GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

EJG – on issue of severability (?) – I suppose it might be said for the claimant that she was turning up the volume bec she was frustrated that she had not had a resposne to her concerns from dr senior, and didn’t get a response from Dr Carmichael in February...

(Judge explains that there may be a questions as to whether behaviour arises from increasing frustration, and we must exercise care there when it comes to whistleblowers)

YG – when one looks at the evidence... what I wld submit is that SA is a senior member of staff, she has a statutory position, she’s the named professional for s/g; its not comparable with a much lower member of staff who thinks I haven’t had a reply back its all v frustrating and difficult.
She doesn’t then make it her business to go and speak Dr C until feb and even at that point there isn’t really anything constructive that happens

The nature of the employee and her position I think is really important – in relation to severability.
I think there’s a mischief in there as well; in writing to Mr Lowe saying she has escalated this; it gives the impression that something quite sig is happening......whereas she’s taken it to her line manager and nothing has happened; she could have taken it up the food chain as well and doesn’t, so to say it’s all rather frustrating is not a good answer.

...So to say I was frustrated and that's why I was rather cool and unhelpful is not a good answer in my respectful submission.

Picking up the baton from from NonHypothetical :

YG mentions a case that separates out behaviour from disclosures…mentions the Martin
and Devonshires case and says there are parallels here:

YG - You will see from the respondent’s perspective that this was not about the claimant’s disclosures; if anything there was an issue with behaviour in that SA was going about her work in an uncollegiate way......and such reaction as there may have been to that is entirely understandable in the context of a service which already had a huge amount of diverse opinion – I think I describe it as a 'highly politicised environment'.....in which what they were seeking was to have this support and a collegiate approach, all of which found in SA’s job description which wld have created an environment where the relationships wld have worked better.

So you will have seen in the list off issues that the respondent relies on a list of issues why the claimant may well have felt she was suffering adverse treatment, but not one of those to do with any disclosure she has made or the detriments she relied on.

And when you look across the totality of the evidence in this case… you will see that rather than helping and providing support, advice, monitoring – all those things in job description - there seems to be an accusatory approach highlighted at particular points:

She didn’t go and consult with PC; she took an approach that kept her in the dark and Mr Richardson in the dark, even to the extent of writing to Mr Lowe to raise concerns, albeit copying Mr R into that......so if there was wariness or concern, it was bec of the rather combative approach the claimant took, and really from rather out of the blue, her evidence was that she’s had v little to do with gids until 2017; and albeit she started with PC and GR to set up a new relationship there isn’t much after that meeting in June 2018 that she does to help.

StarryGazeyEyes

I know it's an employment tribunal which is why they're discussing the working relationships so much, but it really is quite disgusting how there's all this talk of being upset at straight talking or past safeguarding failures (Savile) when it's child safety at stake.

So Polly is insistent that GD must be viewed as something separate from any other problems and wants to shut out the opinions of those who consider it might be a symptom of abuse. She sees people with that view, not as rational people who might have an important point, but as transphobes getting in the way of the essential role she is performing.

God, this has struck a nerve. I was very much a gender non-conforming child, though it wasn't referred to as such back then in the 70's. It has never occurred to me before to link it to the abuse I suffered around that time (pre-teen) before which I was very stereotypically 'girly', but it seems so obvious now. I can't believe it's taken till now to see the connection in a personal contest.

Is there any other child health issue where affirmation is the model?

IMO any lobby groups pushing for a pure affirmation model of anything that involves child health are clearly dodgy as hell and not interested in safeguarding at all.

I’ve been v transparent that my preference has always been to seek s/g support from dr mckenna and before that dr senior the reason being I feel I have a more collegiate relationship with them.

I only deal with people I like and who do not challenge me.

No worries - I have to work now so can't do any more!

Whoops, great minds, NonHypothetical, thank you

A bit earlier Hannah B tweeted:

'This morning both sides' counsel have made written submissions and will be giving their oral submissions before the tribunal'

There were just a few more posts but it's stopped temporarily.

THREAD: DAY 8 (FINAL DAY) – Sonia Appleby v Tavistock and Portman Trust employment Tribunal

SA - Sonia Appleby
YG - Yvette Genn, Tavi counsel
AP - Anya Palmer, SA counsel
EJG - employment judge Goodman

This morning both sides' counsel have made written submissions and will be giving their oral submissions before the tribunal

EJG seeks some clarification from YG - Are you arguing that time runs from when disclosure is made or when the detriment occurs?
YG – it’s the protected disclosure is what we’ve pleaded
EJG – and not the detriment?

