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

AP now quotes from Anastassis Spiliadis' interview transcript: "there was a very clear message actually from senior management about being really cautious about how we talk to the safeguarding team at the Tavi and specifically Sonia Appleby."
She continues: "She [Polly Carmichael] thinks that Sonia Appleby has a very clear agenda about GIDS and she thinks we are not on top of the safeguarding concerns in GIDS ...
"there was a message actually towards the clinicians at least to people who are talking to Polly directly about having to be really cautious about how we talk to Sonia about safeguarding issues with cases"
AP - by this point, using your criterion, there's certainly a theme emerging...
DS - in those two transcripts, yes
AP - so i ask you again what did you do about this? How did you take it forward?
DS seeks advice from EJG about what he says are individual employee matters
EJG - Two individuals are telling you that there is some kind of practice of not taking cases outside GIDS. What did you do about it? It's a legitimate question
DS says systemic issues are reflected in his review which is v detailed. On individual matters he took advice from others
EJG - Who from?
DS - HR. And then it was progressed in the Andrew Hodge investigation (into SA's grievance - carried out from Nov 2019 and reported 2020)...

Wow just caught up on HBs twitter feed. Dr DS is coming across as willfully ignorant of the issues he was supposed to be investigating and the contacting hr but couldn't remember who or have any emails or notes from any of their discussions lacks credibility imh

DS says it was not his role to address each individual concern, but to bring it to others
AP - who did you speak to in HR
DS - I can't remember

AP - This is a significant safeguarding issue and you say you can't remember
DS - I can't really remember. Presume it wld have been the HR director but can't find any notes

AP turns to the 'Jimmy Savile comment' made in DS's interview with GIDS safeguarding lead, Garry Richardson... He refers to SA's name being on the David Bell report and says he has a 'worry about how balanced
her advice would be.'

AP says SA is someone who's made protected disclosures now facing suspicion, to put it mildly, from someone she has to work with. Did that occur to you?
DS - No. I was hearing this as his experience

AP - it didn't strike you as unfair to Miss A that as a result of protected disclosures, people she works with view her with suspicion?...
Did you have concern for SA's rights as a whistleblower?
DS - at that point i wasn't thinking about her whistleblower status

AP - is there any other point in the report where you gave consideration to it?
DS - No. I was not concerned with individual issues
AP - Do you see nwo that SA was being regarded with suspicion by people she needed to work with?
DS says it wasn't systemic or organised.

AP says DS receives an allegation from Garry Richardson that SA has made a reference to Jimmy Savile when talking about gids. She then quotes GR elaborating on this:

"I think she saw the look of horror on my face and she very quickly said, I do not mean in terms of child abuse, but something in terms of your service being a something with the cash cow to the Tavi and the Tavi turning a blind eye to something that is not right."

AP - which is the more serious allegation Dr Sinha? That the service is a cash cow and the trust is turning a blind eye to something not right, or that Jimmy Savile is referred to?
DS - I think they're connected

AP puts to DS that when he spoke to her about this alleged comment at a later meeting in July 2019 he never asked about the other parts of the allegation - the 'Tavi turning a blind eye'
DS - I can confirm I didn't

AP - I suggest you didn't because this is not something that concerned you and you did this to punish the claimant for making protected disclosures
DS - I couldn't disagree more

AP - I put it to you that if you were genuinely concerned about the comment you would have asked about something even more 'colourful' - about GIDS being a 'cash cow
DS - I disagree

AP - It's clear that what allegedly upset GR was the cash cow comment and the turning a blind eye, not just the mention of Jimmy Savile...
DS says he thinks the two issues were connected by GR. "I don't see a separation"

AP says that GR is clearly raising suspicion about SA because she has raised concerns about safeguarding with the trust...
DS - Yes. He does appear uncomfortable about S's motivations.
AP - She's a whistle-blower and he's raising suspicions. That's another way of looking at it
DS - You have your interpretation. I have mine
AP - He's suggesting it's bad faith
DS - He is certainly expressing doubts
AP - About her faith
DS - About her motivations

AP - He's very clearly suggesting that she's not acting in good faith - that she's out to get the trust...
It's quite clear from his (GR) response that he's suggesting bad faith, isn't it?
DS - He's clearly saying he's unclear of her motivations

END OF DAY 5

I thought I may as well do the lot as I has started.

There is some stuff reported in there which is eyebrow raising. AP's questioning was seems very good to me.

I wonder what DS's background was. Feel a bit sorry for him thrown in to the deep end to write the review without knowing the background and ins and outs. But even so.

Polly Carmichael comes out of this looking very dodgy indeed.

WTF has happened under her watch?

If GIDS lose this, she'll have to go, won't she?

@Manderleyagain

Thank you so much for doing this

So DS is SA’s manager, but has no understanding of safeguarding or protected disclosures.

SA asks GIDS for their quarterly safeguarding figures. It’s not obvious if DS is copied into the request, but he then asks why the safeguarding lead of the trust needs safeguarding figures. If he wasn’t copied in, GIDS have gone above SA to complain about the request.

