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

This is really helpful, thanks Zeugma!

This is fascinating.

AP (424SB) refers to email from DS to SH – July 2019 which refers to "an
investigation into the reported comments by Polly." It says, "We have agreed that
there will be a fact finding pre investigation..."

AP - So far as you are aware, did you ever find out that you were subject to any
investigation in relation to allegation that you told a whole team meeting not to take
concerns to sonia?

PC – it was raised with me at the time with SH when an email was sent by matt B -
it was discussed and I produced emails showing that the process for the service
was that people went to Garry and then onto Sonia, but that when Garry wasn’t
there to go to sonia...In terms of this pre investigation, I don’t think it would have
necessarily involved me, but I wasn’t aware of this, no...I don’t think that’s unusual.
Another member of staff was subject to investigation following allegations and I don’t
think they were informed of the outcome.

Ap – so a letter wasn’t written warning you as to your future conduct and placed on
your file?

PC – I think that presupposes the outcome of any investigation

Ap – it doesn’t sound like there was a formal investigation in any sense of the word
does it Dr c?

Pc – I don’t know if I can comment on that. I know there have been investigations
and the member of staff has not been part of that.

AP details what a formal investigation might entail, and suggests that being
questioned about an email sounded 'delightfully informal'...

PC - it didn’t feel ‘delightfully informal’ to be questioned about Matt's email. It was
serious and I responded in that vein

AP – it is a serious allegation, yet unlike SA it didn’t feel necessary to write you a
letter to say that if there are any further allegations we would have to document
it

PC – I agree

AP – wld you agree that the allegation against you was a much more serious
allegation – diverting staff away from the s/g lead for children rather

Pc – I think the allegation against me was from a former member of staff reporting a
second hand account…...so I don’t think they are the same sort of allegation

Ap – And you say this was in response to email from MB… but this email (from DS)
was produced in response to an allegation from 3 people… so as far as you're
aware, was there any investigation into Mr Sinha's comments?

PC – the email you’ve read is part of a pre-investigation and i was not part of that…
I think we’re talking about two different timeframes… the conversation I had with
my manager was at the time of that email...This is about after the review and I was
not aware of this pre investigation…
I was asked about the email at about the same time it was sent – January 2019

AP – so as far as you're aware the pre investigation referred to in the email
exchange betw dr Sinha and dr hodges - that never went as far as you being
asked any question?

PC – No

AP (1333) – this is an extract from your review interview with DS – You say "to say
that we've suppressed anything is a really really serious allegation and from my
perspective what would that look like, what would that be?"

AP - I put to you what it wld look like is telling people in a whole team meeting not
to take concerns to SA; you saying the same thing to individuals when they bring
difficult cases; you expressing suspicion of SA; you asking for names of people
who’d spoken to DB. That’s exactly what it would look like?

Pc – and I’ve told you that I don’t accept that I’ve said those things

EJG – (843) what is the relevance of the psychoanalytic approach?

Pc – it is well known and has perhaps been talked about too much in this case
that there are dif views about why some people experience GD and the treatment
of that...There is a view that tends to see the GD as a symptom of an underlying
concern and in DB’s report there’s talk about unconscious processes and trauma
and so therefore need is to have extensive therapy in exploring these things as
they may be reason why someone identifies as trans

So there are dif views in the trust and I think some individuals with psychoanalytic
approach – which DB comes from – may interpret GD as being due to an
underlying concern.
So I think that’s what this is about – so important to separate the clinical
safeguarding concerns and protocols in place to safeguard young people on day
to day level from different views about why some people experience GD and
therefore what is the treatment for that.

EJG – you said lots of people had concerns but this hadn’t been contextualised –
I wondered if you meant you had said something about not taking s/g concerns to
SA but taken out of context?

PC – there have been a lot of allegations about things I’ve reportedly said: without
doubt the process and the message given to the team is that the route is through
the safeguarding lead in the team who links to Sonia…but I think with some of the
comments, I can’t hand on heart recall all the conversations I’ve had on a day to
day basis, so my only understanding is that there could have been a
misinterpretation about what I’ve said.

EJG – what do you think you were saying?

Pc – I don’t know really, if I’m honest. clearly a few people have reported this,
whether that’s become something it wasn’t through discussion amongst
themselves or through misreporting me saying go through Garry......I don’t know
if it’s assumptions or what

EJG – My recollection from GR’s statement is that he didn’t really start his lead
role until march 2018 – did you ever put anything in writing to the team about this?

