GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

Thank you, @Manderleyagain.

That is all very alarming to read.

DS doesn't come across well. Seems completely out of his depth, doesn't seem to have a grasp on safeguarding at all.

So DS is SA’s manager, but has no understanding of safeguarding or protected disclosures.

SA asks GIDS for their quarterly safeguarding figures. It’s not obvious if DS is copied into the request, but he then asks why the safeguarding lead of the trust needs safeguarding figures. If he wasn’t copied in, GIDS have gone above SA to complain about the request.

While conducting the review, staff talk about what they see as dangerous practice (protected disclosures). DS sees this as their personal experience which just happen to be the opposite of the personal opinion of those the protected disclosures are presumably about. It’s seen as different perspectives rather than a conflict of interests. DS must have believed it was all office politics between personnel, which is why he went to HR.

It just sounds an awful atmosphere to work in.

@Manderleyagain

Thank you so much for doing this

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?

I thought I may as well do the lot as I has started.

There is some stuff reported in there which is eyebrow raising. AP's questioning was seems very good to me.

I wonder what DS's background was. Feel a bit sorry for him thrown in to the deep end to write the review without knowing the background and ins and outs. But even so.

"I think she saw the look of horror on my face and she very quickly said, I do not mean in terms of child abuse, but something in terms of your service being a something with the cash cow to the Tavi and the Tavi turning a blind eye to something that is not right."

AP - which is the more serious allegation Dr Sinha? That the service is a cash cow and the trust is turning a blind eye to something not right, or that Jimmy Savile is referred to?
DS - I think they're connected

AP puts to DS that when he spoke to her about this alleged comment at a later meeting in July 2019 he never asked about the other parts of the allegation - the 'Tavi turning a blind eye'
DS - I can confirm I didn't

AP - I suggest you didn't because this is not something that concerned you and you did this to punish the claimant for making protected disclosures
DS - I couldn't disagree more

AP - I put it to you that if you were genuinely concerned about the comment you would have asked about something even more 'colourful' - about GIDS being a 'cash cow
DS - I disagree

AP - It's clear that what allegedly upset GR was the cash cow comment and the turning a blind eye, not just the mention of Jimmy Savile...
DS says he thinks the two issues were connected by GR. "I don't see a separation"

AP says that GR is clearly raising suspicion about SA because she has raised concerns about safeguarding with the trust...
DS - Yes. He does appear uncomfortable about S's motivations.
AP - She's a whistle-blower and he's raising suspicions. That's another way of looking at it
DS - You have your interpretation. I have mine
AP - He's suggesting it's bad faith
DS - He is certainly expressing doubts
AP - About her faith
DS - About her motivations

AP - He's very clearly suggesting that she's not acting in good faith - that she's out to get the trust...
It's quite clear from his (GR) response that he's suggesting bad faith, isn't it?
DS - He's clearly saying he's unclear of her motivations

END OF DAY 5

DS says it was not his role to address each individual concern, but to bring it to others
AP - who did you speak to in HR
DS - I can't remember

AP - This is a significant safeguarding issue and you say you can't remember
DS - I can't really remember. Presume it wld have been the HR director but can't find any notes

AP turns to the 'Jimmy Savile comment' made in DS's interview with GIDS safeguarding lead, Garry Richardson... He refers to SA's name being on the David Bell report and says he has a 'worry about how balanced
her advice would be.'

AP says SA is someone who's made protected disclosures now facing suspicion, to put it mildly, from someone she has to work with. Did that occur to you?
DS - No. I was hearing this as his experience

AP - it didn't strike you as unfair to Miss A that as a result of protected disclosures, people she works with view her with suspicion?...
Did you have concern for SA's rights as a whistleblower?
DS - at that point i wasn't thinking about her whistleblower status

AP - is there any other point in the report where you gave consideration to it?
DS - No. I was not concerned with individual issues
AP - Do you see nwo that SA was being regarded with suspicion by people she needed to work with?
DS says it wasn't systemic or organised.

