I respectfully disagree. There has been lots of references to these issues in vague terms and JR has finally been put in a position here she has had to produce the documentation.
Part of NHSF argument is that because SP was known to be an out and out bigot generally this amounts to patient safety concerns. They are arguing that her behaviour towards DU is transphobic and that fits into a broader paradigm of her being racist and homophobic.
They are arguing this for two reasons:
-
to justify the extended suspension of SP and to find the means to get rid of her so they don’t have to deal with the issue at hand.
-
to ensure that the TRA lobby stay onside because the Stonewall message is that transphobes are
also right wing racists and homophobes. Therefore if you can prove one the other must also be true. This is necessary because whilst the word transphobia has lost its sting through misuse racism and homophobia have retained theirs so are being coralled into the general state of accusations to provide sufficient anti (rather than upping the anti) for their actions and Jack of fairness.
This came to a head today because JR has probably been instructed to use evidence that she has previously not included in the bundle because it is a bit dodgy and, I suspect, she didn’t really want to produce wither FW or LN as witnesses if she didn’t have to.
The message trails have only been submitted recently, you can tell by their page numbers, and some only on Friday.
They are pinning their hopes, I think, on the panel being of that view too.
It was important that it came to light. Many of us have been fully cognisant of the fact that SP will have views that don’t align with our own and, in some cases, we might find offensive. But we are also of the opinion that she does not bring those opinions to her work and does not act on them with regard to patients or colleagues.
She made significant effort to treat DU with respect, has worked with him well and describes him as a good doctor. She raised her issue with SSS professionally, sought advice from senior staff and handles the conversation with DU calmly — something he also confirmed in his testimony.
What today’s evidence proves is that the evidence claiming to show she is a racist, a homophobe and, by association, is very slight indeed.
Most of it comes through the Chinese whispers of gossip.
In the private chat group she never called anyone by a racist term directly. Once in a seven year thread she shared horrible jokes that were racist.
There is no evidence that her views has any effect in how she treated patients or staff. There have been no complaints from patients and only one complaint from a trainee nurse that was dismissed and which was really about her being a bit strict, nothing to do with her purported views.
We live in a pluralistic society and the greatest of the values attaches to that is we can live, and love, and be friends with people, who hold very different views to our own. We all, perhaps, have family members we love but whose views we might find offensive but we still love them.
We can, if we choose, engage in respectful debate and we are also allowed to try and change people’s minds about those views.
Unfortunately, the new left has moved away from a pluralistic position into an autocratic one ‘no debate’ which has replaced discourse with slogans and if we don’t ‘all hail’ the slogan we must be punished.
The evidence of today proves something very very important. Whatever SP’s personal views may be she is a great nurse and doesn’t bring them to bear on her patients or colleagues.
I disagree with the views but I wholly respect that she doesn’t bring them to work and doesn’t make any attempt to antagonise others with them. Clearly the chat group was made up of folk who had similar doubts/ questions and willingness to engage in dodgy sharing.
All this needed an airing and NC made a very strong argument.