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

Although not a fan of slopy shoulders, real or metaphorical.

Here's the advert

I have absolutely no idea who he is but am just enjoying the pic with a G&T and some salted nuts after a hard day down at the tribunal screen.
<shallow>

I like JH, until he takes his kit off then I get the ick.

What an excellent start to my evening that image is. Thank you Boiled!

I expect AD is having a rather less cool and more sweaty one.

Exactly, I see no way that blame could ever find purchase there

He has very slopy shoulders.

I started to see another form defense today, a type of 'somebody else's problem'. I've decided to call it the sloping shoulders special
The best graphic I have come up with so far is a topless Josh Holloway playing Sawyer from Lost

Hard agree @nauticant.
Its because the NHS was hoping another organisation would go first and take the flack. Then they could make changes without the terrible trans wreaking payback by much gnashing of teeth and wailing of literal genocide.
“It would be unkind of me to ask how that is going for this CEO”.

It will be interesting to see if CM expands on this in his submissions.

from TT
J: OK then, we will resume tomorrow at 10, and let's be optimistic, who will next R witness be?
CM: Am not sure will finish with AD before 3pm

A whole other day of it to look forward to, AD!

A duty of candour does imply that you don't wait for a complaint but proactively tell people about issues. How much this occurs in real life I have my doubts.

A duty of candour is stronger than a duty of truth-telling, I think? I mean, strictly speaking it could mean more than just a sworn-in witness's legal obligations relating to honesty?

Say a doctor answered all questions in court truthfully and comprehensively but failed to inform her questioners that there was a whole additional dimension to the case that had been overlooked. And say that omission came to light later (for example in a subsequent appeal). She could in theory be investigated by regulators for a failure of candour?

I think that's mixed in with the fact that NHS Sussex have put up a very sparse selection of witnesses. Some will have left. I think that might apply to Mark Power who is very much one of the ghosts at the party. However, if I'm right and he's working as a freelance HR consultant, then I suspect NHS Sussex might have had leverage to have got him to attend. I think that rather, they're relying on departed potential witnesses as being a reason why they couldn't give evidence.

Overall though the sparsity is odd. One possibility is that NHS Sussex expect to lose and want there to be as little witness evidence from their side going into the judgment.

I absolutely agree. Of course every witness under oath should tell the truth, regulated professional or not. And I know that being a regulated professional doesn't guarantee truthfulness, Upton being the obvious example of a doctor under oath who was economical with the actualité.

I'm just reiterating CM's point that R1 hasn't taken the risk of exposing any of its witnesses to a potential decision between their professional integrity/preserving a certificate to practise and pissing off a current employer.

Given that the GMC doesn't appear to give a toss about Upton who has buggered off abroad anyway, perhaps the respondent needn't have worried.

Adam Doyle. Over promoted physiotherapist.

There’s still a lot of this about. I have dear friends who are still so uncomfortable with gender non-conformity they have switched their brains off on this topic completely, and just cling to the idea that blindly accepting = being a good person.

The fact they’re unthinkingly supporting exactly this sort of bin fire would horrify them if they knew about it. The “evidence based medicine is just an opinion” bit would blow their minds!

Today Afternoon part 2:

https://archive.ph/TIOrO

I must say, I prefer CM's approach, only because that's how my brain works so it's easier for me to follow. I don't have the background to be able to say which approach achieves "better" results.

Women will be initiating, sitting in on, and watching tribunals exactly like this one from now until Kingdom Come if MSM don't start reporting on it.

I was mentally contrasting the styles of NC and CM today.

Both of them build traps for witnesses.

NC's traps is a serial question trap; so if a, b and c are true would it be fair to say that d follows.

CM is more of lets compare these two things a = reasonable and b = stupid. You said b in your witness statement. Do you continue to say b?

Naomi C has commented on x that none of the national media have reported on this case -only the little Brighton and Hove news (which she links to)saying

'This case is a bin-fire, and so far this is all a Google search on "news" shows.
(and copies in the press association)

Today afternoon part 1:

https://archive.ph/FEKE5

Today Afternoon part 2:

Missing in action

TT substack:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-218906910

I forgot to quote what I was 'thissing'!

Helps if you quote the post you are thising about Marie 😘