Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Ayaan Haroon’s Family Statement This statement will be read in full. If that cannot happen, this meeting has no purpose. It is 30 minutes long, and you are expected to listen to every word. There will be no interruptions, no excuses, and no attempts to condense or summarise. You are here to hear the unvarnished truth of what has been done to our family and to Ayaan. Anything less than full attention is a continuation of the failures, cover ups, and disregard that have brought us here. Due to the distressing nature of this statement, it will be read aloud on our behalf to ensure it is delivered fully, verbatim, and without interference. Sheffield Children’s Hospital has never existed for our family when it mattered. From the very moment Ayaan needed lifesaving care, every system, every policy, and every socalled process failed him. Leadership abandoned him—and abandoned his bereaved family. Clinicians ignored him. And yet, after years of raising concerns, after thousands of pounds raised for this hospital, after countless formal requests for accountability, your own Trust clinicians now want the doors to be formally shut. How convenient. How wonderfully efficient that your priority has always been reputation over reality, optics over obligation, and selfprotection over the life of a child. Our grief and our anger have been treated as bureaucratic inconveniences, politely ignored until they became inconvenient for your own media narrative. Bravo. The Chief Executive, Ruth Brown, graciously decided it was finally convenient to meet us 14 months after Ayaan’s death. The Medical Director followed suit a whole 21 months later—truly a masterclass in including bereaved families in this complaints “process.” The ICB, when they eventually deigned to meet us, only did so after Oliver Coppard wrote twice, showing yet again no genuine willingness to engage unless someone else forced your hand. And Niche In three years, they have only managed one meeting with us. Even with our MP in the room today, the record is indisputable family involvement was never a priority—except when it suited the Trust. How thoughtful of you to treat grief as optional, attendance as conditional, and truth as negotiable. Today, Ruth Brown and Yvonne Millard are only sitting in this room because Sir Jim Mackey told them to. He had previously written to a Minister of the Crown on 20 October, making a promise he apparently forgot. This meeting was allowed to drift for months, ignored, delayed, and left to languish, until media scrutiny finally pried both him and the Trust’s executives out of their offices. Even now, their presence is reactive, not voluntary—a stunning display of how seriously you take the suffering of Ayaan and the distress of his family. That position now forces a question that this Trust’s executive leadership must answer today on what basis do you believe communication or engagement with you should continue at all, given the catalogue of failures, concealment, and institutional conduct that cost Ayaan his life The burden of trust cannot rest with a leadership team that has repeatedly chosen selfinterest over child safety, that has obstructed, delayed, and denied basic accountability for over three years. This complaint was initiated only because, days after Ayaan’s death, more than one of your own clinicians contacted me. They stated clearly that his death was unexpected. They strongly advised us to speak to the media. They urged us to seek urgent legal advice from Irwin Mitchell Solicitors. And they warned—within days—that Trust executives would seek to conceal the failings in Ayaan’s care. That prediction has been borne out, despite continued efforts by those in this room to maintain the façade of competence and control. Predictable. Convenient. Tragic. What has compounded our distress is that the lack of independence in this process was not accidental—it was deliberate. In May 2023, when we formally requested an alternative investigation provider, we were issued with an ultimatum by Karen Conway of NHS England, stated explicitly in writing if we did not accept Niche, we would be excluded from the investigation entirely. This was not a freely made decision. It was coercion. This was institutional bullying disguised as policy. This ultimatum was issued despite us explaining that our concerns were informed by the experience of another bereaved family—the family of Yusuf Nazir, whose child’s death had also been investigated by Niche and later found to have been the subject of a coverup. It was issued despite there being at least 15 other accredited investigation providers available at the time. The message was clear speak up, and you are out. Accept the handpicked investigator, and you will have your voice—but only if it aligns with ours. I immediately escalated this in writing to the Trust’s executive leadership, setting out the seriousness of what was being imposed on