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

THREAD: DAY 8 (FINAL DAY) – Sonia Appleby v Tavistock and Portman Trust employment Tribunal

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

This morning both sides' counsel have made written submissions and will be giving their oral submissions before the tribunal

EJG seeks some clarification from YG - Are you arguing that time runs from when disclosure is made or when the detriment occurs?
YG – it’s the protected disclosure is what we’ve pleaded
EJG – and not the detriment?

YG – no. but rereading I can see that we’ve got a mixture, and it may be hard to say that all are incorrect… but actually on the timeline they’re all out of date… so I don’t think there is an inconsistency there…
EJG confirms then that this is not a typing error

YG – I’ve put a lot down in writing, so don’t want to spend too long talking about it this morning… I suppose the real difference between myself and AP is in what we’ve highlighted.
YG raises several cases which are discussed in detail in her written submission

A bit earlier Hannah B tweeted:

'This morning both sides' counsel have made written submissions and will be giving their oral submissions before the tribunal'

There were just a few more posts but it's stopped temporarily.

Whoops, great minds, NonHypothetical, thank you

No worries - I have to work now so can't do any more!

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.

I only deal with people I like and who do not challenge me.

Is there any other child health issue where affirmation is the model?

IMO any lobby groups pushing for a pure affirmation model of anything that involves child health are clearly dodgy as hell and not interested in safeguarding at all.

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.

God, this has struck a nerve. I was very much a gender non-conforming child, though it wasn't referred to as such back then in the 70's. It has never occurred to me before to link it to the abuse I suffered around that time (pre-teen) before which I was very stereotypically 'girly', but it seems so obvious now. I can't believe it's taken till now to see the connection in a personal contest.

@Tibtom

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?

Yes, if you're in an echo chamber of people all agreeing all the time it's hardly a robust safeguarding framework is it?

I know it's an employment tribunal which is why they're discussing the working relationships so much, but it really is quite disgusting how there's all this talk of being upset at straight talking or past safeguarding failures (Savile) when it's child safety at stake.

StarryGazeyEyes

Picking up the baton from from NonHypothetical :

YG mentions a case that separates out behaviour from disclosures…mentions the Martin
and Devonshires case and says there are parallels here:

YG - You will see from the respondent’s perspective that this was not about the claimant’s disclosures; if anything there was an issue with behaviour in that SA was going about her work in an uncollegiate way......and such reaction as there may have been to that is entirely understandable in the context of a service which already had a huge amount of diverse opinion – I think I describe it as a 'highly politicised environment'.....in which what they were seeking was to have this support and a collegiate approach, all of which found in SA’s job description which wld have created an environment where the relationships wld have worked better.

So you will have seen in the list off issues that the respondent relies on a list of issues why the claimant may well have felt she was suffering adverse treatment, but not one of those to do with any disclosure she has made or the detriments she relied on.

And when you look across the totality of the evidence in this case… you will see that rather than helping and providing support, advice, monitoring – all those things in job description - there seems to be an accusatory approach highlighted at particular points:

She didn’t go and consult with PC; she took an approach that kept her in the dark and Mr Richardson in the dark, even to the extent of writing to Mr Lowe to raise concerns, albeit copying Mr R into that......so if there was wariness or concern, it was bec of the rather combative approach the claimant took, and really from rather out of the blue, her evidence was that she’s had v little to do with gids until 2017; and albeit she started with PC and GR to set up a new relationship there isn’t much after that meeting in June 2018 that she does to help.

EJG – on issue of severability (?) – I suppose it might be said for the claimant that she was turning up the volume bec she was frustrated that she had not had a resposne to her concerns from dr senior, and didn’t get a response from Dr Carmichael in February...

(Judge explains that there may be a questions as to whether behaviour arises from increasing frustration, and we must exercise care there when it comes to whistleblowers)

YG – when one looks at the evidence... what I wld submit is that SA is a senior member of staff, she has a statutory position, she’s the named professional for s/g; its not comparable with a much lower member of staff who thinks I haven’t had a reply back its all v frustrating and difficult.
She doesn’t then make it her business to go and speak Dr C until feb and even at that point there isn’t really anything constructive that happens

The nature of the employee and her position I think is really important – in relation to severability.
I think there’s a mischief in there as well; in writing to Mr Lowe saying she has escalated this; it gives the impression that something quite sig is happening......whereas she’s taken it to her line manager and nothing has happened; she could have taken it up the food chain as well and doesn’t, so to say it’s all rather frustrating is not a good answer.

...So to say I was frustrated and that's why I was rather cool and unhelpful is not a good answer in my respectful submission.

I'm beyond shocked, actually feeling quite shaky, at the realisation that children could have received unnecessary, life-changing treatment of unknown efficacy with so little safeguarding because of personality clashes between key players.

