WellBN Brighton GP practice do not believe in evidence based medicine. TT at employment tribunal tomorrow

[impossibletoday]

In case anyone is interested

https://x.com/LoudBonnet/status/2107877530602443058

I'd rock the hat but I'd probably be wrapped up a bit warmer...and it'd be in an office.

Where did you get that picture of me?

Well, there's a new one!

Now roll 2d4 for damage

Continuing where I left off...

TT

C yes,
BW you say you're concerned with poor quality of assessment by SH.
C yes got that
BW SH retrained as a GP in 2019, no evidence he was being supervised
C yes
BW you say he was not being supervised appropriately

C yes
BW you accept you raised this with NHSE, not with Rs directly,
C I had discussed with them
BW - 1627 or page 1628, a complaint, and an i/x is opened. You're aware he is the investigator.
C yes
BW known to you
C I don't think we had met before

J is this telling you who it's forwarded to, original email forwarded to Cochran Dyet, who did this go to,
BW so you email to Cochran Dyet, and you raise the prospect that there might retaliation
J I'm confused; original email, and then i/x by Dr Wachowski,
BW I'll leave it

then Judge, I thought it was somehow sent to Dr W,
J it may become clear
BW there's an email trail,
J it says that the chain of emails has been forwarded to Dr W,
BW yes that's correct, you wanted to send that email
C I thought there was a problem with handover

BW so you sent all that on to Dr W, including Dr R's timeline, you say that is prescribing too quickly, without proper assessments or supervision.
C yes
BW you say in the body of the email,
J where does it say that
BW my mistake Judge, by making Dr W aware of everything that

has happened you are raising the possibility of accusations of transphobia
C SH raised transphobia in his complaint, so Dr W would have been aware of it BW why did you need to send all of it on
C because there was little to no handover
BW given that Dr W was an independent i/x

why did you ring the GMC helpline?
C I think that was about Dr R reporting concerns about her patient and GenderGP
BW so it's not escalating this other matter
C no, concerns about a different patient and GenderGP

TT

BW you're keeping Dr W updated,
C CAMHS had concerns with a patient of SH's so I sent that on to Dr W, I could tell him or withhold from him.
BW and you forwarded Facebook posts on to him,
C I can't remember when Dr Hewlitt, brought it to my attention

BW it looks like you're bringing this to Dr W's attention
C it's very important that the i/x has all relevant information
BW so you're keeping him in touch with the i/x
C yes
BW so he makes conclusions including based on info you made him aware of

C I don't know how he reached his conclusions
BW you had concerns about his i/x
C I was troubled when he asked me for an example of an assessment of a gender distressed person, it seemed to me that he needed this knowledge to complete his task
BW so you made a referral to the GMC

it took you some time to compile that information. You didn't wait for Dr W to conclude his i/x.
C no
BW so it concluded soon after, you didn't see a summary for sometime, go to page 653, this is the report, you didn't see this full report, this is from NHSE, not doubtful that

it is bona fide
C I don't have any reason to think it's not
BW well you've raised a lot of questions about documents that have been disclosed
CB there have been no allegations of fabricated documents
BW not going through report, findings about page 560.

TT

BW you have concerns about the quality of these findings now
C yes
BW 5.2.6 - concludes SH has recognised expertise
C not sure what that's based on, recognised by whom
BW recognised by the i/x, you don't accept that
C he has no formal training, obtained through self study

and experience
BW you think that's not sufficient
C GMC says you need 2 years in a gender service, you can be self taught but not to run a service
BW so you don't think he has recognised expertise
C he has experience and he's self taught

BW i/x concludes that bridging prescriptions are mostly being done properly but needs to tailor letters,
C that's a perverse finding, must consider suicide risk, does not comply with requirements
BW you don't agree with the finding that prescribing was in accordance with

guidelines.
C that's what the report says but that's not correct
BW the i/x is of the view that you and colleagues have misinterpreted SH practice,
C also Mr M view
BW you did not raise these directly with SH did you
C no

TT

BW one colleague - that's you isn't it - interest described as disproportionate, you say label you as a transphobe
C that's what he was leading up to
BW these conclusions exist at the time that SH complains to Mr Doyle,
C yes

BW these exist in the background, in March 2021, the Tavistock judgment was clarified to say that parental consent was sufficient, not suggesting you would have seen this immediately, [discussion between barristers, not audible]
BW point being, legal opinions in the background

BW you doctors are trying to keep up
C what's the question
BW giving you context
C at the time I complained, we were in Bell judgment territory,
BW when you made your referral to the GMC, much of the ambit of your concerns was being considered by Dr W

C the general concerns yes
BW why didn't you wait for Dr W to finish
C we were told that there was a 15 year old child being prescribed for, we were told about this by CAMHS, this was a distinct escalation in the situation,
BW you WS, you describe how SH was now behaving

in an unethical way,
C if SH was not the prescriber but he knew about it, he should have been making referrals about the child
BW now an abridged version of report by Dr W was shared with you, this is the one that was shared
CB there are different versions, this is the one that

came from.
C this is not the copy I received.
J you received a summary,
CB there are differently worded summaries,
J maybe when we come back from lunch we can be looking at the correct summary
BW at 924,
C that's the version I received.

