Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

786 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 07/07/2020 14:54

(Text from their crowdfunder)

My Details

My name is Sonia Appleby. I am a qualified social worker (1981); adult psychoanalytic psychotherapist (I992); MSc. in health psychology, (research) and MBA. I have a long career safeguarding and protecting children in social care, health and as a children’s guardian in public and private proceedings.

I am currently the Named Professional for Safeguarding Children and the Safeguarding Children Lead at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. I am therefore still employed by the Trust against which I am bringing my claim.

What is Safeguarding?

In all NHS trusts and organisations there are professionals such as myself, who work with other internal departments and external agencies to ensure there are 'root and branch' systems to keep patients and service users safe. This means responding to patient/service users' personal experiences, also including their environmental, familial, community/peer circumstances and sometimes any of the aforementioned domains could require the intervention of other professionals in different agencies. Safeguarding children and young people also concerns ensuring there is a sufficiently, healthy culture that does not unwittingly contribute to potential harm regarding the people who use and deliver NHS services.

Safeguarding within the Trust

My primary task is to ensure that clinicians protect their patients/service users from avoidable harm and are also able to recognize and appropriately respond to situations where under 18s are in need of safeguarding. My secondary task is challenge practices which are either harmful or could lead to harm. The Trust is commissioned by NHS England to deliver a National Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), which provides services for children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The treatments available also include "puberty blockers".

I have sought to ensure the principle of ''safeguarding children and young people'' is upheld whilst service users are being assessed and treated within the GIDS service.

My Claim

I lodged a whistle-blowing claim in November 2019 at the Central London Employment Tribunal. Since then I have made 2 applications to amend my claim as new information came to light.

In my claim, I allege that because I made "protected disclosures" to my line manager regarding concerns raised by GIDS staff ( that the health or safety of patients was being, had been or was likely to be endangered), I was subjected to detriments.

I allege these detriments are:

i) the Tavistock misused it's own procedures to besmirch me and therefore jeopardize the role of safeguarding within the Trust;

ii) there was an unwritten but mandated directive from the Tavistock management that safeguarding concerns should not be brought to my attention despite being the Trust Safeguarding Children Lead;

iii) and, clinicians were discouraged from reporting safeguarding concerns to me.

I also allege various other detriments.

Further to disclosures made to Newsnight by former staff, BBC Newsnight produced a programme focusing on the allegation that the Trust did not want to report any concerns to me. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51806962

and you can watch it here

OP posts:
33feethighandrising · 22/06/2021 21:48

@Tibtom

I guess the culture of requiring unquestioning validation and affirmation didn't just apply to the service users...

I remember being taught once upon a time that people working with groups with specific needs will often take on some of the characteristics of that group. The example given was managers in a homeless shelter being very particular about their 'belongings' (small work supplied items such pens etc) reflecting their client's concern for the few items they owneed.

That's really interesting.
RedDogsBeg · 22/06/2021 21:10

From the outside this looks like a complete car crash of a service at GIDS, and as someone else said no wonder there were no proper records to provide to the Court in the Kiera Bell case. This service is dealing with children fgs, it should be robust and disciplined and safeguarding should be the number one priority not massaging feelings of clients, their parents or the people who work there.

I am appalled by what is coming to light here.

It can be hard to follow at times and it does seem very confrontational in the Tribunal, there also seems to be one hell of a blame culture and a not my job/problem, Guv attitude - it's horrendous that this is a service dealing with vulnerable children.

Tibtom · 22/06/2021 20:57

Is the implication that PC thinks SA doesn’t understand the cases because they’re complex? If so…. wow! 😮

It seems to be a 'theme' that they think they are special so normal rules don't apply.

AnyOldPrion · 22/06/2021 20:46

And this:

I think what’s missing from this, and I realise this is an employment tribunal, is that this is about children and families and cases are complicated… it’s not intended to undermine SA in any way at all.

Is the implication that PC thinks SA doesn’t understand the cases because they’re complex? If so…. wow! 😮

Outhere · 22/06/2021 20:27

Yes, I have to say I was sniggering at Polly’s word choices and phrasing.

Tibtom · 22/06/2021 20:09

"There wasn’t a specific date that he became it. Sorry that’s not more concrete but that’s my reality"

This was for a safeguarding post but no one (including the empoyee himself) knew when he actually assumed that responsibility??? So children could be at risk but ignored because he thought it wasn't his responsibility but other people did? Or clinicians wouldn't know who to refer onto as does he do that job or not? I presume if a case where there was safeguarding failures during that time this individual would be able to say it wasn't him and no one could say otherwise?

Tibtom · 22/06/2021 20:00

I guess the culture of requiring unquestioning validation and affirmation didn't just apply to the service users...

I remember being taught once upon a time that people working with groups with specific needs will often take on some of the characteristics of that group. The example given was managers in a homeless shelter being very particular about their 'belongings' (small work supplied items such pens etc) reflecting their client's concern for the few items they owneed.

highame · 22/06/2021 18:51

The word 'complicated' has been used an awful lot. Is it a get out of jail free word? Words like complex and complicated always get my alarm bells ringing.

