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

And still the Daily Mail is the only mainstream newspaper that has even mentioned this.

Break from SA testimony. Next witness is former GIDS clinician Anna Churcher Clarke

AP - p509 – refers to an email to SA asking for consultation on safeguarding query. Who would you usually go to?
ACC - At that time, Gr
AP - why not now
ACC - He was unavailable
AP - Any other reason?

ACC - Well I was leaving the service and had had last appointment with this case, but I was also keen to speak to Sonia
AP - Why?
ACC – I had previously approached Sonia on one or two cases and found her advice, support and authority v helpful

AP - you give an explanation to GR that he’s not available…
ACC - I think it was at that time there was ‘a sense that going to Sonja wld not be approved of’ - officially Garry could escalate but going directly to Sonja was difficult.

ACC – I can’t remember the exact timing of it - think late 2018 - following the Dave Bell report and leaking of that to the press - there was a lot more anxiety in the exec team.

I did have Polly say to me ‘oh you haven’t taken a case to Sonia have you’ as if that might have repercussions for the service. So I was aware in my mind there was an association between Sonia and david bell. And therefore an anxiety.

AP - how many times has that happened?
ACC - Only once and I can’t quite remember whether it was in relation to this particular case or another one

AP - p490 – You see four text msgs from Melissa Midgen - do you know anything about them?
ACC - I’ve seen these & I think that - I’m pretty sure the context was a whole team meeting following the DB report when Garry was appointed GIDS safeguarding lead, when it was made more...

official that safeguarding should go to him. I can’t remember exactly what was said but I thought there was a sense of the not going Sonia...
I was worried that the service was becoming increasingly isolated in relation to the rest of the trust.

AP - who said this?
ACC - It was Polly who announced this sort of change in approach to safeguarding. She was the person who made important announcements in relation to the team.

ACC - I can’t remember details. I remember some kind of announcement around safeguarding and that we should go to Garry and some kind of suggestion to refer to him and not to Sonia. But can’t remember precise

I did have Polly say to me ‘oh you haven’t taken a case to Sonia have you’ as if that might have repercussions for the service. So I was aware in my mind there was an association between Sonia and david bell. And therefore an anxiety.

AP - what sort of level of clinician were you?
ACC - Between Oct 2018 and March 2019 I was acting up and was in the senior team

AP - what if anything did you take from the senior team meetings about SA?

ACC - I can’t recall specifics but the thing I most remembered was the presentation of and leaking of DB's report and the association - their names were linked together - and the sense ‘that they were out to get us - that kind of feeling.’ ...

That was definitely the sense, maybe in the wider team, but certainly in the senior team. And that GIDS issues weren’t understood.

(YG to now question ACC)

YG – I think there was an official announcement about GR in aug/sept 2018 – but do you recall that GR was taking on official safeguarding functions some time before that?
ACC – Can’t remember

YG – but reasonable to see that is right?
ACC – I think so and maybe it was made more official later on
YG – If you think that’s right, part of that was that the whole s/g process was trying to be more embedded in GIDS

ACC – well yes that was the explicit reason given but I think there was the sense that there are all sorts of other things that were also ‘known’

YG – Well he was the official s/g lead from 2017… do you remember that as part of that that you were all advised that to manage s/g it was to start with Garry first, and that it wasn’t a don't go to Sonia but go to Garry and then he would go to Sonia?

ACC – I suppose I didn’t have faith… my experience was – I was on good terms with Garry as a colleague, but in terms of safeguarding I suppose.. I was working on a joint case with Garry, complicated case, a YP with custodial (??) …sexual involvement (?)...

... I had real concerns about the way the young person was presenting. I wanted us to get external representation from the Portman – another service in the trust – and i remember there being resistance to that; the feeling that that wasn’t really approved of.

...Sort of don’t go outside the service. There was an anxiety I think in the exec team about exposing something gids…I mean I wrote to the exce team about my concerns about safeguarding in GIDS and I spoke about it in my interview with Dinesh

YG – but it’s right you were never stopped? You were never blocked from doing that were you?
ACC – well I did feel that i needed to explain exactly why I was going to Sonia. I think the fact I went to Sonia, whether it was this case or another...

