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

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.

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

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

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

They watched Neighbours too much when younger?

They must have!

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

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..?

Looks like it.

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.

.

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

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.

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.

She's doing herself no favours here.

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.

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.

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

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

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

God! They were so shit at their jobs.

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

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

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.

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