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 quotes AS again about Polly questioning him about going to discuss a case with Sonia
PC - I categorically think that is incorrect. I don’t recognise my words here…

I don’t question, in the sense you’re implying, people in the team. They are highly trained individuals and each has responsibility for the cases we deal with…And I would not question someone for going to someone in the trust about safeguarding.

Ap refers to statement provided day after NN broadcast on 18th June 2020. Were you involved in producing this statement?

Pc - I’m not sure. It will have come from the comms dept. Around the time of that NN, which was deeply upsetting, I most likely was sent this but I wld need to check

Ap reads the statement as saying safeguarding lead was appointed in august 2018

Pc - the truth is what wld really formalise it is if there was a job description attached to that. In some ways you could argue it wasn’t formalised until even more recently… I don’t know where that date came from

@Masdintle it's upsetting to read, isn't it?

It is upsetting, yes. I often wonder how 'my' children are. When I finally left in 2016 there wasn't one single trans child in my trust/council area, wonder what the numbers are like now in that most vulnerable cohort.

(Me: something has gone wrong with tweet threading I think, but I think I have it all)

Brief break so that additional questions can be asked of Dinesh Sinha

YG - you’ve produced some emails after your evidence. Why did you look for them and what do they show?
DS - i looked for emails relating to actions relating to Polly Carmichael. The email chain is a link to the concerns and links up with my recollection of speaking to HR director

YG - it talks about a fact finding exercise. Were you involved in that
DS - that was end of my involvement as I am not PC’s line manager.

Ap - have you subsequently found anything else?
DS - I can’t find anything else in relation to Pc
Ap - are these in relation to Sa only. We know there are allegations she has made homophobic remarks, and from Anastassis Spiliadis about his Greek heritage?

DS - as far as I know it was concerns raised in the review. I don’t have further information

PC evidence continues

Ap - (p402) email from Sa to rob senior, October ‘17. First protected disclosure and then a second a few weeks later saying she’s seen four clinicians form GIDS in as many weeks… you found about these in early 2018?
Pc - yes

Ap (p404) - email about safeguarding in GIDS. SA replies says she’s escalated discussions on two occasions and is awaiting a response… Gr forwards this to you and Sarah Davidson and Bernadette Wren

Pc confirms that both were in exec though Bw has retired and SD has left the service now

Ap - going to suggest that response from GR is disrespectful to SA. Wld you agree?
Pc - No. the two emails you refer to are quite strange. Email from frank is quite complimentary and Sonia’s email raises concerns about functionality of the team…

Think there’s an assumption that there’s someone in the exec who’s not responded

Ap - GR could have just asked Sonia directly
Pc - I think he’s just checking there’s a response that we haven’t done

Pc says it’s clear from her email and the chain that there is not clear, open communication; that we as a team want to do our best…I don’t see any more than that

Ap - why don’t you approach SA and also what it’s about
Pc - my focus at the time was on whether there was something or not that we should have responded to

Ap - but what you don’t do is hit the reply button and say Sonia I’m confused here. That would have been best wouldn’t it

Pc - I don’t think so. I’m genuinely trying to find out if there is something we should have done.

Ap - you refer to the fact that SA didn’t bring concerns to you. You’ve heard through these proceedings that she did go to RS and why

Pc - I respect that. And I didn’t know that at the time. But the state of affairs was that I was not communicated with

Ap says it’s clear that she wasn’t critical of you, it was of Rob Senior
Pc - at the time we knew there were Concerns being raised that we were not invited to respond to. That’s not a criticism of Sonia

Ap - you understand now that dr Senior said he’d raise it with your line manager and she was waiting for that to happen. I don’t know why she was taking to task about this last week…

Pc - don’t recall in our meeting in 2018 that she was waiting for a response. I recall it as a positive meeting and Sonia apologised for not bringing concerns to me and said she wld in the future

Ap suggests pc has a mindset that she knows best
Pc disagrees. People who known me know that. The context is the team grappling w some very difficult issues, the service expanding rapidly with bots of new clinicians...’we needed support rather than criticism.’

Ap - does it occur to you that the way you talk about Sa to your senior team is quite undermining?
Pc - I don’t accept that. I think it’s quite a straight email… I don’t agree that Sonia is being undermined.

(Me: I need to stop for a bit now,.sorry )

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine Thank you for those posts, you've been brilliant.

Ap refers to PC’s witness statement (par 44, 142) where she discusses aforementioned email and says she would speak to sally Hodges… but what’s clear is that discussion on best was forward are only intended for your team, not SA

Pc - my intention was to be constructive. It’s not that I had no intention of sitting down with Sonia. It’s important to ascertain the information and get the facts.