us. No executive responded. That silence was not neutral—it was the first clear sign that a coverup was being allowed to take root. By failing to intervene, the Trust accepted and enabled this ultimatum. The insistence on proceeding in this way fundamentally undermined any claim to independence from the outset and set the tone for everything that followed exclusion, defensiveness, and institutional selfprotection over truth. Our concerns about Niche were not speculative. They were grounded in evidence. Freedom of Information disclosures show that Niche has been commissioned for 152 out of 265 NHS investigations over the last ten years. Such concentration is no accident—it is reckless, complacent, and insulting. It raises profound questions not about learning, but about whose reputations are being protected. A system that repeatedly returns to the same provider—even after multiple bereaved families have exposed serious failings, misconduct, and coverups—cannot plausibly claim to offer independent scrutiny. To call this an “investigation” is almost comical it is a charade, a revolvingdoor exercise in selfprotection, dressed up as due process, while families are left to pick up the pieces of lives shattered by predictable failures. Quite frankly, anyone can verify this for themselves. A simple search of Niche Health and Social Care Consulting reveals a catalogue of controversy, repeated criticism from bereaved families, and a mounting trail of investigations that have been challenged, dismissed, or whitewashed. Against this backdrop, the NHS’s continued, preferential use of Niche is not merely questionable—it is an indefensible abdication of responsibility. It is a conscious choice to prioritise reputation over truth, and a slap in the face to every family who has been let down. As a family, we were thrust into a process that was clearly designed not to investigate, learn, or protect children, but to shield the organisation and paper over catastrophic failures. It was a performance for appearances, a stage set to protect careers, while our child’s suffering and our grief were treated as inconvenient distractions. We were also warned by a consultant within this organisation that reports would be sanitised before publication, that inconvenient findings would be conveniently reframed as historical, and that our participation would be harvested for reputational gain. That warning has haunted us because it has been borne out in every interaction, every document, and every statement since. This is confirmation from within the organisation itself that clinicians recognise the corrosive culture of coverup that dominates the Trust. The same patterns of delay, minimisation, and deflection continued with Aroob’s care. Independent clinicians raised urgent, evidencebased concerns and even provided an addendum designed to strengthen safeguards. Yet responses were delayed for months, repeatedly ignored despite chasing, and ultimately twisted into diluted assurances. This only confirms what we have long feared the Trust has not changed at all. When faced with challenge, even where a child’s life hangs in the balance, this organisation chooses protection of itself over protection of patients. We have also endured conduct that goes far beyond mere disagreement—it was intimidation, plain and simple. Requests for professional registration details of clinicians supporting us resulted in formal ceaseanddesist letters. This created a chilling effect not only for our family but for anyone who dared to advocate alongside us. This was never about patient safety or governance it was about control, silencing, and protecting reputations. It forces the stark question how genuinely open is this organisation to scrutiny when children’s lives are at stake Senior leaders have repeatedly offered the language of engagement and transparency—but words have been hollow. Too often, those assurances dissolved when scrutiny intensified, leaving actions delayed and meetings arranged only after pressure. This pattern confirms what we have long feared engagement was never principled, never genuine, and entirely reactive. Trust has been eroded not by our questioning, but by your selective, selfserving responses. What makes this particularly painful is that, despite enduring neglect, obstruction, and intimidation, we have continued to act in good faith. We supported this hospital publicly and raised thousands for its work. That stark contrast—between our integrity and the evasive, selfprotective conduct of those in positions of authority—exposes moral bankruptcy at the top. I am here to place on record a direct challenge to the executives of this Trust. Given the catalogue of failures, concealment, and badfaith conduct set out in this statement, the burden now rests with you. You must explain why any further communication or engagement with your executive leadership should continue at all. On what basis do you assert that trust, accountability, or integrity