I now am of the firm belief that DU pressured (bullied) Jamie Doyle into suspending SP and that is why they haven't called JD as a witness. It is the only reasonable inference.
That pressure from DU was huge given the context of NHS Fife being fully stonewalled at the time. Being fully stonewalled had imbued all the management staff with fear and so the initial motivation to be kind has by that point transformed into dystopian authoritarianism that is both Kafkaesque and Lord of the Flies-esque.
Women in senior management roles feel very vulnerable in those roles, still, and that vulnerability makes them wholly foolish at times.
When faced with two men: DU and JD, and the climate of fear the only available option to the weak-willed was full compliance with the ideology. The idea that the presumption of bigotry can overset all else, including due process doesn't come from nowhere, however.
This is an environment, in my view, where nurses of long standing who might be brave enough to take issue with management decisions are easily got rid of. Early retirement, pay offs, etc. There is also the classic sidelining. Not getting preferred shifts, being put on duties that are below your skills and levels -- all very good and practiced means of getting rid of dissenters without having to undertake full process. Ie it was habitual to pay women off or sideline them and never be further questioned.
In that environment DU insists to JD that SP must be suspended. He will not be satisfied with the usual slow sidelining or opportunity given for SP to jump ship. He wants visible detriment as his reward. JD is programmed to defer to Doctors within workplace political structures and is also enjoying his own level of authoritarian control over the nurses he manages. Perfect storm. Two men enjoying their borrowed power and authority ie they don't merit respect because of who they are but because of their positions and they desire some augmentation.
JD oversees ED and pushes for it. ED, new to the position, is being told by her own manager (of this process) to do suspension immediately. There is no time for a RA and is not being instructed to undertake a RA because unless DU gets what he wants immediately he will get Stonewall onboard.
There is, then, a pretence at I/X just to tick the box.
Pre-action letter comes in from SP and the shit hit the fan. HR want to see the proper documentation that resulted in suspension. There is none.
Collusion begins.
AG is appointed new i/x and knows that something more serious must be produced or they are up shit creek without a paddle so massages DU into presenting patient care concerns which had not been documented or noted in any way before June, nearly 6 months after the suspension.
If there had been a risk to patients because SP was viewed as transphobic there was no evidence to support such a fear -- no RA or questioning of SP with regard to how she would treat Trans patients. No research undertaken into whether she has treated Trans patients before. There are certainly no complaints against her.
Even though they still strongly believe that SP was in the wrong for questioning their authority (and that's what it ultimately boils down to) they also know they have to qualify that into something legal.
In fact, they are the bigots and every action and misstep declares their bigotry.
NC is laying bare that bigotry step by step.