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

Whatever the outcome, Anastassis Spiliadis has done an awesome job, and I hope he knows how much support he's got.

@StellaAndCrow

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

It's quite alarming.

Sounds like a horrible work environment.

Yes, if nothing else I think this has given some insight into what it must have been like to work there.

@Signalbox

Sounds like a horrible work environment.

Toxic, shambolic, and unsafe for children.

YG - will you take it from me that there were quite significant actions taken after this

Erm, no. You’ve continually implied that AS is a liar and that there is no evidence for some of his testimony (in response to which he’s provided clear references of where the evidence is documented), so why shouldn’t you be held to the same standard, eh YG?

Is it because trust me, I’m a lawyer?

It sounds nightmarish. I hope the CQC are watching the outcome of this tribunal closely. GIDS is really not coming across as a service that is "safe" or "well-led"

Will PC be appearing as a witness for the defence? If she is I'm looking forward to her cross examination.

YG - will you take it from me that there were quite significant actions taken after this
That gave me the creeps. What was she (think yg is a female barrister) trying to do with ending like that?

It is strange that things which AS is saying, and do seem important, are not in his witness statement. That suggests the full breadth of the case wasn't understood when he gave the statement, but yg is making out that it means he is making it up on the spot.
It reads like he did very well indeed given the hostility.
I don't know how it will feed in to a wider narrative that the defence are trying to create, but on this occasion the reliance on 'no you are lying' is v weak. I wld find it very unconvincing.

Hannah Barnes is very good at live tweeting! And thanks for updating this thread so quickly!

It sounds like desperate tactics. Knowing absolutely nothing about the case I’d expect them to savage SA’s character to justify their treatment of her, but going after her witnesses like that too? He said he was accused of being part of “a gang” and I believe him, these are the tactics of the deeply paranoid. I sense this line of attack may have come from the client not the lawyer?

We’ve seen other evidence, in the Bell case, that rationality had completely left the Tavistock building.

"AS: wasn’t experienced then, but Garry felt that social services wouldn’t know what to do. In my other jobs we would do this as standard practice
YG suggests it’s ‘completely untrue’ that GR would seek to dissuade from making a referral"
Why would YG (lawyer) be making comments about what GR (GIDS management) would do? She seems to be saying that Anastassis must be lying in saying that GR told him not to refer, because GR "wouldn't do that".

iatdd.com/anastassis-spiliadis/

AS has quite an impressive CV.

@Manderleyagain

YG - will you take it from me that there were quite significant actions taken after this That gave me the creeps. What was she (think yg is a female barrister) trying to do with ending like that?

It is strange that things which AS is saying, and do seem important, are not in his witness statement. That suggests the full breadth of the case wasn't understood when he gave the statement, but yg is making out that it means he is making it up on the spot.
It reads like he did very well indeed given the hostility.
I don't know how it will feed in to a wider narrative that the defence are trying to create, but on this occasion the reliance on 'no you are lying' is v weak. I wld find it very unconvincing.

Hannah Barnes is very good at live tweeting! And thanks for updating this thread so quickly!

Yes, why is she saying significant actions were taken, if the their whole game is that all is well and he's just lying?

Thank you, FindTheTruth, for doing this. It's incredibly useful.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the case I’d expect them to savage SA’s character to justify their treatment of her, but going after her witnesses like that too?

I think it's normal for barristers to be adversarial when cross examining witnesses. If there are any defence witnesses I'm sure they will get similar treatment from AP.

PM SESSION
Former GIDS clinician Anastassis Spiliadis (AS) being questioned by Sonia by Sonia Appleby's counsel Anya Palmer (AP).
p239 bundle - AP addresses earlier issue about safeguarding SOP.

AS confirms he never saw this and it was written a month after he had left the service. AP points out that the version says it's 1.0. AS says to his recollection he was never given a specifically GIDS safeguarding document

p395 bundle - AP says this is where Garry Richardson agrees to take on role as link between GIDS and SA. Asks when AS first heard of GR being safeguarding 'lead' rather than a 'link'. AS doesn't recall

In respect to allegations that PC said to not go to SA, it was suggested that if it were true he would have raised this formally. AP asks which channels he did raise it with?
AS says: Gills Rusbridger, Speak Up Champion, then Dr Sinha as part of Review, and then between Feb '19

and Sept '19 he met on multiple times with Ailsa Swarbrick and Paul Jenkins, CEO - four people who are all very senior in the Trust.

