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

There are many astonishing things here but one of the most astonishing for me is that the NHS appear to be doing this, to spend all this time, money, and resources on litigation, to get a CEO to beclown himself, to run the risks of something going wrong in the defence simply to avoid providing a proper apology that might go against the precepts of genderism.

Trans is truly an over valued belief.

Indeed it's over-valued even by people who are not trans identified themselves. Quite apart from people like Dr Hall who are in the grip of their personal trans ideation.

It's all very Galloping Cure.

And a £1 settlement fee. Don't forget the £1! 😂

You're right. They're so keen on safeguarding the public's money that it was the £1 that prevented the NHS from settling. The other stuff's just a distraction.

Coming back into room

As the CEO AD should have been exposing this scandal in his trust not hiding it.

Should, but probably aware that if he did expose it, he would get the Sandie Peggie/Darlington nurses treatment. And he's not brave enough to do that.

So best to shuffle off to another Trust and hope it doesn't follow him. But unfortunately, it did.

CM back on with questioning AD

😂

Does anyone else have the impression that CM gets AD on the ropes and the Judge intervenes before CM can deliver the knock out blow.

She may be taking pity on AD who seems to be unarmed in the battle of wits.....

It annoying. She saves him every bloody time.

Possibly but one reason to do this is that if the witness gets too bashed about it can inhibit them effectively giving evidence. Doesn't necessarily imply being on one side or another.

It is astonishing. I've not worked in the public sector, but I am certainly aware of private companies that will pay you to go away and shut up rather than face any sort of legal action like this.

It's a misuse of public money and people should be in the dock over fighting cases in this kind of way.

From TT

[We are about to begin - people are returning to the court room]

CM: We have a list of issues in the case, p198 in supp. Including allegations of victimisation, direct discrimination, harassment - shall refer to these collectively as 'detriments'.

CM: List includes the launch of formal ix. We confirmed this morning that C knew nothing about it before it started, no engagement with C?
AD: Haven't seen any evidence of it no
CM: The chronology is long after began - which was basically 5/5 - C knew nothing until 3rd August?
AD: yes
CM: You were the commissioner of it?
AD: Yes
CM: So, whose responsibility to ensure complaints proc complied with?
AD: I can see that that would be me
CM: Can you agree that in many ways, it wasn't?
AD: [v fast - describes a meeting other ppl held and he wd have thought that it wd have come up then] Also things weren't clear to me, also, complaints can be ix by variety of ppl in the org, so, independent ix sought so as to be objective to all parties

Particularly: https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/misconduct-public-office

But the hurdle to prove it would probably be too high.

Way back in the early days of my career I worked for a decent size, supposedly legit, company that dealt with issues of a legal nature by intimidation, late night visits and baseball bats!

I've not heard of any of mine actually doing this, but there have been some companies where it wouldn't have surprised me.

From TT

CM: You accept that in part your responsibility?
AD: Yes but other ppl too.
CM: p4462 (p1004 is the policy itself).
CM: Policy requires "Listening, learning, improvement"
AD: Yes
CM: Open mindedness?
AD: yes
CM [other quotes,
AD=yes to all]
CM: Says, when written complaint comes in the member of staff must be contacted. no ifs, no buts?
AD: No
CM: Says, there shd be no contact with the complaint at least until [missed]
CM: Says, if clinical issue the CMO must be alerted?
AD: Yes
CM: But that wasn't done?
AD: No, [missed a bit]

I think the judge can also see AD is sometimes on the edge of breaking down. If he does it'll mean a break while he composes himself. I think she's getting the points CM is making. She's not favouring AD, just trying to keep the show on the road.

AD seeming slightly more sure of himself at the moment.

I was just looking at that list of briefs and witnesses - presumably this is ALL on the NHS (ie taxpayers) dime?

CM: But you had the Warsh. report late June / 3rd July (from DrH) - clear that there were clinical concerns?
AD: Yes
CM: So there should not have been an IX at all should there?
AD: Disagree
CM: You've already agreed the referrals were properly made and should have had reprisals. There shd not have been a formal ix at all should there?
AD: DIsagree. Where there were clinical Qs I asked Dr Gill to take forward.
So at this point we still had the complaint to deal with, so, decided to IX independently and to seek resolution. Was the correct thing to do.

Has AD mislaid a leg over lunch?

.

From TT

CM: Want to understand this. You are saying it all happened bcs you directed it to happen?
AD: No, saying I put the clinical stuff over to the clinical leads, asked Dr Gill to take forward.
CM: You say - lots going on, there are clinical Qs here about Dr Hall practice, so, you launched ix into Dr Redvers?
AD: I knew there were referrals made, GMC and NHSE, so, I referred to Dr Gill.
AD: But, the complaint had been raised, so, I thought we needed independent eyes on all this.
CM: page 169 of your WS. You say, complaint was re safeguarding team, so you didn't wanted to appoint IX internally.
AD: Yes