Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Darlington nurse case flying under the radar

235 replies

hardstareglare · 07/11/2025 16:24

Aibu to think that the Darlington nurse case in court right now has not had much press and that it is a very important case.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
NebulousSadTimes · 07/11/2025 18:28

HermioneWeasley · 07/11/2025 18:25

I believe he also said there was no difference between “rose” and a tall woman

Fucking prick.

Londonmummy66 · 07/11/2025 18:34

On the numbers - although 26 signed the letter of complaint (half the department) there were meetings with management where 50 odd turned up to express their concerns. They then faced a rearguard attack intended to get them to not complain/withdraw their complaints.
This included a number of nurses on international visas from countries like India that didn't dare complain because they were concerned that they could lose their jobs, which would mean losing their right to stay in the UK and risk of deportation.
The nurses who did sign the letter were then handed letters on shift which threatened them with disciplinary consequences by the deputy head of nursing who was 4 grades senior to them - great use of time getting someone that senior to help the post room out.
A number were called into meetings and felt "blindsided" and were only asked about why and how they complained not about why they needed to make the complaint in the first place.
Those that did not withdraw were told the review would be paused until after the tribunal and that if they wanted to apply for a new job elsewhere they would have to disclose that there was an investigation into them.
HR described their complaints as "noise in the system" and said that their balancing act was between 1 male who might complain he was being discriminated against vs numerous nurses who might "feel uncomfortable" being required to strip to their underwear in front of a man whom many had said was harassing them in the changing room.

You wonder why anyone chooses to be a nurse....

lifeturnsonadime · 07/11/2025 18:46

The BBC LOVE drag queens but not women's rights (except in so far as they serve men). I'm not really surprised this is not reported more.

On a similar note the BBC have upheld complaints against Martine Croxall for being 'impartial' when she pulled a face on air and refused to describe pregnant women as pregnant people despite what the autocue said.

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 07/11/2025 18:52

And all the managers from the Trust, including the Head of Human Resources Andrew Thacker, sat in the courtroom and listened to the nurses give evidence one by one detailing how uncomfortable and anxious they had been, then one by one they (the managers) pretty much admitted that they had passed the case upwards, downwards and sideways between them to avoid taking any action. No-one would admit responsibility for making a decision (the only correct decision would have been to remove Rose to another changing room). It was always someone else's responsibility. Some of these managers are paid in excess of £100,000 per year. They all earn far in excess of any of the nurses.

Edited for typo

BettyBooper · 07/11/2025 19:03

Letthemeatgateau · 07/11/2025 17:28

And let's not forget that when one of the nurses - who is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse - needed gynae surgery, the male she and others had complained about was scheduled to be present during her surgery:

But worse was to come for Karen. By, as she says, ‘an unhappy coincidence’, she was due to have a gynaecological operation at Darlington Memorial Hospital in August 2024.

To her horror, she discovered that Rose was scheduled to be involved.

The procedure would be part robotic, and Rose’s role would involve being at the bedside, passing tools to the surgeon.

“It is difficult to put into words how I felt,” Karen said, “I immediately knew this was ethically wrong and that my condition would be made worse and more painful with the stress it would cause.”

With a colleague, Karen approached the theatre manager and explained the situation, the legal case and how Rose’s involvement would be “completely inappropriate”, and that she wanted women involved in the operation.

Astonishingly the theatre manager said: “But Rose is a woman”.

She added that she thought Karen was being “prejudiced”.

She tried to explain that she was not singling Rose out, but that there was clearly a conflict of interest and because of her childhood trauma she wanted women involved in the procedure.

Regarding Rose being removed from the operating team, Karen was asked: “How do you think that would make Rose feel?”

She was given the choice of cancelling her surgery, trying to get it done at another hospital, or allowing Rose to be part of the operation. Any delays would prolong the pain she was in and had been for some time.

After putting her position in writing, the theatre manager wrote to her and said that her request could not be accommodated “due to clinical and staffing skill mix issues.”

With legal support and advice from the Christian Legal Centre, days before the operation, Karen went to the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service (PALS).

After outlining her situation, PALS swiftly made the decision that it was not appropriate for Rose to be involved.

Despite what the theatre manager had said, it appeared very possible to reallocate staff so that Rose was not involved in the operation.