AP says DS receives an allegation from Garry Richardson that SA has made a reference to Jimmy Savile when talking about gids. She then quotes GR elaborating on this:

Wow just caught up on HBs twitter feed. Dr DS is coming across as willfully ignorant of the issues he was supposed to be investigating and the contacting hr but couldn't remember who or have any emails or notes from any of their discussions lacks credibility imh

AP now quotes from Anastassis Spiliadis' interview transcript: "there was a very clear message actually from senior management about being really cautious about how we talk to the safeguarding team at the Tavi and specifically Sonia Appleby."
She continues: "She [Polly Carmichael] thinks that Sonia Appleby has a very clear agenda about GIDS and she thinks we are not on top of the safeguarding concerns in GIDS ...
"there was a message actually towards the clinicians at least to people who are talking to Polly directly about having to be really cautious about how we talk to Sonia about safeguarding issues with cases"
AP - by this point, using your criterion, there's certainly a theme emerging...
DS - in those two transcripts, yes
AP - so i ask you again what did you do about this? How did you take it forward?
DS seeks advice from EJG about what he says are individual employee matters
EJG - Two individuals are telling you that there is some kind of practice of not taking cases outside GIDS. What did you do about it? It's a legitimate question
DS says systemic issues are reflected in his review which is v detailed. On individual matters he took advice from others
EJG - Who from?
DS - HR. And then it was progressed in the Andrew Hodge investigation (into SA's grievance - carried out from Nov 2019 and reported 2020)...

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
AP - AH tells you "if you go to your supervisor, that is what you get, being told ‘why are you bringing complex cases,? maybe you should get another job?’ "... she's suggesting there is pressure about bringing safeguarding concerns
DS - She is
AP - What she says is since the review GIDS has started bringing safeguarding in house - "stopping taking cases to Sonia Appleby because they think she is ‘bad’, part of the review" - - she's precisely telling you that gids staff are not going to SA
DS - She's saying that. She's one person. I interviewed 31 people and overall I have to listen to everyone and look at the balance of probabilities.
AP refers to AH transcript again and says 'you're shutting her down there'
DS - Not at all
AP - you show a surprising lack of curiosity about safeguarding concerns
DS says it's the reverse of shutting down - I ask her more
AP - No. you say 'you don't know that'
DS - No. we continue to talk about it
DS repeats that where he had themes of individual concerns, or systemic problems he included them or sought advice.
AP - you're not suggesting are you that this is the only person raising taking safeguarding concerns to Polly?
DS - I cannot recall off the top of my head...
.... I did also hear other views that people were offended by hearing children talked about in this way

Think it was 9 days in total. So would end Friday.

How many more days in court, does anyone know?

Thanks for tweeting, Hannah Barnes and reposting, Manderley.

I'm finding it quite a hard case to follow, unfortunately, I think it's really important!

Thank you Manderleyagain

Hannah Barnes tweeting:

AP reads from AH transcript giving example where child was seeing Dr Webberly. ""One of our clients was seen by her, who had been given cross-sex hormones which our endocrinology team told us would
have stunted that person’s growth, it was damaging this child..."

"We had this big debate whether it was a safeguarding issue and I listened and then said that I think it is a safeguarding issue but it is not for me to judge, we need to refer to social services and they can judge... "

AH reports Polly Carmichael as saying no as she can understand why parents do this. AP says that AH is advocating referring to social services and that's the right approach, in't it?

DS - I don't disagree with what she's saying
AP - But the head of the service disagrees with that
DS seeks to clarify answer and says he 'certainly made a mental note' of what was being said

AP - did that translate into your findings in any way?
DS - i wasn't trying to speak of individual matters of concern in the review of the service. But wherever individual matters were brought up I did seek advice on how to take that further
DS refers AP to his witness statement

AP - You sought advice from HR?
DS - whenever more than one person raised concerns in a theme, I sought advice as appropriate

