From TT
NC - we have an interpretation, we see Melanie Jorgenson (sp) email of 4 Jan, second para 'I agree with Jackie that this risk can be mitigated, I assume it has to do with patients undergoing a similar process'. That's referring to trans patients - do you agree.
GM - I think so
NC - so the perception that SP might treat a trans patient badly, is the risk
GM - yes, it seems so
NC - it say we have no evidence of the nurse leaving the room when doctor came in, no complaints over many years of service, why suspend
GM - ED thought they couldn't be kept apart.
NC - so SP was suspended because she did not want DU in the cr.
GM - she was suspended because of the Datix, there are a number of allegations that must be investigated.
A fourth rake has jist teleported in, like fuckin star trek
NC - do you agree that patient care allegations were only raised as result of the Christmas Eve incident.
GM - no, I don't think so.
NC - do you agree that if the only concern was the incident in the CR and not the patient care concerns, there would be no suspension
GM - the suspension was based on a risk assessment that was not undertaken by me.
NC - q8, ED evidence in disc/x. Please read.
The fourth rake has just split in twa. Thae tools they're multiplyin.
GM - I've read it
NC - does that match what ED told you when you first discussed the incident
GM - the convo I had was about the risk assessment she had undertaken, I already had the background from the Datix, she will have old me some of it and I was aware.
NC - turning to DU's account. Sorry before we do that, can I confirm you are most senior witness from FIfe giving evidence. I want to ask you about what is in this now, having read that - is there anything that strikes you as completely unacceptable, if it is true.
Rakes 4 and 5 have just lit up. They say 'Gies a name'. In comic sans.
GM - yes I find it unacceptable that one colleague would confront another.
Fifer : Big Gill wouldnae gress up her boss. Fair enough. Rakes 4 and 5 light up with "Gill", go skadoosh
NC - what is unacceptable
GM - quoting from the statement
NC - yes
GM - SP asking what genes DU had, how they came to be in the CR together, a terrible incident to happen (on) Christmas Day.;
NC - what exactly was unacceptable about it
GM - a discriminatory allegation
NC - what specifically is discriminatory
GM - nurse asked the dr about his genes
NC - is that the worse thing to your mind
GM - not considering the Datix, that's worst thing
NC - if the Tribunal finds that C did not ask DU about his genes, it was not appropriate for her to tell DU shouldn't be in changing room,
GM - clarify
NC - if SP had only said she didn't think DU should be in f cr.
GM - it had been addressed, we had taken advice DU was entitled to use the f cr.
NC - so it was discriminatory to raise the issue at all?
GM - yes.
J (Big Sond) - time for a 5 minute break I think.
Court rises
Big Sond, get that lassie a panadol. And somebody search that briefcase. I will not tolerate any more assaults by gairden tools in ma court.