“I believed this was purely vindictive and demonstrated how low they were prepared to go,” Karen said. “Gender identity was placed above patient and staff care. They tried to punish me for the legal case I was part of and for opposing gender identity policy within the hospital.”

I already knew about this, but am sickened just reading it again.

It's absolutely disgusting.

hardstareglare · 07/11/2025 19:15

@lifeturnsonadime

The BBC LOVE drag queens but not women's rights

That should be headline news. How do I make that huge text?

OP posts:
hardstareglare · 07/11/2025 20:00

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 07/11/2025 18:52

And all the managers from the Trust, including the Head of Human Resources Andrew Thacker, sat in the courtroom and listened to the nurses give evidence one by one detailing how uncomfortable and anxious they had been, then one by one they (the managers) pretty much admitted that they had passed the case upwards, downwards and sideways between them to avoid taking any action. No-one would admit responsibility for making a decision (the only correct decision would have been to remove Rose to another changing room). It was always someone else's responsibility. Some of these managers are paid in excess of £100,000 per year. They all earn far in excess of any of the nurses.

Edited for typo

Edited

big salaries and no protection for women

OP posts:
Redshoeblueshoe · 07/11/2025 20:09

unbelievable

to do biggly writing put hashtag then leave a space.
FWR is excellent for learning things

hardstareglare · 07/11/2025 20:13

The BBC LOVE drag queens but not women's rights

OP posts:
Bluemin · 07/11/2025 20:32

One of the most shocking things is how few people know about this. I have been following these tribunal proceedings avidly and anyone I mention them to is completely shocked about it. Why is the mainstream media not reporting on this? Why is the safety and privacy of 300 women less important than one man's fetish? It is makes it so blatant than so many people think women don't count.

Justwrong68 · 07/11/2025 20:51

Letthemeatgateau · 07/11/2025 17:28

And let's not forget that when one of the nurses - who is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse - needed gynae surgery, the male she and others had complained about was scheduled to be present during her surgery:

But worse was to come for Karen. By, as she says, ‘an unhappy coincidence’, she was due to have a gynaecological operation at Darlington Memorial Hospital in August 2024.

To her horror, she discovered that Rose was scheduled to be involved.

The procedure would be part robotic, and Rose’s role would involve being at the bedside, passing tools to the surgeon.

“It is difficult to put into words how I felt,” Karen said, “I immediately knew this was ethically wrong and that my condition would be made worse and more painful with the stress it would cause.”

With a colleague, Karen approached the theatre manager and explained the situation, the legal case and how Rose’s involvement would be “completely inappropriate”, and that she wanted women involved in the operation.

Astonishingly the theatre manager said: “But Rose is a woman”.

She added that she thought Karen was being “prejudiced”.

She tried to explain that she was not singling Rose out, but that there was clearly a conflict of interest and because of her childhood trauma she wanted women involved in the procedure.

Regarding Rose being removed from the operating team, Karen was asked: “How do you think that would make Rose feel?”

She was given the choice of cancelling her surgery, trying to get it done at another hospital, or allowing Rose to be part of the operation. Any delays would prolong the pain she was in and had been for some time.

After putting her position in writing, the theatre manager wrote to her and said that her request could not be accommodated “due to clinical and staffing skill mix issues.”

With legal support and advice from the Christian Legal Centre, days before the operation, Karen went to the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service (PALS).

After outlining her situation, PALS swiftly made the decision that it was not appropriate for Rose to be involved.

Despite what the theatre manager had said, it appeared very possible to reallocate staff so that Rose was not involved in the operation.

“I believed this was purely vindictive and demonstrated how low they were prepared to go,” Karen said. “Gender identity was placed above patient and staff care. They tried to punish me for the legal case I was part of and for opposing gender identity policy within the hospital.”

This makes me fucking vomit.

porridgecake · 07/11/2025 20:57

Yet lots of women and men on mumsnet campaigned for years for any posts on this topic to be kept off the main boards and limited to one board so that fewer women would read them. Presumably women like those managers.

Redshoeblueshoe · 07/11/2025 21:30

I'm shocked about how many people don't know about this.
#TeamNurses

QuornPlaster · 07/11/2025 21:50

There should be extra safeguards in place for foreign workers to be able to complain/whistleblow. Especially given a lot of countries that we pull nurses in from are more socially & religiously conservative.

