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

TT

BW Is it your case that he (Mr Doyle) had sight of the Amroliwala investigation, still had some involvement influential involvement while it continued?
C No through sturcture, he decided to have contining involvement
BW You accept the direction to inlfuenced by Mr D?

C yes
BW Let's go to p1022. This is email at bottom of August 2023 to Mr Power, you have not been interviewed, ix just underway, you are involved and want to do properly
C yes
BW you mention protected beleifs, was it in your mind about the belief in EBM, or GC belief?
C GC belief that bio sex real is relevant to my job as a medic

TT

BW Is there any reason you don't say it?
C no
BW I thinknit's your case that the whole ix i improperly instigated by Mr Doyle? Did you consider greivance at that point?
C I was aware that i was being ix for my GC views and my orientation had been disclosed.
BW not in your mind to bring grievance?

C no
BW we touched before, Mr Doyle overriding professionals and their concerns in continuing ic. Interviews into September, you were interviewed then off 3 months. p 1187 you sent concerns?

BW is getting right up my nose. Even 'on the page' he comes across as a smug, sarcastic wanker.

TT

BW these are concerns that professionals overriden,
Ms Bailey [?] To J, have you read?
[J yes] She was asked q re concerns, eg recording, documents she had not seen things, had been misconstrued?

BW But she was not asking for it to stop?
C I need to look [at document]
J also looking]
BW J have you had a chance to look at that?
[yes]

BW she asks if Mr Doyle also aware of level of concern. Response at p1189, Mr Powers' email. 22:48 email we can see he acknowledges receipt, and concern, genuine upset. He will pass on but Mr A has concluded his interviews. When Hanna Davies complaining, that was the status of ix.
C yes that his response

TT

BW At this point all that remains was Mr A considering evidence? No more stressful interviews, and Mr Powers would not sanction this?
C yes
BW You also send an email, Mr Doyle did not see but yu sent to Mr P, you list clear apects where ix lacking, and may of this will be agreed with by [missed]

You agreed that there was a serious ix, manner he did it you complained about it, and quality of that investigation. Stopping it doesn't fix that?
C Yes, I complained.
BW you felt it needed to stop but that doesn't say what should happen next?
C yes, I didn't lodge a grievance until 9 December, 3 months after i gave evidence.

Very many thanks @ImNotAsCooperativeAsYouMightWantAWomanToBe for stepping up and @MyrtleLion for posting TT.

TT

BW p1208 Is your allegation that it arrived too late?
C Yes after report finalised.
BW As I understand it Mr A was told you could have it but refusal or delay in getting was connected to those two protected disclosures.
C Which?
J I understand. Look at list of issues, internal numbering p5. First protected act is your initial disclosure Aug 2020 email to same person December 2020.

[Discussing formatting and locations of information]
J number 10, victimisation? and then at A we have disclosure 08/202 and 12/202? Q again?
BW Do you believe that you had sent those emails, that this influenced delays and Mr A not giving you the transcript of audio?
{J clarifying that issue inclaim?}
C No
J Let me clarify, did you claim he said no because you had sent those emails?
C no

TT

J Before er move on, to clarify, audio and transcript? We only have transcript? BW What of your colleagues' concerns, Mr Doyle meeting with coleagues, Hannah Davies and dates we could meet, assuming they did meet, and you assume they did meet? Para 203 of your statement again you criticise lack of disclosure and Mr D pressing on

Two barristers; different chambers

@Justabaker So the Claimant has 2 barristers?

Yes, 2 barristers for C.

TT

BW I am sure Mr Doyle will discuss but yu didn't complain. Do you accept tho that their concerns wree aired verbally [in that meeting].
C yes
BW I want to understand what you think should have happened, what is your case, drafts. See p1019 email, Mr Doyle writes following up to attending, thanks for discussion, cooperation and recognises experience bot easy and called Mr A very strident in his approach. This is what he relates they said to him. That I say is a contenporaneous account?

BW you say colleagues expressed complaints, and you say that they accused Mr A of improper conduct.
C Dr Flynn said in her interview Mr A put something to her that [name missed] had said but after following up with him later he said this had not been true.

C I remember convo bc it't not often you hear a colleague claim that that someone had lied, and [missed] said he had been misrepresented.

[missed]
C I listened to the tapes because colleagues had complained they had been misrepresented in their and I wanted to check mine.

