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

Sly.

From TT

CM your original attention was to address each of recomm to reassure C about what had been done
PF I think I was just extracting from AD letter to remind myself what to cover
CM a further draft of letter, you go back with para on 3021,
PF I can't remember what order drafts came in
CM page 3022, need to confirm with AC, that policies and procedures have been amended/enacted. You attempt to do that
PF yes
CM response to that email has not been disclosed,
PF can I just clarify, I don't think I had an email response, a late evening convo about that with AC
CM now 3087 email, now on version 8
PF could be, looks like it
CM 3093 draft itself, the text in relation to managing allegations update has been removed,
PF I would have amended after convo with AC, it was already a long letter
CM final letter says 'we cannot re-look at this matter, we can confirmed has been followed up', so we've gone from a very specific journey of specific actions, to a single very generic comment that there has been follow up
PF I dont' recall a response, it had been followed up

She seems to need a lot of clarification. Is she not very bright?

"Can you clarify" also buys time. This witness seems to need a lot of extra time to decide what the truth is.

Sex, Lies and Statistics is Alice Sullivan’s new book. She definitely the right person for this.

From TT

PF no, that was not the case
CM the collective view of the ICB is that when it comes to contacting SH and LEA when investigating grievance the wall was absolute but if allegation of misconduct against C, open to contacting them
PF can you clarify
J was there any i/x of misconduct by C
PF no
CM now onto contact with DS, did you see the Kite review,
PF I have not read, I had left
CM read since
PF no
J I had not realised Kite review's importance, I need some more education
CM - in WS of C. Page 2681, 'gatekeeping against trans patients dehumanising' for example.
J thank you
CM want to ask you next, what you discovered in relation to implementation of Durrant review
PF yes
CM one of C's concerns was ICB protecting C from behaviour
PF C mentioned in first meeting, I was sent Durrant report, then ADs outcome letter, is your question that I decided to look at them
CM yes
PF not strictly within remit, I decided I could provide some assurance to C about implementation
CM so interplay here, if Durrant not implemented, C could be concerned if more could be done
J [reads out her note, C brought up, PF decided to look into it]
CM now about follow up with CMO, CNO that's about Durrant
PF yes
CM now back to 1st draft of your outcome letter,

Yeah no, you're probably, you know, like - right?😄

This comment seems significant:

CM 3023, text added to para 'not able to follow up with individual because have left THIB and CP' is this correct, so when it came to allegations against C,
PF sorry, can you clarify

Very much suggests that they wanted to pursue potential allegations against SR and not the other way around.

From TT

CM when allegation against SR need to follow up, but can't follow up with LEA
PF I think I had legal advice that I couldn't follow up on external party, and sometimes I write notes to myself
CM who is DO/OD, can you assist
PF can't comment on how Microsoft assigns initial to individuals. As I recall, only people to comment are myself, GA and contractor, maybe Andrea Derbyshire.
CM comment - have a duty to explore the allegation of transphobia, is that your comment
PF not my comment, contract
CM that comment is continued, it remains, do you see
PF yes
CM the impression that gives is that the occasion of the C's g/x is an instance of C misconduct
PF it was a comment by contractor, but I checked, did not sign letter with job title or org
CM it gave the impression that there was an openness to interview others on possible misconduct by C,
PF can you clarify your q, you're asking me to comment on someone else's comments
CM it seems that not open to interviewing external parties on C's g/x but would interview them on allegations of misconduct against C

From the way you describe it (I am not watching), I would guess it's an attempt (deliberate or not) to sound noncommittal.

God! They were so shit at their jobs.

Wow. That’s brilliant for Nick but also Alice knows her data.