exist to justify further engagement Ayaan was failed. He lost his life because of catastrophic, preventable failures in his care. On 5 March 2023, he arrived in Accident Emergency with oxygen saturations of 83 and a PEWS score of 7. Your own internal policy required immediate consultant review and 15minute observations. Instead, your clinicians carried out hourly observations. Impressive. You ignored the very early warning signs designed to save his life—and, in doing so, ensured it was lost. The window between 5 March and 8 March was a relentless series of ignored warnings. During these 72 hours, there were 17 nursing referrals for urgent medical review. On 17 separate occasions, bedside nurses raised the alarm about his deteriorating respiratory distress. On all 17 occasions, the medical team failed to act. Seventeen missed opportunities to save my son’s life. Seventeen precise moments when escalation to ICU could have made the difference. Seventeen deliberate failures. Seventeen decisions that apparently deemed it acceptable for him to die. He was a disabled boy treated as a burden by your clinicians, who allowed him to die while withholding every lifesaving treatment available. The handovers on Ward 4 were nothing short of catastrophic for Ayaan. Each shift change should have been a lifeline—a moment to communicate concerns, highlight deterioration, and plan urgent action. Instead, his worsening condition, including dangerously low oxygen saturations and a PEWS score of 7, was ignored or lost in chaotic, ineffective handovers. No one flagged him as critically unwell. No one ensured he was prioritised. Vital information about his respiratory distress never reached the right people. In those handovers, Ayaan’s life was treated as invisible, minute by minute. The very system meant to protect him became a conveyor belt of neglect, leaving him exposed to preventable harm at every turn. And instead of acknowledging these failures, this Trust has spent three years covering up, whitewashing, sanitising, and gaslighting us, dismissing over 500 concerns we raised. You treated our grief not as a tragedy demanding reflection, but as a problem to manage. Bravo. Absolutely exemplary leadership. For three years, this Trust has defended itself with a story that collapses under scrutiny. Your own commissioned investigator admits, in the Niche report, that “most of the data appertaining to Ayaan’s care went on to the systems after the complaint.” While Ayaan was alive, there were no meaningful contemporaneous records. Only after he died—only after our formal complaint and media attention—did detailed accounts suddenly appear, written retrospectively from memory. This is not documentation it is a coverup in plain sight. This conduct constitutes a flagrant breach of the Trust’s statutory Duty of Candour. Once serious harm and death were known, the Trust was legally obliged to provide truthful, timely, and complete information. Instead, it chose deception supplying misleading and evershifting explanations that only changed when scrutiny intensified. This was not oversight it was a calculated institutional response designed to protect reputations over a child’s life. This failure is compounded by the Trust’s complete inability—or unwillingness—to preserve evidence. Following Ayaan’s death, no immediate steps were taken to secure contemporaneous clinical records or lock audit trails. Digital forensic metadata shows that many records were created or exported in 2024—over a year after Ayaan died. These are not contemporaneous accounts they are retroactive reconstructions. Verbal warnings that should have been documented at the time are entirely missing. Disturbingly, some medical records were later found unsigned in senior leadership offices. This is not mere administrative failure it is a fundamental collapse of clinical governance, overseen by the very executives present here today. Memories that were precise when they protected the Trust, yet conveniently “faded” the moment accountability for Ayaan became unavoidable. Remarkable. Selective recollection seems to operate not in the service of his care, but in safeguarding institutional reputation. The narrative pushed by Niche—that Ayaan died because of a “lifelimiting condition”—has been definitively disproven by your own Immunology team. They were conveniently never shown the draft report until we intervened. How convenient that the very clinicians whose accounts were critical were excluded from the Niche draft until you were caught out. They confirmed that Niche misinterpreted a basic research paper back to front. If Niche cannot interpret a basic research paper correctly, it discredits the entire investigation. At that point, the only appropriate course of action would have been for Ruth Brown to recognise this fundamental failure and immediately seek an Independent Patient Safety investigation. Instead, the Trust proceeded as if nothing had happened, leaving Ayaan’s