ANewCreation · 22/06/2021 18:48

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

AP - par 20 - wld you agree that only recently the central S-g team have been referred to that way? PC - don’t know … Would see the trust safeguarding team and central safeguarding team as the same thing

Ap - p398 SB - GIDS board paper July 2018 - on 402 you say we’ve completed a review of how safeguarding concerns are documented… appointed a team safeguarding lead who will liaise with the central team; suggests you’ve just appointed GR as lead

PC - I understand that a big distinction is being made between link and lead. In GIDS itself he became the safeguarding lead on the ground. There wasn’t a specific date that he became it. Sorry that’s not more concrete but that’s my reality
Ap - that’s fine

395 - email from PC saying she will identify someone as a link. Pc - don’t know where word comes from but intention is to improve communication betw GIDS and trust safeguarding team

Ap - 249 - GIDS organisational chart. GR there - and he’s a senior?
PC - yes one of the management team. Pc confirms that exec sits above that

PC says nothing was put in writing about GR’s role. It was about communication and having a named individual in the team. And it evolved from there
… I was aware of the want to have other leads in other services but there wasn’t a job description at the time

With such woolly headed thinking from Polly Carmichael, I am no longer surprised at the lack of record keeping/outcomes for the young people accessing GIDS.

"There wasn’t a specific date that he became it. Sorry that’s not more concrete but that’s my reality"

Your reality? Anyone else had a job without a start date?

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 18:43

Constructive criticism from someone with specific responsibilities for safeguarding and a bigger foot in the outside world was exactly what they needed, not being "split off" from and "polarised" to the trust/real world responsibilities , and being left to look further inwards.

I guess the culture of requiring unquestioning validation and affirmation didn't just apply to the service users...

OP posts:
pollywollydoodler · 22/06/2021 18:06

Yes, this from PC made my jaw drop
"The context is the team grappling w some very difficult issues, the service expanding rapidly with bots of new clinicians...we needed support rather than criticism."

Constructive criticism from someone with specific responsibilities for safeguarding and a bigger foot in the outside world was exactly what they needed, not being "split off" from and "polarised" to the trust/real world responsibilities , and being left to look further inwards.

Thanks for the comprehensive postings @ItsAllGoingToBeFine

theemperorhasnoclothes · 22/06/2021 17:06

DS – that words SA had used had a hurtful impact on people within the service

Almost any allegation of failures of safeguarding is going to 'hurt' some adult's ego. Safeguarding doesn't work if you put adult egos above children's needs.

Surely that's the whole point? This is utterly damning.

And in terms of Savile - a lot of people raised concerns and one of the reasons IMO they didn't gain any traction is because people were 'offended' and 'hurt' by the allegations that someone which such a high profile could do such awful things. There were a lot of people who allowed children to be abused because they felt upset / hurt / offended by the mere idea of it and refused to properly investigate. It's not ok to ignore safeguarding concerns or have a hissy fit about comparisons to other safeguarding tragedies. What about actually protecting children? Where is the desire to do all that in all this?

What strikes me though is how professional SA is and how she must be really sure of herself to take this action. Anyone more junior, with less experience, less sure of themselves would simply have been bullied into leaving or caving.

All this focus on not 'offending' or 'hurting' the paid professional adults seems to me to be a huge huge safeguarding red flag.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 16:52

Next AP refers to SA’s request for GIDS safeguarding data for her audit. Suggests that again we see GR pushing back on that. Is that fairy?
Pc - I don’t think that’s fair, no

End of evidence on day 6. Case resumes 09:30 tomorrow

OP posts:
Outhere · 22/06/2021 16:50

@SpindleWhorl

Pc - well there were safeguarding concerns but discussions I’d had with SA were about private providers and how you understand gender dysphoria…

Wtf??

Yes, my eyebrows hit my hairline with that one too. Go on Polly, just give us a little bit more about how that conversation went...

Thanks for the updating, ItsAllGoingToBeFine, it's meant that I've been able to easily check in during work breaks and I really appreciate it Thanks

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 16:18

Ap talks about PC sending David Bell report to ltd number of senior GIDS staff; says she doesn’t think it has issues which they weren’t already aware of …
What were your feelings on read Dr bell’s report?

Pc - I think I thought there were a lot of inaccuracies; that it didn’t reflect the service; the language used was unfortunate - it matters in this field; I thought it was pathologising and that the language was not always respectful

Ap - and what about SA’s involvement?
Pc - I’m not sure it featured large… it’s hard reflecting on how I was feeling three years ago… as I said, her role was understandable. She’s raised concerns with her managers.

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 16:16

But she and her colleagues e.g. DS have already said there was no real agreement - more some sort of nebulous understanding.

This^ it seems to have been a really chaotic place to work, with different factions, and no formal procedures or structures in place (such as recording children's case notes properly...)