I'm finding it difficult to get much of a grip on this case, but the impression is that it was all very casual. No notes taken, no records of meetings and discussions kept. No one even putting things in emails and memos in order to cover their own backs. It's horrifying when you think of what's at stake.

The role of a person in a safeguarding role is to say no, to watch with a beady eye, to question everything. People who are good at safeguarding aren't popular, in my experience. They're seen as negative, over-cautious, as a brake on change, as party-poopers. But you would hope that at somewhere like the Tavi/ GIDS people would be aware enough to rise above that.

EJG – On timepoints…

AP – I was surprised to hear YG say that all the detriments were out of time, bec I thought it was agreed that Savile detriments were not out of time
(goes through dates)

EJG – yes that does sound in time

AP – The others are more complicated and there are things I’d like to say about it… will depend on what detriments, if any, the tribunal accepts.

AP - With respect to the red line detriments [I believe these are amended parts of SA’s original claim], the first time the claimant had legally sufficient notice of these was 30th Jan 2020 (application was 19th Feb 2020) ...when she received an email from Mr Spiliadis (529) telling her that he had been directly told by Dr C not to take cases to her – before that we
say anything is hearsay or double hearsay

AP - Dr Bristow’s email to claimant Jan 2019 – problem was that was hearsay and told her
to make own enquiries; she didn’t have enough to go on to make a clam – she did that
[make enquiries] but proved inconclusive (493). At that stage she didn’t have any direct evidence

(47a PoC) – only became aware of blue line detriment – detriment 8 – Mr Richardson being wary of her and discouraging of others from (taking cases) bec of her connection to DB and his report; she only found out about that when she got the Hodge report – dated 7th Feb 2020.

And 11th Feb 2020 becase that’s when report is sent to her (856)
So if you take even the earlier date of 30th Jan of email from Mr Spiliadis, in presenting her red line and blue line she is within time.

AP - We say that you should be counting time from 8th January – because that’s when she receives the transcripts of Dr Sinha’s interviews with Dr Hutchinson and Mr Spiliadis in a form that she can read them. Those are the dates and none of it comes to three months.

We say that she acted as quickly as she could; she took steps to make sure that people
who had sent the information were happy for her to use it and then passed on to solicitor.

In any event, we say there are continuing detriments as well – the state of affairs whereby she is viewed with mistrust and it's clearly articulated by Mr R in his comments to Dr Sinha and also Dr Carmichael.

She (SA)is still only finding out about this – in extensive disclosure battles in the course of these proceedings; she’s only just found out about the meeting of all senior staff in GIDS to discuss the bell report; Mr R volunteered that he himself had complained about the
claimant in that meeting although says he doesn’t name her; we have no notes from it but it seems likely that people were able to vent freely about the bell report...

...and we know that people did view her with suspicion because of her perceived
involvement in the bell report; even now has key colleagues she has to work with – and it's not in their witness statements or evidence – but then you see what Dr Carmichael says to Dr Sinha and Mr Hodge. SA cannot nec prove that Dr C is actively denigrating her or saying don’t go to her, but she knows that she has to work with people who have accused her of going on a fishing expedition to cause trouble for the respondent and gids in particular.

So wld ask you to consider that there are continuing detriments; so even those that you
may find out of time, are still relevant – reasonable practicability (?)

AP - And we say that the unwritten rule continues and that she is still not getting referrals
in anywhere i.e. the volume she would expect..
That’s all on subject of time.

AP - What I’ve tried to do is give you brief factual statements, but given you a detailed
page numbers and a chronology

AP - In response to a couple of things that YG said on Martins and Devonshire – broadly
we don’t disagree on the law – but I can’t agree with reliance on this case bec we say it’s
not possible to separate out the disclosures from what she did/behaviour…...there was no concession at all that that was Dr Senior’s failing for sitting on these disclosures for
months and not getting back to the claimant. She is off sick.

When returns months later and is approached again, the very next day she goes to sally hodges bec she’s given up on Dr Senior
We had half a day of cross examination to say ‘poor Dr Carmichael’ and to suggest that is the claimant’s fault, rather than the respondents….If anything it’s the respondent who should have taken much more care in how they managed this situation.

But it seems that Dr Carmichael is free to say whatever she wants to people inside gids
about people outside gids… even if she is – and this should have been plain to Dr C from
Feb – a whistleblower

YG questions the truth of when it was that claimant came across these [gids review] transcripts (40/41)

YG - I think it’s absolutely plain that they couldn’t have pleaded in that way unless she’d
had access to transcripts in December 2019.

What she said at the start of this hearing is that she couldn’t access them until January
and so couldn’t make the amendments to the claim… pleadings suggest that she was
aware of the transcripts in December 2019 – she should have taken steps to plead as
soon as she should.

YG - Forgive me wrt the Savile comments, I did misspeak because that manifestly is in
time

YG – we both have our interpretations of how you and your colleagues should consider
the evidence – and that is where the chips will fall.