I can’t imagine the pressure to withdraw your complaint under ‘normal’ circumstances - when you’re thinking about rent/mortgage, bills & being able to apply for another job without having to disclose being under investigation.

Throw in work visa & being under investigation - there are some countries you’d never be eligible to work in again.

hardstareglare · 07/11/2025 21:52

team nurses

OP posts:
Talkinpeace · 07/11/2025 22:06

Women who know are scared / not believed

Women wo do not yet know cannot believe its happening

the end

Boiledbeetle · 07/11/2025 22:20

QuornPlaster · 07/11/2025 21:50

There should be extra safeguards in place for foreign workers to be able to complain/whistleblow. Especially given a lot of countries that we pull nurses in from are more socially & religiously conservative.

I can’t imagine the pressure to withdraw your complaint under ‘normal’ circumstances - when you’re thinking about rent/mortgage, bills & being able to apply for another job without having to disclose being under investigation.

Throw in work visa & being under investigation - there are some countries you’d never be eligible to work in again.

Not only that but the theatre manager who was very much "Rose is a woman" conceded on the stand that the international nurses don't like getting changed in the communal space in the changing room. But she rather absurdly tried to claim this was because they didn't want to change in front of anyone, even women. Nothing to do with the hulking bloke in holey boxer shorts staring at women and asking nurses if they were getting changed and asking one nurse about pregnancy breasts. No, nothing to do with that at all.

My eyes rolled so hard!

hardstareglare · 07/11/2025 23:12

The vote is pretty conclusive

92% IANBU

OP posts:
Bluebootsgreenboots · 07/11/2025 23:18

borntobequiet · 07/11/2025 17:48

The nurses had to bring in an expert witness to state that women don’t like to get undressed in front of men. Earlier in the tribunal the (male) head of HR for the trust had claimed, when questioned, that it was no worse for women to change in front of men than it would be for men to change in front of women.

(as per previous post)

Edited

I don't get this bit though because, as far as we know, men weren't being forced to change in front of women, ie, there were no women using the men's changing rooms. So why is it a comparitor?

Going back now to carry on reading.

Boiledbeetle · 07/11/2025 23:25

Bluebootsgreenboots · 07/11/2025 23:18

I don't get this bit though because, as far as we know, men weren't being forced to change in front of women, ie, there were no women using the men's changing rooms. So why is it a comparitor?

Going back now to carry on reading.

He was purely trying to get out of admitting that they discriminated against the women by making them change with a man so was just spouting whatever shite entered his head as he'd obviously never given any actual thought to the issue whatsoever.

NumberTheory · 08/11/2025 01:32

Bluebootsgreenboots · 07/11/2025 23:18

I don't get this bit though because, as far as we know, men weren't being forced to change in front of women, ie, there were no women using the men's changing rooms. So why is it a comparitor?

Going back now to carry on reading.

The Trust's position seems to have been that their policy didn't discriminate against women because it also allowed trans identified women to change in the men's changing room if they wanted to. So neither men nor women were guaranteed single sex changing and so were equally treated by the trust. The nurses, with the help of Jo Phoenix, pointed out what we all know - it's not the same fucking thing at all.

I believe the important part of this is that a claim on the basis of sex discrimination can attract an unlimited award from an employment tribunal. A claim that the employer has simply failed to provide statutory changing facilities - not so much.

hardstareglare · 08/11/2025 06:49

Letthemeatgateau · 07/11/2025 17:28

And let's not forget that when one of the nurses - who is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse - needed gynae surgery, the male she and others had complained about was scheduled to be present during her surgery:

But worse was to come for Karen. By, as she says, ‘an unhappy coincidence’, she was due to have a gynaecological operation at Darlington Memorial Hospital in August 2024.

To her horror, she discovered that Rose was scheduled to be involved.

The procedure would be part robotic, and Rose’s role would involve being at the bedside, passing tools to the surgeon.

“It is difficult to put into words how I felt,” Karen said, “I immediately knew this was ethically wrong and that my condition would be made worse and more painful with the stress it would cause.”

With a colleague, Karen approached the theatre manager and explained the situation, the legal case and how Rose’s involvement would be “completely inappropriate”, and that she wanted women involved in the operation.