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 16:13

Responding to a particular case, Pc says that any case where there is a concern raised about safeguarding is taken very seriously

Ap - you appear to suggest to SA that it’s not appropriate for her to have spoken to a district nurse
Pc - I don’t agree. It’s a straight email. Garry managed both individuals and knew the case …

I think what’s missing from this, and I realise this is an employment tribunal, is that this is about children and families and cases are complicated… it’s not intended to undermine SA in any way at all.

… i think sometimes things are read in a way they’re not intended.. it was not in any way a concern about Sonia or questioning her role or that the designated nurse had contacted her in her role as lead safeguarding person. It was not about that.

OP posts:
SpindleWhorl · 22/06/2021 16:10

Pc says safeguarding concerns would be raised through the agreement - in the first instance through Garry then central safeguarding

But she and her colleagues e.g. DS have already said there was no real agreement - more some sort of nebulous understanding. And that GR had issues.

This actually seems to be supporting SA's case, but PC can't see it.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 16:03

Pc - I don’t agree that I asked ACC. I think it’s A very different thing meeting with a governor and SA than a member of the team
Ap - and you did ask her who DB had been speaking to?
Pc - No

(402 SB) - joint report to the board. Can you help with how this was written and when?
Pc - my recall of this is that sally put this together and I would have commented on it. I wld have to check my emails to confirm that

Ap - was it v largely written by sally or lots of comments from you?
Pc - I think it was based on things I had said in the past but was largely compiled by sally.

Pc - I think it’s true to say that if the service isn’t aware of concerns it’s hard to respond effectively. I think within the service there was a restructuring and hopefully some improved clarity around communication

Pc says safeguarding concerns would be raised through the agreement - in the first instance through Garry then central safeguarding; if there was a referral then it would go through central safeguarding and they’d be informed

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 15:58

@Zeugma

Oops, sorry ItsAll - I’ll bow out, I didn’t realise you were back! Ignore my duplicate copies
No worries, I'm sorry I didn't notice that you had started posting!
OP posts:
SpindleWhorl · 22/06/2021 15:58

Pc - well there were safeguarding concerns but discussions I’d had with SA were about private providers and how you understand gender dysphoria…

Wtf??

Zeugma · 22/06/2021 15:55

Oops, sorry ItsAll - I’ll bow out, I didn’t realise you were back! Ignore my duplicate copies

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 15:54

Pc - I absolutely don’t accept that. I don’t agree… I don’t recall saying that at all… I’m not ACC’s manager, yes I would have seen her around, but I don’t recall that… I’m sure there was connection in the service, but I don’t recall saying that

Ap - yet you do remember asking for names of DB?
Pc - I’ve not asked members of the team. In the meeting with DB and SA I do recall saying something like ‘who was that’ but I guess it was a reaction borne out of concern for the team. But nothing more than that

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 15:53

AP now refers to email from David bell to PC and sally Hodges where he asks to meet both of them with Sonia. That meeting went ahead?
Pc - yes.
Ap - is it right that Sa left after 30 mins.

Pc - I don’t recall her leaving… it was a difficult meeting. Concerns of staff were relayed. There is a note of the meeting in DB’s report though I don’t recall notes being taken at the time.

Ap - what was difficult?
Pc - well from memory, DB was saying things I didn’t recognise; we were already addressing a lot of the things that had been raised, inc safeguarding; we were aware of different views: there was a lot of media attention…

… I do recall being upset in that meeting… I don’t recall being more interested in who had made concerns. I think I was genuinely trying to understand how to take things forwards

This was the second time I’d met DB.
AP - anything else you want to say about that meeting
PC - no

AP - have to suggest to you that you were quite keen to find out who’s said these concerns?
Pc - I don’t recall… I’m deeply committed to the team and the service… I might well have said who was it but absolutely disagree that that was a focus at all. Of import are the concerns

Ap - were you watching when Anna Churcher Clarke have evidence?
Pc - i was
Ap - she said something very similar. That you said to her that you were more interested in finding out who had spoke to DB rather than the concerns

OP posts:
Zeugma · 22/06/2021 15:53

Ap refers to PC’s witness statement (par 44, 142) where she discusses aforementioned email and says she would speak to sally Hodges… but what’s clear is that discussion on best was forward are only intended for your team, not SA.

Pc - my intention was to be constructive. It’s not that I had no intention of sitting down with Sonia. It’s important to ascertain the information and get the facts.

Ap - absolutely. But you’re not proposing to include Sa
Pc - not in that email. But I think our focus is on the team and addressing concerns in the team

Ap - except the concerns are safeguarding concerns and she is the safeguarding lead
Pc - well there were safeguarding concerns but discussions I’d had with SA were about private providers and how you understand gender dysphoria…

It’s hard to convey just what a conflicted context this was to work in at the time… there were different views emerging with different perspectives. That threw up differences in the team and as team got larger there were challenges surrounding constructive conversation

Swipe left for the next trending thread