GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

‘telling people not to go to Sonia is not right’

How does YG interpret that as ‘nobody is telling you not to go to Sonia’ ??

YG - Did it not cross your mind that Polly Carmichael was concerned with what the concerns were and not just the names?
ACC - that wasn’t my experience

• - Witness is released from her witness order - -

AP requests to see – unredacted – the relevant sections of ACC's interview with Dinesh Sinha as part of GIDS review.
EJG says it does not seem like an unreasonable request.
YG says her only issue is if ACC gives permission for that. If she does, then fine.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY MORNING 10:00

In a lengthy day of evidence in Sonia Appleby/Tavistock employment tribunal, a second former GIDS clinician says they were discouraged from taking safeguarding concerns to Appleby, in her role as Child Safeguarding lead. Anna Churcher Clarke was summonsed to appear by SA's team.

(HB - To try to clarify this - as was trying to type quickly. Dr Churcher Clarke describes a complicated case involving a GIDS patient where - i think - there was sex offending. Patient wanted to transition, in part so they wouldn't be recognised.)

YG – there’s nothing in this chain of emails that supports what you’re saying… nothing to suggest he’s told you off or disapproved of what you’ve done.. literally nothing in there to signal you’ve done anything wrong
ACC – not in that email chain, no.

YG – and in fact it never happened that GR or PC were telling you off.
ACC – It did happen with Polly Carmichael that she was telling me off...

In my interview with Dinesh I mentioned a similar scenario, of GR being off and going to Sonia, and feeling like a traitor. It’s difficult because it’s not recorded in documents, but it was things that were said over a period of time about association between Sonia and David Bell

YG – that may be your pirvate view formed with colleagues your’e chatting to… But, if you’ll forgive me the proof of the pudding is in the eating… so whether or not you had a sense, but in fact on the ground if you needed help from SA, no consequences come from that

ACC – I can’t go further than what I remember – Polly saying that to me on one occasion. I can’t remember a concrete action that followed, but what I’m trying to convey is...

after the DB report I was approached by Polly to ask if I knew who had spoken to him. I didn’t and I didn’t myself. And there was a real focus on who’d taken part rather than the issues raised in that report...

...And in senior meetings there was a sense of Sonia being in cahoots with David bell. There was a sense it became ‘are you with us or against us?’

YG – well it’s not a telling off, not at all. And if you look at the texts which are sort of gossiping betw yourselves
ACC – well they’re not my texts.
YG – one says ‘chatting to Anna CC’ – she says ‘telling people not to go to Sonia is not right’ - so you weren't told not to go

ACC – I can’t remember the exact words in that meeting. But it wasn’t gossip. I also went to see Gill Rusbirdger - the speak up champion – I did have concerns about how things were being managed in the service. So I wouldn’t say it was gossip.

YG – when we look at the reality, when you had a serious case you were dealing with – you’ve sent a message to Sonia, copied in GR… there’s a response from Sonia that she’s free...

there are a few exchanges between you and SA but by the time Garry gets involved I can’t see anything in this run of emails where he’s chastising you or telling you you’ve done the wrong thing...

On the contrary he’s working with you and SA to make sure this particular safeguarding issue is resolved.

ACC – yes but I suppose what I’m trying to say is that the official line was things went to garry and then they might go to Sonia. Sonia was already involved; I think it would be unlikely he would say that wasn’t the appropriate channel.

I guess what I’m saying is that it was subtler than that. I don’t think Polly had called me into a meeting when she said this, she might have come into my office, or I’d gone to see her.

I wouldn't have expected Garry to tell me off at that point but there was a sense that it wasn’t the done thing.

YG – but it’s right you were never stopped? You were never blocked from doing that were you?
ACC – well I did feel that i needed to explain exactly why I was going to Sonia. I think the fact I went to Sonia, whether it was this case or another...

...as there was another I mentioned in my interview with dinesh - that Polly had said ‘oh you haven’t taken it to Sonia’ ...

YG – you’ve done that three times – mimicking… this wasn’t a serious issue was it? You were free to take issues to anyone. There was a structure in place and that was to take to GR first, but that was it, wasn’t it?

ACC – I don’t completely agree with what you say. It’s true that I wasn’t punished for doing so but there was a sense that one had to walk with care...

...You’re in a team where you needed to have collegiate relationships, as well as do the right thing clinically. It was a sort of telling off.