PC – it would definitely be in the safeguarding SOP, 2019, and s/g docs have
been under revision and a lot of work has been done on that.

Ejg – wld it be right that if there was a change you’d say it in a team meeting, not
an email?

PC – I’d have to check. Sorry

My comment - good Lord.....

EJG – in 2017 (396/7) – what did you mean by ‘the agenda'

Pc – its so ridiculous – I must have read the email quickly from sonia (398) – I
completely misread it…. I’m sure I could appear disingenuous here,... but my
read from that is what is the agenda of the meeting......but clearly I understand
that it’s been read as an underlying agenda.
And then the reply comes from Rob and I kick myself.

EJG – so you’re not talking about an underlying purpose that does not meet the
eye, you’re talking about the agenda of the meeting

PC – yes, I think so. It just wasn’t clear to me what the meeting was about
because I had misread the email.

EJG – did you then have a discussion about what GR would be doing?

PC – I think there was something about this when SA was presenting… I don’t
remember

EJG – did you have any meeting with GR to talk about what he was meant to be
doing

PC – I wld have talked with Mr R, and that wld have been decided in an exec
meeting. He was to be a link to Sonia and it would have been about improving communication.

YG – (401SB) says PC was co author of report to the board in July 2018 – you
set out a list of key issues. Were you concerned about these?

PC – Exceedingly concerned…SH did put that report together but much of the
contents is taken from a report I had produced previously.

YG – do you align yourself with the report or not?

PC – I do

YG – were you sent notes that Andrew hodge made?

PC – No. (and not given opportunity to comment)

PC adds – I was being questioned about email about pre-investigation, I’d like
to add that there was a meeting betw Mr Spiliadis and Ailsa Swarbrick – he had
made a number of allegations, I was quite keen they be taken forward formally,
and he chose not to do that...I don’t know if that’s relevant but thought I would
mention it

END OF POLLY CARMICHAEL EVIDENCE

DR MATT BRISTOW IS NEXT WITNESS

YG says she has no questions

No questions from the tribunal team

*

That's all Hannah's tweets for today. Once again, a great job from her. Fascinating stuff.

PC uses 'would have been' and other deflective constructions a lot.

*Pc – it is well known and has perhaps been talked about too much in this case
that there are dif views about why some people experience GD and the treatment
of that...There is a view that tends to see the GD as a symptom of an underlying
concern and in DB’s report there’s talk about unconscious processes and trauma
and so therefore need is to have extensive therapy in exploring these things as
they may be reason why someone identifies as trans

So there are dif views in the trust and I think some individuals with psychoanalytic
approach – which DB comes from – may interpret GD as being due to an
underlying concern.
So I think that’s what this is about – so important to separate the clinical
safeguarding concerns and protocols in place to safeguard young people on day
to day level from different views about why some people experience GD and
therefore what is the treatment for that.*

I think this is really key to a lot that has been going on at gids and nicely encapsulates how the medical model & social model clash, especially considering Sonia's skill set.

As an aside, I was doing a safeguarding in a hospital not long ago and they would not even let me hold the person's medical records. I had the individual's full permission to investigate and look at the records relating to the safeguarding, but the trust decided that I could not be trusted to look through the notes on my own. Instead, someone sat opposite me (across a table so it was upside down) and read out the entries, huffing and puffing as I insisted that I take notes as they went through each one, and further huffed and puffed as I asked questions. Obviously, they could have omitted stuff or made everything up, I really wouldn't know any different. They really do not take well to challenge.

TLDR; Sonia, I believe you.

Pc – its so ridiculous – I must have read the email quickly from sonia (398) – I
completely misread it…. I’m sure I could appear disingenuous here,

Yes PC, you sure do.

Regardless of the result of this case, PC and GIDS do not come well out of this.

GARRY RICHARDSON IS NEXT WITNESS

YG – can you explain how referrals come into GIDS
GR – by a number of agencies – commonly CAMHS and GPS, but can also include schools and third sector organisation

YG – and are they dealing with risk or not dealing with risk to those young people… are any of those holding risk in respect of those young people or not?

GR – it wld depend on the agency: if YP referred by CAMHS and they remain involved, they wld be the lead agency for monitoring and supporting ongoing risk. Same wld be case for social care

Anya Palmer questioning...
AP – (395) do you agree link role evolved into a safeguarding lead?