Astonishingly the theatre manager said: “But Rose is a woman”.

She added that she thought Karen was being “prejudiced”.

She tried to explain that she was not singling Rose out, but that there was clearly a conflict of interest and because of her childhood trauma she wanted women involved in the procedure.

Regarding Rose being removed from the operating team, Karen was asked: “How do you think that would make Rose feel?”

She was given the choice of cancelling her surgery, trying to get it done at another hospital, or allowing Rose to be part of the operation. Any delays would prolong the pain she was in and had been for some time.

After putting her position in writing, the theatre manager wrote to her and said that her request could not be accommodated “due to clinical and staffing skill mix issues.”

With legal support and advice from the Christian Legal Centre, days before the operation, Karen went to the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service (PALS).

After outlining her situation, PALS swiftly made the decision that it was not appropriate for Rose to be involved.

Despite what the theatre manager had said, it appeared very possible to reallocate staff so that Rose was not involved in the operation.

“I believed this was purely vindictive and demonstrated how low they were prepared to go,” Karen said. “Gender identity was placed above patient and staff care. They tried to punish me for the legal case I was part of and for opposing gender identity policy within the hospital.”

I have no words

OP posts:
Coatsoff42 · 08/11/2025 07:03

Not one of the senior nurses, or HR team with all their “difficult conversations” training managed to discuss the situation with Rose. Selling the nurses out because they are all Arse Covering Responsibility Shirking Cowards.

The RCN were an absolute shower too.

Dancingsquirrels · 08/11/2025 07:06

Letthemeatgateau · 07/11/2025 17:28

And let's not forget that when one of the nurses - who is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse - needed gynae surgery, the male she and others had complained about was scheduled to be present during her surgery:

But worse was to come for Karen. By, as she says, ‘an unhappy coincidence’, she was due to have a gynaecological operation at Darlington Memorial Hospital in August 2024.

To her horror, she discovered that Rose was scheduled to be involved.

The procedure would be part robotic, and Rose’s role would involve being at the bedside, passing tools to the surgeon.

“It is difficult to put into words how I felt,” Karen said, “I immediately knew this was ethically wrong and that my condition would be made worse and more painful with the stress it would cause.”

With a colleague, Karen approached the theatre manager and explained the situation, the legal case and how Rose’s involvement would be “completely inappropriate”, and that she wanted women involved in the operation.

Astonishingly the theatre manager said: “But Rose is a woman”.

She added that she thought Karen was being “prejudiced”.

She tried to explain that she was not singling Rose out, but that there was clearly a conflict of interest and because of her childhood trauma she wanted women involved in the procedure.

Regarding Rose being removed from the operating team, Karen was asked: “How do you think that would make Rose feel?”

She was given the choice of cancelling her surgery, trying to get it done at another hospital, or allowing Rose to be part of the operation. Any delays would prolong the pain she was in and had been for some time.

After putting her position in writing, the theatre manager wrote to her and said that her request could not be accommodated “due to clinical and staffing skill mix issues.”

With legal support and advice from the Christian Legal Centre, days before the operation, Karen went to the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service (PALS).

After outlining her situation, PALS swiftly made the decision that it was not appropriate for Rose to be involved.

Despite what the theatre manager had said, it appeared very possible to reallocate staff so that Rose was not involved in the operation.

“I believed this was purely vindictive and demonstrated how low they were prepared to go,” Karen said. “Gender identity was placed above patient and staff care. They tried to punish me for the legal case I was part of and for opposing gender identity policy within the hospital.”

I'd think it would be uncomfortable for any patient to have gynae procedures carried out by any of their colleagues. Perhaps they should routinely by carried out at another hospital, unless the patient chooses otherwise

Letthemeatgateau · 08/11/2025 07:50

Dancingsquirrels · 08/11/2025 07:06

I'd think it would be uncomfortable for any patient to have gynae procedures carried out by any of their colleagues. Perhaps they should routinely by carried out at another hospital, unless the patient chooses otherwise

Carrying out surgery at another hospital could involve much longer waits and a change of surgeon which the staff member might not want. Fair enough if that's what they wish.

What normally happens where I've worked is that an all female team is provided for female theatre staff, whatever kind of surgery is being undertaken. As it should be.