"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Five nurses working at Darlington Memorial Hospital have filed a legal case suing their employer, an NHS trust, for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The nurses object to sharing the women’s changing facilities with a male colleague, “Rose”, who:

• identifies as female
• has not undergone any physical or hormonal transition and has full male genitalia
• has cited inclusivity policies
• is backed by the trust’s HR department
• has been granted access to a single-sex changing room for women.

The NHS trust’s HR department dismissed the nurses’ concerns, stating they should “broaden their mindset” and “be educated”. More details can be found at Sex Matters

The hearing is due to start on October 20th and is scheduled to last 3 weeks. To view the hearing online email: [email protected] [[email protected]] requesting remote access to the case of 2501192/2024 Hutchinson and others Vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust, starting 20th October. Also include your full name and your role in the hearing (eg member of the public or observer). Note, it is likely you will need the same full name and email address to log into the hearing, and the name will be visible to other observers.

The hearing will be live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets. An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets. Tribunal Tweets have more background to this case on their substack, including links to their coverage of the earlier hearings.

In earlier hearings reported at http://archive.today/nh5v9, the claimants were supported by the Christian Legal Centre and represented by Pavel Stroilov (solicitor) and Bruno Quentaville (barrister). The respondents were represented by Simon Cheetham KC. We do not know yet if the same representation will be in place for the October hearing

Background information from Christian Concern who are supporting the nurses via the CLC.

I see someone posted a photo of Simon Cheetham. He acted for Westminster Council in Rachel Meade case. That's the one that a certain barrister for Social Work England & WC had made a complete hash of it and he was parachuted in with about 2 weeks notice. He seemed to be quite a nice man and very relaxed about us live tweeting. He asked me if he spoke too quickly. I had a sense that he knew the case was a loser in Meade and wasn't invested in the outcome.
He also laughed hard when I told him that I had got him mis-gendering said other barrister and tweeted it. More or less, said he was doing well if it was just the once.
You'll know the barrister I'm referring to ---- very deep voice.
I was reporting this afternoon for and I was surprised by some of his questions. And I'm not sure what defense they can be offering - time will reveal all, I suppose.

Ben and Robin are in the same chambers - that must be interesting!

I hate to break hearts but I've heard a rumour that RH will not be called as a witness.

The Respondent puts forth a defence and they decide who to call.

Hmm. The top and bottom red caps 'DO NOT REMOVE THIS SIGN' , plus the fuckton of sellotape plus the double posting on inner and outer doors strongly suggest to me it was someone who knew they do not have the authority to put it up. It's the act of a bully.

@Justabaker well whatever way one (literally) looks at the issues, i doubt Rose evidence would help the defence, so better to risk inferences of absence

i Just think that the posters are amateur in appearance, you just would not have two posters, and if official would have been placed in one of those slot thingys

I hate to break hearts but I've heard a rumour that RH will not be called as a witness.

It's obvious to see why they'd do that but they're going to be massively on the back foot if there's loads of nurses saying to the panel for the next 3 weeks "I saw/heard RH do/say X" and each time SC has to go "I have a piece of paper where RH wrote that apparently it didn't happen".

@Justabaker - the TT representative in person did such a great job of standing up and answering the judge and confirming instructions. For a non lawyer the process is intimidating- so you and the team are doing brilliantly in so many spaces and places to amplify women’s voices. I am subscribed to the Substack but want to go subscribe again. I doff my cap to you and the team.

You are shining a light in the darkness.

The fact that you need to write "do not remove this sign" on a sign is a point of evidence.

What is it about this particular sign that suggested you needed to give an instruction not to remove it to staff?

That much tape will take the varnish off the door too.

Here is the Times report about today:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/4e508b61-98dd-4b16-b167-2409ec77df22?shareToken=01d01b61fa836793ac5492f1ed94a8e0

Having read the article and the more detailed account, my rage monitor has hit the roof.

Myrtle, gutted for you

Erm...vote for bunnies! 🐰

Page 9 | Rabbit rescue targeted by TRAs | Mumsnet https://share.google/cCcH0gU5wjp8mLuJF

If you know, you know.

If so, that's a decision they've made since the directions hearing. At that SC told the judge RH was an important witness, so important that the case shouldn't be listed in September when he was unavailable.

Thanks for keeping this thread going team, especially Myrtle, and I'm sorry to hear you're not getting home tonight.

In relation to the Q whether the poster is official. The answer is definitively no. That's not a generic NHS poster, and it is absolutely not an approved Cddft poster. To access the F changing room external door, you would need a code. The CR is used by Day Surgery, Theatres and ITU staff, including Nursing, ODP and medical staff. There may be times when someone could enter without a code, I.e tailgating in at peak times, or if the theatres team are restocking scrubs which are kept in the changing rooms. Codes on doors like this are rarely changed, maybe once a year at most.

Also, as an aside, people on here and in the media keep on referring to the 'Darlington nurses' and the 'Darlington trust' . The employer answering for its actions is County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, which runs hospitals across Durham, Darlington, Bishop Auckland and Community hospitals and services across Co Durham and Darlington.

As my nan used to say: the trouble with common sense is it's not that common.

To you and me and everybody else here and those not here but with common sense, of course they are men, but courts tend to adopt an "explain it to us like we are an alien" approach in order to get all the facts even if they seem mundane.

DU was extremely cagey about his sex, genitals, and whether he had a surgical transition or whether it was strictly medical and social but there were definitely times where it needed clarifying to Joe Bloggs that a trans woman isnt a trans identifying woman and that trans women have the physical capabilities of posing a risk to women and not having the ability to respect dignity and privacy simply by being male, and I think the line of questioning just clarified that Rose is in fact a bepenised, holey panted man who was returning to his natural hormonal state in order to penetrate a woman, to pass on his small, mobile gamete and pass on his genetic material in a very non-nebulous way.

I hate to break hearts but I've heard a rumour that RH will not be called as a witness.

Oh no! Now we might never know how Rose was misunderstood as saying he was trying to get his wife pregnant when actually this was a hypothetical conversation.

Could Rose refuse to appear at the tribunal? Idk how it works...

Tribunals are not keen on issuing an order to attend as a witness. unless they are a named witness who has submitted a statement to the proceedings.

Just speculating - I wonder if there was an earlier sign that was removed?

Might that might lead to the poster adding an instruction not to remove?

I guess they could just remove the female change space sign… you can’t have an “inclusive” female changing space. Female is exclusive of males.

I was there today to support the Darlington Nurses. It was amazing. We sang when they came out and they made sure they came to talk to all of us at the end of the day - they did not have to do that. Sandy Peggie was also there - what a lovely, unassuming woman she is. I could see the weight of these cases in all of them, how stressful this all must be, especially if you have to relive trauma in full public view.These women amaze me, I am a fairly active activist, but I don't think I could do what they are doing. We do owe them a debt of gratitude and a promise to not stop until our rights and freedoms are fully restored.

And Kellie-Jay Keen was a bloody trooper. If I ever have to face anything like this...I hope she's on my side.

Just heard a report about this on the BBC radio midnight news. I was really pleased that at last this is making mainstream news reports.

Even a very factual description will surely shock people who haven't previously been aware of this case, even if Rose does not appear in person?

NHS England were reported as saying that sex meant biological sex but they hadn't yet finalised their advice following the Supreme Court ruling.