understand why so many IDENTIFIED being abused children are UNABLE to access any decent, effective child protection ability within the Child Protection System as it is set-up and working, ON A NATIONAL LEVEL at this moment !
- Darnthesafetynet, London W11 1NR
The buck stops at Haringey Child Protection Unit.
They were aware that Baby Peter was at risk.
The doctor had raised and reported concerns regarding Baby Peter to the SS.
The neighbours had raised concerns regarding the goings-on in Baby Peter's household to the police and the SS.
The dog in this houshold had been complained about to the relevant authorities.
The fact that everyone in the SS, who had direct contact with Peter, during a reported 60 or so visits didn't seem to 'see' any signs that Peter was suffering is plain astounding and begs the question..Just what sort of child protection expertise was in practice during the many visits to Peter?
Then there is the Peter was covered in chocolate thing so that the injuries on him were not visable!
Enough. Child Protection Ability was obviously NOT IN PRACTICE by Haringey Child Protection Unit, in the case of the slow 'overlooked' torturing to death of baby Peter !
- Darnthesafetynet, London W11 1NR
I totally agree with Ms Ikwueke that her father is being targeted needlessly. He should be praised at the fact that he was one of the few professionals who questioned what was being said to him by Tracey Connelly and refered Peter for further investigation. An injured child does not automatically mean an abused child, and yet he questioned what he was presented with. How could he have acted sooner if Peter was not taken to him each time he was injured.
It is disgraceful to put this respectable GP under enormous stress and media attention when the likes of Jason Owen, who was in the house witnessing events is to be allowed a lenient sentence.
Stay strong Dr Ikwueke - your good name will be cleared.
- Smb, London, UK