BW you are discussing with colleagues while ix ongoing?
C we had given our testimony, and all were very up in arms about it.
BW Moving things on p1631, grievance, the email where you send it?
[J Looking for it]

TT

BW I can't see where you say investigator acted dishonestly? Did that all come out later with Durant?
C Yes
BW I know its difficult to get timings right, i don't want to criticise, but it looks more likely these were things you became aware of later?
C No i can't say that

BW You didn't mention protected characteristic? You also want apology from Mr Power?#
C Yes
BW That appeared to be your position, but now it's Mr Doyle in the frame? You switched attention to him, you don't appear to say here he did anything untoward?
C His decision was that ix should continue?
BW Mr Doyle sees outcome, but in meantime you odge grievance. No action from Mr A's Ix because your grievance lodged?
C no
BW what then? A decision on Mr A was already made?

C No
BW What then happened see p 1656, what was going to happen was you were going to be notified. Go to 1649, that is email trail proposes to appoint an independent Jill Galliano and Mr Power, what new process should be an pause for more input.
C because of grievances?
BW Yes but back to Q, you know there is a gx and you are deeply unhappy and commit to paper, and also to Mr A and others but not toward Mr Doyle?

TT

J [Steps into to clarify] When you lodged your Gx, the person you were upset with was Mr Powell, not Mr Doyle. Do you agree?
C yes
BW but at the time of your Gx you are awaiting outcome but because of your Gx it was postponed.
[J and counsel discuss timing re wrapping up]

J we finish there for today. We will begin promptly tomorrow at 10.

Two barristers; different chambers

Is that unusual?

It seems expensive.

It's not unusual to have two barristers. Charlotte Elves did Sara Morrison vs Belfast Film Festival with Naomi Cunningham but they are both in the same chambers (Outer Temple).

Christopher Milson says in his LinkedIn profile

I am a self-employed barrister operating at the cutting-edge of employment and equality law having appeared at every appellate level including the Supreme Court.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-milsom-67b98864/

CM seems to be expert in WORIADS - got ethical veganism approved.

CE is obviously a GC expert (but NOT the 6th best option)

CB was ‘Claimant’s Barrister’, I think they weren’t entirely sure of names.

I'm entirely and utterly lost. I need a dummies explainer of what is going on and the significance of both questions and replies! I feel that this is such an important case - they touched on so many important aspects relevant to GP practice including the (entirely incoherent) GMC guidance re bridging prescriptions. I hope someone clever summarises <please>

Apparently there is public access to the electronic bundle so hopefully TT can link or host the actual documents so we can see the details of the case. As it is we have to gather what the story is from the hints we have from the cross examination. What I can make out so far & what I know from my background reading is this...

Dr Redvers qualified in 2000 is a GC GP & was Safeguarding Lead for the Sussex Integrated Care Board (the organisation that manages GP funds & services for Sussex).

Dr Sam Hall was born female married with children qualified in 1993 & a consultant anaesthetist who decided she was really a man & took testosterone & had her breasts cut off left her famiky & married a woman. She became a TRA & retrained as a GP in 2019 to better serve "trans" patients. She trained then worked at the WellBN GP practice from 2020.

Dr Redvers became concerned about Dr Hall setting up a de facto Gender Clinic when she had no training in gender medicine & was inappropriately prescribing PBs & CSH. For raising these issues it was Dr Redvers who was put under investigation for being transphobic. Dr Redvers believes that Adam Doyle the CEO of the Sussex ICB had a close relationship with Dr Hall & that was why the red flags being raised about Dr Hall were ignored & Dr Redvers punished instead by being investigated by someone who wasn't even a doctor. This is why Adam Doyle is R2 so he is forced to give evidence.

Eventually the bad medicine being practised by Dr Hall was too much even for Sussex ICB so they commissioned an external report that confirmed Dr Redvers was right all along. Dr Hall left WellBN & Adam Doyle has of course been promoted upwards to another NHS CEO role.

That's much clearer now, thanks for the explanation @MrPrettyDamnCosmic

Fuck sake

You would think they would have settled then, what a waste of time and money.

Thank you for the explanation.

I'm hoping that others can chip in some more details that they have figured out as there was much that was mysterious about the story as it was unfolding in court today.

Yes, thanks @MrPrettyDamnCosmic

A very clear explanation and all too believable in every aspect.