GR – I think this email is the only one that refers to the role as a 'link' – SA calls me lead that same day - and as far as I’m concerned lead was the role from that point on and that is how the team knew me.
AP – can you show me any emails that show this?
GR – not at this time

AP- well that’s on you for making it up
GR. I didn’t make it up. I’m a truthful, ethical person… I take my code of conduct v seriously... I am open, honest and reliable.

AP – I want to take you to something before the break. Dr C said that she misunderstood something SA had said (397). Suggests SA’s email is perfectly straightforward and not offensive to anyone. Dr C says ‘I’m getting very confused and unsure of the agenda here’...

SA felt v confused and was wondering she was seen to have an agenda. We only know now that PC misunderstood this, and thought Rob S and SA were talking about PC’s role. And in that case because PC was straight about it, it was clarified and it went no further...

In your case, I suggest that if the claimant said anything at all, you have completely misunderstood and because you haven’t said anything it hasn’t been possible to clear it up

GR – I don’t agree. I’m not the one who said those words. Perhaps I should have raised it at the time, I didn’t. I raised it with my line manager in the same way SA did with Dr Senior when she had concerns

AP (466 – Email from SA about a particular gids case) – you don’t seem to be able to deal directly with SA; you forward it to Dr C and get her to deal with it
GR – I don’t agree with that. There are lots of examples of where I’m able to communicate with Sonia…

...I imagine that I had had a conversation with Polly; that she had already been involved in the case by talking with Mr Spiliadis so I imagine she requested me to forward her that information

AP – I don’t see any mention of Mr spiliadis in this case at that time at all
GR – that is my understanding that it is that case. As you heard earlier, I was the line manager of both the clinicians involved at the time; there was nothing underhand or secretive going on

AP returns to Jimmy Savile comments (pat 26 p171W) AP where GR says he raised the comments again at a Meeting of senior manager in summer 2018
AP - can we be more specific about when this meeting took place?

AP -We know that PC sent you the Bell report on 29th Aug 2018. That’s when you first saw the bell report, is that right?
GR – yes.

AP – indeed that looks like the first time anyone has seen it – either 27/28/29 august. So the meeting you refer to in summer 2018 must be after that?
GR – Yes… actually I can’t say with any certainty the date of that meeting, whether it’s before or after.

AP – well it’s only after that that a decision is taken to commission a review of GIDS by Dr Sinha... you were at this meeting, who else was there?
GR – my recollection is that it was a meeting for the gids exec and senior team...
Show replies

...as well as some senior managers from across the trust – sally hodges, I think Louise Lyons and I think Gill Rusbridger may have been there
Ap – were there any notes from this meeting?
GR – I don’t know, I can’t recall

AP – you say you were disappointed that Dr B was able to openly publish critical comments about gids but your concerns had not been acted on… am I right in thinking you expressed those concerns in this meeting?
GR – My statement is correct

AP – your statement is not as clear as it might be… you say you did not name SA… can you tell the tribunal what you said at the meeting?
GR – I can’t recollect what I said at the meeting – it was 2018

AP – am I right in thinking others in the meeting were expressing concerns about Dr B’s report?
GR – I think there are many people in the team who have expressed concerns about the process - how unfair and unbalanced it was
AP – how long did the meeting go on for?

Gr – Not longer than an hour...my recollection is that Paul Jenkins (Tavistock CEO) was explaining to us a bit about the timeline that had happened and what we could expect

AP – so there was a time when PJ was talking and there was also a time where you put your hand up and talked about this…
GR – I can’t remember the details of that meeting… I know that there were colleagues who were equally upset about what had gone on but I can’t recall details

AP – is it fair to say there were other conversations with your colleagues about the bell report?
GR – yes, I think that would be fair to say. That was a natural thing that we would talk about it

AP moves to GR’s interview with Dr Sinha (1391 – 1393 p10 transcript) – compares this with later unredacted version (SB246)

AP quotes GR saying: “I thought there are other issues as well. I think the services relationship with the safeguarding team and the trust has been and continues to be somewhat problematic.”

You also say, “I have also had conversations with people who felt that when they have been for safeguarding advice that it has been sort of less of a collaborative process or collaborative conversation and
much more directive...

and, I appreciate that there are going to be occasions where the safeguarding lead has to be quite directive, but that seems to be a bit of a theme.
DS: This is the children safeguarding lead?
GR: Yes.

