GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

*Pc – it is well known and has perhaps been talked about too much in this case
that there are dif views about why some people experience GD and the treatment
of that...There is a view that tends to see the GD as a symptom of an underlying
concern and in DB’s report there’s talk about unconscious processes and trauma
and so therefore need is to have extensive therapy in exploring these things as
they may be reason why someone identifies as trans

So there are dif views in the trust and I think some individuals with psychoanalytic
approach – which DB comes from – may interpret GD as being due to an
underlying concern.
So I think that’s what this is about – so important to separate the clinical
safeguarding concerns and protocols in place to safeguard young people on day
to day level from different views about why some people experience GD and
therefore what is the treatment for that.*

I think this is really key to a lot that has been going on at gids and nicely encapsulates how the medical model & social model clash, especially considering Sonia's skill set.

As an aside, I was doing a safeguarding in a hospital not long ago and they would not even let me hold the person's medical records. I had the individual's full permission to investigate and look at the records relating to the safeguarding, but the trust decided that I could not be trusted to look through the notes on my own. Instead, someone sat opposite me (across a table so it was upside down) and read out the entries, huffing and puffing as I insisted that I take notes as they went through each one, and further huffed and puffed as I asked questions. Obviously, they could have omitted stuff or made everything up, I really wouldn't know any different. They really do not take well to challenge.

TLDR; Sonia, I believe you.

PC uses 'would have been' and other deflective constructions a lot.

DR MATT BRISTOW IS NEXT WITNESS

YG says she has no questions

No questions from the tribunal team

*

That's all Hannah's tweets for today. Once again, a great job from her. Fascinating stuff.

YG – (401SB) says PC was co author of report to the board in July 2018 – you
set out a list of key issues. Were you concerned about these?

PC – Exceedingly concerned…SH did put that report together but much of the
contents is taken from a report I had produced previously.

YG – do you align yourself with the report or not?

PC – I do

YG – were you sent notes that Andrew hodge made?

PC – No. (and not given opportunity to comment)

PC adds – I was being questioned about email about pre-investigation, I’d like
to add that there was a meeting betw Mr Spiliadis and Ailsa Swarbrick – he had
made a number of allegations, I was quite keen they be taken forward formally,
and he chose not to do that...I don’t know if that’s relevant but thought I would
mention it

END OF POLLY CARMICHAEL EVIDENCE

EJG – in 2017 (396/7) – what did you mean by ‘the agenda'

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,... 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.
And then the reply comes from Rob and I kick myself.

EJG – so you’re not talking about an underlying purpose that does not meet the
eye, you’re talking about the agenda of the meeting

PC – yes, I think so. It just wasn’t clear to me what the meeting was about
because I had misread the email.

EJG – did you then have a discussion about what GR would be doing?

PC – I think there was something about this when SA was presenting… I don’t
remember

EJG – did you have any meeting with GR to talk about what he was meant to be
doing

PC – I wld have talked with Mr R, and that wld have been decided in an exec
meeting. He was to be a link to Sonia and it would have been about improving communication.

AP (1333) – this is an extract from your review interview with DS – You say "to say
that we've suppressed anything is a really really serious allegation and from my
perspective what would that look like, what would that be?"

AP - I put to you what it wld look like is telling people in a whole team meeting not
to take concerns to SA; you saying the same thing to individuals when they bring
difficult cases; you expressing suspicion of SA; you asking for names of people
who’d spoken to DB. That’s exactly what it would look like?

Pc – and I’ve told you that I don’t accept that I’ve said those things

EJG – (843) what is the relevance of the psychoanalytic approach?

Pc – it is well known and has perhaps been talked about too much in this case
that there are dif views about why some people experience GD and the treatment
of that...There is a view that tends to see the GD as a symptom of an underlying
concern and in DB’s report there’s talk about unconscious processes and trauma
and so therefore need is to have extensive therapy in exploring these things as
they may be reason why someone identifies as trans

So there are dif views in the trust and I think some individuals with psychoanalytic
approach – which DB comes from – may interpret GD as being due to an
underlying concern.
So I think that’s what this is about – so important to separate the clinical
safeguarding concerns and protocols in place to safeguard young people on day
to day level from different views about why some people experience GD and
therefore what is the treatment for that.

EJG – you said lots of people had concerns but this hadn’t been contextualised –
I wondered if you meant you had said something about not taking s/g concerns to
SA but taken out of context?

PC – there have been a lot of allegations about things I’ve reportedly said: without
doubt the process and the message given to the team is that the route is through
the safeguarding lead in the team who links to Sonia…but I think with some of the
comments, I can’t hand on heart recall all the conversations I’ve had on a day to
day basis, so my only understanding is that there could have been a
misinterpretation about what I’ve said.

