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

Just adding my vote of thanks to the C+Pers, and to Tribunal Tweets for their sterling work. And to all of you for the humour in what could be the pit of despair at what rubbish has been going on in our institutions.

Crossing everything that the horrors exposed in this tribunal will be reported in the MSM and that this, plus the new green shoots of sanity in NHS and Civil Service guidance mean that we’re making actual, definitive progress.

Oh, and a stiff whisky for Dr Redvers. I don’t know if she ever browses around MN but all the thanks and best wishes I can offer go to you, for doing your actual job in the face of significant idiocy and adversity. You have acted just as I would hope we (doctors) all would with substantial SG concerns but, too often, this has proven to not be the case, and clearly you have suffered hugely for it. Have a very restful weekend.

I concur. John Pilger is the sole reason I don't have A level English lit and it's been 35 years and I am still not close to forgiving him.

For those who we're listening in, I'm sure the J said something at the end like 'coming into this I think I was naive to think I could give an immediate oral judgement in this case'. And then the 2 barristers laughter in agreement.

Can anyone confirm?

Just caught up.

So the judge said “It would be very helpful if you could between you agree the definition of 'gender critical belief' to make sure we are all agreed on that. “

That definition is something we would all like to see.

Plus
*BW: I can confirm that the medical-integrity will be accepted by us as a protected belief. And the C's gender-critical belief - yes we understand that the phrase does not mean the same to everyone.
CM: The concession on medical protected belief is welcome, but I will still need to set out the case, because J you will need to rule on it all the same.
J: Yes I see. *

So the Respindemts have conceded a) SR is not and never has been transphobic b) her belief in EBM is WORIADS.

If the judge includes that EBM is WORIADS in her judgement that would be fantastic. I know it’s an ET so not case law but for all future NHS claimants and respondents it sets a bar to prove it’s not.

CM did really well with this case, particularly given all the people who were at the key THIB meeting but subsequently left so were not witnesses or interviewed as part of the Grievance.

Wow I've gone down a total rabbit hole this afternoon reading your threads and associated links. Does anyone have a link to the paper bundle they refer to in the proceedings? Is that in the public domain? I keep getting a 'too many requests' notice when I try and link from the sub stack so thanks so much to those of you doing sterling cutting and pasting work.

Having worked in a similar area and slightly knowing some of the defendants/witnesses in this case I can totally see how they got into this mess. What I can't understand is how they possibly thought they could defend it in court. Why on earth didn't they settle? It must be sheer arrogance coupled with an absolute belief they were in the right, but what terrible legal advice were they given to get into such a mess on the stand?

I'm absolutely agog, to be honest.

Oh and I was once in a conference chaired by Adam Doyle and ended up taking a tally of how many times he said "going forwards". I think it was 37 in one 15 minute presentation. At one point (at least) he said it twice in the same sentence, i.e. "going forwards we will absolutely do x and y going forwards".

It means nothing...where else would we be going?!

Huge thanks to TT and copy/pasters and explainers on this thread.

Sounds about right. I wasn't listening to closely by that point.

It was through drop box links, and the links were in the tribunal chat box. and I think it's once they've moved on its gone.

Whether any are accessible now I have no clue.

One step forward and two steps back according to Lenin.
( I think he was referring to Adam Doyle.)

Oh OK, thanks. It's probably just as well, to be honest, as I'm sure I would end up sucked into another time consuming rabbit hole!

The main bundle was separate from the witness statements.

The bundle may still be available, but I think you'd need to email Peter Daly, solicitor for the Claimant, to know for sure.

Another reflection is that PF was decision maker for the second grievance - the key bit is they make a decision on balance of probability not try to fudge it to keep everyone happy.

The transphobic slur has been wielded by so many people to try to silence perfectly reasonable questions, discussions and debate. In reality it is bullying and harassment to use an accusation of transphobia to silence someone raising safeguarding concerns.

I am not saying transphobia doesn’t exist, it does, but most people are not transphobic they just believe you can’t change sex and sometimes sex matters.

Also Bruce Springsteen 'One step up, two steps back' and Olivia Rodrigo 'One step forward and three steps back' - quite the muse, our Adam, isn't he?

Thanks.

I'm hoping that this is positive for SR.

Also Paula Abdul 😂

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive

Sir Walter Scott. Also referring to Adam Doyle.

I know the thread has moved on but...I have two theories about this:

1. The "do you know what I mean" as per above - the speaker is not sure of what they're saying / they're seeking reassurance that the listener is actually listening

1. The intonation might be natural to some Germanic languages - you can certainly hear it in German

I think with the witnesses it was more the top 1 rather than the bottom 1.

Thanks to all c&p-ers kand for additional insights from watchers.

I'm confused as why the investigation might draw TRA interest, and why India and Freda are wound up - have I missed something?

For legal purposes, surely the definition of gender critical was settled by Forstatter.

It's gender identity that we keep asking for a definition and never get an answer.

Also known as upspeak. In most Anglophone countries it's a majority-female habit (e.g. California 'Valley girls'). The one exception I'm aware of is NI, where it's more common from men.

I agree we have a Forstater and want one for GI.

In this case the respondents are being asked to either agree a GC definition or provide their own. It will be very interesting what a captured organisation (NHSE) defines as GC, given that their witnesses indicated SR didn’t flag it sufficient for it to be clear it’s her belief.

Nick Wallis is involved and amongst TRAs he has an equivalent status to JKR because of his genderblog.