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

Well if nothing else this evidence is highlighting once again the lack of proper procedures and record keeping at GIDS. Not convinced by PC they are all making it up approach.

Does anybody else keep getting flashbacks to dealing with squabbling children and trying to get a straight answer from them when reading PCs responses or is it just me?

InvisibleDragon Yes, that's just the sort of thing that I was thinking about Safeguarding can be tricky for the reasons you mention, but alerts would still be raised appropriately and safeguarding teams work with services to figure out how best to approach it. The focus is on keeping vulnerable people safe; I can't imagine having to consider whether someone in the organisation might be put out that I'd told someone else first.

@InvisibleDragon

Manderleyagain I think FII may have been a hot topic at GIDS because of the re J case: www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/re-j-a-minor-2016-ewhc-2430-fam

Mother said 4-year old child was trans, services disagreed, mother wanted kid to live in stealth, big court battle, child placed with father and subsequently desisted. Mermaids offered lots of support to mum and came out looking very bad.

That case, which I had not heard of before, is exactly why safeguarding should be front & centre of their dealings with these vulnerable children. Instead they appear to be more concerned about not upsetting each other or troubling anyone with safeguarding concerns in case it reflects badly on anyone.

From Allison Bailey:
twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1407670176925896706?s=19

On day 7 of Sonia Appelby's employment tribunal against GIDS, Dr Matt Bristow attended via video link to give evidence for Ms Appleby. The barrister for GIDS declined to cross-examine him. His evidence was not challenged.

@InvisibleDragon

From Allison Bailey: twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1407670176925896706?s=19

On day 7 of Sonia Appelby's employment tribunal against GIDS, Dr Matt Bristow attended via video link to give evidence for Ms Appleby. The barrister for GIDS declined to cross-examine him. His evidence was not challenged.

Does that mean that his evidence is accepted as true?

This has probably been linked before but this thread from StillTish shows that all these concerns were raised as far back as 2005. Shocking.

twitter.com/STILLTish/status/1406636710717427715

It's interesting that they react so strongly to the mention of Jimmy Saville. Together with the whole thing about "social services won't understand gender issues" sounds like they have an idea that they're "special". Which is exactly the point when thinking about Jimmy Saville - he was seen as special, it would be rude to raise issues - maybe they react so strongly because they realise there's something in it.

I read this quote the other day from Dr Lucy Delap I think following from either the Climbe case or the Baby P case. It's very clear in outlining how safeguard fails occur.

www.murrayedwards.cam.ac.uk/fellows/dr-lucy-delap

Dr Lucy Delap from History and Policy said: "Historical research has shown that there are clear patterns to cases of safeguarding failure, which typically occur in organisations where institutional checks and balances are not in place, where staff morale is low or where institutional reputation is placed ahead of the wellbeing and safety of children. It is sobering that these patterns have been repeatedly identified by inquiries and serious case reviews, yet culture change has been limited."

but these are public bodies and therefore government need to find some way of making these institutions accountable and to have the courts as the resolution is unacceptable. Every time I've watched select committees on health. there is always the 'why hasn't anything been done' time and again and nothing changes.

@highame

but these are public bodies and therefore government need to find some way of making these institutions accountable and to have the courts as the resolution is unacceptable. Every time I've watched select committees on health. there is always the 'why hasn't anything been done' time and again and nothing changes.

The good old lessons will be learnt but never are.

Agree, there should be a way of making these institution accountable for their decisions and serious consequences for their failures, back to the no sacred sect, nothing and no-one should be above being held to account and answerable for their actions.

God this is fascinating. Thankyou so so much to everyone posting!

Interestingly, Anya Palmer used to be the main counsel for Stonewall. She’s always been very strong on employment discrimination especially in 🏳️‍🌈 community. She is shit hot and clearly has big problems with Stonewall now.

Interestingly, Anya Palmer used to be the main counsel for Stonewall. She’s always been very strong on employment discrimination especially in 🏳️‍🌈 community. She is shit hot and clearly has big problems with Stonewall now.

That’s fascinating. And hopefully gives her an advantage.

Is everyone OK if I just add the rest of HB's tweets from where InvisibleDragon got to? (And thanks for doing it today, Invisible!)

PC – The account is quite confused… (PAR 25) “I assume that Sonia must have seen my notes when doing a random check and she immediately alerted GIDS – enquiring why this case had not been taken to safeguarding consultation with the safeguarding team.”

I am not aware of Sonia doing any checks… Factitious illness is a very serious issue which had bene raised locally, and I assume that is why she had been contacted

AP – ACC also recalls an occasion where you effectively told her off for taking a case to SA…do you remember saying that?
PC – No I don’t remember saying that
Ap – is it possible you’ve forgotten about it because it was an everyday thing for you to say things like that?