AP - So you’re there expressing a criticism of Miss A aren’t you
GR – I think I’m being honest about my understanding of the relationship at the time in the context of what I thought was a confidential meeting

AP – you go on to raise another issue – “I suppose as well Sonia's name was on David Bell’s report and seemingly to endorse the contents of the report and my worry is that if Sonia is taking a particular position in view about our work ...

"then I have a worry about how balanced her advice would be.”
That’s the context in which you raise the Savile remark. Its squarely linked to her involvement in the bell report and she can’t be trusted

GR – my concern about the bell report is that it wasn’t balanced and it was not fair. I think DB said he had interview 1/3 team, but it was 10 people, some had left, and we had 100-110 staff at that point…

...And a stark example of this was in a trust staff meeting a senior psychoanalyst was approached about talking to Dr Bell.
GR explains that when she spoke favourably at gids DB didn't want to take it forward

GR - I did have worries about the process surrounding that report; I have no issues with Miss A having to raise concerns… that’s not in question whatsoever – but I did have worries how balanced that process had been…

...and DB was v clear that Miss A had been involved in that process and I’m raising this in what I thought was a confidential meeting
AP – you do it in relation to there being safeguarding issues and linking it to SA’s involvement in DB’s report

GR – I think I’m raising issues about how balanced her view of the team and the work is… you at least have to have some curiosity about the other perspectives in the team. That’s something I’ve never seen from Miss A.

I think my concerns about the process around the DB report did also map onto my experience of having had the jimmy Savile comment said to me

AP – can you explain?
GS – just in terms of how our work was being viewed. But also just to say that these are views that I didn’t air publicly; they didn’t prevent me from working alongside the central safeguarding team or working alongside SA when I needed to;

and they certainly didn’t prevent me or anyone else in the team raising concerns with SA

" but my
read from that is what is the agenda of the meeting......but clearly I understand
that it’s been read as an underlying agenda."

lol really

Could have also gone with "let's be courteous and ask Sonia if she has a gender" I guess

tbh I did feel until now they seemed to be having a hard time proving (I don't know what level of proof is required in Employment Tribunals?) that PC or other senior staff had said specifically what SA believes to have been said (ie not to go to her) but this is looking really .... odd.

AP – I’m going to suggest you raising this allegation was precisely motivated by your perception of SA's involvement with DB’s report
GR – no I don’t agree with that. There was a context there in terms of things that had already happened

AP – you say: "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 cash cow to the Tavi and the Tavi turning a blind eye to something that is not right...

"So I think that is what she meant.”
Dr Sinha then says, “What was that about, did you speak to her about what she meant?”
You say, “Well, I think that was just in terms of the context of people coming forward and saying that they have been silenced...

"She did not use that language, but I am assuming now that at that point, this was back in March, you know she was aware that people had come forward, so I think that was her context really...

"that the Tavistock might try and close something down, because we bring in a lot of money for the trust, but you know the team works exceptionally hard, and ...to have our work referenced in that way. I personally found that quite disrespectful..."

AP - Dr Sinha then asks you if your relationship continues to be difficult and you say yes.
(discussion again of a particular case) AP - And then you say ‘makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, make me wonder what Sonia’s motives are’…

AP – so it’s just a coincidence that referrals dry up in 2018?
GR – I don’t know. Can’t confirm that. It doesn’t sound right to me… I think there may be a difference in opinion in what makes a referral..

GR - it’s important to say that there is no requirement on me to take cases to SA specifically. I can take cases to someone for advice with someone who I feel I have a good, strong collegiate relationship with and I have that with Dr McKenna...

That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take something to Sonia

AP – you know that Dr C had said that referrals shouldn’t go to Sonia; and you viewed her with suspicion. The reason you had that was because of her protected disclosures
GR – I only knew of her protected disclosures as part of this case…

GR repeats that he has a strong relationship with the Dr McK and that is the cornerstone of good safeguarding

AP – that’s not true. You knew she had spoken as part of the Bell report and you are suspicious of her
GR – in many ways the meeting in march 2018 where she made the JS comment set the tone of the relationship

EJG - 1393 – You preface the comment about JS saying DS may have already heard about that – where did you think he might have heard it from?
GR – that I had reported that comment to my line manager and thought it might have gone up the chain that way

EJG – when you spoke to SD about this comment what did she say?
GR – I honesty can’t remember the detail of that conversation at this point but she agreed to raise it with Dr C, but I think she was also quite shocked

EJG – did you get any feedback after that?
GR – I don’t think I did.
*
AP – one question that SA wants asked – she says she was asked to step down from the transformation team because of your feeling towards her – is that right?
GR – I have no knowledge of that

YG asks about GR’s training and experience – did you have qualifications listed in job description?
GR – yes. Those are skills that I’ve acquired over my career, yes.

