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:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 12:35

AP - i'm not sure we see that they were still seeking advice...but point is this shouldn’t be happening. Even if they knew better, others might not...
DS - i'm not going to change my answer... i raised individual concerns and that is what happened in the case of Polly Carmichael

AP points towards findings - suggests there are no findings about allegation that PC tells staff not to take cases to S/G
DS - as i say individual concerns were not specified in the findings … I did not mention that specific allegation ...

but I did talk about cultural issues in the service and broader concerns.
AP – you do ask a question that’s pertinent at 1501:“I asked interviewees several questions around safety and adequacy of the procedures in the management of risk...

"I also asked them, if they were aware of incidents and complaints to do with the management of referrals within the service”.
That could touch on safeguarding. But an uniformed reader would take from your reader that you didn’t find anything worrying wouldn’t they?

DS – I don’t think so…. Actually I find lots of areas of concerns and my action plan was to deal with those… I was not giving a clean bill of health to the service

AP – well that’s how it comes across – you receive the same serious allegation about the director of the service and you don’t mention it – that’s exactly what it does look like – ‘a clean up report’

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 12:34

DS - i don't agree. Because there was such a plurality of views in the 31 interviews, in writing the report i had to give a fairly balanced perspective where i was confident of the issues i found...

...the other thing i found was that even where those individuals raised those concerns, i was seeing whether their actions were actually impeded. and actually they were all still seeking advice from central safeguarding. So I cannot deal with it as a systemic issue.

AP - you cannot seriously suggest you deal with this kind of issue with 'counting heads.' eg if three people say they're being racially harassed...you wouldn’t' conclude that because others didn't report that they these three hadn't.
DS - as part of the review i was not trying to address individual matters, I took advice from HR. i think we're going to have to agree to disagree

AP - it's not an individual matter. if it's true that the director of gids is telling people not to take s/g issues to the s/g team, that's not an individual matter, it's a team matter.
DS - I have nothing to add

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 12:33

"There is evidence that the senior staff employed within GIDS have been aware of the concerns raised and:

  • Ignored them; and / or
  • Attempted to silence those that have raised the concerns."

An allegation that Polly Carmichael guided staff not to seek advice from central s/g falls squarely in your remit doesn't it?
DS - Yes
AP takes DS to his findings. You've had three people tell you that PC has instructed staff not to take safeguarding concerns to SA...

DS - I spoke to 31 people. These are 3 people. I had to weigh up the balance of probabilities.
AP - you've accepted this falls within your terms of reference, so we'd expect to see your findings on that?

DS - No. I've said when there were individual concerns they were taken further, but there were also those who spoke favourably of the GIDS director

AP - But I'm questioning your approach These three people are all making the same allegations; it's serious; it's about the director of GIDS; and it has ramifications for other people; even if you did take it to HR that's not an appropriate way of dealing with is it?

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 12:33

AP - i'm going to suggest that you couldn't have followed up by referring to the Hodge report. You completed the report and action plan in march 2019. The hodge report process only began in November 2019, in response to SA's legal claim.

You could not have known in March that she was going to bring that claim.
DS - You're right... but many of the things I flagged up did not result in immediate action. there was a long timeline, so i don't agree with your interpretation

AP - you weren't going to do anything at all about these allegations were you/ And yet you can recall precisely the two members you spoke to about the Jimmy Savile allegations.
DS - said i thought it was the HR director
AP - that's speculation isn't it? you have no recollection

DS - i haven't looked into it in the same amount of detail as SA's cases

AP - 1487 - Points towards Sinha's gids review. Suggests he's asked to find out whether "Appropriate safeguarding practices and procedures are being applied to children being seen within the service" and...

OP posts:
33feethighandrising · 22/06/2021 11:31

@rogdmum

I’ve watched DS at the last couple of Tavi board meetings. He comes off as very defensive and cold. My impression of him yesterday was also that of a very cold person who was quite rude at points to AP. It doesn’t come out in the notes, but his interview was full of AP having to repeat her question, often struggling to get DS to answer or AP setting background, to be interrupted by DS saying, “I’m waiting for the question, Ms Palmer” or similar.

IMO, he comes across as a process driven micro manager. He kept emphasising he was interested in “themes” and as such he did not seem concerned about the individual incidents being raised- e.g. his vagueness as to whether or not he actually escalated them (to HR? Who in HR? He can’t remember).

