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: p130 - We see here a request for further particulars made by C to the Rs. [AD is having probs loading on the laptop]
CM: C asks about how the ToR written, dates when various stages happened. Simple Qs
AD: Yes
CM: We have seen no correspondence at all on the ToRs, and the only WS that mentions it is yours briefly
CM: Are you saying that the ToRs were not shared with DrH?
AD: I can't say what MarkP shared with DrH, and I'd handed over to him.
CM: p976, this is the ToRs?
AD: Yes
CM: Don't mention either Elizabeth G or Alison C?
AD: No
CM: Even though you said they were handing part of all this?
AD: Yes

He had 2 earlier.

So that's where the Bigly Screen went!

I think this is true. There's no jury to influence, either. Just a professional judge.

Live tribunal feed showing witness

AD: I had open mind about what it would show, if you are comparing the two, there's a difference.
CM: Can you explain what?
AD: I can't no.

Good grief.

CM: in fact it gets worse...

😳

Sorry - should have included the context for that unbelievable exchange. Here's CM's question:
CM: 16/8/2023 it was put to C that it wd be invidious to inquire into DrH's conduct on that date. Why is it invidious to enquire into DrH motivations, and not invidious to enquire into Dr Redvers?

From TT

CM: 16/8/2023 it was put to C that it wd be invidious to inquire into DrH's conduct on that date. Why is it invidious to enquire into DrH motivations, and not invidious to enquire into Dr Redvers?
BW [objects]
J: Q is comparison [checks page refs]
CM: [reads out bit about "motivation" when C IX'd]
AD: Can you ask again re 2023?
CM: Why is it 'invidious' to IX the motivations of DrH, but 'appropriate' to IX motivations of Dr Redvers?
AD: I had open mind about what it would show, if you are comparing the two, there's a difference.
CM: Can you explain what?
AD: I can't no [😂]
CM: And you can't say where 'improper motivation' came from in the ToR?
AD: No, Mr Powers wrote
CM: We know that neither GMC nor NHSE found any bad faith on C part?
AD: Yes
CM: And DustyA is in no position to consider that? Not a regulator, not a clinician?
AD: Had access to specialist advice if needed - not sure he took it
CM: We see also disparity of treatment in what happened to those ToR - p1766, part of Durant report. Says the ToR were not shared consistently.
CM: And re ToR - notes that Dr Flynn not given ToR or the complaint itself, and that IX had been told not to give out complaint, and ToR only if asked.
AD: I am surprised that the level of transparency and openness was not there.

AD on defensive monologue now

Quite astonishing. You pursued a complaint from a woman who presents as a man against a doctor showing real concerns about safeguarding. You were openly aware said woman was prescribing PBs to minors. You did not have an open mind. You knew the over valued belief that is trans would be problematic/transphobic and you went along with it.

A document is so redacted that comment about a more redacted version produces a joke from the judge

I am getting twitchy about all these leads, and the extent to which AD's laptop is overhanging his table. It may be close as to who/what goes over the edge first.

From TT

CM: We can see that Dr Flynn even had to submit a DSAR to get the ToR disclosed. What is going on Mr Doyle?

AD: From what SD found, the ToR were not being well shared, ppl didn't ask for them
J: They did ask, they put in an SAR
AD: I wasn't aware they weren't getting them, I would have told MarkP to share them, I've shared ToRs in many IXs
CM: You will recall I asked if you thought you were a good leader, setting direction etc. If MarkP is running the IX like this, it's because he thought it's what you wanted?
J: <tuts>
CM: Moving on
CM: When the C raised prob of your and MarkP involvement in the A ix, in grievance. You send the G to your personal email address. We don't have any disclosure of anything from that email account at all.
AD: Yes, I only forwarded it to myself bcs I was the subject of the grievance.
CM: You knew it was about you, partly?
AD: Yes so I recused, and asked Jill to take it forward.
CM: DrHall has the full Warsh. report?
AD: Yes sent from NHSE
CM: And has ToR of the A IX?
AD: Yes

[sorry can't c&p any further, can anyone else take over?]

Christ, it's half over! All he needs is a helpful cat on his lap

Did you get to keep the baseball bat when you left their employ?

😁

Can anyone explain who made the redactions they are talking about? I've got a bit lost.

CM Responsibility for its fairness rests with you.

AD: Yes

So he does understand what his job entails then.

Sorry, I think that's exactly what they are on now.

We don't really know.

If Doyle's laptop goes over, he couldn't possibly be expected to answer any more questions today, could he? Ditto for the "getting upset."

Break now.

Short one 5 mins

I wonder how often AD will relieve this is his sleep.

Has CM got some fancy 3 screen set up?