GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

YG - you were also happy to work on basis of additional second hand accounts provided?
DB doesn’t think this is a fair reflection. It fitted into a pattern I was very very concerned about - that children weren’t being sufficiently looked after

DB says many of his concerns borne out in Judicial review - lack of data etc - and in CQC. And by earlier report written by david Taylor and by and external consultant. “There is a whole history of GIDS not taking things up”
(HB: These reports have been uncovered by NN)

DB says he was told not to send his report to the governors. I took my own legal advice and was told not only could I send it, but that I had a duty to send it

Sinha review was nowhere near an adequate response and there should have been a fully independent, external review.

YG - Your report was shown to be unbalanced and partial and containing unsubstantiated comments and hearsay

I'm really busy with work and struggling to keep up with all of this but would love to get a (brief) broad overview of what's happening. Is anyone able to distill how things are going for me? It's sounding like a bit of a car crash. Thank you.

Goodness, the headlines are going to be quite something tomorrow

DB - David Bell - witness for SA
SA - Anastassis Spiliadis (AS) witness for SA
EJG - employment judge Goodman
SA - Sonia Appleby
YG - Yvette Genn, counsel for Tavistock
AP - Anya Palmer, counsel for SA
PC - Polly Carmichael
SH - Sally Hodge
GR - Garry Richardson
PJ - Paul Jenkins

I was also surprised by the response i received when I asked for data.

Dr Bell speaks fluent Judge!

Discussion about first time DB and AS met. AS raised the SA allegation with him. DB felt it his duty to raise it directly. Subsequently this was raised in transcripts and in a Newsnight programme

DB says that while he had not met AS before, it was in the context of having already heard many concerns about the service. I wrote to PJ to raise them to say I thought it was v serious. The other concern I raised was allegation of being put on puberty blockers after one session

And this not being recorded in the notes

YG - but again you’re taking these things at face value and without talking to Polly Carmichael or sally Hodges

DB - by that time I had received a great deal of intimidation and attempts to silence me by the trust. I was accused of bullying by Paul Jenkins and was instructed not to speak to Sonia. “I was ready coming under a great deal of threat and intimidation”

YG - it’s all other people and not the service leads

DB - David Bell - witness for SA
SA - Anastassis Spiliadis (AS) witness for SA
EJG - employment judge Goodman
SA - Sonia Appleby
YG - Yvette Genn, counsel for Tavistock
AP - Anya Palmer, counsel for SA
PC - Polly Carmichael
SH - Sally Hodge
GR - Garry Richardson

There's certainly no subtlety.

Wow. YG very directly calling the witnesses, senior respected practitioners, liars.

What sort of scorched earth tactic is this?!

@hannahsbee

YG referencing report of independent investigation into SA’s claims. Suggests that some felt SA was a co author ofBell report when she was not

YG - you thought having her name on there was add some credibility didn’t you?

DB - I stand by what I said. I wrote that report. In no way was Sonia a cosignatory, an author, but she did give some help and advice along the way and on what to leave out etc some of which I agreed with, some I didn’t follow. It would be a misunderstanding to think

Her role was greater than that. It’s important to make a distinction between a misunderstanding and a lie and I say on oath that I did not lie.

DB clarifies again that she did not have a substantial role. If Sonia understood anything he wrote as implying that then he is is sorry, but that is a misunderstanding, not a lie.

DB confirms that Anastassis Spiliadis was not one of the 10 who raised their concerns with him.

Surely it's quite normal for whistleblowers to go around gathering evidence, without telling the people from whom they are gathering it, that they are going to whistle blow?

Why would you forewarn everyone to start shredding?

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee

YG refers to data pulled together by SA. DB says impossible for him to check it because he could get no information out of GIDS.

YG referring to email exchange between SA and SH. Says it’s agreed work will be taken forward together.

YG questions why DB refers to consent for puberty blockers, whereas SA recalls discussion being more generally around consent. DB suggests YG seek confirmation from SA

YG says she doesn’t understand why DB took so long to talk to key personnel - PC and SH - and had begun investigating before doing so

“This seems rather upside down.” You’re conducting a data gathering exercise before going to the service lead and saying did you know these people are unhappy

DB - I didn’t feel it was upside down. I thought it important to take my time. One of the things that stood out was the ‘level of fear and intimidation’ - only one was prepared to meet me in my rooms. I was aware this was something v big and felt it important to get grips

With the issues before speaking to the leadership

DB - there were a number of things I asked for that were not on the website, and I was also surprised by the response i received when I asked for data.
YG - because you weren’t transparent no one knew what the purpose of your request was
DB-PJ didn’t say he wasn’t going to give

Me the information, he just didn’t respond

YG - you didn’t make plain the purpose of the exercise.

YG says that it was only later that DB explained he was compiling a report and “this was hardly transparent, Dr Bell.”

DB - “I thought it was sufficient at the time.” I mentioned Paul Jenkins and a report. Didn’t think appropriate to spell out the concerns. When I did meet PC and SH I was rather taken aback that PC seemed most concerned about finding out who had talked to me, rather than concerns

YG - what PC was taken aback about the fact that she was not given the information about the issues. DB insists PC kept talking about the people who came to talk to me. “Even v senior people were very anxious” and so I needed to act carefully

YG - that’s completely untrue. You didn’t act carefully when it came to SA. You lied about her involvement in your report. DB denies this. Says he did not give idea that she was contributor to the report. If I removed anything it was because it might be misinterpreted.

