Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle Thread 2

[fanOfBen]

Minimal thread-starting:
TT:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/redvers-v-nhs-sussex-integrated-care

Thread 1:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5586672-wellbn-brighton-gp-practice-do-not-believe-in-evidence-based-medicine-tt-at-employment-tribunal-tomorrow

From TT:

CM Sinha wasnt named in Appleby
J Not approp
CM p77 of WB, u say a full and robust process to get him.
Yes
CM Was not him as an org.
Yes
CM Not any other candidates looked at
No
CM Those refs drew yr attention to the ET proceedings against the Tavistock and Dr Sinha

CM He ref himself to the GMC who saw no concerns and closed the case
Yes
CM But the trib found serious concerns
Yes
CM You chose as yr CMO s'one w SG failures
No. The ICB l'ship role req u to work w yr counterparts and leading across multiple orgs

I think we're about 3 qs away from lunch

Fingers crossed

That's a cracking point that CM makes. A disciplinary warning has a finite shelf life of say 12 months or whatever the sanction is. Then it's taken off your file. A document however, follows Dr. R. around for the whole of her professional life and there's no way of appealing it. Horrible.

From TT:

AD Role req s'one who cld respond to multiple areas. ALl the exec appts to ICB by myslef and the chair and others, dep on the req of the role. All panels had NHSE ppl on. Sussex didnt have a good reputation for innovation so we looked at this. NHSE wanted s'one form another EDI team

Was a broad panel
CM Did u have a candidate who hadnt had trib proceedings?
Another 2 but I cant remember details
CM W Dr Sinha u were painting in brushstrokes that dissent wldnt be tolerated in workforce
No. A big area not sorted in region was mental health so wanted strength here

The appointment of disgraced Dr Sinha from the Tavistock as CMO was a big fuck off message & warning to all GC members of staff especially those in the safeguarding team to STFU.

Respondent counsel having a whinge

From TT:

AD We had poor MH outcomes incl those out of area. I dont think he was appointed, and was supported by the panel. Imo was a positive appointed. We felt he'd done the right thing when had criticism and scrutiny
CM U had issues at WB from 21

CM There were no referrals to GMC or NHSE betwn 21-4 despite likely to have been problems in this area, despite C speaking from 21
Yes
CM Para 33 of Cs WS: cld be issues w Dr Sinha being CMO.
AD I'm not sure where..
CM P1830, you made it clear u were working w the CMO

Everyone is a bit snappy right now

J...If we possibly can to get him to finish this afternoon

Break for lunch

back at 2 pm

From TT:

AD I said ppl may have concerns about how to raise concerns and asked Anesh and Alison to take forward. CNO should lead on this. She's still in post. Concerns re clin l'ship and SG shld go to these 2
CM U knew u were appointing a line enforcer? w appointing Sinha

AD That wasnt true
CM We're on track
J Really
BW This witness needs to be done today otherwise is grossly unfair to hime
J I'm not saying u need to cut your exam. I was surprised y'd be as long w AD but can see important and relevant issues raised. But agree disproprtionate to go beyond 3 days

From TT:

J I want u (CM) to finish w AD by 3pm so we can have half an hour each for our Qs - I have a few myself. We'll ahve a shorter lunch so be back for 2pm.

COURT ADJOURNS

So what has happened with AD's diary? Will that be brought into evidence? Can he be questioned on its detail if required?

100 percent

Dr Sarah Redvers is essentially Sir Alan Bates from PO scandal at this point - although more serious in a way due to the safeguarding failures. She is what courage looks like amongst all this trans madness. I despise the progressive flag and all its playful appearance. This is trans and we have been hoodwinked into making it all normal. It is not.

That might have been talked about first thing - we weren't let in at the start of the session.

