Interesting angle. While there are lots of cock ups, After part 1 I didn’t think that NHSF had any idea what they were getting into when they aligned themselves with DU. I think they thought only of “the cause” and were played by the individual. They seemed to have been on the back foot the entire time - on the contrary I saw DU as a control freak who tried to manipulate the whole thing?! Aided by some colleagues as confirmed this week.
I was assuming that NHSF got the policy steer from Scotgov, so gender self ID into the changing rooms was a given. It’s just that maybe no one had done it - even though there were 2 or 3 other trans people in the hospital - or were more discrete or they hadn’t met any resistance. So from that POV no one at NHSF management were going to prevent DU from accessing the female CR in A&E. They were following Stonewall law and government policy so felt/feel completely vindicated. And they’ve got arrangements for trans staff that seem to be working out OK….
Into this comes DU. Close to home/school etc The Vic Hospital would be a good place to work. I believe that DU would have to travel/move to work in another equivalent size hospital. So there’s a certain imperative there to make sure the Vic works out nicely. And for DU that included being able to “live as a women” (whatever that means) but we know for sure that it included use of the female CRs. Resistance would be a major problem…
We dont know what happened with the other trans staff and their colleagues, but it seems that DU and SP seem to be pretty equally matched in terms of intensity of their beliefs. How many people on a short rotation would have clocked SP’s quiet “resistance” and persisted with using the CR? Even if it were DU’s “right” according to policy, how many would risk the trouble of asserting that on a 6 month placement? Well if this were a random placement far from home, then it’s maybe less likely have come to a head, but this was potentially DU’s new home patch, and so he couldn’t back down without spoiling the nest for the future? On the other side SP has presumably been using the female CRs without any males in there for her entire 30 year career and is affronted by this change to her home turf. And I suppose she’s thinking this could be the first of many so she’s equally resolute.(Bearing in mind she’s asked her managers two or more times about this and they’ve ignored her concerns). And while she called DU Beth and used female pronouns around the department, when she challenges DU in the CR she had to use reference to man/male to make her point. We know she wasn’t expecting this to cause a major issue, but of course DU’s entire identity hinges on stamping this out, so he starts moving the institution and its processes against her. Notably he doesn’t want the police involved - which to me signalled that he wanted control in the hospital but didn’t want questions from outsiders.
The dispute blows up and staff either pick a side or put their head down. I’m imagining most thought all they had to do was tough it out until March/April 2024 and DU would move on to another placement. But unfortunately NHSF completely botch the suspension process so badly that SP is forced to seek help outside the hospital and this is where things get really difficult for Fife - although they were maybe oblivious to how difficult it was going to get. It’s at this point that SP is hooked up with national support networks, top notch legal advisors and a financial backer.
So from February 2024 everyone is strapped in and NHSF arent politically able to give up even if they wanted to.
We know that NHSF started to get a bit professional about things from there, conducting an IX by GM and LM but they had no hope of stopping the train because ejecting DU from the female CR wasnt ever going to happen. And SP wasnt going to bavk down or run out of money.
Based on DU’s note taking and the apparent note forging, the displays of distress to colleagues and the performance in the tribunal (schooling us from the stand, evasions, sophistry, bringing a squad, physical intimidation of SP’s legal team) gave me the impression of a very determined, clever and controlling individual who wanted to dominate proceedings.I suspect a very different persona was revealed at the Tribunal compared to the lovely kind Beth in raspberry scrubs at work.
Now that we are mainly through Part 2 I’m struggling with the story in my mind. For me the question is - was it incompetence on all fronts played by DU without understanding? Or did individual staff actively collude to hide evidence and avoid disclosure? Or was the Board complicit in instructing that certain emails/files should be held back?
I’ve always assumed that Fife had no idea who exactly they had on their hands until DU was on the stand. And that DU had manipulated & influenced colleagues into acting in his interests rather than Fife’s. I’d assumed lack of disclosure was incompetence. But this week’s evidence has shaken that a bit for me…
Why wouldn’t the IT team just pull everyone’s emails out the back of M365 from the admin portal (this is so easy even I can do it for my staff through Chrome and I’m no IT whizz)?
Why would anyone agree to letting DU prepare his own phone evidence?
These errors are so big I’m struggling to see them as incompetence any more. Surely these are decisions that DU couldn’t influence as an individual?
At which point it looks way more systematic and coming directly from the Board? Not a cock up but a full on cover up?
Sorry for the ramblings. Just trying to process last week’s revelations. What are any of you thinking?