EJG – what do you think you were saying?

Pc – I don’t know really, if I’m honest. clearly a few people have reported this,
whether that’s become something it wasn’t through discussion amongst
themselves or through misreporting me saying go through Garry......I don’t know
if it’s assumptions or what

EJG – My recollection from GR’s statement is that he didn’t really start his lead
role until march 2018 – did you ever put anything in writing to the team about this?

PC – it would definitely be in the safeguarding SOP, 2019, and s/g docs have
been under revision and a lot of work has been done on that.

Ejg – wld it be right that if there was a change you’d say it in a team meeting, not
an email?

PC – I’d have to check. Sorry

My comment - good Lord.....

AP – wld you agree that the allegation against you was a much more serious
allegation – diverting staff away from the s/g lead for children rather

Pc – I think the allegation against me was from a former member of staff reporting a
second hand account…...so I don’t think they are the same sort of allegation

Ap – And you say this was in response to email from MB… but this email (from DS)
was produced in response to an allegation from 3 people… so as far as you're
aware, was there any investigation into Mr Sinha's comments?

PC – the email you’ve read is part of a pre-investigation and i was not part of that…
I think we’re talking about two different timeframes… the conversation I had with
my manager was at the time of that email...This is about after the review and I was
not aware of this pre investigation…
I was asked about the email at about the same time it was sent – January 2019

AP – so as far as you're aware the pre investigation referred to in the email
exchange betw dr Sinha and dr hodges - that never went as far as you being
asked any question?

PC – No

AP (424SB) refers to email from DS to SH – July 2019 which refers to "an
investigation into the reported comments by Polly." It says, "We have agreed that
there will be a fact finding pre investigation..."

AP - So far as you are aware, did you ever find out that you were subject to any
investigation in relation to allegation that you told a whole team meeting not to take
concerns to sonia?

PC – it was raised with me at the time with SH when an email was sent by matt B -
it was discussed and I produced emails showing that the process for the service
was that people went to Garry and then onto Sonia, but that when Garry wasn’t
there to go to sonia...In terms of this pre investigation, I don’t think it would have
necessarily involved me, but I wasn’t aware of this, no...I don’t think that’s unusual.
Another member of staff was subject to investigation following allegations and I don’t
think they were informed of the outcome.

Ap – so a letter wasn’t written warning you as to your future conduct and placed on
your file?

PC – I think that presupposes the outcome of any investigation

Ap – it doesn’t sound like there was a formal investigation in any sense of the word
does it Dr c?

Pc – I don’t know if I can comment on that. I know there have been investigations
and the member of staff has not been part of that.

AP details what a formal investigation might entail, and suggests that being
questioned about an email sounded 'delightfully informal'...

PC - it didn’t feel ‘delightfully informal’ to be questioned about Matt's email. It was
serious and I responded in that vein

AP – it is a serious allegation, yet unlike SA it didn’t feel necessary to write you a
letter to say that if there are any further allegations we would have to document
it

PC – I agree

This is fascinating.

This is really helpful, thanks Zeugma!

AP – I’m just wondering why you didn’t deal with your concerns and suspicions about SA in your witness statement?

Pc – I don’t understand your question

AP – it’s clear from this note that you had significant concern about S’s involvement
in the Bell report, and I’m wondering why you didn’t put that in your witness statement

PC - I believe this tribunal is about S’s role in the trust … and this is a whole separate
issue. I accept if you think I should have gone into this detail but I was talking about
what was absolutely relevant to sonia's role as child safeguarding lead

Thanks Smallredclip, I'll carry on!

AP – I don’t think you understand the importance of that sentence – the allegation is
about SA – the person siphoning off staff?

PC – that is not about Sonia. I do not think for one minute S siphoned off anyone to
support DB. I think DB siphoned off Sonia to support this review.

AP – mr hodge imagined the above comment too did he, that Sonia was ‘drumming up witnesses.?
PC – I’ve never had an opinion that Sonia is siphoning off gids staff – that it is incorrect… I don’t think Sonia was actively putting witnesses forward, no...do I think DB involved
Sonia to support the review. Yes I do… but clearly that is supposition.

AP you had extensive suspicions about SA, weren’t remotely relaxed about her involvement whatever it was in DB’s report

PC… I absolutely maintain that the context of the review was exceedingly dif; the
processes around it were not transparent; I think it had a huge impact on the team,
many of whom did find that report upsetting; I don’t think in anyway that has a part in undermining sonia’s role of safeguarding lead in the trust.

