I’m struggling to keep up (again).
It’s probably already been covered but I found it ‘interesting’ that IB claims to have had no input into the pleased aims in response to SP’s case.
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1945480163019383108?s=46
“NC What specific rights under HR act does the first of those pleaded aims refer to.
IB I didn't contribute to this response. Logic here isn't necessarily the logic I used when giving advice…”
I’d love to know who did pull together the ‘pleased aims’ based on IB’s advice, when she appears to have no clue about the relevant legislation that should inform her advice when it’s been asked for.
This comment seems relevant:
https://x.com/lucyhunterb/status/1945527363095196035?s=46
“There must be a person or group of people at NHS Fife who are fulfilling the client role in this case, instructing the NHS central solicitors as needed on behalf of the board. Very weirdly, as far as I can see, after all these months no one seems to know who they are.”
IB being asked about this by NC, JR objecting as IB isn’t a solicitor & the judge allowing the Q as no one with the relevant involvement was going to put themselves forward to explain the pleaded aims - it’s an ‘interesting’ strategy. 🤨