Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle Thread 3

[fanOfBen]

TT summary:

Dr Redvers, a named GP safeguarding lead, has a constructive dismissal case. Clinical concerns were raised about a specific doctor at WellBN, a Brighton GP practice. She claims that as a result of escalating those claims from 2020 onwards, she was constructively dismissed.

Her legal claim is discrimination on the grounds of her employer’s perception she had gender critical beliefs and on the grounds of her protected belief in evidence-based medicine (EBM). The respondent defends the latter claim by pleading that EBM is just an opinion.

Earlier coverage of this hearing can be found on TT's Substack at:
t.co/TwXeLCDnpt

TT report what they hear in good faith but do not provide a verbatim transcript of the hearing.

TT's list of abbreviations:

J - Judge Katherine Andrews (sitting alone)
DR/C - Doctor Sarah Redvers, claimant
CM/RB - Chris Milsom, claimant barrister
CE/RB - Charlotte Elves, Claimant Barrister
PD - Peter Daly, solicitor for the C

NHSSICB/R1 - NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board, first respondent
AD/R2 - Adam Doyle, second respondent, CEO of R1 2019-2025
Rs - collectively the respondents
RB/BW - Ben Williams, Respondent's barrister
EBM - Evidence-based medicine
SG - Safeguarding

WB - WellBN, Brighton based GP practice
GC - Gender Critical or sex realist beliefs
GI - Gender Identity belief
WS - Witness Statement
Ix - investigation
Gx - grievance
Cx - complaint

SH/DSH - Dr Sam Hall, GP at WellBN, Trustee - the Clare Project (TCP), Clinical Lead - Trans Health Hub, GIC Partner - Trans Health Improvement Board at R1, trans-identified female
DA - Dusty Amroliwala, ext consultant, investigated complaint filed by DSH against C
LB - Lola Banjoko, Exec Managing Director, chair of Trans Health Improvement Board, advised R1 on trans matters
NC - Nikky Cambridge, former trustee of TCP

AC - Allison Cannon, Chief Nursing Officer, R1, tasked w implementing the recommendations of the 1st grievance outcome
CCD - Dr Claire Cochrane-Dyet, Dep Medical Director for System Improvement & Professional Standards, NHSE, commissioned Warshafsky Report
HD - Dr Hannah Davies, Deputy Chief Medical Office, R1

SD - Samantha Durrant, Lay vice chair until July 2022, 1st grievance manager
NE - Naomi Ellis, dep director of Safeguarding, R1
MF - Dr Mary Flynn, Named GP for Safeguarding, also filed g/x in relation to Amroliwala Report
PF - Pennie Ford, Executive Managing Director, R1, 2nd grievance manager

EG - Dr Elizabeth Gill, Chief Medical Officer, R1
HH - Hannah Hamilton, Chief financial officer, R1, 2nd grievance appeal manager
BJ - Dr Becky Jarvis, clinical lead for mental health, R1
TM - Tom Micklewright, managing partner of Lime Tree Surgery

IM - Ian Mundy, HR Consultant, Your Consultancy, 1st grievance investigator
MP - Mark Power, interim Chief People Officer (until April 2022), R1, managed Amroliwala investigation
RR - Dr Rebecca Richards, GP partner, Lime Tree Surgery, raised concerns to C about SH
AR - Anne Robson, Interim Chief People Officer (April -August 2022), R1

DS - Dr Dinesh Sinha, Chief Medical Officer (June 2022 - April 2024), Chair of Trans Health Improvement Board (THIB)
MS - Mark Smith, Chief People Officer, R1 (Aug 2022 - Jan 2025) Acting CEO (Jan 2025 - June 2025) Deputy CEO & Director of Transition (June 2025 - present)
RW - Dr Robin Warshafsky, GP NHSE, Author of Warshafsky Report (WR)

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

Thread 2:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5588924-redvers-v-nhs-sussex-integrated-care-board-mr-adam-doyle-thread-2

My god!

Sorry not followed this story before now but having just read the report on the bbc it seems huge.

And also huge, the article itself used clear language!

I'm gobsmacked tbh.

It goes back to the beginning of the thread when everyone was shocked because the Respondent was denying that Dr Redver's belief in evidence based medicine was a protected belief. I think the Respondent conceded that point early on, although I am still a bit confused about all the twists and turns, so it is academic now. But I wasn't quite as shocked as everyone else (except for the interloper who was more of my way of thinking - oh dear). I think there are valid criticisms to be made of evidence based medicine. Also, even if something is generally seen as good, it doesn't, depending on the circumstances, qualify as a protected belief - in a recent case a belief in social and environmental justice was rejected, although that was because the Respondent successfully argued that the Claimant did not live up to her own standards.

Evidence based medicine

I can see the ET rejecting the idea of EBM as a "belief", and it going to the EAT. I can't see the EAT rejecting it.

I was truly astonished by the report on the 6pm and 10 pm news. We have been getting such gaslighting rubbish for so long I could hardly believe what I was hearing. The bit about a medical scandal was very good. We know that but for the watchers at large it must have been quite shocking.

Erm so what you appear to be saying is that the NHS should provide treatments based on no evidence of positive outcomes whatsoever, is that what you are saying?

Well we will see but maybe the BBC are looking at retrieving their credibility in the neck of the woods of genderism and the harms done, as a way of climbing away from pop reporting

okay I will go first. If indeed this is you Sarah hello.

tell us more then, now your are free to do so.

it is a trans issue as regards trying to protect children from being affirmed.

