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

AD, like many of the people having this enthusiasm, will have spent almost zero percent of his effort in thinking through what he has actually signed up to and what he believes.

Hasn't thought it through because it never seemed like having any consequences for him.

Boy was he wrong about that.

The idea a Dr will follow GMC requirements of honesty and candour are very optimistic. Remember the fragrant Dr Upton? The male Dr who (from memory- correct me if wrong) said under oath he's a biological woman and would treat an unconsenting female patient who only agrees to a female clinician?

There's quite the contrast between the cross-examination styles of CM and Naomi Cunningham. He's very much the grind them down type putting words into their mouth that they have to say and agree with while hating doing so. NC is much more fighty working to get witnesses to say utterly stupid things all on their own. Can't say which might work better, I suppose it's case-by-case.

It shouldn't make any difference if you are giving evidence on oath whether you are a regulated professional with a duty of candour or a vastly over-promoted former physiotherapist.

When I first joined this board, I was puzzled by people responding with 'This.' to a post they agreed with.
I could never quite bring myself to do it cos it seemed ... odd.
I notice it has fallen out of favour recently.

Anyway, nauticant - 'This'

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

I forgot to quote what I was 'thissing'!

Today afternoon part 1:

https://archive.ph/FEKE5

Today Afternoon part 2:

Missing in action

TT substack:

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

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)

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?

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 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.

Today Afternoon part 2:

https://archive.ph/TIOrO

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!

Adam Doyle. Over promoted physiotherapist.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

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”.

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

He has very slopy shoulders.