J break now for lunch
BW think we're on track for time
J can everyone be back in their waiting rooms at 14:10, I'm afraid Dr Redvers you get to enjoy lunch on your own. [laughter from all] Court rises.
End of morning session.

Thank you @ImNotAsCooperativeAsYouMightWantAWomanToBe

TT

The first afternoon session is expected to begin not before 14:10 this afternoon. Cross examination of Dr Sarah Redvers by Ben Williams on behalf of Rs will continue.

Additional abbreviations & information
Judge is Employment Judge K Andrews, she is sitting alone
CM - Christopher Milson, barrister for C
BW - Ben Williams, barrister for Rs

We return.
BW begins. Gives password to C for bundle. I want to deal with SH complaint. Your case is littered with insinuations about this chronology and disclosure. Is it your case that SH and Adam Doyle had a better relationship than described?
C I thought they had a

mentoring relationship.
BW well given your insistence on EGM, its ironic that you're making so many assumptions. In SH complaint about you, describes as being victimised by you, and career disrupted. This is the documentation that is sent. Para 144 of your WS statement, you

refer to this document, I'll let you read that paragraph.
C yes
BW what you say is factually accurate on timings, SH forwards an email to Becky Jarvis and others and then sends an email to AD. What is the point you are making on timings, what is the insinuation?

C SH has working relationships with Jarvis and someone else, but he sends this direct to AD, without any context or further explanation.
BW so what are you saying? That we need to join dots, here that they know each other and have discussed these things. Is that what you're

asking the Judge to believe
C - so much info here, there must have been prior contact and knowledge
BW why jump to a conclusion that AD must have known about this already
C because it's a very odd email to send if there has been no further contact

because of the amount of info.
BW AD's evidence will be that they had one previous meeting and AD asked SH to put in writing.
CM - I don't think that's AD's evidence
J this is not helpful,
BW back to the dots that need to be joined, you have ensured that AD will give evidence

by making him a party, are you saying that there is something being hidden here.
C can you ask the question again
BW this was the sequence of events, (goes through it)
C it's hard to say,
J so your answer is 'I don't know'
C yes

TT

BW you assert that there was a mentoring relationship between AD and SH, what evidence is there for that
C I became aware that there was some prior working relationship,
BW - you say Brown told you that, where does the mentoring relationship come there
C well mentoring is a

working relationship
BW so it could be a mentoring relationship, but you've decided it must be that
C I had heard people talking about it, senior executives, so yes, I think there was
BW so this note, it's handwritten
C I was off sick

BW in a meeting note, line manager said that it was an odd way for a complaint to come in, it also seems to be a question, so he didn't know
C he said they had a previous relationship, I said I didn't know
BW what was their relationship mentoring like
C I don't know what it

was like.
BW your statement seems to make a categorical statement that there is a relationship
C I think it was in the letter,
J - interrupts
BW, insists on knowing more about letter
C a letter from AD to SH, starts Dear Sam, final para, be happy to meet with you again to

discuss your practice and ongoing mentorship.
BW so this is hindsight, you see this, you connect to your line manager, and then reach a conclusion.
C it was consistent with what I had been told
BW you're convinced there was a mentoring relationship

TT

C this letter confirms what I had been told at the end of 2021.
BW this has lead to you and your solicitors to ask for documents, there should be a paper trail of that,
C I don't know
BW that's why there have been repeated requests through your solicitors, if there was a

mentoring relationship, there would be documentation
C and I think there are in the supplemental disclosure
BW what do you think you saw
C I'm sure I saw an email that said they met before the complaint was lodged BW take us to the email that you've seen

[some electronic bundle faffing]
CM - could we suggest a page number
C - it says Dear Adam, following our meeting,
BW what the insinuation is, is that there are meetings in the background, that AD has been mentoring SH. He's made a complaint in a meeting to AD

and been asked to put it into writing,
C but date of complaint
BW not the written complaint, it was in a meeting
C but there was an email before this in April of a meeting - what is the question BW you've said there were more meetings, but this doesn't prove there was

mentoring, it just proves that there was contact between SH and AD at the time that he had made a complaint about you.
C in the Amroliwala i/x, it was said that AD passed off tasks to another person because of relationship with SH
BW but there are still only two meetings

TT

that we see
BW assuming that there were these two meetings, why do you say a mentoring arrangement, why not about the complaint
J just pause there for a moment [pause]
BW I fully understand, now looking back there are a number of things that take on a different meaning. One of

those things is in your WS, one is a statement made by AD, you don't just draw attention to it but say its about you.
C I think that's covered in 176,
BW lets go to the quote attributed to AD, on 942, sorry, it's starts at 941, its the quote at the end,

J it doesn't say AD does it
BW over the page it does
J oh yes, AD added..
BW context, from a magazine on a relevant topic, you concur with this statement don't you
C I disagree that there are allies and phobes, I think that's a divisive statement

