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 know both of them I am team Redvers all the way.

Thankyou so much @MrPrettyDamnCosmic . So Redvers is taking R&R to tribunal for.... what? (sorry if I missed that bit)

Constructive dismissal

A while ago now, maybe 3 years or so, I read the Scottish Government's proposed policy on transgender care in NHS Scotland - the government was going through its usual token consultation exercise. The policy was basically
"Trans people are the ones who know what healthcare they need. The role of doctors is to listen to what the trans person says they want and to work with the trans person to achieve that."

@MrPrettyDamnCosmic Thanks. Glad to learn i was not the only one having difficulties following this

A bit more context
https://can-sg.org/2025/08/22/protecting-children-the-nhs-sussex-controversy/

Maybe the chaos at the ICB resulting from the government cuts and restructure have meant no one has grasped the mettle to settle this one?

Surely the outcome of the investigation has completely sealed the claimants case. She probably only wants a fulsome apology (and a couple months pay?).

Could be Adam Doyle insisting on defending it hmm.

So much NHS money being wasted on lawyers and malpractice

I tend to find these cases easier to follow when the respondents are getting grilled, because I guess they often concentrate on issues I understand and can follow.

Thank you. Very powerful writing.

Same. Please.

This v recent podcast by Beyond Gender goes through the history of the depathologisation and medicalisation of trans.

Lots will be known by many on here, but it's still pretty mind-blowing having it laid out step-by-step and how the health services were all completely hoodwinked.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJFI-QnV8uY

See thread. @MrPrettyDamnCosmic has done a fantastic job of translating it into an understandable format. And the Rachel Cashman article above is also helpful.

I do hope ICBs everywhere are taking note.

Maybe they just aggressively defend absolutely everything as a deterrent?

From the article

In this video made only a few weeks ago (), he described expanding his patient list from 60 to 2,500 with NHS Sussex’s knowledge and money, describing himself in this video as “the pied piper of trans healthcare”.

From google

In the traditional fairy tale, the Pied Piper leads 130 children into a magical mountain cave or a river because the town of Hamelin refuses to pay him for getting rid of their rats, and the children are never seen again

Pretty creepy self-image - I'm the person that enticed the children away from their parents never to be seen again

As I read TT BW is cross examining to establish the timeline and at what point the C raised her protected beliefs. So far it’s clear GC was raised early but not when EBM was raised.

BW is also teasing out at what point the C had an issue with the individual players and in particular respondent 2.

Reading all the background to this, thanks @ICBmole. Jeez. It's beyond words what I'm reading at the moment. It needs as much public airing as possible.

Does anyone know what the necessity is to establish a time at which point C raised her beliefs?

If something is protected, it's protected whether it's raised sooner, or later, or not raised at all, and regardless of whether the claimant knows or doesn't know they have that characteristic.

I think we're supposed to announce it, like a terfy Ali GC.

It could be to do with whether a claim is in time or not. That is just a guess on my part.

Beautifully clear, thank you so much

Nick Wallis has just posted this report on the case

https://nickwallis.substack.com/p/nhs-knew-of-concerns-about-trans

From the above link Myrtle posted.
Dr. Redvers:
"The fact that I see evidence-based medicine as a non-negotiable core of medicine –and that this was so important to the role of Named GP Safeguarding Lead – had the effect that I was placed in direct conflict with the organisation and forced out. There is no other explanation for their conduct that I can identify. Even after I lodged these proceedings, I offered to settle this claim for £1 in exchange for actions from the Respondents which would not have caused them, or patients, any harm - but trather than accept that offer, they have instead litigated it to a conclusion.”

Interesting and thorough description of the case background.

I always worry when I see statements like - “prescribing specific medications at considerably higher rates (>80% more) than the average for general practices” across the NHS Sussex area.
(from the article, describing findings of an investigation)

Why not use the actual calculated rate? Has the author chosen to obfuscate that the actual rate is much higher than the headline 80%

No one is going to have time to be able to get anything done if we have to declare all our "beliefs" in reality or be punished for not speaking them aloud as a protected belief. It's complete madness.

"I believe sex is binary and matters. I believe in evidenced based medicine. I believe in gravity. I believe the world is round. I believe human beings need to breathe air to continue living..." and so on.

Edit for spelling mistake.