Ap - absolutely. But you’re not proposing to include Sa
Pc - not in that email. But I think our focus is on the team and addressing concerns in the team

Ap - except the concerns are safeguarding concerns and she is the safeguarding lead
Pc - well there were safeguarding concerns but discussions I’d had with SA were about private providers and how you understand gender dysphoria…

It’s hard to convey just what a conflicted context this was to work in at the time… there were different views emerging with different perspectives. That threw up differences in the team and as team got larger there were challenges surrounding constructive conversation

Ap - were you in the dark as to want allegations were until meeting in Feb?
Pc - I was.

Ap suggests that PC’s irritation is evident from witness statement
Pc - I do not recall being in a state of ‘considerable irritation.’.. I thought it was a v helpful meeting

Ap - you’re open with her that you were irritated at how you found out. That’s understandable, but wasn’t SA fault

Pc - I don’t agree with that. There was a febrile atmosphere outside the service; there were issues in the service… but if groups get split off then things tend to get polarised. I’m trying to convey why things are difficult. It’s not irritation.

Ap refers to Pc talking about Dr Bell. (438) email from Sonia suggests that something potentially ‘transformational’ needs to happen.
You say that prior to that you didn’t know GIDS staff were meeting with someone outside the service without your knowledge…

your clearly discontented about DB asking questions about the service but you didn’t have problems with SA

Pc - there’s much more to it than that. He had sent me several emails at the beginning of the year asking for information on GIDS… I did meet with dr bell. He told me he didn’t know a lot about the service…

so the background for me was that there was a complete lack of transparency around dr bell meeting with members of the team for a long period of time without my knowledge. That’s v different to the safeguarding lead meeting people about safeguarding concerns…

when you have groups of clinicians going outside the team, perhaps reflecting different views, it can cause difficulties… I’m sitting in a team with v difficult dynamics going on, trying to support that team with open conversation..

and that’s made even more difficult when there are potential splits in the team

Pc and ap discussing SA’s audit of GIDS safeguarding referrals. Pc felt that it was an unfair comparison and didn’t think it very helpful and didn’t show understanding of the service

Ap refers to PC’s witness statement (par 44, 142) where she discusses aforementioned email and says she would speak to sally Hodges… but what’s clear is that discussion on best was forward are only intended for your team, not SA.

Pc - my intention was to be constructive. It’s not that I had no intention of sitting down with Sonia. It’s important to ascertain the information and get the facts.

Ap - absolutely. But you’re not proposing to include Sa
Pc - not in that email. But I think our focus is on the team and addressing concerns in the team

Ap - except the concerns are safeguarding concerns and she is the safeguarding lead
Pc - well there were safeguarding concerns but discussions I’d had with SA were about private providers and how you understand gender dysphoria…

It’s hard to convey just what a conflicted context this was to work in at the time… there were different views emerging with different perspectives. That threw up differences in the team and as team got larger there were challenges surrounding constructive conversation

AP now refers to email from David bell to PC and sally Hodges where he asks to meet both of them with Sonia. That meeting went ahead?
Pc - yes.
Ap - is it right that Sa left after 30 mins.

Pc - I don’t recall her leaving… it was a difficult meeting. Concerns of staff were relayed. There is a note of the meeting in DB’s report though I don’t recall notes being taken at the time.

Ap - what was difficult?
Pc - well from memory, DB was saying things I didn’t recognise; we were already addressing a lot of the things that had been raised, inc safeguarding; we were aware of different views: there was a lot of media attention…

… I do recall being upset in that meeting… I don’t recall being more interested in who had made concerns. I think I was genuinely trying to understand how to take things forwards

This was the second time I’d met DB.
AP - anything else you want to say about that meeting
PC - no

AP - have to suggest to you that you were quite keen to find out who’s said these concerns?
Pc - I don’t recall… I’m deeply committed to the team and the service… I might well have said who was it but absolutely disagree that that was a focus at all. Of import are the concerns

Ap - were you watching when Anna Churcher Clarke have evidence?
Pc - i was
Ap - she said something very similar. That you said to her that you were more interested in finding out who had spoke to DB rather than the concerns

Pc - I absolutely don’t accept that. I don’t agree… I don’t recall saying that at all… I’m not ACC’s manager, yes I would have seen her around, but I don’t recall that… I’m sure there was connection in the service, but I don’t recall saying that

Ap - yet you do remember asking for names of DB?
Pc - I’ve not asked members of the team. In the meeting with DB and SA I do recall saying something like ‘who was that’ but I guess it was a reaction borne out of concern for the team. But nothing more than that

Oops, sorry ItsAll - I’ll bow out, I didn’t realise you were back! Ignore my duplicate copies

Pc - well there were safeguarding concerns but discussions I’d had with SA were about private providers and how you understand gender dysphoria…

Wtf??