YG asks about meeting with Frank Lowe (social worker)
GR says he agreed that the meeting was inspiring and the social workers in the team were working v hard and thinking about how they could be a good resource to colleagues

GR says he didn’t have any contact with SA before he became the s/g lead, so all my contact with her has been since then

YG – it was put to you that you knew she had done some work with DB. To what extent were you aware that in the course of doing so she made public interest disclosures?
GR – I wasn’t aware of the time.

END OF GARRY RICHARDSON QUESTIONING

NEXT WITNESS: DR ANNA HUTCHINSON

No questions for this witness

NEXT WITNESS: CRAIG DE SOUSA - Tavi Director of HR
AP seeks clarification on the difference betw the 2 versions of the DB report

(p10-11 SB) my understanding is that this is the first version which references SA’s involvement… then p382 - 384SB - is that the second version? Paragraph talking about SA’s contribution has dropped out.
CDS - That’s the one difference…

...the latter version is the one that was shared, minus the transcripts

AP refers to Andrew Hodge report – are these Mr Hodge’s own notes?
CDS – they are and I never had sight of them until the composition of the bundle. I would say that these are his notes, and absolutely not a verbatim record of what i said

AP – where do you get that from?
CDS – From my own recollection of my conversation with him; it’s his formulation of the conversation and in some instances very heavily paraphrased.

END OF ALL WITNESS TESTIMONY

Thanks NonHypothetical - I thought they'd finished for the day. That was a late session!

So sorry I missed a bit - must have deleted by mistake when c&ping... It comes just at the end of the Saville questioning with Dr Sinha

AP - Dr Sinha then asks you if your relationship continues to be difficult and you say yes.
(discussion again of a particular case)
AP - And then you say ‘makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, make me wonder what Sonia’s motives are’…

AP - you’re suggesting her motive is something other than concern for a child?
GR – I don’t think I’m saying that… I think i've already explained how I felt about the working relationship at that time...

As we know form other parts of the bundle my preference at that time was to seek support from dr mckenna

AP – And to underline it, your answer to the next question from CK, you say “I guess they were trying to find information to support that particular view about our work, that perhaps is unsafe in some way that we know we have been negligent in some way"…

AP - So what you’re suggesting there is because you say DB and SA have a particular view on political issues in gids, they are trying to find information to undermine gids or show it's negligent in some way. It's a very clear allegation of bad faith isn’t it?

GR – again, i've said I did not agree with the process around DB’s report…
AP – simple question – you’re making a v clear allegation of bad faith against SA – yes or no?
GR – I was just being honest about how I viewed that situation

Ap – ok. you don’t want to own it. We’ll move on

AP moves on (479) – there’s an issue in summer 2018 that GIDS safeguarding cases weren’t recorded in care notes
GR – GIDS had been left of trust emails …
AP – I’m not proportioning blame, but there was an issue that needed to be dealt with…

GR – it was never made clear to me that the responsibility for providing the quarterly data wld be handed over to gids… the central safeguarding team had always done that

AP – as I understand it, SA sent you a request, but again it appears rather than go back to her and say you didn’t understand you were meant to be doing it, you seem to have gone to Dr hodges...

Again we see a pattern where you don’t relate directly to the claimant, you go to dr hodges and she pushes back with a request for some context. I don’t understand why you couldn’t just reply to the request and explain what the problem was

GR – I don’t think I did go direct to SH, but rather to PC or the exec team. It’s good for me to escalate requests of this nature so that they can have an overview of that.
AP – SA says she wasn’t asking for anything out of the ordinary...

.just that you should take ownership of the process… she has no idea of the concerns you hold about her, … you’ve clearly held concerns since finding out about the DB report –

what I’m suggesting is that you and others view the request with suspicion because you think she might be gathering data for dr bell
GR – no that’s not the case at all. I knew that the trust had to provide info on s/g...

but no one had indicated to me that this had now become my task. We do that now, but at that time it hadn’t been handed over to me.

AP – Miss A says she hasn’t received any referrals – s/g cases – do you accept that?
GR – I’M not sure what you mean by referrals. Can you explain?
AP refers to SA’s claims (P44 par 41)… I’ve taken it to understand you taking cases to her for safeguarding support

GR – this has never been raised as a concern with me until this litigation. I’ve been v transparent that my preference has always been to seek s/g support from dr mckenna and before that dr senior...