“That’s not the same as lying”

YG suggests that SA thought DB had suggested she had played a different role in the report than she had. DB - “I beg to differ.”

No tweets for 15 minutes....

those David Bell , Polly Carmichael emails must be humdingers!...

This is a ridiculous defence from YG for the Tavistock. 'You're all lying.' 'You should have done everything differently, even the stuff I've just said didn't happen because you're all liars.'

It's absolutely shocking from the NHS.

Dr David Bell is next witness.

DB describes his role as previous staff governor.

YG says role is elected but also there is meant to be impartial overview?

DB says if a matter comes to ones attention which one is concerned about because of the issues one has a duty to raise them

YG - but there is also a duty to the other parts of the trust too.

DB. Yes, one might. My position is that I was approached by a large number of people, 10, who brought v serious concerns to me betw feb ‘18 and august ‘18. I considered what best to do and I decided to write a report. I informed Ceo and Chair of this

YG - what you didn’t do was spend any time with anyone at GIDS to discuss this. You didn’t go to PC or sally HODGEs transparently to tell them what you’d heard. DB says he met with PC, SH and SA while the report was still forming in my mind. I asked for info from GIDS

On referrals, sex ratio etc and heard nothing. I got a letter from ceo saying that I should deal with him directly instead and not approach GIDS. He didn’t respond when i asked him to supply the data from GIDS

YG suggests again that DB did not inform PC or SH transparently that he had heard concerns. DB says he met with them both before writing the report

YG says he did not deal with PC transparently and When he asked for information on the service he did not say why. DB questions this and says he did say he was writing a report on GIDS.

YG discussing emails from May ‘18.

comments he alleges were homophobic. He says other clinicians had similar concerns about this

Personal comment -- I knew there had been reports of homophobia by whistleblowers relating to the backgrounds of children and young people but it's eyeopening if it was happening to staff too. It's devastating (probably shouldn't be surprised 😣)

AS will check to see if doc relates to personal matters only, or if SA is referred to

AP - on the issue of AS not raising issues in exit interview, she cites him talking about 'issues in the service', AS says he was talking about safeguarding issues and an instruction to talk less in meetings.

End of AS evidence

AS mentions a document - not disclosed to the tribunal - in which AS claims Polly suggests he has 'an agenda' and SA has 'an agenda'.
EJG says the tribunal needs to see it.

Indeed. They do need to see any document suggesting AS, SA had an agenda.

My pleasure 🤗 @CardinalLolzy @Datun @Masdintle @PaleBlueMoonlight

PM SESSION
Former GIDS clinician Anastassis Spiliadis (AS) being questioned by Sonia by Sonia Appleby's counsel Anya Palmer (AP).
p239 bundle - AP addresses earlier issue about safeguarding SOP.

AS confirms he never saw this and it was written a month after he had left the service. AP points out that the version says it's 1.0. AS says to his recollection he was never given a specifically GIDS safeguarding document

p395 bundle - AP says this is where Garry Richardson agrees to take on role as link between GIDS and SA. Asks when AS first heard of GR being safeguarding 'lead' rather than a 'link'. AS doesn't recall

In respect to allegations that PC said to not go to SA, it was suggested that if it were true he would have raised this formally. AP asks which channels he did raise it with?
AS says: Gills Rusbridger, Speak Up Champion, then Dr Sinha as part of Review, and then between Feb '19

and Sept '19 he met on multiple times with Ailsa Swarbrick and Paul Jenkins, CEO - four people who are all very senior in the Trust.

AS asked if he has any docs relating to these meetings. AS says he needs to check but cannot confirm straight away - would either be email correspondence or notes from meetings, made by Ailsa S

AS says he definitely does not have notes of meetings with Gill. Asked about meetings with Paul Jenkins, AS says this was mainly about issues raised with Ailsa - allegations that Polly C had made inappropriate comments about his Greek heritage...

and also comments he alleges were homophobic. He says other clinicians had similar concerns about this

AS says that Gill Rusbridger confirmed that others had raised concerns about safeguarding with her. He talked about the possibility of whistleblowing, but v soon after review was announced and that was seen as the best forum

AS felt that Ailsa understood what I was saying and that she was worried about things. There was a time where people had raised concerns about Polly's approach and she assured me she wanted to look into things. But at some point I felt exhausted and had to leave...

for personal reasons, not because of the work

AS mentions a document - not disclosed to the tribunal - in which AS claims Polly suggests he has 'an agenda' and SA has 'an agenda'.
EJG says the tribunal needs to see it.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the case I’d expect them to savage SA’s character to justify their treatment of her, but going after her witnesses like that too?

I think it's normal for barristers to be adversarial when cross examining witnesses. If there are any defence witnesses I'm sure they will get similar treatment from AP.

Thank you, FindTheTruth, for doing this. It's incredibly useful.

iatdd.com/anastassis-spiliadis/

AS has quite an impressive CV.

"AS: wasn’t experienced then, but Garry felt that social services wouldn’t know what to do. In my other jobs we would do this as standard practice
YG suggests it’s ‘completely untrue’ that GR would seek to dissuade from making a referral"
Why would YG (lawyer) be making comments about what GR (GIDS management) would do? She seems to be saying that Anastassis must be lying in saying that GR told him not to refer, because GR "wouldn't do that".