...as there was another I mentioned in my interview with dinesh - that Polly had said ‘oh you haven’t taken it to Sonia’ ...

YG – you’ve done that three times – mimicking… this wasn’t a serious issue was it? You were free to take issues to anyone. There was a structure in place and that was to take to GR first, but that was it, wasn’t it?

ACC – I don’t completely agree with what you say. It’s true that I wasn’t punished for doing so but there was a sense that one had to walk with care...

...You’re in a team where you needed to have collegiate relationships, as well as do the right thing clinically. It was a sort of telling off.

YG – well it’s not a telling off, not at all. And if you look at the texts which are sort of gossiping betw yourselves
ACC – well they’re not my texts.
YG – one says ‘chatting to Anna CC’ – she says ‘telling people not to go to Sonia is not right’ - so you weren't told not to go

ACC – I can’t remember the exact words in that meeting. But it wasn’t gossip. I also went to see Gill Rusbirdger - the speak up champion – I did have concerns about how things were being managed in the service. So I wouldn’t say it was gossip.

YG – when we look at the reality, when you had a serious case you were dealing with – you’ve sent a message to Sonia, copied in GR… there’s a response from Sonia that she’s free...

there are a few exchanges between you and SA but by the time Garry gets involved I can’t see anything in this run of emails where he’s chastising you or telling you you’ve done the wrong thing...

On the contrary he’s working with you and SA to make sure this particular safeguarding issue is resolved.

ACC – yes but I suppose what I’m trying to say is that the official line was things went to garry and then they might go to Sonia. Sonia was already involved; I think it would be unlikely he would say that wasn’t the appropriate channel.

I guess what I’m saying is that it was subtler than that. I don’t think Polly had called me into a meeting when she said this, she might have come into my office, or I’d gone to see her.

I wouldn't have expected Garry to tell me off at that point but there was a sense that it wasn’t the done thing.

Am I understanding this correctly. GIDS deliberately separated their safeguarding from the rest of the trust?

YG – there’s nothing in this chain of emails that supports what you’re saying… nothing to suggest he’s told you off or disapproved of what you’ve done.. literally nothing in there to signal you’ve done anything wrong
ACC – not in that email chain, no.

YG – and in fact it never happened that GR or PC were telling you off.
ACC – It did happen with Polly Carmichael that she was telling me off...

In my interview with Dinesh I mentioned a similar scenario, of GR being off and going to Sonia, and feeling like a traitor. It’s difficult because it’s not recorded in documents, but it was things that were said over a period of time about association between Sonia and David Bell

YG – that may be your pirvate view formed with colleagues your’e chatting to… But, if you’ll forgive me the proof of the pudding is in the eating… so whether or not you had a sense, but in fact on the ground if you needed help from SA, no consequences come from that

ACC – I can’t go further than what I remember – Polly saying that to me on one occasion. I can’t remember a concrete action that followed, but what I’m trying to convey is...

after the DB report I was approached by Polly to ask if I knew who had spoken to him. I didn’t and I didn’t myself. And there was a real focus on who’d taken part rather than the issues raised in that report...

...And in senior meetings there was a sense of Sonia being in cahoots with David bell. There was a sense it became ‘are you with us or against us?’

YG - Did it not cross your mind that Polly Carmichael was concerned with what the concerns were and not just the names?
ACC - that wasn’t my experience

• - Witness is released from her witness order - -

AP requests to see – unredacted – the relevant sections of ACC's interview with Dinesh Sinha as part of GIDS review.
EJG says it does not seem like an unreasonable request.
YG says her only issue is if ACC gives permission for that. If she does, then fine.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY MORNING 10:00

In a lengthy day of evidence in Sonia Appleby/Tavistock employment tribunal, a second former GIDS clinician says they were discouraged from taking safeguarding concerns to Appleby, in her role as Child Safeguarding lead. Anna Churcher Clarke was summonsed to appear by SA's team.

(HB - To try to clarify this - as was trying to type quickly. Dr Churcher Clarke describes a complicated case involving a GIDS patient where - i think - there was sex offending. Patient wanted to transition, in part so they wouldn't be recognised.)

there was sex offending. Patient wanted to transition, in part so they wouldn't be recognised.

