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

From TT:

Claimants abuser sends email at top. SH says I see y comments re C are incl in minutes. LB reminds all of behaviour standards. C is labelled a transphobe, reminder of SoB person
AD its wrong and inappropriate
CM someone paid via the CP?

AD yes
CM and prior to Gx nothing 16 Aug 15 September nothing is done?
AD my understanding from reading, I was not involved, I think yes the inappropriate comment was made but then we were into LB talking to C I am not sure there was nothing, that is all I can piece together.

From TT:

CM Would you agree this is incompatible with DEI policy?
AD I was not in meeting, it wasn't handled well and not compatible with DEI policy
CM This is potentially is a disc matter, inus not on victim to complain?
AD agree

CM Not from i/x but as CEO from this period ... p2223 fater C has been told of this incident by LB. Request for the matter to be ix and then SAR. Then p2240, this is the email sent 13 September remining points of conduct which I don't need to take through bullet points, these are same as outset of meeting in August. Reminer of standards of behaviour.
AD yes
CM response to that email is as we see 15th September at bottom minutes prepped at meeting p2242.

From TT:

J AD not at this meeting, why he begin asked?
CM [argues for this] In response to this we see SH leaves, apparently at the mention of C's name?
AS I don't know but by looks of things this was prompted by that yes
CM Reads text: Perhaps someone can fill in. Suggest someone to fill in gaps, that's an invitation for someone else to explain re C? [In the transcript C is referred to as a transphobe]

J Asks again as AD was not in mtg
CM What I am asking is whether this letter {Signed my C]... Would you accept as to describe her as a Transphobe as a result of signing this letter is a gross distortion?
D she signed this and nothing in here ... could she be described as a transphobe

CM 2449 in response Ms Parament says had not realised this, I will need to think about this and I would not want to comment but I am taking this seriously. Then ... this is end of discussion of SG matters based on what follows. 2450 can we make this a safe space? Let's go out and enjoy weather while it lasts. None say this is a distortion of Cs beliefs are valid, rather they appeal to the need to make people feels safe.

From TT:

AD no
CM If we look at what these mins show. P70 above 1.3 LB reiterated behaviours as in circulate slides, you might not know but presumably the one recirculated?
AD I don't know
CM p73 same bundle we have reference to AOB, G being one. Concern raised re under 18s; it was agreed to discuss outside mtg.

CM BUt this should not have been discussed as it should not be happening?
AD I wasn't there but it was adult mtg
J He was not at that mtg
CM Rational assessment of what we kow re detriments and org for which you are accountable 2801[?] of main bundle. This is comm btw C in 2022 and Debra Parament. This is a good piece of work thank you. She holds S in esteem, in an important matter?

AS Yes
CM Constructive relationship ICB/NHSE important for patient care?
AD yes
CM P2448 fullest text of that mtg. at AOB stage. Text at top we know is Ms Parament.

From TT:

CM And this reflected also in training roles of Claire and public involvement teams ... presumably this had some input from ICB before being advert?
AS yes
CM and we see applications being referred to. We might see that these people would consider this a joint offer of work from NHS Sussex and CP yes?
AS I can see that
CM We are re recruiting ... p2276 "we" can be taken as NHS Sussex and CP ?
J we have est that
CM Pls p109 of Cs WS to top 110.

CM [reffering to the section of WS, cannot see] Do you dispute?
AD No
CM Detriment 17. At first prelim hearing, case mgmt hearing each party id'd all parties for R as witnesses. At that time LB was listed as a witness, but do you know why she is not here?
AD no
CM P69 of third supp bundle, unredacted mins of

CM This doc was presented with redactions
BW [discussion of redactions in doc, provided on a n agreed basis that nothing hidden re attendes and agrees it would not be in bundle.]
CM I dispute
BW [Disputing this.]

CM p69 we see list members and attendees. Presumably you agree members are fixed attendees and some others may be present. No permanent attendance (membership) of ICB or NHS SG representatives?

From TT:

AD my point is it was not hidden.
CM We know it wasn't from senior teams but given Cs work why did she not know
AD I had no way of knowing
CM You don't dispute it
AD I can't dispute it
CM Answer re organisational reporting chains but not direct to my Q

CM Re detriment [misssed] p. 2275 lived experience advisors yes? This is an email that emerged of JD for this. They are called TNBI but they are LE advisor
AD yes
CM 2276 And these are paid by Claire Project with funds from NHS Sussex are paid indirectly by ICB
AD yes

From TT:

CM Is C a diligent employee? [yes]
Only knew when LB told her is odd?
AD Yes, I agree but [missed]
CM Given increases in referrals and budget, there is no equivalent elsewhere? The reason she doesn't know is because it was kept from view?
AD no

CM Dr Hall an active role? CLaire Proj keptKeep them apart [who?} Drs Hall/Redvers?
AD no
CM D you accept if SG in Gender Incong is part of Cs job that keeping her from view of the THIB > 1 yr makes that difficult as matter of principle?
AD Well bearing in mind it reported to Boards, Chair of ICB and LA members, there was a Integ Care partnership, meeting chaired by ICB and HWB Chairs ... [Explaining complex governance structure, LA involvement}