I’m bemused by the fuss over the Jimmy Saville reference in the training session- surely it’s a perfectly normal, not eyebrow raising risk to raise in any environment where child protection is of the utmost importance?

That's really interesting background, thanks. And it doesn't sound like this person is someone who knows how to prioritise the safeguarding of children.

What do you think the judge makes of it? (Are we allowed to speculate on that?)

I was at Maya's court case the first time and I had a gut feeling that it was immediately obvious to every woman in the room how the "nonbinary" witness for the other side was being obnoxious in a very male way, (e.g. talking over the female barristers) but the judge didn't seem to notice at all. Not part of the case for either side, but it did turn out to be a good indication of the outcome.

ValancyRedfern · 22/06/2021 11:19

My jaw is on the floor with every new post.

Tibtom · 22/06/2021 11:18

My take from Saville (without reading the report) is that the public profile of an individual, service or organisation must never be used to ignore safeguarding or shut down those raising concerns. That seems to be right on point for Tavistock.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 11:18

"and to keep all safeguarding issues within the
service and not take them into the wider Trust."
AP - Your response is 'i'll come back to it'. That's somewhat surprising - it's a serious allegation

DS - it's not surprising as I was following lines of questioning... i do come back to it later on
AP suggests that to the extent he comes back to it at all, it is only to close it down and move on again.
DS - No. I'm making notes of concerns made

(Me: tweets have stopped for now)

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 11:17

(I'm typing in word to make sure it's legible... will post when ready. Going too fast for me to type without typos)

(Going back to v start of proceedings today - DS wants to say that throughout the GIDS review he assumed everyone speaking in good faith.

AP refers to email from DS to SA after her review meeting and suggests he was 'drawing up the drawbridge' and wanted s/g to be 'data blind' to GIDS
DS - NO. I disagree.
AP - you were impeding her role
DS - i respectfully disagree

AP take DS to Dr Matt Bristow's review interview (1477) he tells DS of reports that gids staff told not to go to SA: "Whilst I remember actually I have something on my mind this is second hand, but I found it incredibly concerning and want to raise it because it happened...

"I was speaking to a friend a few weeks ago who still works in team and they told me that in the recent team meeting Polly had told the entire team not to go Sonia Appleby with any safeguarding issues
and to only every go to Gary Richardson..

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 11:16

THREAD: DAY 6 – Sonia Appleby v Tavistock and Portman Trust employment Tribunal

SA - Sonia Appleby
DS - Dr Dinesh Sinha, Tavistock Medical Director
YG - Yvette Genn, Tavi counsel
AP - Anya Palmer, SA counsel
EJG - employment judge Goodman

Questioning of DS by AP continues

AP refers DS to an email sent following his review email

AP - it's quite clear you cut hims off and move him on again. I'm going to suggest that you seem remarkably uncurious for some one charged with investigating safeguarding concerns in the trust. Do you agree?
DS. No I don't

AP - and now three people have raised the same concern with you about Polly Carmichael- Anna Hutchinson, Anastassis Spiliadis, who said the same thing that morning, and now Matt Bristow. It's surprising you didn't recognise it

Yesterday you said that you raised the issues with HR and then referred to the Hodge report
DS - that is my understanding
AP - i was hoping you cld give me more than your understanding because you were responsible for it

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/06/2021 11:15

I'll start copying across as no-one else is yet...

OP posts:
Manderleyagain · 22/06/2021 11:08

I found the horror at SA referencing Jimmy Saville really bizarre. Every major horrible thing that happens creates a new reference point in child welfare training and discussions. In training I've had they have mentioned Victoria Clombie, and I think Baby P. Each time there are institutional failings in a certain way , and that knowledge is used to prevent a repeat. "Since the Saville enquiry..." "Post Saville ..." are phrases you hear even in current affairs discussions on TV and radio so of course its being used a reference point in safeguarding training. But her point was that the child gender clinic was being treated as a cash cow, so the trust was looking the other way when things were not being done properly (I think that's what was meant) which is hugely serious of true, and yet they lost their shit because she used the saville reference to make the point.

33feethighandrising · 22/06/2021 11:04

Hannah Barnes is tweeting again today :)

theemporerhasnoclothes · 22/06/2021 10:26

I can't quite believe what I'm reading.