AS asked if he has any docs relating to these meetings. AS says he needs to check but cannot confirm straight away - would either be email correspondence or notes from meetings, made by Ailsa S

AS says he definitely does not have notes of meetings with Gill. Asked about meetings with Paul Jenkins, AS says this was mainly about issues raised with Ailsa - allegations that Polly C had made inappropriate comments about his Greek heritage...

and also comments he alleges were homophobic. He says other clinicians had similar concerns about this

AS says that Gill Rusbridger confirmed that others had raised concerns about safeguarding with her. He talked about the possibility of whistleblowing, but v soon after review was announced and that was seen as the best forum

AS felt that Ailsa understood what I was saying and that she was worried about things. There was a time where people had raised concerns about Polly's approach and she assured me she wanted to look into things. But at some point I felt exhausted and had to leave...

for personal reasons, not because of the work

AS mentions a document - not disclosed to the tribunal - in which AS claims Polly suggests he has 'an agenda' and SA has 'an agenda'.
EJG says the tribunal needs to see it.

My pleasure 🤗 @CardinalLolzy @Datun @Masdintle @PaleBlueMoonlight

AS mentions a document - not disclosed to the tribunal - in which AS claims Polly suggests he has 'an agenda' and SA has 'an agenda'.
EJG says the tribunal needs to see it.

Indeed. They do need to see any document suggesting AS, SA had an agenda.

AS will check to see if doc relates to personal matters only, or if SA is referred to

AP - on the issue of AS not raising issues in exit interview, she cites him talking about 'issues in the service', AS says he was talking about safeguarding issues and an instruction to talk less in meetings.

End of AS evidence

comments he alleges were homophobic. He says other clinicians had similar concerns about this

Personal comment -- I knew there had been reports of homophobia by whistleblowers relating to the backgrounds of children and young people but it's eyeopening if it was happening to staff too. It's devastating (probably shouldn't be surprised 😣)

Dr David Bell is next witness.

DB describes his role as previous staff governor.

YG says role is elected but also there is meant to be impartial overview?

DB says if a matter comes to ones attention which one is concerned about because of the issues one has a duty to raise them

YG - but there is also a duty to the other parts of the trust too.

DB. Yes, one might. My position is that I was approached by a large number of people, 10, who brought v serious concerns to me betw feb ‘18 and august ‘18. I considered what best to do and I decided to write a report. I informed Ceo and Chair of this

YG - what you didn’t do was spend any time with anyone at GIDS to discuss this. You didn’t go to PC or sally HODGEs transparently to tell them what you’d heard. DB says he met with PC, SH and SA while the report was still forming in my mind. I asked for info from GIDS

On referrals, sex ratio etc and heard nothing. I got a letter from ceo saying that I should deal with him directly instead and not approach GIDS. He didn’t respond when i asked him to supply the data from GIDS

YG suggests again that DB did not inform PC or SH transparently that he had heard concerns. DB says he met with them both before writing the report

YG says he did not deal with PC transparently and When he asked for information on the service he did not say why. DB questions this and says he did say he was writing a report on GIDS.

YG discussing emails from May ‘18.

This is a ridiculous defence from YG for the Tavistock. 'You're all lying.' 'You should have done everything differently, even the stuff I've just said didn't happen because you're all liars.'

It's absolutely shocking from the NHS.

No tweets for 15 minutes....

those David Bell , Polly Carmichael emails must be humdingers!...

Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee

YG refers to data pulled together by SA. DB says impossible for him to check it because he could get no information out of GIDS.

YG referring to email exchange between SA and SH. Says it’s agreed work will be taken forward together.

YG questions why DB refers to consent for puberty blockers, whereas SA recalls discussion being more generally around consent. DB suggests YG seek confirmation from SA

YG says she doesn’t understand why DB took so long to talk to key personnel - PC and SH - and had begun investigating before doing so

“This seems rather upside down.” You’re conducting a data gathering exercise before going to the service lead and saying did you know these people are unhappy

DB - I didn’t feel it was upside down. I thought it important to take my time. One of the things that stood out was the ‘level of fear and intimidation’ - only one was prepared to meet me in my rooms. I was aware this was something v big and felt it important to get grips

With the issues before speaking to the leadership

DB - there were a number of things I asked for that were not on the website, and I was also surprised by the response i received when I asked for data.
YG - because you weren’t transparent no one knew what the purpose of your request was
DB-PJ didn’t say he wasn’t going to give

Me the information, he just didn’t respond

YG - you didn’t make plain the purpose of the exercise.

YG says that it was only later that DB explained he was compiling a report and “this was hardly transparent, Dr Bell.”

DB - “I thought it was sufficient at the time.” I mentioned Paul Jenkins and a report. Didn’t think appropriate to spell out the concerns. When I did meet PC and SH I was rather taken aback that PC seemed most concerned about finding out who had talked to me, rather than concerns

YG - what PC was taken aback about the fact that she was not given the information about the issues. DB insists PC kept talking about the people who came to talk to me. “Even v senior people were very anxious” and so I needed to act carefully

YG - that’s completely untrue. You didn’t act carefully when it came to SA. You lied about her involvement in your report. DB denies this. Says he did not give idea that she was contributor to the report. If I removed anything it was because it might be misinterpreted.

“That’s not the same as lying”

YG suggests that SA thought DB had suggested she had played a different role in the report than she had. DB - “I beg to differ.”