...the reason being I feel I have a more collegiate relationship with them. Dr Mck has spent a great deal of time with the team, attended away days, has really tried to understand the complexities of the work, the diversity of the views, the strengths of the team and also...

the worries… there is an example where I reach out to SA and ask her to meet with clinicians for a second time because I was unable to do so, and I was knocked back.. the tone is quite accusatory …so I was left feeling a sense of a bind about going to SA or not

(discussion about emails 505 - 509 - AP and GR disagree)
AP – isn’t it right that ever since you knew about the bell report you didn’t want to work with Miss A and that’s why she says that since 2018 you’ve not referred any cases to her?

GR – no, that’s not true. Following the bell report and the gids review we had several meetings about establishing the SOP, and she continues to be involved with ongoing projects… I have contact with S when I need to. As I’ve already stated, my preferred support is from dr McK

AP – so it’s just a coincidence that referrals dry up in 2018?
GR – I don’t know. Can’t confirm that. It doesn’t sound right to me… I think there may be a difference in opinion in what makes a referral..

GR - it’s important to say that there is no requirement on me to take cases to SA specifically. I can take cases to someone for advice with someone who I feel I have a good, strong collegiate relationship with and I have that with Dr McKenna...

That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take something to Sonia

@Outhere

*Pc – it is well known and has perhaps been talked about too much in this case that there are dif views about why some people experience GD and the treatment of that...There is a view that tends to see the GD as a symptom of an underlying concern and in DB’s report there’s talk about unconscious processes and trauma and so therefore need is to have extensive therapy in exploring these things as they may be reason why someone identifies as trans

So there are dif views in the trust and I think some individuals with psychoanalytic
approach – which DB comes from – may interpret GD as being due to an
underlying concern.
So I think that’s what this is about – so important to separate the clinical
safeguarding concerns and protocols in place to safeguard young people on day
to day level from different views about why some people experience GD and
therefore what is the treatment for that.*

I think this is really key to a lot that has been going on at gids and nicely encapsulates how the medical model & social model clash, especially considering Sonia's skill set.

As an aside, I was doing a safeguarding in a hospital not long ago and they would not even let me hold the person's medical records. I had the individual's full permission to investigate and look at the records relating to the safeguarding, but the trust decided that I could not be trusted to look through the notes on my own. Instead, someone sat opposite me (across a table so it was upside down) and read out the entries, huffing and puffing as I insisted that I take notes as they went through each one, and further huffed and puffed as I asked questions. Obviously, they could have omitted stuff or made everything up, I really wouldn't know any different. They really do not take well to challenge.

TLDR; Sonia, I believe you.

So Polly is insistent that GD must be viewed as something separate from any other problems and wants to shut out the opinions of those who consider it might be a symptom of abuse. She sees people with that view, not as rational people who might have an important point, but as transphobes getting in the way of the essential role she is performing.

Guess that encapsulates perfectly what is going on here. And unless there is overwhelming evidence supporting your position (which there isn’t as diagnosis is entirely based on personal testimony and there is no robust test for GD) having a completely closed mind over something quite so important is unforgiveable.

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 ?

Trans lobby groups, who want to see 100% affirmation. GIDS has indeed been accused of being slow to move wholly to the affirmation model.

Regardless, if they are under pressure, having demonstrably robust safeguarding protocols and ensuring an external overview as well as excellent internal processes becomes even more important.

And thanks to Zeugma and everyone else keeping us updated.

There's so much to unpack from PC and GR's questioning. Hats off to Hannah for detailing all of that as well as looking after young children.

An important bit for Sonia is that PC wasn't called in for an informal meeting with DS/HR and a letter placed indefinitely on her file.

GR can barely hid his contempt for Sonia in his responses.

All this talk of collegiate working seems to miss the point of aafeguarding. Indeed seems almost designed to be able to minimise concerns and encourage group think. Surely the whole point of SA is to take a concern outside that context and look at it through independent eyes?

The talk of collegiate is just to enhance their view that SA is hostile. But they do just want to work with others who follow the affirmation approach not the psychoanalytic approach. Unfortunately for GIDS, there is much more peer reviewed evidence for the psychoanalytic approach than the affirmation one.

Is the next step EJG giving a summing up/verdict or is there another step before that?
What's the time frame?