In terms of the particular points AP raised, there is significant dispute about the
allegations that are made against Dr C; she was absolutely adamant that she'd never
lobbied against the claimant and in terms of continuing acts and unwritten rule that she
not receive referrals......the claimant herself conceded that it was Dr Senior then Dr
McKenna that tended to receive referrals in the first instance (from GIDS); there isn’t any evidence to suggest she had a high level of referrals at one stage and then it petered
out to nothing.

AP – (responding to documents being sent in December) ...It's not difficult to understand
that the email without attachments wld be put on file of counsel, it doesn’t occur to the claimant that she needs to refer details....Counsel drafting sees that email was received
on 15th December, assumes attachment was received with it, and mistake on their part
… the real issue is do you accept the claimant’s evidence that is what happened and it’s
for you to decide whether you accept that or not.

EJG – thank you for your submissions. Formally judgement is reserved, will be sent in writing to both parties and will endeavour to deal with it as quickly as we can.
“That concludes the hearing.”

END

[Hannah Barnes adds: (That's it folks. Off to ice my hands)]

@Shedbuilder

I'm beyond shocked, actually feeling quite shaky, at the realisation that children could have received unnecessary, life-changing treatment of unknown efficacy with so little safeguarding because of personality clashes between key players.

I'm finding it difficult to get much of a grip on this case, but the impression is that it was all very casual. No notes taken, no records of meetings and discussions kept. No one even putting things in emails and memos in order to cover their own backs. It's horrifying when you think of what's at stake.

The role of a person in a safeguarding role is to say no, to watch with a beady eye, to question everything. People who are good at safeguarding aren't popular, in my experience. They're seen as negative, over-cautious, as a brake on change, as party-poopers. But you would hope that at somewhere like the Tavi/ GIDS people would be aware enough to rise above that.

Yes, I was shocked by these quotes from Gary Richardson:

"...the reason (for going to Dr McK instead of Sonia) 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"

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

That really isn't the cornerstone of good safeguarding. The cornerstone of good safeguarding is accurate unbiased reporting and consideration of risks. And having clear reporting pathways.

You're absolutely right. I'm taking it that 'collegiate' just means pals, people who can get along easily together.

And this in an organisation where everyone involved seems to be psychologist and should understand that safeguarding requires difficult conversations and interventions. It comes back, yet again, to feelings and comfort. They need to call in an industrial psychologist to sort them out.

It seems extraordinary to me that safeguarding should come second to not upsetting people.

The whole point of safeguarding is that it should be outside the cosy framework of "collegiate" relationships. Everyone, absolutely everyone, should be regarded with suspicion, no one should be trusted, people should "be kept in the dark", negative views should be sought out and taken seriously.

Blindly and happily going along making sure not to upset anyone, not to infer that anyone might be doing anything wrong is the exact opposite of safeguarding.

I really hope significant people are watching this case. Regardless of the outcome this case has showed how deeply dysfunctional GIDS is. How can it be trusted to do what is best for children?

The role of a person in a safeguarding role is to say no, to watch with a beady eye, to question everything. People who are good at safeguarding aren't popular, in my experience. They're seen as negative, over-cautious, as a brake on change, as party-poopers.

^ Absolutely this. I'm seen as an irritant at work, but that's not to say I don't get on with my health colleagues on a personal level.

My thoughts are this: Polly didn't want Sonia anywhere near the service because if she started to scratch the surface Sonia would have spotted issues and patterns that we know Gids doesn't like to track or draw attention too. We know from their own lack of data that these difficulties are skimmed over and that staff who don't toe the party line don't stick around. I don't know what on earth they're up to at Gids but with my safeguarding background and only from the snippets we've heard from the tribunal, my alarm bells are ringing loud and clear. Hats off to you Sonia, I don't know how you haven't exploded.

My take - GIDS is an absolute car crash of a service failing vulnerable children, they have no robust procedures or data collection and operate on the basis of only speaking to or dealing with people that agree with them and toe their line. When challenged they either burst into tears or freeze out the person doing the challenging and make sure everyone else within their circle freezes them out too.

It's appalling, the whole thing should be shut down and started again from scratch with proper robust safeguards put in place, their job is NOT to just roll over or enthusiastically accept an ideology without question or caution. Disgraceful.

A full public enquiry and lawsuits will be the only way to end this shameful, horrendous abuse perpetrated on children.

From reading all of this it seems to me that the undercurrent in all their work and relationships (inside and outside the service) is the split between believers and non-believers in trans ideology.

It's the same split between newly gender questioning adolescents and their shocked parents, between GC feminists and trans rights activists, between science and a new religion of biology.

It's the schism between believers and heretics and it is powerfully destructive.

I think it's pertinent that Polly Carmichael thinks the division over clinical approach has been talked about too much in the proceedings. In my view it's the most important issue of all.

So the Tavistock's argument was, well she started it and she also missed the deadline for starting proceedings, although then admit she didn't.