YG – no. but rereading I can see that we’ve got a mixture, and it may be hard to say that all are incorrect… but actually on the timeline they’re all out of date… so I don’t think there is an inconsistency there…
EJG confirms then that this is not a typing error

YG – I’ve put a lot down in writing, so don’t want to spend too long talking about it this morning… I suppose the real difference between myself and AP is in what we’ve highlighted.
YG raises several cases which are discussed in detail in her written submission

Is the next step EJG giving a summing up/verdict or is there another step before that?
What's the time frame?

The talk of collegiate is just to enhance their view that SA is hostile. But they do just want to work with others who follow the affirmation approach not the psychoanalytic approach. Unfortunately for GIDS, there is much more peer reviewed evidence for the psychoanalytic approach than the affirmation one.

All this talk of collegiate working seems to miss the point of aafeguarding. Indeed seems almost designed to be able to minimise concerns and encourage group think. Surely the whole point of SA is to take a concern outside that context and look at it through independent eyes?

There's so much to unpack from PC and GR's questioning. Hats off to Hannah for detailing all of that as well as looking after young children.

An important bit for Sonia is that PC wasn't called in for an informal meeting with DS/HR and a letter placed indefinitely on her file.

GR can barely hid his contempt for Sonia in his responses.

Guess that encapsulates perfectly what is going on here. And unless there is overwhelming evidence supporting your position (which there isn’t as diagnosis is entirely based on personal testimony and there is no robust test for GD) having a completely closed mind over something quite so important is unforgiveable.

PC – it’s not clear what that refers to, whether it’s a question. But what I stand by is that it’s important to be aware of these issues within the team and manage these issues internally...It’s a balancing act – we are criticised from two sides – both being too affirmative and too conservative.

What? Who is telling them they are too conservative ?

Trans lobby groups, who want to see 100% affirmation. GIDS has indeed been accused of being slow to move wholly to the affirmation model.

Regardless, if they are under pressure, having demonstrably robust safeguarding protocols and ensuring an external overview as well as excellent internal processes becomes even more important.

And thanks to Zeugma and everyone else keeping us updated.

So sorry I missed a bit - must have deleted by mistake when c&ping... It comes just at the end of the Saville questioning with Dr Sinha

AP - Dr Sinha then asks you if your relationship continues to be difficult and you say yes.
(discussion again of a particular case)
AP - And then you say ‘makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, make me wonder what Sonia’s motives are’…

AP - you’re suggesting her motive is something other than concern for a child?
GR – I don’t think I’m saying that… I think i've already explained how I felt about the working relationship at that time...

As we know form other parts of the bundle my preference at that time was to seek support from dr mckenna

AP – And to underline it, your answer to the next question from CK, you say “I guess they were trying to find information to support that particular view about our work, that perhaps is unsafe in some way that we know we have been negligent in some way"…

AP - So what you’re suggesting there is because you say DB and SA have a particular view on political issues in gids, they are trying to find information to undermine gids or show it's negligent in some way. It's a very clear allegation of bad faith isn’t it?

GR – again, i've said I did not agree with the process around DB’s report…
AP – simple question – you’re making a v clear allegation of bad faith against SA – yes or no?
GR – I was just being honest about how I viewed that situation

Ap – ok. you don’t want to own it. We’ll move on

AP moves on (479) – there’s an issue in summer 2018 that GIDS safeguarding cases weren’t recorded in care notes
GR – GIDS had been left of trust emails …
AP – I’m not proportioning blame, but there was an issue that needed to be dealt with…

GR – it was never made clear to me that the responsibility for providing the quarterly data wld be handed over to gids… the central safeguarding team had always done that

AP – as I understand it, SA sent you a request, but again it appears rather than go back to her and say you didn’t understand you were meant to be doing it, you seem to have gone to Dr hodges...

Again we see a pattern where you don’t relate directly to the claimant, you go to dr hodges and she pushes back with a request for some context. I don’t understand why you couldn’t just reply to the request and explain what the problem was

GR – I don’t think I did go direct to SH, but rather to PC or the exec team. It’s good for me to escalate requests of this nature so that they can have an overview of that.
AP – SA says she wasn’t asking for anything out of the ordinary...