While conducting the review, staff talk about what they see as dangerous practice (protected disclosures). DS sees this as their personal experience which just happen to be the opposite of the personal opinion of those the protected disclosures are presumably about. It’s seen as different perspectives rather than a conflict of interests. DS must have believed it was all office politics between personnel, which is why he went to HR.

It just sounds an awful atmosphere to work in.

DS doesn't come across well. Seems completely out of his depth, doesn't seem to have a grasp on safeguarding at all.

@Manderleyagain

I thought I may as well do the lot as I has started.

There is some stuff reported in there which is eyebrow raising. AP's questioning was seems very good to me.

I wonder what DS's background was. Feel a bit sorry for him thrown in to the deep end to write the review without knowing the background and ins and outs. But even so.

It seems to me that he was determined to look at everything and everyone except the massive safeguarding issues that were apparent at GIDS.

Thank you, @Manderleyagain.

That is all very alarming to read.

I’ve watched DS at the last couple of Tavi board meetings. He comes off as very defensive and cold. My impression of him yesterday was also that of a very cold person who was quite rude at points to AP. It doesn’t come out in the notes, but his interview was full of AP having to repeat her question, often struggling to get DS to answer or AP setting background, to be interrupted by DS saying, “I’m waiting for the question, Ms Palmer” or similar.

IMO, he comes across as a process driven micro manager. He kept emphasising he was interested in “themes” and as such he did not seem concerned about the individual incidents being raised- e.g. his vagueness as to whether or not he actually escalated them (to HR? Who in HR? He can’t remember).

I’m bemused by the fuss over the Jimmy Saville reference in the training session- surely it’s a perfectly normal, not eyebrow raising risk to raise in any environment where child protection is of the utmost importance?

@33feethighandrising

Polly Carmichael comes out of this looking very dodgy indeed.

WTF has happened under her watch?

If GIDS lose this, she'll have to go, won't she?

Normal rules don't apply here.

I cannot see how PC can keep her job either way tbh. She has certainly brought the service into disrepute.

She has already been half-bumped. There was a re-org after the first Keira Bell judgment. She's now on the board, but not the director, as I understand it.

(Can whoever it was who's been viewing board meetings confirm this?)

DS testimont makes it sound like he took staff raising serious safeguarding concerns to be problem employees.

@Tibtom

DS testimont makes it sound like he took staff raising serious safeguarding concerns to be problem employees.

I'm getting the impression, rightly or wrongly, that DS and PC saw SA as a problem to be fixed, rather than a colleague to be consulted.

Given SA's actual job was Safeguarding, that's one epic fail in the service's culture and its ethical standards around children's safety.

And on a working practices level, there seems to have been no common assessment framework (or equivalent) operating across the Tavistock as a whole and GIDS, which I think Dr Hilary Cass (independent inquiry) is beginning to unpick.

Every major children's social services and safeguarding scandal that I can remember has had similar issues going on.

Thanks so much for the transcripts, reading them is making me realise how important it is to send emails to confirm conversations in my own work. Not just to record what was agreed, but because if we were audited three years from now I'd probably equally struggle to remember who was escalated to first etc.

It's coming across as such a toxic place to work. Also the disingenuousness of saying that because there's no direct email instruction not to raise to Sonia means there wasn't an implied understanding is making my teeth itch. That's not how humans work!

@Tibtom

DS testimont makes it sound like he took staff raising serious safeguarding concerns to be problem employees.

I’m assuming that one of the ‘themes’ raised during the review was that SA was a nasty transphobe and he’s focussed on that. That’s the theme he took to HR.

I'm also picking up a 'theme' from the evidence presented regarding GIDS along the lines of, 'what parents want, parents get', which is piss poor practice in safeguarding terms.

I can't quite believe what I'm reading.

SA is raising concerns about the way they are considering safeguarding - which at some point includes potential real harms to children and they are making her into the issue. They're making it into petty office politics rather than focusing on the children.

Where on earth is the focus on safeguarding? Why is it only HR that DS seems to have ever involved? If they fail to safeguard properly and transparently, the impacts will be felt by real flesh and blood children. There seems no acknowledgement of this.

This bit is especially damning I think:
"
AP - Did you do anything about that allegation - that there is a particular child being damaged by stunted growth and PC did not want to refer it?
DS - i can't remember exact detail of that concern but when things came up thematically i took to HR
AP - this would not be a matter for HR. It's a safeguarding issue
DS - The problem here is what is being attributed to the head of service. And if that was a theme, I would have sought advice"

No DS the problem is not about the reputation of the head of service, it's about what's happening to real children. How many children have to be damaged before it's a 'theme'? Fucking hell.

Hannah Barnes is tweeting again today :)

I found the horror at SA referencing Jimmy Saville really bizarre. Every major horrible thing that happens creates a new reference point in child welfare training and discussions. In training I've had they have mentioned Victoria Clombie, and I think Baby P. Each time there are institutional failings in a certain way , and that knowledge is used to prevent a repeat. "Since the Saville enquiry..." "Post Saville ..." are phrases you hear even in current affairs discussions on TV and radio so of course its being used a reference point in safeguarding training. But her point was that the child gender clinic was being treated as a cash cow, so the trust was looking the other way when things were not being done properly (I think that's what was meant) which is hugely serious of true, and yet they lost their shit because she used the saville reference to make the point.