(YG to now question ACC)

YG – I think there was an official announcement about GR in aug/sept 2018 – but do you recall that GR was taking on official safeguarding functions some time before that?
ACC – Can’t remember

YG – but reasonable to see that is right?
ACC – I think so and maybe it was made more official later on
YG – If you think that’s right, part of that was that the whole s/g process was trying to be more embedded in GIDS

ACC – well yes that was the explicit reason given but I think there was the sense that there are all sorts of other things that were also ‘known’

YG – Well he was the official s/g lead from 2017… do you remember that as part of that that you were all advised that to manage s/g it was to start with Garry first, and that it wasn’t a don't go to Sonia but go to Garry and then he would go to Sonia?

ACC – I suppose I didn’t have faith… my experience was – I was on good terms with Garry as a colleague, but in terms of safeguarding I suppose.. I was working on a joint case with Garry, complicated case, a YP with custodial (??) …sexual involvement (?)...

... I had real concerns about the way the young person was presenting. I wanted us to get external representation from the Portman – another service in the trust – and i remember there being resistance to that; the feeling that that wasn’t really approved of.

...Sort of don’t go outside the service. There was an anxiety I think in the exec team about exposing something gids…I mean I wrote to the exce team about my concerns about safeguarding in GIDS and I spoke about it in my interview with Dinesh

AP - who said this?
ACC - It was Polly who announced this sort of change in approach to safeguarding. She was the person who made important announcements in relation to the team.

ACC - I can’t remember details. I remember some kind of announcement around safeguarding and that we should go to Garry and some kind of suggestion to refer to him and not to Sonia. But can’t remember precise

I did have Polly say to me ‘oh you haven’t taken a case to Sonia have you’ as if that might have repercussions for the service. So I was aware in my mind there was an association between Sonia and david bell. And therefore an anxiety.

AP - what sort of level of clinician were you?
ACC - Between Oct 2018 and March 2019 I was acting up and was in the senior team

AP - what if anything did you take from the senior team meetings about SA?

ACC - I can’t recall specifics but the thing I most remembered was the presentation of and leaking of DB's report and the association - their names were linked together - and the sense ‘that they were out to get us - that kind of feeling.’ ...

That was definitely the sense, maybe in the wider team, but certainly in the senior team. And that GIDS issues weren’t understood.

Break from SA testimony. Next witness is former GIDS clinician Anna Churcher Clarke

AP - p509 – refers to an email to SA asking for consultation on safeguarding query. Who would you usually go to?
ACC - At that time, Gr
AP - why not now
ACC - He was unavailable
AP - Any other reason?

ACC - Well I was leaving the service and had had last appointment with this case, but I was also keen to speak to Sonia
AP - Why?
ACC – I had previously approached Sonia on one or two cases and found her advice, support and authority v helpful

AP - you give an explanation to GR that he’s not available…
ACC - I think it was at that time there was ‘a sense that going to Sonja wld not be approved of’ - officially Garry could escalate but going directly to Sonja was difficult.

ACC – I can’t remember the exact timing of it - think late 2018 - following the Dave Bell report and leaking of that to the press - there was a lot more anxiety in the exec team.

I did have Polly say to me ‘oh you haven’t taken a case to Sonia have you’ as if that might have repercussions for the service. So I was aware in my mind there was an association between Sonia and david bell. And therefore an anxiety.

AP - how many times has that happened?
ACC - Only once and I can’t quite remember whether it was in relation to this particular case or another one

AP - p490 – You see four text msgs from Melissa Midgen - do you know anything about them?
ACC - I’ve seen these & I think that - I’m pretty sure the context was a whole team meeting following the DB report when Garry was appointed GIDS safeguarding lead, when it was made more...

official that safeguarding should go to him. I can’t remember exactly what was said but I thought there was a sense of the not going Sonia...
I was worried that the service was becoming increasingly isolated in relation to the rest of the trust.

And still the Daily Mail is the only mainstream newspaper that has even mentioned this.

Allison Bailey QC via Twitter,

1/ BREAKING: Explosive testimony on Day 4 of Sonia Appleby's case Employment Tribunal against GIDS.

• Clinician Dr Churcher Clarke gave evidence (witness summoned) that Dr Polly Carmichael, head of GIDS, told her not to go to Sonia Appleby with safeguarding concerns.

2/ Dr Churcher Clarke - Sense that the senior Executive team had a sense that following the leaked report by Dr David Bell, which raised safeguarding concerns, people were out to get GIDS.

3/ Dr Churcher Clarke - Focus of Dr Polly Carmichael was not on the safeguarding concerns raised by Dr David Bell but on who had spoken to him.

There was a "are you with us or against us" mindset.