.just that you should take ownership of the process… she has no idea of the concerns you hold about her, … you’ve clearly held concerns since finding out about the DB report –

what I’m suggesting is that you and others view the request with suspicion because you think she might be gathering data for dr bell
GR – no that’s not the case at all. I knew that the trust had to provide info on s/g...

but no one had indicated to me that this had now become my task. We do that now, but at that time it hadn’t been handed over to me.

AP – Miss A says she hasn’t received any referrals – s/g cases – do you accept that?
GR – I’M not sure what you mean by referrals. Can you explain?
AP refers to SA’s claims (P44 par 41)… I’ve taken it to understand you taking cases to her for safeguarding support

GR – this has never been raised as a concern with me until this litigation. I’ve been v transparent that my preference has always been to seek s/g support from dr mckenna and before that dr senior...

...the reason 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 and also...

the worries… there is an example where I reach out to SA and ask her to meet with clinicians for a second time because I was unable to do so, and I was knocked back.. the tone is quite accusatory …so I was left feeling a sense of a bind about going to SA or not

(discussion about emails 505 - 509 - AP and GR disagree)
AP – isn’t it right that ever since you knew about the bell report you didn’t want to work with Miss A and that’s why she says that since 2018 you’ve not referred any cases to her?

GR – no, that’s not true. Following the bell report and the gids review we had several meetings about establishing the SOP, and she continues to be involved with ongoing projects… I have contact with S when I need to. As I’ve already stated, my preferred support is from dr McK

AP – so it’s just a coincidence that referrals dry up in 2018?
GR – I don’t know. Can’t confirm that. It doesn’t sound right to me… I think there may be a difference in opinion in what makes a referral..

GR - it’s important to say that there is no requirement on me to take cases to SA specifically. I can take cases to someone for advice with someone who I feel I have a good, strong collegiate relationship with and I have that with Dr McKenna...

That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take something to Sonia

Thanks NonHypothetical - I thought they'd finished for the day. That was a late session!

GR says he didn’t have any contact with SA before he became the s/g lead, so all my contact with her has been since then

YG – it was put to you that you knew she had done some work with DB. To what extent were you aware that in the course of doing so she made public interest disclosures?
GR – I wasn’t aware of the time.

END OF GARRY RICHARDSON QUESTIONING

NEXT WITNESS: DR ANNA HUTCHINSON

No questions for this witness

NEXT WITNESS: CRAIG DE SOUSA - Tavi Director of HR
AP seeks clarification on the difference betw the 2 versions of the DB report

(p10-11 SB) my understanding is that this is the first version which references SA’s involvement… then p382 - 384SB - is that the second version? Paragraph talking about SA’s contribution has dropped out.
CDS - That’s the one difference…

...the latter version is the one that was shared, minus the transcripts

AP refers to Andrew Hodge report – are these Mr Hodge’s own notes?
CDS – they are and I never had sight of them until the composition of the bundle. I would say that these are his notes, and absolutely not a verbatim record of what i said

AP – where do you get that from?
CDS – From my own recollection of my conversation with him; it’s his formulation of the conversation and in some instances very heavily paraphrased.

END OF ALL WITNESS TESTIMONY

AP – I’m going to suggest you raising this allegation was precisely motivated by your perception of SA's involvement with DB’s report
GR – no I don’t agree with that. There was a context there in terms of things that had already happened

AP – you say: "I think she saw the look of horror on my face and she very quickly said, I do not mean in terms
of child abuse, but something in terms of your service being a cash cow to the Tavi and the Tavi turning a blind eye to something that is not right...

"So I think that is what she meant.”
Dr Sinha then says, “What was that about, did you speak to her about what she meant?”
You say, “Well, I think that was just in terms of the context of people coming forward and saying that they have been silenced...

"She did not use that language, but I am assuming now that at that point, this was back in March, you know she was aware that people had come forward, so I think that was her context really...

"that the Tavistock might try and close something down, because we bring in a lot of money for the trust, but you know the team works exceptionally hard, and ...to have our work referenced in that way. I personally found that quite disrespectful..."

AP - Dr Sinha then asks you if your relationship continues to be difficult and you say yes.
(discussion again of a particular case) AP - And then you say ‘makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, make me wonder what Sonia’s motives are’…

AP – so it’s just a coincidence that referrals dry up in 2018?
GR – I don’t know. Can’t confirm that. It doesn’t sound right to me… I think there may be a difference in opinion in what makes a referral..

