Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle Thread 2

They must have!

They watched Neighbours too much when younger?

What is with the upwards inflection at the end of sentences with these witnesses?

From TT

PF I read the transcript carefully
CM you did not ask SH for an interview or anyone from the CP
PF no
CM did you know that LEA was indirectly paid by ICB
PF i was aware that they could have expenses reimbursed
CM so not aware paid an hourly rate
PF I was not consciously aware
CM were you aware
PF not aware
CM and no one told you
PF no [bundle shuffling]
CM your WS, explored potential steps ICB could take, couldn't take steps against external employees
PF see that
CM were you advised by HR that you couldn't contact Clare Project, or take action against external attendees
PF I was told by GA we couldn't take action against external attendees.
CM taken you to your comments - you have identified open areas for follow up, you may no attempt to contact SH, CP or LEA for an interview

On the plus side she is being thoroughly vindicated & this ET is exposing the whole sorry mess in public.

It will have been horrible for her discovering that all the stuff she suspected was going on actually was going on. It will have been so upsetting, and depressing, to see multiple times in the paperwork that she was right, they were being absolute twats.

..an extract from the forthcoming satirical social history book '2026 and All That'

CM attachment is 2276,
PF I don't recall seeing those at the time
CM Okay. You did have the transcript, page 2488
PF yes I had the transcript, what page
CM oh - 2448, hard to determine what actually happened given that no one there is giving evidence
CM SG lead from NHSE makes positive remarks about C, SH leaves room says why, slur follow
PF yes
CM the C says the provocateur here is SH,
PF can I check the question
CM is that how the C saw it
PF yes that's how she saw it
CM do you agree that on the face there is a potential breach of EDI policy for expressing GC
PF potential breach of ICB EDI policy
CM if this was an employee, saying transphobe about another employee its a breach
PF potentially yes
CM yes or no
J the q 'is it potentially a breach on the face of it', you're saying potentially yes, so you're both saying potentially
CM a reference to SH, SH leaving potentially unprofessional, but don't know if it prompted comments
PF yes I see that
CM if you don't know, presumably you try to find out

Aren’t they awful? Poor Dr R.

PF struggling a bit not to screw herself.

It appears that the right side of history lot were being held to a different standard of behaviour. Dr Hall seems to have thought she could just spout shit with no come back.

CM as the decision maker, code of conduct is not empty words, should be consequences if violated
PF should be normally
CM who's job to enforce code PF normally it's the chair, to enforce and get people to follow
CM did you have the email at 2398,
PF so the emails at 2398, I don't recollect seeing those at the time
CM these are emails provided by LB to GA, but not shared with you
PF I don't recall seeing them
CM page 2275, to 2278,
PF ummhmm
CM did you see that during i/x
PF just having a look

I don't recall!

From TT

CM what I wanted to check was that PF had seen LB returning to slides on behaviour & values,
J yes
CM so the remedial step for slurs was to circulate the same slides
PF can you clarify the question
CM meeting of 21 September
PF yes
BW apologies it was described as remedial step, it was an email on 13 September that slides were circulated
CM not sure that BW is in the business of giving evidence 😳
J need to get chronology correct
CM in disclosure, it says, we are providing remedial step of sharing slides on values and behaviour, same slides as referred to in August
PF yes, I think it was common practice to refer to those slides
CM so behaviour suggests that code of conduct not being followed or enforced
PF I wasn't in the meeting so I can't comment further

[PF sounding pretty tetchy]

I wasn't there.

A typo, I think. She was agreeing with CM

From TT

J submissions?
CM there was a suggestion that your appointment was controversial,
CM this is one of the 9 versions of the draft letter, first drafted by you, penultimate para 2708, we might need to explain why not i/x'd externally to explain why no COI or bias. Did you say that
PF yes, the bit in inverted commas was from C, it was a deficit in the letter
CM so you're saying there's a need to explain why an internal i/x was sufficient.
PF can you clarify
CM you're saying that the C might complain about an internal i/x
PF lifting from complaint
CM so you're alive to that complaint
CM your intention was to answer that by way of this letter
PF yes in first draft
CM you rec'd the transcript did you see this longer version
PF yes, I saw this
CM did you see the complete version of minutes of Aug meeting
PF do you want me to go there
CM takes to page, you had this version
PF I had the full version, don't remember if the names were redacted or not,
CM under 1.12 declaration of interest & meeting behaviour, LB reiterates values and behaviours, did you see this version
PF I believe so,

Oh great, I now have 'Love Potion #9' as an earworm.
A particularly irritating earworm, as I only know two lines:
shivers down my backbone
and
love potion #9
so I'm really really going to irritate the hell out of myself with just two lines on repeat in my brain😠

Given their unwillingness to disclose documents they must not have considered they could one day be in a tribunal. Otherwise they'd have sorted this out via a no minutes meeting.

is that a typo- she'd be surprised if most clinicians work under EBM ('evidence based medicine') or have I misunderstood?

Draft #1 of 9...

From TT

CM para 63 of your WS, you say 'expect clinicians to have a belief in medical integrity, would be concerned if she didn't hold'
PF yes
CM would you be surprised if senior figures in ICB expressed that not a cogent or coherent belief
PF I would be very surprised if most clinicians and senior managers operate under EBM

One of the nine versions...

'CAF has commissioned an independent investigation into Cambridge’s appointment of Dr Jason Arday as its youngest ever black professor, amid growing professional disquiet over his academic record, the circumstances of his appointment, the University’s handling of concerns raised about his scholarship and, more recently, the scope and direction of Cambridge’s own inquiry. You can find out more here: https://ardayinvestigation.net

The investigation will be chaired by Professor Swaran Preet Singh, Lord Singh of Solihull, a former Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission who previously led the independent investigation into allegations of discrimination within the Conservative Party. He will be joined by a distinguished panel comprising Harvard psychologist Professor Steven Pinker, UCL sociologist Professor Alice Sullivan, Cambridge historian Professor Robert Tombs and Labour peer Professor Maurice Glasman.

Award-winning investigative journalist Nick Wallis, whose work helped expose the Post Office Horizon scandal, will lead the investigation with a dedicated research team. CAF has been contacted by numerous Cambridge academics who are deeply concerned that the University’s own investigation will fail to confront the wider institutional culture in which the Arday affair unfolded.'

https://x.com/search?q=Commission%20for%20Academic%20Freedom&src=typed_query

CM, finally, questions PF