@Zeugma I’m reading every word! Fascinating stuff and a super record.

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 ?

AP – next para – “When Sonia refers to email from Polly saying don't talk to Sonia, it
was a person who was quite vulnerable. Polly would not have said “don't talk to Sonia”
it was talk to Gary in the first instance.” What email are you talking about there?

PC – yes. talking about an email sent to Sonia by an ex colleague reporting something
they'd heard

[Comment from HB here: 'getting everything so it's readable while following
proceedings']

AP – “Feels that staff from GIDS were being siphoned off to support Dave Bell view the world.” You’re clearly suspicious aren’t you? Do you remember saying that?

PC – No I don’t. I don’t accept those are the words I would use, its probably shorthand… I think there was active work on the part of dr bell trying to find people to talk to him…there were also emails after the review was announced inviting people to come forward that caused considerable upset in the team.. I do believe that DB does have a particular view ...– I think it’s clear in his report that there are strong arguments put fwd. for a different type of service. I think that some of the comments about the service are inaccurate and incorrect, but accept there are different views.. I probably have different views to Dr B…

Ap – you don't want to accept it Dr C because your evidence has been that you had
problems with DB but not SA, because it was appropriate given her role. And this shows
quite clearly that you did have problem with it – you just don’t want to admit it?

PC – no. you’re problematising things and telling me I don’t want to admit it. Clearly Sonia was involved in some way in that report – I can't really say more than that

Ap – a few lines down from there – “Why did Sonia go straight to Rob w/o talking to
Polly as well” – by this point you know why she did this and you’ve said you accepted it.
So why are you asking about it?

Pc – I guess I understand that now… but i think Sonia has said in an email that she
should have come to me so I don’t think that is a fair interpretation

AP – “S/G usually dealt with locally as part of referral process. But Sonia seemed to be
on a fishing expedition to show that S/G was defective. But was providing no real support.” What did you mean by that?

PC…I think Sonia had only heard on perspective on s/g in the service…

AP – what is absolutely clear from this is that you are suspicious of sonia’s role and what she’s doing – that she was out to show that s/g is defective in gids

Pc – I think she had concerns about s/g in gids and I think to be fair ...what was harder to have was support within the service for really managing those and given what she heard she probably did think it was defective, so I don’t think that’s an unfair comment really.

(Sorry, there's quite a lot of this - don't know whether it's helpful but I'll carry on for the record!)

I don’t disapprove of people going to Sonia. That is not my interpretation – that is what you’re doing… that is not a comment I regularly made, if it was I would recall it

😬

Not a comment she regularly made.

I think she has now accidentally revealed the fact that she did say she disapproved of people going to Sonia.

If it was something she would never have said, then should would have said that.

AP – Mr Hodge is a professional investigator, former solicitor. You wouldn’t expect him to write things down that you didn’t say?
PC – as you’ve probably realised i do talk in rather a verbose way and I imagine it’s quite difficult to get donw on paper what I’ve say.

E.g. I would not say ‘drumming up witnesses’ – that is not a phrase I would use.
AP – do you accept that you would have said you wld have liked Sonia to come to you?

PC – I think we’ve already discussed that if we’re talking about 2018… I guess I’m saying it may have been helpful if things had been raised at an earlier stage

AP – but the next sentence is not about that time at all – you say: “David Bell was seeking people to talk to him so maybe Sonia was drumming up witnesses for him”

PC – that is an exceedingly unfortunate turn of phrase.. I did hear on a number of
occasions that there was a seeking out of individuals by David bell in quite a proactive
way…
eg a psychanalyst who’d worked in the service in the past, but when she was positive
about the service he wasn’t interested and didn't take fwd. And I’ve heard that elsewhere. The phrase ‘drumming up’ is not one I wld use…
the relationship betw DB and SA I don’t know… but Sonia’s motivations were concerns
quite rightly about safeguarding.

AP – but you are speculating about relationship between them and her relationship with
the report

Pc – I don’t get that from that report and that is not a phrase I would use.

AP – just on the issue of you asking for information on who’d spoken to Dr B – three people have said this (AS, ACC and DB) – these people are all either wrong, mistaken or lying?

PC – I think I’ve said in the meeting with DB I probably did wonder who’d said it.. the context for me - I was probably trying to make sense of things… communication was not open… of course I was trying to make sense of it. It was not that I had a focus on who had spoken… I’m sure in the team there would have been speculation but that’s not to say concerns weren’t being addressed… many of the concerns were already being addressed.