PC – it wasn’t an everyday thing for me to say things like that… ‘I think the implication that I told people not do things is not correct’… this is a busy clinic
AP – she’s being more subtle…not that you reprimanded her.. but that you disapproved of her going to Sonia

PC – I don’t disapprove of people going to Sonia. That is not my interpretation – that is what you’re doing… that is not a comment I regularly made, if it was I would recall it
AP – my question now is do you recall saying it to ACC?
PC – I don’t recall

AP refers to allegation of trying to find out who'd spoken to DB from ACC. She said ‘to try and convey the sense of paranoia after the DB report’ I spoke to Polly and there was a sense of trying to find out who’d spoken to DB. Do you recall having that conversation with ACC?

PC – No I don’t
AP refers to DB being taken aback by PC being concerned about who had spoken to me – you conceded that didn’t you?

PC - I can imagine in that meeting that I might have said 'gosh who is it?’ or something like that as a comment... to extrapolate from that that I had more interest in finding out who it was rather than what was said is incorrect

AP – DB said under oath that she ‘kept referring to wondering who the people were’… it’’s not possible for their to be a misinterpretation here… do you accept what he says?
PC – No i don't accept that. I think that is Dr B’s interpretation. That is not correct

AP – AS (par 34 W) “Polly accused me of having
given some information to Dr David Bell, even though I had never met Dr David Bell until after I resigned from the Trust. She thought that I had met with Dr Bell...and that I had provided him with information that formed the base of his report about GIDS.
However, I did not even know at the time where Dr Bell’s office was in the building...I remember being in Polly’s room to collect something when she said to me “I bet you
are one of those people who spoke to David and the journalists” which came as a great shock to me.”
AP - Do you recall saying that to Mr S?

PC – I totally refute that… I do recall Mr S calling me on one occasion completely out of the blue that he’d been approached by someone in the adult (?) dept asking if he wanted to speak. I thought it was an odd call at the time…I have certainly not accused anyone in the team of speaking to anyone. That’s just wrong.

AP – that hasn’t been put to Mr S because not in your witness statement
PC – it’s just come to me… it’s a very detailed account and it’s not correct.

AP – just on the issue of you asking for information on who’d spoken to Dr B – three people have said this (AS, ACC and DB) – these people are all either wrong, mistaken or lying?

PC – I think I’ve said in the meeting with DB I probably did wonder who’d said it.. the context for me - I was probably trying to make sense of things… communication was not open… of course I was trying to make sense of it. It was not that I had a focus on who had spoken… I’m sure in the team there would have been speculation but that’s not to say concerns weren’t being addressed… many of the concerns were already being addressed.

AP – so the other two are lying or mistaken?
PC – I don’t recall making any such comment

AP (p843) – notes of interview betw Andrew Hodge and PC… this echoes something we keep hearing that you don’t like other people going to anyone but you
PC – we don’t keep hearing it; you keep saying it, and I don’t agree

AP – note refers to ‘dangerous to take things out of the team’
PC – it’s not clear what that refers to, whether it’s a question. But what I stand by is that it’s important to be aware of these issues within the team and manage these issues internally...It’s a balancing act – we are criticised from two sides – both being too affirmative and too conservative.

AP – my assumption is that Mr Hodge is asking you questions over the phone and writing down your answers… wld you agree that’s the most likely interpretation?

PC – I agree that’s the most likely explanation, but I don’t recognise all of the language used. “Dangerous to take things out of the team. The kaleidoscope needs to be managed internally”. That could be interpreted as me not wanting anything outside the team...
but what I probably meant by that was that if dif views are split in the team what you’re not doing is openly discussing those and openly trying to find your way through difficult issues where there are strongly held point of view.

So I do think that the team needed to be supported to bring some of these issues together. We've heard a lot about transphobia in the team, or people being accused of being transphobic, as far as I’m aware this relates to one person.
When it gets to these offensive issues, the team is not processing these at the time… it is an ethically challenging area. There is a building evidence base and the team is always responding to things as they develop. And if there is a split…
you’re not addressing these issues in a way that allows the service to move forward.
… I’m glad I’ve given that interpretation because I think dangerous to take things out of the team can be interpreted in a number of ways

AP – Mr Hodge is a professional investigator, former solicitor. You wouldn’t expect him to write things down that you didn’t say?
PC – as you’ve probably realised i do talk in rather a verbose way and I imagine it’s quite difficult to get donw on paper what I’ve say.

E.g. I would not say ‘drumming up witnesses’ – that is not a phrase I would use.
AP – do you accept that you would have said you wld have liked Sonia to come to you?

PC – I think we’ve already discussed that if we’re talking about 2018… I guess I’m saying it may have been helpful if things had been raised at an earlier stage

AP – but the next sentence is not about that time at all – you say: “David Bell was seeking people to talk to him so maybe Sonia was drumming up witnesses for him”

PC – that is an exceedingly unfortunate turn of phrase.. I did hear on a number of
occasions that there was a seeking out of individuals by David bell in quite a proactive
way…
eg a psychanalyst who’d worked in the service in the past, but when she was positive
about the service he wasn’t interested and didn't take fwd. And I’ve heard that elsewhere. The phrase ‘drumming up’ is not one I wld use…
the relationship betw DB and SA I don’t know… but Sonia’s motivations were concerns
quite rightly about safeguarding.

