University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust: first to comply with the law?

[MyAmpleSheep]

Is this the first NHS domino to fall?

According to a poster on the UK Trans reddit, UHB has conceded that it must comply with FWS, and that single-sex staff facilities are segregated by biological sex.

Transcribing a communication with an employee there:

"This is not a Trust policy or decision, the Trust is implementing the law....

The Supreme Court ruling is a declaration of the existing law under the Equality Act 2010 and how it should operate. Every person, employer and public organisation has a duty to comply with the Act like any other law...
.
We have consulted with legal experts on the risks of non-compliance with the ruling and have acted accordingly...
.
The EHRC guidance and statutory code of practice does not impose legal obligations on the organisation- only the courts and tribunals can do this, and as such our legal obligations were effective immediately following the ruling of the Supreme Court."

For some reason, I am put in mind of "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

The statement from the Trust in the OP states that 'every person ... has a duty to comply ...' Well, we don't. They haven't got that bit right. Me just being me - no duty to comply: I bear no duty as regards this law. Me as an NHS employee (as I once was) - I had that duty. Just as well I'm out of it after the shit show of the past few years.

We have consulted with legal experts on the risks of non-compliance with the ruling and have acted accordingly...

The implication being they do not agree with it. I mean they haven't issued a statement saying that "after legal advice" they have been required to ban smoking have they ? And they didn't at the time (you can take that fact to the bank).

If they are implementing a law they don't agree with (and you then ask the next awkward question as to what their role in advocacy should be) then they should have the courage of their convictions and campaign against it. Ideally in the background where it doesn't eat into any resource they might have for treating patients.

But at the same time, @deadpan, I can understand the anger of those who've been lied to about this all this time. What I don't understand is why they misdirect their anger at the EHRC etc and not at the proper targets like Stonewall.

@Rightsraptor I completely agree. Stonewall is like a deity that can't be touched or held to account. They went from championing gay rights to championing their own performance charts for ££££'s. What a fall from grace that no one dares to mention, because which company wants to be the one to sue Stonewall.

This is brilliant. I agree that the formal wording is more about Patiently Explaining Reality to Fuckwits rather than implying that they don't really want to uphold women's rights. It's more like saying "the thing you would prefer is a violation of women's rights so no, we are not going to do what you want. If you have a problem with that, talk to the people who make the laws about why obliterating women's rights is a good thing, don't complain to us"

Hopefully just the first domino.

But in a hospital if you are sick and highly dependent its a worry as the staff spend more time on the "main" ward so "walk by" assessments and casual communications dont happen if the woman is in isolation. Its a case of ring the bell and wait.

This punishment move allows staff to avoid having many interactions with the woman they have moved and it isolates her from the community support of someone moblie going to fetch a nurse.

It removed witnesses and leaves the woman who is dependant on the "goodness" of staff with a clear message "shut up or else".

If not the policy would be privacy and dignity to the person who did not wish to be on a same sex ward but can not be on the other sex ward either.

A private individual can be guilty of harassment with regard to Equality Act 2010. That's how Dr Upton is a respondent in Sandie Peggie's Employment Tribunal.

All new hospitals being built are required to have 100% single occupancy rooms.

If you are in a club or hoby or group as a organiser with over 25 individuals your group would fall with in the Act.

But although its "civil" law rather than "criminal" its not a free for all. You would be a service user and your duty would be to follow the rules (which recognise the PC obilgations) of any provider. Breaking the rules may oblige the provider to take action and sanction you but it has to recognise your individual rights and balance them against the providers duty to all the PCs (duty to a whole community).

While bad for privacy imo open wards work better for oversight of very sick people.
And becomes more important when staff levels are low as it removes the layer of the person in the next bed seeing or hearing some is wrong and calling for help or pointing out a problem.

[ Me remembering a food tray being left at a womans bed and being removed untouched when it was clear that she had dementia and could not feed herself🤨]

True as the Act says person and it would be down to a court actionable action and the financial costs involved to prove a "harm".

Upton was not if I remember correctly an original respondent? And that he asked to be added?

His "argument" or case has no weight if Fife say we accept we should not have let this class of male employee into the female changing rooms. If he could get funding to carry on that would open a can of worms as it could leave all NHS staff liable on a personal level when he lost.