AP – so the other two are lying or mistaken?
PC – I don’t recall making any such comment

AP (p843) – notes of interview betw Andrew Hodge and PC… this echoes something we keep hearing that you don’t like other people going to anyone but you
PC – we don’t keep hearing it; you keep saying it, and I don’t agree

AP – note refers to ‘dangerous to take things out of the team’
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.

AP – my assumption is that Mr Hodge is asking you questions over the phone and writing down your answers… wld you agree that’s the most likely interpretation?

PC – I agree that’s the most likely explanation, but I don’t recognise all of the language used. “Dangerous to take things out of the team. The kaleidoscope needs to be managed internally”. That could be interpreted as me not wanting anything outside the team...
but what I probably meant by that was that if dif views are split in the team what you’re not doing is openly discussing those and openly trying to find your way through difficult issues where there are strongly held point of view.

So I do think that the team needed to be supported to bring some of these issues together. We've heard a lot about transphobia in the team, or people being accused of being transphobic, as far as I’m aware this relates to one person.
When it gets to these offensive issues, the team is not processing these at the time… it is an ethically challenging area. There is a building evidence base and the team is always responding to things as they develop. And if there is a split…
you’re not addressing these issues in a way that allows the service to move forward.
… I’m glad I’ve given that interpretation because I think dangerous to take things out of the team can be interpreted in a number of ways

AP refers to allegation of trying to find out who'd spoken to DB from ACC. She said ‘to try and convey the sense of paranoia after the DB report’ I spoke to Polly and there was a sense of trying to find out who’d spoken to DB. Do you recall having that conversation with ACC?

PC – No I don’t
AP refers to DB being taken aback by PC being concerned about who had spoken to me – you conceded that didn’t you?

PC - I can imagine in that meeting that I might have said 'gosh who is it?’ or something like that as a comment... to extrapolate from that that I had more interest in finding out who it was rather than what was said is incorrect

AP – DB said under oath that she ‘kept referring to wondering who the people were’… it’’s not possible for their to be a misinterpretation here… do you accept what he says?
PC – No i don't accept that. I think that is Dr B’s interpretation. That is not correct

AP – AS (par 34 W) “Polly accused me of having
given some information to Dr David Bell, even though I had never met Dr David Bell until after I resigned from the Trust. She thought that I had met with Dr Bell...and that I had provided him with information that formed the base of his report about GIDS.
However, I did not even know at the time where Dr Bell’s office was in the building...I remember being in Polly’s room to collect something when she said to me “I bet you
are one of those people who spoke to David and the journalists” which came as a great shock to me.”
AP - Do you recall saying that to Mr S?

PC – I totally refute that… I do recall Mr S calling me on one occasion completely out of the blue that he’d been approached by someone in the adult (?) dept asking if he wanted to speak. I thought it was an odd call at the time…I have certainly not accused anyone in the team of speaking to anyone. That’s just wrong.

AP – that hasn’t been put to Mr S because not in your witness statement
PC – it’s just come to me… it’s a very detailed account and it’s not correct.

Is everyone OK if I just add the rest of HB's tweets from where InvisibleDragon got to? (And thanks for doing it today, Invisible!)

PC – The account is quite confused… (PAR 25) “I assume that Sonia must have seen my notes when doing a random check and she immediately alerted GIDS – enquiring why this case had not been taken to safeguarding consultation with the safeguarding team.”

I am not aware of Sonia doing any checks… Factitious illness is a very serious issue which had bene raised locally, and I assume that is why she had been contacted

AP – ACC also recalls an occasion where you effectively told her off for taking a case to SA…do you remember saying that?
PC – No I don’t remember saying that
Ap – is it possible you’ve forgotten about it because it was an everyday thing for you to say things like that?

PC – it wasn’t an everyday thing for me to say things like that… ‘I think the implication that I told people not do things is not correct’… this is a busy clinic
AP – she’s being more subtle…not that you reprimanded her.. but that you disapproved of her going to Sonia

PC – I don’t disapprove of people going to Sonia. That is not my interpretation – that is what you’re doing… that is not a comment I regularly made, if it was I would recall it
AP – my question now is do you recall saying it to ACC?
PC – I don’t recall

Interestingly, Anya Palmer used to be the main counsel for Stonewall. She’s always been very strong on employment discrimination especially in 🏳️‍🌈 community. She is shit hot and clearly has big problems with Stonewall now.

That’s fascinating. And hopefully gives her an advantage.

God this is fascinating. Thankyou so so much to everyone posting!

Interestingly, Anya Palmer used to be the main counsel for Stonewall. She’s always been very strong on employment discrimination especially in 🏳️‍🌈 community. She is shit hot and clearly has big problems with Stonewall now.