family to contend with a pseudoreport that conceals catastrophic failings. This is not science it is whitewashed pseudoevidence, cynically deployed to excuse neglect. Furthermore, on 10 March 2023, Ayaan was randomised into the invasive PRESSURE study without our informed consent. Internal emails reveal that the Trust’s leadership and executives were fully aware at the time that consent had not been obtained. Their priority was not patient safety or legal compliance—it was media optics. No lawful justification was ever provided for enrolling Ayaan. This was not an isolated incident. We now know that two children died in ICU following the PRESSURE study, and in neither case were the parents informed at the time. One was Yusuf Nazir the other was Ayaan Haroon, with both deaths being covered up by the Trust leadership and Niche. This demonstrates a shocking and systemic pattern of disregard for parental rights and the fundamental ethics that should govern paediatric care. The very people entrusted with safeguarding children were, instead, complicit in exposing them to unnecessary harm. You handpicked Niche—an investigator of your choosing—to deliver the outcome you wanted. A hospital that fails a patient does not get to investigate its own failings. That is not independence. That is a coverup, plain and simple. That is marking your own homework. Niche claimed to have paediatric experience in reality, they had conducted only one paediatric investigation out of 152 over the last 10 years—the case of Yusuf Nazir, which Wes Streeting has publicly described as whitewashed. Their complete lack of relevant experience, coupled with the conflict of interest you engineered, fatally undermines any claim that this investigation could be fair. In nearly three years, Niche met with us only once, yet repeatedly issued public statements claiming to “care” about our family. Those statements were lies—blatant and performative. I explicitly instructed them not to use Ayaan’s name in the media. They did so anyway. After credible threats were made to my phone last February, Niche made no attempt to contact us at all. This was never about investigation. It was entirely about institutional protection and sanitising a narrative that exposed catastrophic failures. In recorded meetings, Cathy Winfield explicitly stated that the Trust “owns” this report and will decide what is included. In other words, she admitted the Trust will sanitise the report before it is ever shared with us. This is a blatant confirmation that the investigation was never intended to be independent. We also place on record a deeply uncomfortable truth thirtyeight white individuals have investigated our concerns, and not a single Muslim investigator has been involved at any stage. Every review has been filtered entirely through a white lens, with no meaningful understanding of our cultural or lived experience. Your own Child Death Review minutes contain racial profiling, falsely asserting that English is not parents’ first language and that we were refugees. No referral to the Muslim chaplaincy was ever made. This complete absence of cultural representation evidences institutional racism—systemic, pervasive, and deliberately ignored. The repeated erasure of Muslim families from investigative processes demonstrates a deliberate avoidance of accountability. The impact on our family is permanent. My wife will not meet with you. She cannot sit in the same room as the leadership team, led personally by Ruth Brown, who ignored her for 14 months after our child died and then actively orchestrated the coverup. Our daughters have suffered deeply. Aroob asks us regularly, “Will the nurses and doctors kill me too” She is now forced to live under a system where the very clinicians who let Ayaan down—Dr Fernando and Dr Flemons—are still permitted to treat her. None of those responsible have faced accountability. They continue to practise, unrepentant and unchallenged. The culture you have embedded in this Trust is unmistakable you harm patients, issue glowing apologies, pat the very clinicians who failed them on the back, and send those same individuals straight back to work. In any other profession, these people would face disciplinary action. Here, they are shielded, and children like Aroob are still expected to place their lives in their hands. Our daughters once dreamed of careers in healthcare. Those ambitions have been extinguished. They witnessed police at our door. They witnessed threats to have their father sectioned—threats made by a Trust Solicitor who had no medical authority to make such a judgment. They saw the deliberate destruction of our family’s livelihood. They will never work for the NHS. That tragic outcome rests squarely at the feet of this Trust and its leadership. Threats of sectioning and questioning our fitness as parents were not safeguarding—they were intimidation, abuse, and a profound misuse of power. Evidence shows that psychological support