I reckon, behind the scenes, they have been approached by a couple of GC staff and - having see the headlines about just how much Fife has had to spend on Peggy and whatshisname - they’ve simply done a financial risk analysis and realised that they cannot afford to finance potential tribunals. It always comes down to money, not ethics. I suspect in both scenarios the people that matter couldn’t give a monkeys about women’s rights OR trans employees rights. They’ve simply been trying to avoid litigation costs and compensation claims.

But call me a cynic…

Either way, so long as single sex provision and complying with the law is reasserted, then I don’t much care either.

Shame they weren't like that when the QE2 in Birmingham was built.

Fun fact #1 : It was supposed to have 5 towers but they ran out of money

Fun fact #2: The design was actually previously used for a prison in the US

Fun fact #3: There are several corridors where you can't get a wheelchair through.

Gosh. That's not a great idea. When my sister was in hospital, she was in six-bed bays both times. I think that's a good size for companionship but also not being stuck with the same person if you can't stand each other.

ETA: Plus the safeguarding concerns AnSolas mentioned above.

Just to add to what you say, I was thinking this morning that what is going to set this alight in the NHS is when the legal bills of NHS Fife are revealed - the real amounts, I mean. Whether anyone cares about Sandie Peggie or women's rights or not, they will be livid that the board authorised the outlay of so much money in a case they were bound to lose and which, at the end of the day, was about forcing a man into the women's changing rooms.

I suspect, since there are now additional cases, that it will hit the £1m mark - just think how many nurses, doctors, support stuff that might have funded for a year. All because a MALE doctor, who has separate access to the doctors’ lounge/area, decided that he should have a right to change in the female, nursing changing rooms.

Weasel words or 'we can't afford a tribunal' ?????

No one has every said "There is no magic money tree" to an organisation wishing to attend a tribunal.

The legal fees are only a part costing.
Even the Bank nurse /or OT for SPs replacement in ED cost money. They had staff in on weekends pulling emails and other data and attempting to manage the PR. Staff meetings and an investigation which was "not" a disciplinary and then a formal recorded one (which will have come with legal advice) all cost money. There has to be a number of senior management special meetings etc.
I will bet was a whole lot staff cost which will not be costed correctly

They imo will be The Test Case for all the NHS. The EHRC have already been in contact asking for policy.

The witness and written evidence proves that no proper process was followed as policy was written and staff had no proper training.

It also proves that staff will ignore policy which is written down.

That staff were hired into roles which were poorly designed and they were not quallified for therefore Senoir managers signed off and sent flawed documents to the board meetings.

The senior manager in charge of the ED wanting to call the police to have a long term member of staff arrested over not wanting to be half-naked in a changing room and the doctor expecting other staff to bring him to a woman who said only same sex care show a massive culture problem.

And that culture is echoed as they pisssssed off the scottish information commissioner which will cost another small fortune as he has already said his team will be investigating them and going forwards they are on the "likely liers" list. (Someone needs to FOI the real cost of that IC investigation too🙃)

I was as just coming in to say that - what the hell ‘risks’ are they assessing and which level of risk would they find acceptable to decide to continue with unlawful policies??

Since when did the NHS only decide to comply with the law if the risk of non compliance was ‘too high’? Unbelievable.

No. Upton did not & could not ask to be added as a respondent. That's not how it works. Upton is a co-respondent & has been from Day 1 because Sandie Peggie took him to the Employment Tribunal..
It's irrelevant what Fife do. If he is found personally responsible for sexual harassment it doesn't matter whether Fife gave him permission or not.

On a different note, but also in Birmingham, I recently attended an event in a city centre office block, and was pleased to notice a neat typed sticker saying “Female” placed under the person in a dress sign on the toilet door. Toilet of the many cubicles with wash basins outside the cubicles variety. So not all organisations are playing we must wait for the EHRC guidance game.

It's much better for infection control to have single rooms not to mention privacy & dignity.

I recently had a spinal operation & was very grateful to be in a single room with en suite toilet.

I can tell what risks they were not assessing, and this is of violent patients being allowed to roam the wards and attack other patients.

Which has happened to a friend.