Bristol barrister Sarah Phillimore seeks to promote herself as the “go to” legal spokeswoman on child protection issues. She runs a website called Child Protection Resource. This showcases her blogs on child protection issues.
She has two Twitter handles @SVPhillimore and @C_P_Resource.
She also blogs and tweets on behalf of a charity with which she is involved, called the Transparency Project @seethrujustice
She has tweeted about her two abortions, as well as referring to her daughter by a now discontinued relationship with a man in Australia.
But Phillimore has a different, indeed a dark side to her. She makes things up, and falsely accuses others.
She attacked me on Twitter late in 2017, for example, sending me a tweet of a pixellated picture:
Phillimore falsely claimed that the picture in question – which she has deliberately blurred – is of “a dead baby with skull trauma”. I have no idea why she sought to involve me, as the post of which she complains has nothing to do with me.
She also pretended that this was a picture of an “identifiable baby with its skull caved in”, when it wasn’t.
Now, let’s make some things clear. I did not post that picture. Phillimore – for reasons best known to herself – tagged me in to a dispute that she was having, with the person who did post it.
The key point to note however, is that Phillimore is lying for effect.
The photo was not of “a dead baby with skull trauma”. Phillimore’s claims are untrue. The baby is not identifiable. Its skull is not “caved in”. But because she has deliberately manipulated the image, to prevent you seeing it as it really is, she is being doubly deceptive.
The unmanipulated picture is of a baby with good skin colour, and some unfortunate skin lesions, who appears to be asleep. The lesions are caused by neonatal herpes: a serious condition, but not fatal.
That is very far removed from a “skull caved in”. Such injuries in a newborn would be horrific.
No reputable medical journal would publish photographs of such injuries.
Phillimore, who has had a live baby herself, must have known that she was talking nonsense.
The condition of neonatal herpes is, of course, treated as serious by those providing maternity care. The photograph is from a reputable medical source (see link below). It references recent medical research on the subject. That research found no dead babies.
When I became aware of Phillimore’s extravagant and dishonest assertions about this photograph, I spent seven minutes on Google and found the research in question.
So why should a family law barrister publish such damaging and untenable claims about matters which she was evidently not willing to check herself?
Draw your own conclusions.