GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

(Text from their crowdfunder)

My Details

My name is Sonia Appleby. I am a qualified social worker (1981); adult psychoanalytic psychotherapist (I992); MSc. in health psychology, (research) and MBA. I have a long career safeguarding and protecting children in social care, health and as a children’s guardian in public and private proceedings.

I am currently the Named Professional for Safeguarding Children and the Safeguarding Children Lead at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. I am therefore still employed by the Trust against which I am bringing my claim.

What is Safeguarding?

In all NHS trusts and organisations there are professionals such as myself, who work with other internal departments and external agencies to ensure there are 'root and branch' systems to keep patients and service users safe. This means responding to patient/service users' personal experiences, also including their environmental, familial, community/peer circumstances and sometimes any of the aforementioned domains could require the intervention of other professionals in different agencies. Safeguarding children and young people also concerns ensuring there is a sufficiently, healthy culture that does not unwittingly contribute to potential harm regarding the people who use and deliver NHS services.

Safeguarding within the Trust

My primary task is to ensure that clinicians protect their patients/service users from avoidable harm and are also able to recognize and appropriately respond to situations where under 18s are in need of safeguarding. My secondary task is challenge practices which are either harmful or could lead to harm. The Trust is commissioned by NHS England to deliver a National Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), which provides services for children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The treatments available also include "puberty blockers".

I have sought to ensure the principle of ''safeguarding children and young people'' is upheld whilst service users are being assessed and treated within the GIDS service.

My Claim

I lodged a whistle-blowing claim in November 2019 at the Central London Employment Tribunal. Since then I have made 2 applications to amend my claim as new information came to light.

In my claim, I allege that because I made "protected disclosures" to my line manager regarding concerns raised by GIDS staff ( that the health or safety of patients was being, had been or was likely to be endangered), I was subjected to detriments.

I allege these detriments are:

i) the Tavistock misused it's own procedures to besmirch me and therefore jeopardize the role of safeguarding within the Trust;

ii) there was an unwritten but mandated directive from the Tavistock management that safeguarding concerns should not be brought to my attention despite being the Trust Safeguarding Children Lead;

iii) and, clinicians were discouraged from reporting safeguarding concerns to me.

I also allege various other detriments.

Further to disclosures made to Newsnight by former staff, BBC Newsnight produced a programme focusing on the allegation that the Trust did not want to report any concerns to me. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51806962

and you can watch it here

They’re not in my statement because I didn’t think they were relevant to SA’s claim. But I did raise them in other fora inc with Ailsa Swarbrick

AS - I didn’t raise a formal complaint but I did raise it with PC’s line manager and Paul Jenkins (Tavi CEO) and haven’t included in statement because didn’t think relevant to this case. I’ve experienced more

This is horrific to read. The Tavistock's defence is going to be that they're all lying??

AS - I did not feel I had the power or ability to challenge her on personal matters, including matters of my identity. You’re right.

@InvisibleDragon

I am quite shocked that the GIDS lawyer is basically accusing this witness of lying. Repeatedly.

I have come over here because I am finding it difficult to follow - I think I need a diagram

But basically it does seem to come down to this.

Jesus. They are complaining that the reason why whistleblowers exist, should be used to discredit them!

AS - things escalated much more in 2019

YG - you asked for a career break and it wasn’t in PC’s power to give
Hannah Barnes

AS - no. She verbally agreed to it. But in meantime I kept being vocal on safeguarding and mismanagement in the service. A close colleague resigned and was also attacked as being part of a ‘gang.’ PC then came back and said I’m not going to give you a career break but…

You could resign and then reapply when you come back
YG - there was no connection between those things
AS - this was after my interview with Dr Sinha so wasn’t included

If there are any other witnesses, at all, this accusation of lying is going to look very hollow.

YG - as far as your departure was concerned, it was because you wanted a career break and other family concerns

AS - no it was connected to increasing hostility within the service. I was asked why am I still part of the service. “I found it quite unsafe to practice in a service where there is so much hostility and chaos.”

YG - despite you saying you’re concerned, none of these things are documented. This is merely your misunderstanding surrounding lines of reporting on safeguarding …

AS - the main issue is about what I heard PC say about SA. This isn’t about my personal matters with Polly

I would appreciate a diagram, too.

YY Datun. Why didn't you complain about the hostile and threatening attitudes to complaints in the service you are complaining about?

Jesus this really puts me off every going to a tribunal

@thirdfiddle

YY Datun. Why didn't you complain about the hostile and threatening attitudes to complaints in the service you are complaining about?

I know right! I'm mean I'm bloody frustrated listening to it, God knows what it's actually like going through it.

If there is relatively little written documentation about what happened, then isn't that quite understandable in terms of a whistleblowing case?

In which case, I imagine that personal testimony is going to be key, even if it's unprovable.

AS - I’d left the trust as a clinician but needed to process what had happened…I felt that because my safeguarding concerns hadn’t been taken seriously by anyone in the trust the very last thing i would do is to let Sonia know what had happened

YG - would suggest you reached out to her in quite an improper way but will come onto that. Looks at AS’s exit interview.

AS - this is only my exit interview, when I raised complaint about homophobic comments …

YG - you talk about being unable to switch off etc. That’s the nature of the job isn’t it?
AS - no. The issue was not with my cases but my personal experience
YG - you’re raising these v serious issues for first time in an employment tribunal
AS - no. There had been 4/5 …

Meetings with ailsa swarbrick about homophobic comments

YG might think she's being clever but she's nevertheless exposing a shambolic NHS service in charge of vulnerable children.

YG suggests AS exit statement suggests he couldn’t keep up with the work
AS - no. There was a wait while my complaint about Polly’s comments were investigated
YG - my instructions are that you did not wish to raise a formal grievance
AS confirms this but says he was leaving

AS said he did love the service in many ways, but there were problems. I was supported in many ways. “I would have left much earlier if I didn’t like my work in GIDS…” but this doesn’t mean I wouldn’t report concerns

Thanks so much FindTheTruth for keeping this thread updated.

YG and AS discussing purpose of an exit interview

AS doing very well, YG trying to trip them up after the 2017 typo. Seems like they're seeing through that

YG and AS discussing purpose of an exit interview

AS - at that point I had completely lost confidence in the trust as a whole and the processes. Explains he’d repeatedly raised concerns in multiple fora before hand.
YG suggests these concerns are not true otherwise they would have been in exit interview
AS disagrees

Felt privileged to have spoken to high powered people in the trust prior to this - CEO, and PC’s line managers - so could not see why to raise them again in exit interview when they had not been acted upon before…

“I thought I had already raised all the important things with really important people with high power.”

YG again suggests AS did not raise concerns. AS insists he’s talking about safeguarding issues and reported Sonia comments. “This is not a trial of my personal issues.”

AS says he had conveyed in the past: “This is really unethical. Really risky. And it should not be happening in any service, let alone all nationally funded service.”

AS says transcript of his interview in the bundle had not been sent to him for approval - as agreed - before publication of final GIDS review report so questions whether it was taken into account.

YG - do you not stand by the transcript then?

AS - I do mostly. But there are some small mistakes and one big mistake where it says I tried to downplay the significance of the review. That’s not the case - I said Polly downplayed the significance. So there are some inaccuracies.

YG - but you’re not taking great issues and don’t know what actions were taken after you left the service
AS - yes
YG - will you take it from me that there were quite significant actions taken after this
AS - can’t answer that question.

End of YG cross examination

Why are people so determined to cover up safeguarding issues? This is not a normal way for a service to behave.