@Zeugma

Oops, sorry ItsAll - I’ll bow out, I didn’t realise you were back! Ignore my duplicate copies

No worries, I'm sorry I didn't notice that you had started posting!

Pc - I don’t agree that I asked ACC. I think it’s A very different thing meeting with a governor and SA than a member of the team
Ap - and you did ask her who DB had been speaking to?
Pc - No

(402 SB) - joint report to the board. Can you help with how this was written and when?
Pc - my recall of this is that sally put this together and I would have commented on it. I wld have to check my emails to confirm that

Ap - was it v largely written by sally or lots of comments from you?
Pc - I think it was based on things I had said in the past but was largely compiled by sally.

Pc - I think it’s true to say that if the service isn’t aware of concerns it’s hard to respond effectively. I think within the service there was a restructuring and hopefully some improved clarity around communication

Pc says safeguarding concerns would be raised through the agreement - in the first instance through Garry then central safeguarding; if there was a referral then it would go through central safeguarding and they’d be informed

Pc says safeguarding concerns would be raised through the agreement - in the first instance through Garry then central safeguarding

But she and her colleagues e.g. DS have already said there was no real agreement - more some sort of nebulous understanding. And that GR had issues.

This actually seems to be supporting SA's case, but PC can't see it.

Responding to a particular case, Pc says that any case where there is a concern raised about safeguarding is taken very seriously

Ap - you appear to suggest to SA that it’s not appropriate for her to have spoken to a district nurse
Pc - I don’t agree. It’s a straight email. Garry managed both individuals and knew the case …

I think what’s missing from this, and I realise this is an employment tribunal, is that this is about children and families and cases are complicated… it’s not intended to undermine SA in any way at all.

… i think sometimes things are read in a way they’re not intended.. it was not in any way a concern about Sonia or questioning her role or that the designated nurse had contacted her in her role as lead safeguarding person. It was not about that.

But she and her colleagues e.g. DS have already said there was no real agreement - more some sort of nebulous understanding.

This^ it seems to have been a really chaotic place to work, with different factions, and no formal procedures or structures in place (such as recording children's case notes properly...)

Ap talks about PC sending David Bell report to ltd number of senior GIDS staff; says she doesn’t think it has issues which they weren’t already aware of …
What were your feelings on read Dr bell’s report?

Pc - I think I thought there were a lot of inaccuracies; that it didn’t reflect the service; the language used was unfortunate - it matters in this field; I thought it was pathologising and that the language was not always respectful

Ap - and what about SA’s involvement?
Pc - I’m not sure it featured large… it’s hard reflecting on how I was feeling three years ago… as I said, her role was understandable. She’s raised concerns with her managers.

@SpindleWhorl

Pc - well there were safeguarding concerns but discussions I’d had with SA were about private providers and how you understand gender dysphoria…

Wtf??

Yes, my eyebrows hit my hairline with that one too. Go on Polly, just give us a little bit more about how that conversation went...

Thanks for the updating, ItsAllGoingToBeFine, it's meant that I've been able to easily check in during work breaks and I really appreciate it

Next AP refers to SA’s request for GIDS safeguarding data for her audit. Suggests that again we see GR pushing back on that. Is that fairy?
Pc - I don’t think that’s fair, no

End of evidence on day 6. Case resumes 09:30 tomorrow

DS – that words SA had used had a hurtful impact on people within the service

Almost any allegation of failures of safeguarding is going to 'hurt' some adult's ego. Safeguarding doesn't work if you put adult egos above children's needs.

Surely that's the whole point? This is utterly damning.

And in terms of Savile - a lot of people raised concerns and one of the reasons IMO they didn't gain any traction is because people were 'offended' and 'hurt' by the allegations that someone which such a high profile could do such awful things. There were a lot of people who allowed children to be abused because they felt upset / hurt / offended by the mere idea of it and refused to properly investigate. It's not ok to ignore safeguarding concerns or have a hissy fit about comparisons to other safeguarding tragedies. What about actually protecting children? Where is the desire to do all that in all this?

What strikes me though is how professional SA is and how she must be really sure of herself to take this action. Anyone more junior, with less experience, less sure of themselves would simply have been bullied into leaving or caving.

All this focus on not 'offending' or 'hurting' the paid professional adults seems to me to be a huge huge safeguarding red flag.