GR - it’s important to say that there is no requirement on me to take cases to SA specifically. I can take cases to someone for advice with someone who I feel I have a good, strong collegiate relationship with and I have that with Dr McKenna...

That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take something to Sonia

AP – you know that Dr C had said that referrals shouldn’t go to Sonia; and you viewed her with suspicion. The reason you had that was because of her protected disclosures
GR – I only knew of her protected disclosures as part of this case…

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

AP – that’s not true. You knew she had spoken as part of the Bell report and you are suspicious of her
GR – in many ways the meeting in march 2018 where she made the JS comment set the tone of the relationship

EJG - 1393 – You preface the comment about JS saying DS may have already heard about that – where did you think he might have heard it from?
GR – that I had reported that comment to my line manager and thought it might have gone up the chain that way

EJG – when you spoke to SD about this comment what did she say?
GR – I honesty can’t remember the detail of that conversation at this point but she agreed to raise it with Dr C, but I think she was also quite shocked

EJG – did you get any feedback after that?
GR – I don’t think I did.
*
AP – one question that SA wants asked – she says she was asked to step down from the transformation team because of your feeling towards her – is that right?
GR – I have no knowledge of that

YG asks about GR’s training and experience – did you have qualifications listed in job description?
GR – yes. Those are skills that I’ve acquired over my career, yes.

YG asks about meeting with Frank Lowe (social worker)
GR says he agreed that the meeting was inspiring and the social workers in the team were working v hard and thinking about how they could be a good resource to colleagues

" but my
read from that is what is the agenda of the meeting......but clearly I understand
that it’s been read as an underlying agenda."

lol really

Could have also gone with "let's be courteous and ask Sonia if she has a gender" I guess

tbh I did feel until now they seemed to be having a hard time proving (I don't know what level of proof is required in Employment Tribunals?) that PC or other senior staff had said specifically what SA believes to have been said (ie not to go to her) but this is looking really .... odd.

...as well as some senior managers from across the trust – sally hodges, I think Louise Lyons and I think Gill Rusbridger may have been there
Ap – were there any notes from this meeting?
GR – I don’t know, I can’t recall

AP – you say you were disappointed that Dr B was able to openly publish critical comments about gids but your concerns had not been acted on… am I right in thinking you expressed those concerns in this meeting?
GR – My statement is correct

AP – your statement is not as clear as it might be… you say you did not name SA… can you tell the tribunal what you said at the meeting?
GR – I can’t recollect what I said at the meeting – it was 2018

AP – am I right in thinking others in the meeting were expressing concerns about Dr B’s report?
GR – I think there are many people in the team who have expressed concerns about the process - how unfair and unbalanced it was
AP – how long did the meeting go on for?

Gr – Not longer than an hour...my recollection is that Paul Jenkins (Tavistock CEO) was explaining to us a bit about the timeline that had happened and what we could expect

AP – so there was a time when PJ was talking and there was also a time where you put your hand up and talked about this…
GR – I can’t remember the details of that meeting… I know that there were colleagues who were equally upset about what had gone on but I can’t recall details

AP – is it fair to say there were other conversations with your colleagues about the bell report?
GR – yes, I think that would be fair to say. That was a natural thing that we would talk about it

AP moves to GR’s interview with Dr Sinha (1391 – 1393 p10 transcript) – compares this with later unredacted version (SB246)

AP quotes GR saying: “I thought there are other issues as well. I think the services relationship with the safeguarding team and the trust has been and continues to be somewhat problematic.”

You also say, “I have also had conversations with people who felt that when they have been for safeguarding advice that it has been sort of less of a collaborative process or collaborative conversation and
much more directive...

and, I appreciate that there are going to be occasions where the safeguarding lead has to be quite directive, but that seems to be a bit of a theme.
DS: This is the children safeguarding lead?
GR: Yes.

AP - So you’re there expressing a criticism of Miss A aren’t you
GR – I think I’m being honest about my understanding of the relationship at the time in the context of what I thought was a confidential meeting

AP – you go on to raise another issue – “I suppose as well Sonia's name was on David Bell’s report and seemingly to endorse the contents of the report and my worry is that if Sonia is taking a particular position in view about our work ...