No not at all. The concept of EBM has been around for about 30 years. But before that the NHS still provided treatments based on evidence of positive outcomes - I think when I posted previously I used the example of how people had transplants and test-tube babies before EBM. And infections were treated with antibiotics, etc. There were randomised controlled trials of treatments and drugs. There are valid criticisms of EBM and its reliance on systematic reviews and lots of people who are explaining the criticisms much better than I can if you search for critique of EBM. Here for example is a critique from a feminist viewpoint https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1089/whr.2022.0032 (I have only read the abstract).

I suspect that a belief in this academic and scholarly meaning of EBM at its most specific isn’t entirely what this case was about.

AD and his enabling is certainly a large part of it.

The case also reveals though how 'trans' was and is used as a tool of control, manipulation, and abuse. Children have been irrevocably harmed by this pernicious bullshit, and the people who harmed them protected and enabled by a culture that has seen the doublethink and power dynamic as an opportunity.

Just as 'trans' damaged Sturgeon and the Scottish government, it has been abaorbed into the NHS at the very highest levels.

The ideology is useful to authoritarians, because it relies on abuse of power, fear, and lies, and anyone can therefore access and use it if they are ruthless enough.

Of course the loss of womens rights and the harming of vulnerable children are huge scandals, but they have not even been the main aim of 'gender ideology's most powerful proponents. Their only aim was only ever power.

With its opaque lore, arbitrary rules, hierarchy of self declared moral arbiter and quasi religious structures, 'genderism' has been a very useful tool/vehicle for those willing to make the most absurd and bad faith declarations.

It has offered a route to power for the least skilled, least humane, most venal and most vicious, and in the process terribly undermined every institution and the whole fabric of democratic society.

I very much hope its on the way out.

Excellent post @ArabellaScott .

I'd add that it also targeted the youngest and most vulnerable in society - especially those who have yet to develop the critical insight and life skills needed to resist such a pernicious ideology.
I will always beleve that was deliberate.

Yes, an easy route to power is to go for.the most vulnerable. Genderism has been one way mediocre white men can reclaim access to power and recoup some of the balance that was ceded to equity.

@HydrangeaFig Yes, the case wasn't related to this more formalised concept of EBM. The actual concept of EBM in play is given by the competing model of healthcare cited in the case, namely 'affirmative care', which positions any kind of medical assessment (i.e. evidence-seeking) before prescribing PBs and cross-sex hormones as 'gate-keeping'.

When I first heard that 'evidence based medicine" was being cited as a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Equality Act I found it hard to understand, since it it is just the absolute basic commonsense framework for medical competance.

But beliefs like this, that are so fundamentally accurate as to be almost invisible, spring into salience precisely when they are challenged.

The condition for 'gender crtitical beliefs' (i.e. noticing the existence of sex and its implications) to be defined as a philosphical belief was the arrival of an ideology that contradicted it. Similarly, the condition for the most basic and unformalised concept of evidence-based medicine to be defined as a philosphical belief was the arrival of the ideology of 'affirmative care', which steals from EBM the concept of 'informed consent' (intended as the final stage of legitimising a treatment after appropriate evidence for it has been obtained) and makes it the whole basis for prescribing.

the arrival of the ideology of 'affirmative care', which steals from EBM the concept of 'informed consent' (intended as the final stage of legitimising a treatment after appropriate evidence for it has been obtained) and makes it the whole basis for prescribing

I wish I'd written that. It's such a good crystallisation of what happened.

Completely agree. Worked there at the same time and to be under the AD microscope was no joke. He is a bully and the entire exec team are toxic.
There seems to be a complete loss
of the notion that they are there to serve and protect the public - with a focus on vulnerable people who have now been harmed. It makes me furious.
I had light involvement in this when it came out with WellBN and was made to sign an NDA. Should have been an open and transparent process - but no it was all secret squirrel.
it all makes sense now why AD was sent to NHSE although I don’t think he should be working in any public sector role around vulnerable people as they are not at the heart of his agenda
And I think the health professions council should consider striking him off.
and your certainly right - people worked there one minute - gone the next - because he didn’t like them.
And agree re: DS - but he was another that ended up disappearing off too.
I don’t know how they can sleep at night.

Hopefully there are some journalists reading this thread who are prepared to a deeper dive, now that a story about AD has broken.

I think this is one point that keeps coming up - the power dynamic. I know people in other organisations where a person with a transgender identity is protected because no one wants a tribunal case.

And in this case, children have been at risk.

More and more sunlight is highlighting these issues that also no discussion as that also gets shut down
.

Great piece by the BBC. Hard to argue this at all however you view ‘gender’.

Toxicity in the NHS. Hard to argue otherwise.
Children being treated - massive red flag particularly as the Tavistock had closed under a cloud - all the dark ‘transing away the gay’ ‘jokes’.
Sam Hall - the short film screamed red flags re safeguarding of her own children.

I am pleased Sarah Redvers confirmed she views this as a scandal.

Let’s see what happens next but please hope it gives courage to others in the NHS who are experiencing the toxicity and have concerns about children.

Safeguarding concerns should never be explained away. It very much reminds me of the grooming gangs and the SW Sarah Champion (?) being told she had it wrong.

Thanks for the archive. I agree with @nauticant that it's disturbing that we are so "grateful" for the crumbs of truth that the BBC has started to sprinkle into their reports. It really does show how bad they have become that we appreciate any amount of truth! It's shameful, really, that they allowed themselves to sink so low. I, for one, stopped trusting the BBC years ago, and am not likely to get that trust back, no matter what they say now.

I note they are still using wrong-sex pronouns for Hall.