AP – but you are speculating about relationship between them and her relationship with
the report

Pc – I don’t get that from that report and that is not a phrase I would use.

I don’t disapprove of people going to Sonia. That is not my interpretation – that is what you’re doing… that is not a comment I regularly made, if it was I would recall it

😬

Not a comment she regularly made.

I think she has now accidentally revealed the fact that she did say she disapproved of people going to Sonia.

If it was something she would never have said, then should would have said that.

(Sorry, there's quite a lot of this - don't know whether it's helpful but I'll carry on for the record!)

Ap – you don't want to accept it Dr C because your evidence has been that you had
problems with DB but not SA, because it was appropriate given her role. And this shows
quite clearly that you did have problem with it – you just don’t want to admit it?

PC – no. you’re problematising things and telling me I don’t want to admit it. Clearly Sonia was involved in some way in that report – I can't really say more than that

Ap – a few lines down from there – “Why did Sonia go straight to Rob w/o talking to
Polly as well” – by this point you know why she did this and you’ve said you accepted it.
So why are you asking about it?

Pc – I guess I understand that now… but i think Sonia has said in an email that she
should have come to me so I don’t think that is a fair interpretation

AP – “S/G usually dealt with locally as part of referral process. But Sonia seemed to be
on a fishing expedition to show that S/G was defective. But was providing no real support.” What did you mean by that?

PC…I think Sonia had only heard on perspective on s/g in the service…

AP – what is absolutely clear from this is that you are suspicious of sonia’s role and what she’s doing – that she was out to show that s/g is defective in gids

Pc – I think she had concerns about s/g in gids and I think to be fair ...what was harder to have was support within the service for really managing those and given what she heard she probably did think it was defective, so I don’t think that’s an unfair comment really.

AP – next para – “When Sonia refers to email from Polly saying don't talk to Sonia, it
was a person who was quite vulnerable. Polly would not have said “don't talk to Sonia”
it was talk to Gary in the first instance.” What email are you talking about there?

PC – yes. talking about an email sent to Sonia by an ex colleague reporting something
they'd heard

[Comment from HB here: 'getting everything so it's readable while following
proceedings']

AP – “Feels that staff from GIDS were being siphoned off to support Dave Bell view the world.” You’re clearly suspicious aren’t you? Do you remember saying that?

PC – No I don’t. I don’t accept those are the words I would use, its probably shorthand… I think there was active work on the part of dr bell trying to find people to talk to him…there were also emails after the review was announced inviting people to come forward that caused considerable upset in the team.. I do believe that DB does have a particular view ...– I think it’s clear in his report that there are strong arguments put fwd. for a different type of service. I think that some of the comments about the service are inaccurate and incorrect, but accept there are different views.. I probably have different views to Dr B…

PC – it’s not clear what that refers to, whether it’s a question. But what I stand by is that it’s important to be aware of these issues within the team and manage these issues internally...It’s a balancing act – we are criticised from two sides – both being too affirmative and too conservative.

What? Who is telling them they are too conservative ?

@Zeugma I’m reading every word! Fascinating stuff and a super record.

Thanks Smallredclip, I'll carry on!

AP – I don’t think you understand the importance of that sentence – the allegation is
about SA – the person siphoning off staff?

PC – that is not about Sonia. I do not think for one minute S siphoned off anyone to
support DB. I think DB siphoned off Sonia to support this review.

AP – mr hodge imagined the above comment too did he, that Sonia was ‘drumming up witnesses.?
PC – I’ve never had an opinion that Sonia is siphoning off gids staff – that it is incorrect… I don’t think Sonia was actively putting witnesses forward, no...do I think DB involved
Sonia to support the review. Yes I do… but clearly that is supposition.

AP you had extensive suspicions about SA, weren’t remotely relaxed about her involvement whatever it was in DB’s report

PC… I absolutely maintain that the context of the review was exceedingly dif; the
processes around it were not transparent; I think it had a huge impact on the team,
many of whom did find that report upsetting; I don’t think in anyway that has a part in undermining sonia’s role of safeguarding lead in the trust.

AP – I’m just wondering why you didn’t deal with your concerns and suspicions about SA in your witness statement?

Pc – I don’t understand your question

AP – it’s clear from this note that you had significant concern about S’s involvement
in the Bell report, and I’m wondering why you didn’t put that in your witness statement

PC - I believe this tribunal is about S’s role in the trust … and this is a whole separate
issue. I accept if you think I should have gone into this detail but I was talking about
what was absolutely relevant to sonia's role as child safeguarding lead