From TT

CM how harm to C
PF given the long passage of time, contact to interview might result in more harm to C
CM more allegations of transphobia
PF I don't know, more harm
CM to be clear, when comes to C's g/x, no i/x to discuss with people involved because there was a possibility of repetition of behaviour. Now to more comments on drafts.
PF yes
CM comment from OD (DO11) signing a petition using job title implies, org not personal, is this misconduct
PF yes
CM calling someone a transphobe is a serious allegation, is it whistleblowing we need to follow.
J says 'I think we need to do this' , next page
CM 3023, text added to para 'not able to follow up with individual because have left THIB and CP' is this correct, so when it came to allegations against C,
PF sorry, can you clarify

They were totally in thrall to the trans rights bullies weren't they.

I believe it’s called Australian Question Intonation (AQI). I’ve read a hypothesis it happens when the speaker seeks affirmation from the person they’re talking to (tonally changing a statement into a “do you see what I mean” type of question).

Of course that could be rubbish.

So did SH storm out of a meeting calling Dr R names because someone stood up for Dr R, and nobody called out that behaviour? They really do get a free pass, don’t they? Brings to mind Tinkerbell and SEEN, Tink could say and do anything, but SEEN had to tiptoe round and modify their language, even in the tribunal.

She's doing herself no favours here.

This tribunal is such a clear example of how trans extremists have been allowed to destroy safeguarding and evidence based medical care and professionalism in the NHS, and the rights and welfare of just about everyone else.

It carries on from the nurses legal cases about being forced to take their clothes off in front of men who say they're women, and being told to lie abusive male patients are women.

I am thinking Naomi Cunningham may be right- the rot is so entrenched with people in power in these orgs that a public enquiry with power to imprison those responsible may be needed to change the culture to reality based again with patient safeguarding at its heart.

From TT

CM you say also concerned about sensitive matters, do you agree that the ICB is aware of what had happened in August (aware in August) C is aware in September, and immediate g/c
PF yes I can see that,
CM so C cannot be blamed for delays
PF I was not involved then
CM you explain why you didn't interview LEA, vulnerable there to share experience frankly, but didn't want to cause more harm. That was your decision PF yes,
CM so decision taken to avoid upset and risk of harm
PF there was a risk of re-raising issues, and time when I was i/x'd
CM so you see that C interpreted transcript as SH re-raising old issues
PF yes that was her interpretation
CM was that your interpretation
PF it was a possible interpretation but not mine [Me - J repeated this response back to PF]
CM so SH left when C's name was mentioned,
PF clarify question please
CM two possible interpretations; mention of safeguarding triggered exit or mention of C triggered exit both would be concerning
PF I don't have the transcript in front of me, I can't say
CM you also say, given passage of time might cause harm
PF harm to C.

Judge Judy responds to a rising inflection like that with
'Why are you asking me, I don't know!'
😁

.

Bingo - public sector corporate bingo card full

• blue sky thinking
• 9 drafts ( you managed not to get to double figures!)
• going forward
• taking things forward
• low hanging fruit

Sorry - 9 drafts on meeting minutes is more than usual but given the controversial topics all the attendees will have wanted to make sure they were happy with the final version. I speak from experience agreeing minutes can be a nightmare.

Looks like it.

So think this evidence is confirming Dr Hall was left unchallenged by senior staff when she also called those who disagreed with her names?
They knew it was unprofessional and against the EDI policy but she was allowed to be abusive (as she's trans?).

(just as Dr Hall was left unchallenged by senior staff to actively harm children with drugs/ Pbs with potentially harmful results as she's 'trans').

And again, it's like the situation where Sussex NHS Trust policy supported men with lactophilia ( a sexual fetish) abusing babies (against UK law and safeguarding ) as long as the perpetrators said they're trans. No one addressed it until the Children of Transitioners went above the NHS Trust senior staff and safeguarding team to the health Secretary and GMC.

I think..?

From TT

PF you're trying to understand why I didn't. I had the transcript, SH had removed self from meeting, wasn't there for comment, didn't seem necessary or proportionate to follow up further.
CM okay, your WS, you say that you contacted DS about THIB, the Kite review
PF I don't know if that was the Kite review, I emailed DS
CM did you meet him
PF no, did not meet or interview
CM para 34, WS, the choice not to ask people present at the meeting for interviews or to give evidence, was it your choice
PF it was my choice