TT

BW so why do you think it's about you
C we were struggling in the org, it was sent to us by a colleague, it's divisive to label allies and phobes
BW you're saying it's because of you and about you, why do you think that
C I think there was anxiety in the org about transphobia

and being called transphobes
BW I can see from dates how you make that connection but you're also saying that it was topical at the time
C yes
BW now onto SH complaint, you said to me earlier that complaints are worthy of consideration, can't just ignore

TT

BW what were AD's options; he could ignore but you would not think that right. So he could do nothing or something, and he chose to i/x. There could be a formal or informal i/x. It's not unreasonable to have a formal i/x.
C yes
BW I know that you don't agree with this

complaint but on it's face it raises serious matters
C yes
BW the decision to i/x by virtue of an independent i/x is a sensible response, yes C yes
BW we know what ensues, we know who is recruited, Mr Amroliwaha being appointed is one of the detriments.

BW you are critical of Mr A's CV, he doesn't have relevant expertise, let's look at it.
Judge - you may not have looked at it, my point is a simple one. [pause, J reading]
BW right to point to a lack of medical expertise, but chair of NHS trust for 2 1/2 year, an impressive CV

C yes
BW in the context of an i/x, a person with a good deal of experience in i/x.
C yes
BW now, Mr A was Mr Power's recommendation, I was to just deal with your para 179, 'no docs disclosed about why he was appointed but the speed with which he was invited to a meeting'

TT

BW what is the insinuation you are making here? Was it a preordained outcome C there was no procurement process
BW yes, that's been accepted, what else are you suggesting
C there are reasons for doing things in a recognised way, and if it's done outside that way you have to

wonder why. In a case where medical expertise is so important why was he appointed in this way.
BW what are you saying what is wrong here
C he wasn't independent
BW what was ADs role?
C he was very worried about the complaint, he wanted an outcome that suited him and SH.

TT

BW potentially. A very worrisome complaint, I'm with you on that, but where do we get the point that AD wanted an outcome that suited SH and AD, is that harking back to their mentoring relationship.
C their working relationship
BW so Mr A picks up the i/x, Alison Canning

attends a meeting on 6 July, [Alison Canning - AC]. A meeting at which terms of reference were discussed, explains the meetings that took place. You are suspicious at the speed - is it the same point you make? It was within 3 days because he wasn't independent?

C - yes that's why.
BW in terms of Mr A's conduct during the i/x well documented where that takes us, and you instituted a g/x that found in your favour. What evidence do you have at AD knew Mr A would not be a good i/x? Or is it that he should have stopped it?

C can you repeat
BW AD should have known that he would be a bad i/x or shouldn't have selected him?
C why would he have chosen him?
BW should AD have known,
C AD should have known, he had no medical expertise or safeguarding training

Are NICE aware of this?

TT

BW but that's not what your gx was about it was about his style and conduct
C that's not correct at all, in 4 hours of interview I was not asked about my practice at all
BW now a note of teams meeting, do you see that, you don't disagree there was a meeting
C I assume there

was a meeting
BW If you weren't there, you can't comment on what was or wasn't discussed
C correct
BW the GMC i/x, not a party to these proceedings, you accept that i/x outcome is outside of Rs control
C yes
BW you don't hold them accountable in any way

TT

C no
BW it says you have genuine safeguarding concerns,
C yes
BW and decision was not to take any further actions formal actions against SH C yes
J - is it time for a comfort break
BW it always is Judge

Court rises, back in 10 minutes (15:15 approx).
End of afternoon session, part one.

This morning TT said this

CE - Charlotte Elves, barrister for C

but this afternoon they say

CM - Christopher Milson, barrister for C

Are there two barristers appearing for Dr Redvers or has Charlotte transitioned to Christopher?

Has anyone other than TT been granted remote access? I applied last yesterday and have only had an acknowledgement. The clerks are usually much more on the ball.

This is going to be very interesting and I'm keen to watch.

TT

We resume afternoon part 2

BW The complaint is not being endorsed?
C No
BW Any amendments to ix ToR?
C [Missed]

BW If we go to supp bundle p4 Mr Doyle 9 July at 1750> ToR Dr Hall in late para I will share these with you when I have. Does not appear to suggest Dr Hall had input?
C No
BW I sense a but?
C I didn't see this but I see that the email suggests that he did?
BW para186 of your statement, to things that don't exist? Gievn what we see this falls away?

C:
BW you think he has had opportunity, there's no paper trail is it being withheld? Or did he not have sight and this is not the case?
C I don't know and can't comment
BW you can't disclose what you fon't have, and what is relevant?
C that is what required

BW If someone didn't do something there will be noe disclosure to show this will there?
C yes
BW The furtherpoint re Durant [?] matter; Mr A conduct, poor as it was found to be was consistent to all?
C It was constent, that was the finding
BW you bore the brunt of a long interview, and if we take the currency of your claim that Mr D had a central and continuing role in the ix?

Same here.

Yes, that puzzled me too. To add to the confusion I think this morning they were referring to Charlotte Elves as CB.