AP asks whether DS read document SA prepared before her GIDS review interview
DS - I read all documents that were provided to me
AP - did you read appendices?
DS - I read everything
AP says these included exit interview of Matt Bristow (former GIDS clinician). Asks if DS accepts this as a protected disclosure
DS - i do
AP - I put it to you that you were hostile to SA in her review meeting
DS - “I absolutely do not accept that”. I used the same framework throughout
AP - you’re aware she’s made protected disclosure?
DS - yes, after this point.
AP asks why DS asks if SA has had any more contact with David Bell. He says he was trying to get the chronology straight with everyone and he presumes that’s why it’s there.
AP suggest an example of DS’s hostility - saying he seems to be telling SA she’s using the wrong word. DS disagrees

AP turns to GIDS review interview with Dr Anna Hutchinson. Says one set of questions is about safeguarding

DS - yes. And I have my own expectations and style, especially being new in the role
AP - had you communicated your expectations to SA?
DS - this was very early on and my response was part of trying to establish that.
EJG - Sonia your answer no?
AP suggests DS comes across with ‘some level of irritation’ -is that right?’
DS - remembering what I was feeling is hard 3 years on… I don’t see anything [in email] about being irritated
AP - sally Hodges replies to SA’s clarification with thanks. Would you accept her response is more civilised and pleasant than yours?
DS - I don’t agree mine was uncivilised. ‘Your choice of words is regrettable.’
AP - SA gives a sig amount of information to you and SH. Rather than take that on you later that day send her a ‘distinctly cool’ response saying she’s not responded and telling her to cancel her meeting with GIDS. You’re coming across as quite hostile aren’t you?
DS - not at all. I’m asking for a direct response. I’ve been copied into a response
AP - do you agree the subject matter (safeguarding) and how it’s recorded is serious?
DS - it’s a serious matter which is why I asked her (SA) to come and speak to me about it

DS - i heard lots of things from lots of people during the course of the review...
David Bell appears to claim so - it's his words - I haven't heard from SA at this point

AP refers to emails from October 2018 (479). SA has asked Garry Richardson for safeguarding data. SA is asked for more context by DS and she provides it in email to sally Hodges; he is copied in.
AP says it is a ‘perfectly reasonable response
DS - ‘that is her response’

EJG - what is your response?
DS - I said in my statement I didn’t fully understand what was being said

AP cites DS witness statement where he says that he would expect SA to discuss any substantive safeguarding project to him before proceeding. Asks whether he accepts that different manager have different styles and SA may not have done that with Rob Senior

However, I very quickly became aware that the internal review of GIDS was commissioned following concerns raised by a member of staff, Dr Bell"
AP - What was your impression of SA's involvement?
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
1h
DS - My memory is that at that point I was very new to the organisation and unfamiliar with people. I was determined to clarify her involvement through conducting the review

AP refers DS to David Bell's report and suggests that in terms of SA's involvement he would have known immediately from 1st page that people had raised serious concerns with her and that she had met with Rob Senior; that she had circulated a list of these concerns etc
8:10 PM · Jun 21, 2021·Twitter Web App
7
Likes
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
1h
Replying to
@hannahsbee
AP - it would have been clear to you that on the face of it SA's involvement would have been considerable. Do you agree?

Day 5 cont…
Afternoon session begins with continued discussion about further disclosure.

The next witness is Dr Dinesh Sinha (DS), Medical Director of Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
1h
DS amends his witness statement in relation to the review he undertook of GIDS: “The review did not identify any immediate issues in relation to patient safety, “however, however, the Report suggested a number of actions to provide a range of improvements
in the GIDS service."

AP goes through some charts showing the staff structure of the Tavistock
DS confirms he joined the Trust in Aug 2018 and was asked to carry out a review of GIDS in the first few weeks.
8:10 PM · Jun 21, 2021·Twitter Web App
1
Retweet
7
Likes
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
1h
Replying to
@hannahsbee
AP refers to DS's witness statement - "I was not familiar with the circumstances which had led up to it. I was asked to undertake the review precisely because I was new to the Trust and was therefore independent and objective...

Thank.

More tweets from Hannah coming through now twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1407053384004349958?s=20

Hannah Barnes has said she's making notes and add it to the thread later.