But that never happens

‘telling people not to go to Sonia is not right’

How does YG interpret that as ‘nobody is telling you not to go to Sonia’ ??

How does YG interpret that as ‘nobody is telling you not to go to Sonia’ ??

They haven't.

The Tavi's case appears to be that there was absolutely no pressure on clinicians not to go to SA.

I imagine their strategy is to just keep putting their case over and over again in the hope that the witness is inconsistent in their response in some way and then they can use that to suggest that this is an unreliable witness.

5/ Dr Churcher Clarke - was concerned about a GIDS patient who was convicted of sex offending and wanted to transition, in part so they wouldn't be recognised. Concern that this was not viewed as a safeguarding issue.

There was another jawdropping response to this tweet. Remember, people, a GRC is just "admin":

A male offender with a GRC, no matter the conviction, will not have the usual risk [assessment] tool for sexual offenders used because this cannot be used with women. There is no such tool for use with women.

twitter.com/NoXYinXXprisons/status/1405591733531025413

Is the case continuing today?

Resumes on Monday according to BluskyeAllison

A male offender with a GRC, no matter the conviction, will not have the usual risk [assessment] tool for sexual offenders used because this cannot be used with women. There is no such tool for use with women

This is insane. Surely nobody believes that a GRC actually makes a man into a woman. Everyone understands reality, don't they?

Don't they?

Sorry, ignore my post. This thread is too important to derail. My flabber was just so gasted!

@Boadicea2

Resumes on Monday according to BluskyeAllison

Thank you!

Dr Churcher Clarke - was concerned about a GIDS patient who was convicted of sex offending and wanted to transition, in part so they wouldn't be recognised. Concern that this was not viewed as a safeguarding issue.

WTAF? This is someone under 18 doing this and considered not a safeguarding issue?! Shocking.

Hearing should be starting again shortly ...
twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1406902574897414149?s=19

THREAD: DAY 5 – Sonia Appleby v Tavistock and Portman Trust employment Tribunal

SA - Sonia Appleby
YG - Yvette Genn, Tavi counsel
AP - Anya Palmer, SA counsel
EJG - employment judge Goodman

Questioning of SA by YG set to continue, but some technical difficulties at the mo…

YG - Meeting w Dr Sinha July 2019. You were expecting to meeting his to discuss voluntary redundancy?
SA - Yes
YG - ... even though your role wasn't redundancy, was it?

SA - no. my job wasn't redundant but i was responding to a previous scheme the trust had in place, but when i spoke to HR in June they advised the scheme was no longer in place but should talk to line manager..

SA says her impression was that it would be an informal 1 -2-1 meeting but it didn't turn out to be the case. Representative from HR was also there...

(Just lost a lot of tweets)

SA has said that it's quite understandable for a line manager to discuss any concerns raised, but it is not informal to have an HR representative present at a meeting and for it to be made clear that a note will be kept on her personal file.

YG refers to a letter (368) - it makes clear that it's an informal meeting, purpose to discuss an alleged comment to fellow staff members reported during GIDS review - referring to a 'Jimmy Savile situation.'

(Meeting adjourned for a short time to assist with some technical difficulties)

I haven't RTFT (been following on twitter) but does anyone have the link to the witness statements please?

@CrazyNeighbour

YG refers to a letter (368) - it makes clear that it's an informal meeting,

There is no such thing as an informal meeting where HR are present. How would one differentiate between this informal and formal.
Saying “oh this is informal” whilst “anything you say will be taken as evidence and may be used against you” is also in force is really saying one thing whilst doing another.

Well exactly, and YG and the employment tribunal judge surely know that? As does the Tavistock of course.

I'm not sure the witness statement are available online viperatthegates. Allison Bailey on twitter:
"The witness statement and indeed the public facing ET bundle are in the public domain and will remains so for the duration of the tribunal. It remains to be seen whether the link will be widely publicised. I don't think it's my place to tweet it out."

I guess trial documents are public so journalists can see them, but not necessarily made available to everyone online.