You don’t kick your way to the top of the sh@t heap without knowing how to avoid things that are politically damaging to you, the operational levers to pull to deflect harmful issues, the processes to put in place to keep the status quo, the underlings to delegate the shitty stuff to, the (deniable) behaviours to deter people from supplying information you don’t want to hear, the notes not to keep, the discussions to be held off the record etc. I’m sure he justifies this to himself on the basis that others are responsible for the policy/maintaining it. Shame on him.

At this point, my mind is so blown by how outrageous this all is that I'm struggling to list the top 5 craziest bits 🤯

Quite, but the reality is we know this is a national issue across all public services. If this was private sector this would be addressed more robustly and that is why the activists have infiltrated public sector not private sector because they are more protected by nonsensical thoughts than the need to make profits as private sector.

I hear you. It is the challenge of our generation, and it is a huge thing these women are doing. I think there is a confluence of 1- a particular type of character - very very calm and organised; 2 - the opportunity for representation, because as we have seen, the Unions are pretty indifferent to members' interests; and 3 - the tide of history; which make it possible for these women to bring these cases successfully.

Whether you bring a tribunal or not, the experience burns you badly.

But I have no doubt you have made a real contribution in your work, and it's a shame the parts of the institution whose usefulness is unconvincing going on non-existent let you (and those you worked for) down.

Wow, this is an enormous mess. Please let this be the case that finally brings sunlight into all of this. It seems pretty unequivocal that this guy:

• knew there was inappropriate prescribing to children
• suppressed data with evidence of this
• victimised Dr Redvers

And he was the CEO?? Yikes, yikes, yikes!

Today morning part 1:
https://archive.ph/AU76f

Today morning part 2:
https://archive.ph/8H680

TT substack:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-218906910

They still have to show it was due to a protected characteristic. It’s not unlawful to be incompetent. Unfortunately.

Naomi Cunningham on X is worth a look. She has cited some information from the Sinha debacle.

Naomi Cunningham @LoudBonnet • 20m
These extracts give a flavour.
...
remained on her file only for a set period. She would also have had a chance to appeal. The injustice was obvious and the claimant's upset entirely understandable. She was nearing the end of a long and blameless career, and as far as we can see had always tried to act responsibly over the Safeguarding concerns of GIDS staff.

Naomi Cunningham @LoudBonnet • 19m
achieve it. She did not know that Garry Richardson found her directive and not collaborative, or that he thought she was condemning hard-working GIDS staff, so she was unable to take steps to improve relations. Nor did Dr Sinha do anything to mend relationships. He was judgemental and punitive; he believed Garry Richardson and not her. It is possible that was because their own relationship had been difficult right from the start because of his perception of her. He attributes this to handover from Dr

Naomi Cunningham @LoudBonnet • 18m
Hodge that some people in this small Trust were very self-important. We were driven to the conclusion that the only explanation for his stern, arm's-length approach to the claimant, his direct report, was that he thought she length approach to the claimant, his direct report, was that he thought she was raising concern about Safeguarding in particular, and the GIDS model in general, in bad faith. He therefore banned her from continuing the work getting accurate records for statistics on Safeguarding because he suspected she was digging for dirt to attack the service, when, as far as we can see, her actions were dedicated to finding out why the level of referrals from GIDS was so low, which might have been thought a legitimate activity on the part of the Safeguarding lead for children. The

Naomi Cunningham @LoudBonnet • 10m
So Dr Sinha, the Tavistock's Medical Director for some years from 2018, punished its Safeguarding Lead for Children for trying to do her job in relation to the treatment of gender-distressed children.

...
Naomi Cunningham @LoudBonnet •4m
Adam Doyle, the CEO of NHS Sussex's Integrated Care Board was dealing with the aftermath of Dr Sarah Redvers' attempts to blow the whistle on improper prescribing of PBs and cross-sex hormones to minors when Dr Sinha applied to be the Board's new Chief Medical Officer.
• • •

Naomi Cunningham @LoudBonnet • 3m
"Just the chap" said Doyle and the Board, and appointed Sinha.