SA is raising concerns about the way they are considering safeguarding - which at some point includes potential real harms to children and they are making her into the issue. They're making it into petty office politics rather than focusing on the children.

Where on earth is the focus on safeguarding? Why is it only HR that DS seems to have ever involved? If they fail to safeguard properly and transparently, the impacts will be felt by real flesh and blood children. There seems no acknowledgement of this.

This bit is especially damning I think:
"
AP - Did you do anything about that allegation - that there is a particular child being damaged by stunted growth and PC did not want to refer it?
DS - i can't remember exact detail of that concern but when things came up thematically i took to HR
AP - this would not be a matter for HR. It's a safeguarding issue
DS - The problem here is what is being attributed to the head of service. And if that was a theme, I would have sought advice"

No DS the problem is not about the reputation of the head of service, it's about what's happening to real children. How many children have to be damaged before it's a 'theme'? Fucking hell.

SpindleWhorl · 22/06/2021 09:39

I'm also picking up a 'theme' from the evidence presented regarding GIDS along the lines of, 'what parents want, parents get', which is piss poor practice in safeguarding terms.

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent · 22/06/2021 09:36

@Tibtom

DS testimont makes it sound like he took staff raising serious safeguarding concerns to be problem employees.
I’m assuming that one of the ‘themes’ raised during the review was that SA was a nasty transphobe and he’s focussed on that. That’s the theme he took to HR.
MoltenLasagne · 22/06/2021 09:26

Thanks so much for the transcripts, reading them is making me realise how important it is to send emails to confirm conversations in my own work. Not just to record what was agreed, but because if we were audited three years from now I'd probably equally struggle to remember who was escalated to first etc.

It's coming across as such a toxic place to work. Also the disingenuousness of saying that because there's no direct email instruction not to raise to Sonia means there wasn't an implied understanding is making my teeth itch. That's not how humans work!

SpindleWhorl · 22/06/2021 08:48

@Tibtom

DS testimont makes it sound like he took staff raising serious safeguarding concerns to be problem employees.
I'm getting the impression, rightly or wrongly, that DS and PC saw SA as a problem to be fixed, rather than a colleague to be consulted.

Given SA's actual job was Safeguarding, that's one epic fail in the service's culture and its ethical standards around children's safety.

And on a working practices level, there seems to have been no common assessment framework (or equivalent) operating across the Tavistock as a whole and GIDS, which I think Dr Hilary Cass (independent inquiry) is beginning to unpick.

Every major children's social services and safeguarding scandal that I can remember has had similar issues going on.

Tibtom · 22/06/2021 08:22

DS testimont makes it sound like he took staff raising serious safeguarding concerns to be problem employees.

NecessaryScene · 22/06/2021 07:57

I cannot see how PC can keep her job either way tbh. She has certainly brought the service into disrepute.

She has already been half-bumped. There was a re-org after the first Keira Bell judgment. She's now on the board, but not the director, as I understand it.

(Can whoever it was who's been viewing board meetings confirm this?)

CrazyNeighbour · 22/06/2021 07:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tibtom · 22/06/2021 07:37

@33feethighandrising

Polly Carmichael comes out of this looking very dodgy indeed.

WTF has happened under her watch?

If GIDS lose this, she'll have to go, won't she?

Normal rules don't apply here.
CrazyNeighbour · 22/06/2021 06:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rogdmum · 22/06/2021 05:57

I’ve watched DS at the last couple of Tavi board meetings. He comes off as very defensive and cold. My impression of him yesterday was also that of a very cold person who was quite rude at points to AP. It doesn’t come out in the notes, but his interview was full of AP having to repeat her question, often struggling to get DS to answer or AP setting background, to be interrupted by DS saying, “I’m waiting for the question, Ms Palmer” or similar.

IMO, he comes across as a process driven micro manager. He kept emphasising he was interested in “themes” and as such he did not seem concerned about the individual incidents being raised- e.g. his vagueness as to whether or not he actually escalated them (to HR? Who in HR? He can’t remember).

I’m bemused by the fuss over the Jimmy Saville reference in the training session- surely it’s a perfectly normal, not eyebrow raising risk to raise in any environment where child protection is of the utmost importance?

CrazyNeighbour · 22/06/2021 05:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.