"then I have a worry about how balanced her advice would be.”
That’s the context in which you raise the Savile remark. Its squarely linked to her involvement in the bell report and she can’t be trusted

GR – my concern about the bell report is that it wasn’t balanced and it was not fair. I think DB said he had interview 1/3 team, but it was 10 people, some had left, and we had 100-110 staff at that point…

...And a stark example of this was in a trust staff meeting a senior psychoanalyst was approached about talking to Dr Bell.
GR explains that when she spoke favourably at gids DB didn't want to take it forward

GR - I did have worries about the process surrounding that report; I have no issues with Miss A having to raise concerns… that’s not in question whatsoever – but I did have worries how balanced that process had been…

...and DB was v clear that Miss A had been involved in that process and I’m raising this in what I thought was a confidential meeting
AP – you do it in relation to there being safeguarding issues and linking it to SA’s involvement in DB’s report

GR – I think I’m raising issues about how balanced her view of the team and the work is… you at least have to have some curiosity about the other perspectives in the team. That’s something I’ve never seen from Miss A.

I think my concerns about the process around the DB report did also map onto my experience of having had the jimmy Savile comment said to me

AP – can you explain?
GS – just in terms of how our work was being viewed. But also just to say that these are views that I didn’t air publicly; they didn’t prevent me from working alongside the central safeguarding team or working alongside SA when I needed to;

and they certainly didn’t prevent me or anyone else in the team raising concerns with SA

GARRY RICHARDSON IS NEXT WITNESS

YG – can you explain how referrals come into GIDS
GR – by a number of agencies – commonly CAMHS and GPS, but can also include schools and third sector organisation

YG – and are they dealing with risk or not dealing with risk to those young people… are any of those holding risk in respect of those young people or not?

GR – it wld depend on the agency: if YP referred by CAMHS and they remain involved, they wld be the lead agency for monitoring and supporting ongoing risk. Same wld be case for social care

Anya Palmer questioning...
AP – (395) do you agree link role evolved into a safeguarding lead?

GR – I think this email is the only one that refers to the role as a 'link' – SA calls me lead that same day - and as far as I’m concerned lead was the role from that point on and that is how the team knew me.
AP – can you show me any emails that show this?
GR – not at this time

AP- well that’s on you for making it up
GR. I didn’t make it up. I’m a truthful, ethical person… I take my code of conduct v seriously... I am open, honest and reliable.

AP – I want to take you to something before the break. Dr C said that she misunderstood something SA had said (397). Suggests SA’s email is perfectly straightforward and not offensive to anyone. Dr C says ‘I’m getting very confused and unsure of the agenda here’...

SA felt v confused and was wondering she was seen to have an agenda. We only know now that PC misunderstood this, and thought Rob S and SA were talking about PC’s role. And in that case because PC was straight about it, it was clarified and it went no further...

In your case, I suggest that if the claimant said anything at all, you have completely misunderstood and because you haven’t said anything it hasn’t been possible to clear it up

GR – I don’t agree. I’m not the one who said those words. Perhaps I should have raised it at the time, I didn’t. I raised it with my line manager in the same way SA did with Dr Senior when she had concerns

AP (466 – Email from SA about a particular gids case) – you don’t seem to be able to deal directly with SA; you forward it to Dr C and get her to deal with it
GR – I don’t agree with that. There are lots of examples of where I’m able to communicate with Sonia…

...I imagine that I had had a conversation with Polly; that she had already been involved in the case by talking with Mr Spiliadis so I imagine she requested me to forward her that information

AP – I don’t see any mention of Mr spiliadis in this case at that time at all
GR – that is my understanding that it is that case. As you heard earlier, I was the line manager of both the clinicians involved at the time; there was nothing underhand or secretive going on

AP returns to Jimmy Savile comments (pat 26 p171W) AP where GR says he raised the comments again at a Meeting of senior manager in summer 2018
AP - can we be more specific about when this meeting took place?

AP -We know that PC sent you the Bell report on 29th Aug 2018. That’s when you first saw the bell report, is that right?
GR – yes.

AP – indeed that looks like the first time anyone has seen it – either 27/28/29 august. So the meeting you refer to in summer 2018 must be after that?
GR – Yes… actually I can’t say with any certainty the date of that meeting, whether it’s before or after.

AP – well it’s only after that that a decision is taken to commission a review of GIDS by Dr Sinha... you were at this meeting, who else was there?
GR – my recollection is that it was a meeting for the gids exec and senior team...
Show replies

Regardless of the result of this case, PC and GIDS do not come well out of this.

Pc – its so ridiculous – I must have read the email quickly from sonia (398) – I
completely misread it…. I’m sure I could appear disingenuous here,

Yes PC, you sure do.