GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

The statement above says “this July a hearing is scheduled for the case to be heard by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).”

When is the Gender GP hearing? I have a feeling it's soon?

I think Helen is allowed to call herself Dr as she is still only suspended. At the next hearing she might be struck off, and then she and Mike have to remember if the £s are in Wales, in Spain, in Hong Kong, or in Belize.

Helen still uses the Dr on Twitter, and the mermaid pic.

“Dr” Webberley writes from the for-profit business she founded and which had to move offshore:
“I am saddened that you never felt professionally able to share your concerns with me”
Helen wants Sonia to be kind?

www.gendergp.com/open-letter-protect-trans-kids-helen-webberley/

Yet again I'm gobsmacked at how very clever people with years of training and letters after their name turn out to be so everyday petty and ordinary.

My worry is how much does the judge know about safeguarding?

Safeguarding is not just about 'outside' the organisation (eg parents) but also the behaviour of staff. How then can safeguarding work if everyone is chummy?

GR repeats that he has a strong relationship with the Dr McK and that is the cornerstone of good safeguarding

This is such a bizarre perspective. And yes, it demonstrates perfectly well why GIDS is in the mess it is. Because the only people who are welcome to work there are the ones who do not ever question anything, and do not raise any safeguarding issues.

What a mess. The place needs a full clear out.

So the Tavistock's argument was, well she started it and she also missed the deadline for starting proceedings, although then admit she didn't.

I think it's pertinent that Polly Carmichael thinks the division over clinical approach has been talked about too much in the proceedings. In my view it's the most important issue of all.

From reading all of this it seems to me that the undercurrent in all their work and relationships (inside and outside the service) is the split between believers and non-believers in trans ideology.

It's the same split between newly gender questioning adolescents and their shocked parents, between GC feminists and trans rights activists, between science and a new religion of biology.

It's the schism between believers and heretics and it is powerfully destructive.

My take - GIDS is an absolute car crash of a service failing vulnerable children, they have no robust procedures or data collection and operate on the basis of only speaking to or dealing with people that agree with them and toe their line. When challenged they either burst into tears or freeze out the person doing the challenging and make sure everyone else within their circle freezes them out too.

It's appalling, the whole thing should be shut down and started again from scratch with proper robust safeguards put in place, their job is NOT to just roll over or enthusiastically accept an ideology without question or caution. Disgraceful.

A full public enquiry and lawsuits will be the only way to end this shameful, horrendous abuse perpetrated on children.

The role of a person in a safeguarding role is to say no, to watch with a beady eye, to question everything. People who are good at safeguarding aren't popular, in my experience. They're seen as negative, over-cautious, as a brake on change, as party-poopers.

^ Absolutely this. I'm seen as an irritant at work, but that's not to say I don't get on with my health colleagues on a personal level.

My thoughts are this: Polly didn't want Sonia anywhere near the service because if she started to scratch the surface Sonia would have spotted issues and patterns that we know Gids doesn't like to track or draw attention too. We know from their own lack of data that these difficulties are skimmed over and that staff who don't toe the party line don't stick around. I don't know what on earth they're up to at Gids but with my safeguarding background and only from the snippets we've heard from the tribunal, my alarm bells are ringing loud and clear. Hats off to you Sonia, I don't know how you haven't exploded.

It seems extraordinary to me that safeguarding should come second to not upsetting people.

The whole point of safeguarding is that it should be outside the cosy framework of "collegiate" relationships. Everyone, absolutely everyone, should be regarded with suspicion, no one should be trusted, people should "be kept in the dark", negative views should be sought out and taken seriously.

Blindly and happily going along making sure not to upset anyone, not to infer that anyone might be doing anything wrong is the exact opposite of safeguarding.

You're absolutely right. I'm taking it that 'collegiate' just means pals, people who can get along easily together.

And this in an organisation where everyone involved seems to be psychologist and should understand that safeguarding requires difficult conversations and interventions. It comes back, yet again, to feelings and comfort. They need to call in an industrial psychologist to sort them out.

"...the reason (for going to Dr McK instead of Sonia) being I feel I have a more collegiate relationship with them. Dr Mck has spent a great deal of time with the team, attended away days, has really tried to understand the complexities of the work, the diversity of the views, the strengths of the team"

"GR repeats that he has a strong relationship with the Dr McK and that is the cornerstone of good safeguarding"

That really isn't the cornerstone of good safeguarding. The cornerstone of good safeguarding is accurate unbiased reporting and consideration of risks. And having clear reporting pathways.

YG questions the truth of when it was that claimant came across these [gids review] transcripts (40/41)

YG - I think it’s absolutely plain that they couldn’t have pleaded in that way unless she’d
had access to transcripts in December 2019.

What she said at the start of this hearing is that she couldn’t access them until January
and so couldn’t make the amendments to the claim… pleadings suggest that she was
aware of the transcripts in December 2019 – she should have taken steps to plead as
soon as she should.

YG - Forgive me wrt the Savile comments, I did misspeak because that manifestly is in
time

YG – we both have our interpretations of how you and your colleagues should consider
the evidence – and that is where the chips will fall.

In terms of the particular points AP raised, there is significant dispute about the
allegations that are made against Dr C; she was absolutely adamant that she'd never
lobbied against the claimant and in terms of continuing acts and unwritten rule that she
not receive referrals......the claimant herself conceded that it was Dr Senior then Dr
McKenna that tended to receive referrals in the first instance (from GIDS); there isn’t any evidence to suggest she had a high level of referrals at one stage and then it petered
out to nothing.