for our family was deliberately withheld until the Trust’s solicitor, Marilyn Whittle, granted permission. This was not care—it was control. It was organisational abuse masquerading as safeguarding. Given the sustained harm and badfaith conduct, the responsibility now rests with the executives of this Trust to explain why any continued communication would be safe, lawful, or meaningful. This is a direct challenge to those in authority to justify how trust could plausibly exist. These behaviours reflect a continuing, systemic danger to every child treated by this Trust. We are also expected to tolerate the Trust’s absurd fixation on taxis. I was falsely accused of covertly recording Trust staff in a licensed taxi, as though I were running a clandestine MI5 operation. The vehicle had approved CCTV installed explicitly for my protection, in response to the hostility and threats being directed at me. This was not covert surveillance. It was lawful, declared, and deliberately misrepresented to entrap and discredit me. The dishonesty from leadership is complete. Both the Chief Nurse, Yvonne Millard, and the Trust’s solicitor, Stephanie Kennedy, explicitly stated that no Ultrasound or Echocardiogram was performed on Ayaan on 8 March. That position was stated clearly. Yet the Niche report later introduced a new claim that the clinician suddenly “regained his memory” and asserted an ultrasound had, in fact, been performed—but conveniently “forgotten.” This is a shifting, implausible, and deceptive narrative constructed to obscure the truth. Medical records went missing then returned after a year. An example nursing charts from Ayaan’s admission in November 2022 were missing until February 2024. When they finally arrived they stated his date of death as 13 March 2023, his age as 6 years old—sadly he didn’t live to see his sixth birthday—and that he was on an inactive ward when he was actually on Ward 4. Yet Niche stated these charts were “inauthentic,” despite everyone who saw them questioning themselves has NHS science evolved so much that they can predict someone’s death 121 days in advance This is an example of the Trust’s deception withholding, altering, and finally delivering records in a way designed to distort the truth. Delay, obstruction, and misrepresentation have defined this entire process. It took fourteen months for the Chief Executive to meet us. Meanwhile, our daughters were tirelessly raising thousands of pounds for this hospital. Internally, however, discussions among executives focused not on learning, but on managing us and the media attention. Caring for children apparently came second protecting reputations came first. Even after Ayaan died, there was a deliberate attempt to erase him. When I asked whether Aroob could plant flowers for her brother in the memorial garden, we were told no—citing supposed “renovations.” Two years later, nothing has been touched. This is calculated indifference, a refusal to acknowledge the child whose life your clinicians failed. We also place on record the hostility shown towards our family in public and charitable settings. Geoff Padmore raised internal concerns about our attendance at the snowflake switchon—not over logistics, but because we were present as a family and I might speak to the media. You were happy to accept our donation, but did not want us at the switchon. Ayaan’s clinicians at the Sleep House generously paid for a planter to remember him and wanted his name engraved. The Trust denied this, offering the flimsy excuse that it “might upset us.” Senior Muslim figures reached out directly to Ruth Brown and received identical, copyandpaste replies. Genuine dialogue was clearly never intended. Aroob is living proof that the narrative used to excuse Ayaan’s death is false. She lives with the exact same condition—and she is thriving. Ayaan did not die because of his diagnosis. He died because of catastrophic, preventable failures in care. We are now being told to redirect our concerns to the PHSO—as if we are “not your problem anymore.” Let me be clear redirecting us does not erase the harm or the negligence. Attempts to wash your hands of accountability cannot undo the suffering inflicted on our family. We are escalating evidence of retrospective records, distorted science, investigator misconduct, intimidation, harassment, threats of sectioning, institutional racism, and deliberate coverup directly to the Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting. Every failure and every deception will be laid bare. What is set out here represents only the tip of the iceberg of a vicious witchhunt designed to silence us, protect the Trust, the ICB, and Niche, and erode trust in families’ voices. There is no meaningful dialogue through the ICB any longer due to their harassment. Oversight must now be exercised directly by NHS England’s Chief Executive, Sir Jim Mackey. We retain the nonnegotiable right to access the full report prior to its publication. We