GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

Jesus this really puts me off every going to a tribunal

YY Datun. Why didn't you complain about the hostile and threatening attitudes to complaints in the service you are complaining about?

I would appreciate a diagram, too.

YG - as far as your departure was concerned, it was because you wanted a career break and other family concerns

AS - no it was connected to increasing hostility within the service. I was asked why am I still part of the service. “I found it quite unsafe to practice in a service where there is so much hostility and chaos.”

YG - despite you saying you’re concerned, none of these things are documented. This is merely your misunderstanding surrounding lines of reporting on safeguarding …

AS - the main issue is about what I heard PC say about SA. This isn’t about my personal matters with Polly

If there are any other witnesses, at all, this accusation of lying is going to look very hollow.

AS - things escalated much more in 2019

YG - you asked for a career break and it wasn’t in PC’s power to give
Hannah Barnes

AS - no. She verbally agreed to it. But in meantime I kept being vocal on safeguarding and mismanagement in the service. A close colleague resigned and was also attacked as being part of a ‘gang.’ PC then came back and said I’m not going to give you a career break but…

You could resign and then reapply when you come back
YG - there was no connection between those things
AS - this was after my interview with Dr Sinha so wasn’t included

Jesus. They are complaining that the reason why whistleblowers exist, should be used to discredit them!

But basically it does seem to come down to this.

AS - I did not feel I had the power or ability to challenge her on personal matters, including matters of my identity. You’re right.

This is horrific to read. The Tavistock's defence is going to be that they're all lying??

They’re not in my statement because I didn’t think they were relevant to SA’s claim. But I did raise them in other fora inc with Ailsa Swarbrick

AS - I didn’t raise a formal complaint but I did raise it with PC’s line manager and Paul Jenkins (Tavi CEO) and haven’t included in statement because didn’t think relevant to this case. I’ve experienced more

YG - although we disagree about there being an agenda with Sonia appleby, as a senior clinician you should and could have gone to her at any time

AS - Polly didn’t clarify what she thought Sonia’s agenda was. So it did take me a few weeks to process that information and take it to Gill and Dr Sinha.

YG - I’m confused. You suggest you have excellent relationship w. PC, if true it’s very serious, and yet at no point do you say to PC I don’t know what you mean

AS - as a person I had no issue with Polly. These were clinical issues. But I already started feeling quite attacked by Polly because she said I was part of a ‘gang’ of clinicians and had spoke to David Bell and press. Yes, I didn’t consult her but the trust that we had had gone

YG - This is just untrue. There’s nothing in your statement that stays PC said these very troubling things to you. If it were true, you would have raised a formal complaint.

I am quite shocked that the GIDS lawyer is basically accusing this witness of lying. Repeatedly.

AS says he’d never met Sonia and had only spoken to her on phone

YG suggests that AS was not present at December 2018 meeting and there was no instruction.
Says conversations with Polly didn’t happen.

YG suggests again that AS’s evidence is not based on first hand experience.

‘There are quite a number of layers’ and you don’t have direct knowledge of this
AS: I have direct experience “I was in the team meeting when Polly explicitly told us not to go to Sonia in late 2018”

YG: that suggests you’ve done exactly what you’ve said you’re not allowed to do.
AS: that’s incorrect. Sonia was reviewing cases and enquiring why cases involving emotional abuse by mother and suspected FII had not been referred.

YG - you will heartfelt PC she was concerned about the case but not about SA’s involvement
AS - thats the first time I’ve heard this. From my experience PC did not seem concerned about the case.

hear that not ‘heartfelt’ - typo

AS: I disagree with what you are saying about Polly. “It’s not my recollection that Polly was concerned about this case.

YG quotes from AS witness statement saying there was caution about going to safeguarding team, especially Sonia
AS - PC clearly said “I don’t know what her (SA) deal is with GIDS” and what her agenda is with GIDS. Other senior team members nodded in agreement with polly

YG suggests this isn’t true

AS says this was related by Polly also in one to one conversations including to talking to me on my mobile phone. “She does not know what Sonia Appleby’s problem was with GIDS”. AS says Sonia had questioned why a case wasn’t referred. Para 26.

YG quotes from AS statement as saying discouraged to speak to the ‘safeguarding team’. YG suggests this is ‘manifestly wrong’ as could go to Rob Senior

YG - you’ve said repeatedly that you’d go to Rob Senior
As - yes there was unwritten rule to go to RS if you needed to go outside GIDS with safeguarding issues, not Sonia

YG - wasn’t a rule it was just that he was deemed to have a good knowledge of the service

AS - I’m not sure

YG suggests most of what AS is saying is based on third hand accounts.
AS says wrong. Most people worked part time. Inc PC. Important to say that things continued to escalate in terms of safeguarding even after review in Jan 2019, all the time until I left in October 2019

YG - if that were true, suggest you would have taken that to someone else to talk to. ‘You don’t seem backwards in coming forwards’

In late 2018 I did go to multiple fora and raised it when something was said about Sonia. Initially I discussed with colleagues in GIDS to clarify what we had all heard, and then I did raise it in appropriate channels

YG - there’s no evidence of you doing that. And going to put to you that PC never said to you don’t go to SA

AS: That’s wrong. I did take it to DR Sinha. I spoke to Gill Rusbridger who also confirmed that I was not only one who had gone to her and raised concerns about Polly and safeguarding. That was a ‘surprise’ to hear

AS confirms he was not managed by Polly Carmichael (PC). But says he did have formal one-to-one meetings with her on difficult cases and clinical matters. She had an ‘open door’ policy and would be available.

AS agrees that PC would be available and we were able to contact her

YG: seeks to confirm that PC was not final arbiter of complaints?
AS disagrees. PC would have final call on complaints and wishes to change clinicians or on requests for medical intervention.

YG suggests engagements with PC were not that frequent. AS says it was frequent. We would meet and greet almost every time we were both in. Discussions about clinical matters were not as frequent

YG suggests to AS that such knowledge he think he has only PC’s view of SA was garnered from other people - ‘hearsay’

AS: I’m referring to things I heard first hand and in the big team meeting with Polly

YG suggests he was often absent from team meetings

AS says not correct. Period he was working at other CAMHS service and was excused by Polly from one team meeting per month.
YG says various trust witnesses say you were more often than not on missing list, so you weren’t privy to what was said

As: even if I was absent at times, which is not my recollection, I’m talking about instances I was present and Polly was talking about Sonia directly

YG: your responsibility to refer anyway, as an experienced clinician.

^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^

This is really upsetting. It must have been really awful for AS, as a junior clinician, to go to his ?clinical supervisor for advice about a child for whom he has safeguarding concerns, only to be told that he shouldn't make a Safeguarding referral because Social services won't know what to do.

And that's before we even get to the harm that could have been caused to a child by failing to refer.

It's clearly indefensible if that is what happened, because YG is just saying he is lying.