@Merrymouse
From Michael Foran's podcast yesterday, Beth Upton was also threatening to call the police? I looked through the TT for Upton's evidence days in Feb, but couldn't find any reference to this - does anyone remember this?
I thought this was interesting when I heard this snippet again from one of the nurses. We defo heard mention of the police in Part 1 in relation to the "hate incident" that DU told colleagues/managers about. DU suggested that he didn't think the incident was serious enough to warrant calling the police.
At the time, these threads were very cynical about this - one theory was that he decided not to call in the police and have people crawl all over him/SP looking for evidence and that he just wanted to control those in the department. In any event it did seem to impact on the other staff in terms of whipping up sympathy and support.
Obviously we had no evidence for these theories - just DU's own row-back from admitting to talking about the police (with KS?) and it being mentioned in some paperwork maybe (?) but in verbal evidence - like the other accusations - DU was doing his best to lessen the seriousness of what he was saying. Mainly because he had no evidence to back up some serious claims.
At the time I got the strong impression that DU had probably whipped up a bit of a frenzy with talk of hate incidents and police and rapists and chromosomes - but realised that the blow-back from unproven allegations on to himself at Tribunal could be very significant. It looked like damage control to me. There was a moment when NC mentioned that unfounded allegations of professional misconduct such as the patient care problems could be serious for DU. Both his mum and dad were both in camera shot behind him and although they had been very still throughout, both of them moved in a way which indicated discomfort and a realisation that DU might be seriously in the shit.
Also worth remembering that there were differences in the exact events in the CR between DU and SP's descriptions. SP claimed DU got changed in front of her during the discussion. DU claimed that he got changed in the WC cubicle and was washing his hands at the sink when SP started speaking to him. Questions by the panel led DU to make a statement something like "presumably I would have been standing there" - which undermined his credibility in my eyes very significantly. Because if he were telling the truth he would have said "I was standing there". There were other details that he couldn't provide clear descriptions of - what colour coat etc. And the reason this is important is because if he was undressing in front of SP: a) he clearly wasn't feeling cornered or unsafe and b) his undressing could be taken as a more specific act of sexual harassment than simply being in the women's CR.
It will be fascinating to see how all these strands are pulled together by NC at the end...