also place you on notice that multiple journalists are already engaged and prepared to act immediately upon publication. Based on our review of the Niche draft, we can state with absolute conviction that the final version will be whitewashed. The moment such a report is released, the evidence of that coverup will be made public. We will not be silenced. Little Ayaan deserved care, attention, and compassion. Instead, he was met with neglect, delayed treatment, and indifference. The very clinicians entrusted with his life withheld lifesaving interventions and treated his suffering as an inconvenience. He deserved protection he received abandonment. He deserved advocacy he received bureaucracy. In every sense, Ayaan was failed by those who were meant to care for him. This statement is made in full view of our MP, with no attempt at private negotiation. This is the unvarnished truth, fully on the record. This meeting places the responsibility on Trust executive leadership to explain why engagement should continue in light of the evidence set out in this statement. Finally, we place on record this most serious position We no longer trust this Trust to keep Aroob safe. We require Great Ormond Street Hospital or Alder Hey Children’s Hospital to oversee every aspect of her care. This is not a preference—it is a nonnegotiable safeguard. If you refuse, we will escalate publicly again. You will not be allowed to place a second child at risk. Reconciliation is impossible until this Trust publicly admits its failings in Ayaan’s care. Had the Trust accepted its failings from the outset, we would not be sat here today with over 250 stakeholders who reached out to support us. Until then, there is nothing further to discuss. We remain committed to ensuring the right lessons are learned. We will continue to advocate for patient safety, to ensure no other child suffers as he did. Evidence confirms the dangers created by retrospective documentation and clinicians who continued to practise without accountability. This complaints process has become fundamentally distrustful and hostile. It is now for Trust leadership to explain how any further engagement could be justified. The right to receive the full report cannot be denied. Oversight must now come directly through Sir Jim Mackey. By refusing accountability, the legacy you leave is not one of learning or compassion. It is a legacy of coverups, lies, and betrayal of the very children you were meant to protect. You chose to protect reputations over lives. The failures that killed Ayaan, the obstruction, and the ongoing risks to Aroob will define your leadership far longer than any statement ever could. You will be remembered for what you allowed to happen, and for the harm you deliberately ignored. This is the truth, and it will follow your legacy forever. Ayaan’s suffering was buried, sanitised, and written out—but it did not disappear. His cries of pain, ignored by those we entrusted with his care, will linger in the corridors of Sheffield Children’s Hospital for generations to come. He was seen. His deterioration was witnessed. His pain was obvious. And yet those responsible looked the other way. They watched him struggle, they documented nothing in real time, and they allowed him to die. That moral failure does not fade with time, nor can it be erased by reports, policies, or carefully chosen words. And yet now, Ruth Brown, you speak of faith and reconciliation—language you have not spoken for nearly three years—raised only on the eve of a published report, when reputational damage looms. Let us be clear this is not repentance it is risk management. As a family, we assure you of this—we will not soften our voices, we will not restrain ourselves, and we will not collude in silence. We will call out, publicly and relentlessly, the coverup you have facilitated and the harm you have enabled. Any reputational damage that follows is not something you suffer unjustly it is something you have earned. Let us be perfectly clear every executive of this Trust has utterly forfeited the right to speak Ayaan’s name. After years of coverups, whitewashing, retrospective records, and deliberate attempts to erase his life from memory, any attempt to invoke Ayaan—verbally, in writing, in reports, in emails, or in any public or media statement—will be treated as a deliberate act of exploitation and badfaith misconduct. You have shown time and again that his name, his story, and his suffering were tools for your coverup and selfprotection. Legal action will be taken immediately against any such attempt. Ayaan is not yours to manipulate. He is not a narrative to be sanitized, a detail to be shifted, or a casualty to be repurposed for reputational management. Your repeated coverups, evasions, and institutional obfuscations have stripped you of any entitlement to even speak his name. You are permanently barred from using it in any context—public, private, or internal. This is nonnegotiable.