AP – (responding to documents being sent in December) ...It's not difficult to understand
that the email without attachments wld be put on file of counsel, it doesn’t occur to the claimant that she needs to refer details....Counsel drafting sees that email was received
on 15th December, assumes attachment was received with it, and mistake on their part
… the real issue is do you accept the claimant’s evidence that is what happened and it’s
for you to decide whether you accept that or not.

EJG – thank you for your submissions. Formally judgement is reserved, will be sent in writing to both parties and will endeavour to deal with it as quickly as we can.
“That concludes the hearing.”

END

[Hannah Barnes adds: (That's it folks. Off to ice my hands)]

AP - And we say that the unwritten rule continues and that she is still not getting referrals
in anywhere i.e. the volume she would expect..
That’s all on subject of time.

AP - What I’ve tried to do is give you brief factual statements, but given you a detailed
page numbers and a chronology

AP - In response to a couple of things that YG said on Martins and Devonshire – broadly
we don’t disagree on the law – but I can’t agree with reliance on this case bec we say it’s
not possible to separate out the disclosures from what she did/behaviour…...there was no concession at all that that was Dr Senior’s failing for sitting on these disclosures for
months and not getting back to the claimant. She is off sick.

When returns months later and is approached again, the very next day she goes to sally hodges bec she’s given up on Dr Senior
We had half a day of cross examination to say ‘poor Dr Carmichael’ and to suggest that is the claimant’s fault, rather than the respondents….If anything it’s the respondent who should have taken much more care in how they managed this situation.

But it seems that Dr Carmichael is free to say whatever she wants to people inside gids
about people outside gids… even if she is – and this should have been plain to Dr C from
Feb – a whistleblower

AP - We say that you should be counting time from 8th January – because that’s when she receives the transcripts of Dr Sinha’s interviews with Dr Hutchinson and Mr Spiliadis in a form that she can read them. Those are the dates and none of it comes to three months.

We say that she acted as quickly as she could; she took steps to make sure that people
who had sent the information were happy for her to use it and then passed on to solicitor.

In any event, we say there are continuing detriments as well – the state of affairs whereby she is viewed with mistrust and it's clearly articulated by Mr R in his comments to Dr Sinha and also Dr Carmichael.

She (SA)is still only finding out about this – in extensive disclosure battles in the course of these proceedings; she’s only just found out about the meeting of all senior staff in GIDS to discuss the bell report; Mr R volunteered that he himself had complained about the
claimant in that meeting although says he doesn’t name her; we have no notes from it but it seems likely that people were able to vent freely about the bell report...

...and we know that people did view her with suspicion because of her perceived
involvement in the bell report; even now has key colleagues she has to work with – and it's not in their witness statements or evidence – but then you see what Dr Carmichael says to Dr Sinha and Mr Hodge. SA cannot nec prove that Dr C is actively denigrating her or saying don’t go to her, but she knows that she has to work with people who have accused her of going on a fishing expedition to cause trouble for the respondent and gids in particular.

So wld ask you to consider that there are continuing detriments; so even those that you
may find out of time, are still relevant – reasonable practicability (?)

EJG – On timepoints…

AP – I was surprised to hear YG say that all the detriments were out of time, bec I thought it was agreed that Savile detriments were not out of time
(goes through dates)

EJG – yes that does sound in time

AP – The others are more complicated and there are things I’d like to say about it… will depend on what detriments, if any, the tribunal accepts.

AP - With respect to the red line detriments [I believe these are amended parts of SA’s original claim], the first time the claimant had legally sufficient notice of these was 30th Jan 2020 (application was 19th Feb 2020) ...when she received an email from Mr Spiliadis (529) telling her that he had been directly told by Dr C not to take cases to her – before that we
say anything is hearsay or double hearsay

AP - Dr Bristow’s email to claimant Jan 2019 – problem was that was hearsay and told her
to make own enquiries; she didn’t have enough to go on to make a clam – she did that
[make enquiries] but proved inconclusive (493). At that stage she didn’t have any direct evidence

(47a PoC) – only became aware of blue line detriment – detriment 8 – Mr Richardson being wary of her and discouraging of others from (taking cases) bec of her connection to DB and his report; she only found out about that when she got the Hodge report – dated 7th Feb 2020.

And 11th Feb 2020 becase that’s when report is sent to her (856)
So if you take even the earlier date of 30th Jan of email from Mr Spiliadis, in presenting her red line and blue line she is within time.

I'm beyond shocked, actually feeling quite shaky, at the realisation that children could have received unnecessary, life-changing treatment of unknown efficacy with so little safeguarding because of personality clashes between key players.

I'm finding it difficult to get much of a grip on this case, but the impression is that it was all very casual. No notes taken, no records of meetings and discussions kept. No one even putting things in emails and memos in order to cover their own backs. It's horrifying when you think of what's at stake.

The role of a person in a safeguarding role is to say no, to watch with a beady eye, to question everything. People who are good at safeguarding aren't popular, in my experience. They're seen as negative, over-cautious, as a brake on change, as party-poopers. But you would hope that at somewhere like the Tavi/ GIDS people would be aware enough to rise above that.