4/ Dr Churcher Clarke - it wasn't her experience that Dr Polly Carmichael was concerned about the safeguarding issues raised by Dr Bell.

5/ Dr Churcher Clarke - was concerned about a GIDS patient who was convicted of sex offending and wanted to transition, in part so they wouldn't be recognised. Concern that this was not viewed as a safeguarding issue.

The hearing resumes on Monday 21/6/21

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1405558398247112710

Dr David Bell is an intervenor, also from the same update,
also 7 intervenors who want to see the judgement of the Divisional Court overturned. These are the University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Brook, Gendered Intelligence, The Endocrine Society, the Association of Lawyers for Children and Liberty.

That's the date given on Keira Bell's Crowdjustice update.

Blimey, already?

and:
Were you familiar with the reason that the reason why Dr Sinha was given that job was that he was a new person and did not have a side whatsoever?

What "side"? (Assuming this isn't a typo) -isn't this admitting implicitly that there were 'sides'?

Keira Bell & Mrs A vs NHS Tavistock judicial review is being appealed. This is heard next week.

Tavistock and Portman Trust are appealing the finding of the judicial review and this is due to be heard next week 23/24 June.

Observer interview with Dr David Bell after the Bell vs Tavistock judicial review,

Bell’s report anticipated the concerns of the high court and he feels vindicated by its judgment. “It was jaw-dropping,” he says. “Because it was very strong.” As he read it, he was struck by details that have not been widely reported, particularly those involving a lack of data, a problem he had raised himself (GIDS was unable to produce for the court any data relating to outcomes and effects, whether desirable or adverse, in children who had been prescribed puberty blockers; nor could it provide details of the number and ages of children who had been given them). But the experience was painful, too: “I felt concerned that we’d moved away from the values [of care] the trust has embodied for so long.” He is astonished the judgment seems to have had so little effect on the organisation of GIDS. “Ordinarily, heads would roll,” he says. “The management structure has changed slightly, but it feels like window-dressing.”

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids

CQC assessment January 2021,

Staff access to essential information
Information needed to deliver patient care was available to all relevant staff, although we found that staff kept records in an unstructured and poorly organised manner. This meant that it could be difficult to find important information quickly. For example, records did not include documents giving all the key information about young people such as details of the person or people with parental responsibility or professional contacts in other agencies such as schools and CAMHS. Records did not include care plans. Risk assessments did not include comprehensive risk management plans and some were not completed fully. Assessments were not recorded in a structured manner. This meant it would be difficult for someone unfamiliar with the young person to understand the work that had been carried out.

Looks like they've stopped for the day and/or hannahsbee has been called away.

(Discussion of meeting between Dinesh Sinha and SA)

Yg - back to work meeting was not designed in any way to strip Gounod your functions?

SA - as far as I can ascertain, no it was not

YG - what is the evidence to show that you are perceived or being treated as a pariah? (Par 125)

SA - since the latter part of 2017 I was trying to raise concerns within the trust and I said as early as June 2018 I was cast as a person asking difficult questions

YG - where?

SA - it’s in the correspondence

EJG - bottom of page 418(???)

EJG - so people who were meant to record these conversations were you and Dr McKenna?

SA - correct

YG - you suffered ill health in 2019 and absent until May. Not your fault, but that contributed to you being unable to build a relationship with dr Sinha

YG - I think it was explained that you line manager needed to know details in order to manage any needs for your return to work

SA - I didn’t actually know that those documentations had to go to line manager and not HR. That had changed and when I realised i did send direct

YG - he’s trying to be supportive and helpful

SA - yes I can absolutely see that and I did absolutely everything he requested of me.

YG - your witness statement makes out things to be much darker than they actually were

SA - I’m not putting a ‘bleak perspective’ on it. I thought it would be helpful to agree a time to speak when I came back. Which is exactly what happened.

This is cynical and pretty poor from the Tavistock's legal representative, given (a) the scathing CQC report, (b) the Keira Bell judgement, and (c) the interim materials coming out of the Independent Review by Dr Hilary Cass.

Cass says she is in communication with, among others, the Tavistock about her inquiry and next steps. I hope she wonders, from this, if the Tavistock is acting in good faith, and indeed capable of improvement.

WTF. Is this normal from the opposing barrister? It seems very high on negative opinion and low on fact, as well as unneccessarily aggressive.

I work for one of the medical regulators and in my experience it’s normal for barristers to be adversarial when cross examining witnesses. SA is represented and her barrister will be quick to object if the questioning becomes unreasonable.