"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.

Yes!

From TT

We have resumed. Bethany Hutchison is still giving evidence.

SC - Want to move to WS bundle. Para 27 of yr WS. Moved to 15/4. Meetign youhave with Claire Gregory - said sth to you about being reeducated. She understood Tracy Atkinson said to her in their meeting.
BH - Y.
SC - so they gave diff accounts of their meeting.

Is everyone still WFTCHTJ?

Thanks for noticing broken threads - I think we've got on top of it.

@teawamutu No it has restarted.

Indeed.

Transition is just more of the nonsense we've been fed.

I'll be transitioning into a witch on Halloween...

Ah, I'm in now. Maybe they forgot a room?

From TT

BEth said she was going to go to her legal team. In your statement. Letter to Morgan Smith in vol 3. Letter 30th April. Claire Greg didn't draft letter, drafted by you and your lawyers. No dealings with yr legal team.
BH - Y.
SC - you asked her to send. Did you go back to each signatory

Qu (not live tweeting content just a question):

SC is to BH's right (as we are looking at screen)

Do we know who is the man to the left who interjects occasionally? Is someone on the panel (J?) asking questions along the way?

There is some research that suggests that men are attracted to the presence of both breasts and an erect penis on the same person. There are supposed evolutionary reasons (something along the lines of, if you need to compete with other males to impregnate the breast-bearers, you need to be aroused at the sight of an erect penis in proximity to breasts because you need to be ready to get in there right after and spread your seed too). I don’t know about the validity of the research, but “tranny porn” is apparently one of the most searched for types of porn for straight men.

Make of all that what you will.

From TT

and ask if they were ok.
BH - people not happy to be told about reeducating themselves, what CG had told them.
SC - 30/04. Now meeting in May. Attended by Tracy Atkinson. Secretly recorded by Miss Lockey. Told everyone it would be?
BH - No.
SC - did you ask why secret.

BH has such an expressive face. It’s great.

I don't know if minutes of meetings have been provided to the Tribunal, but as we saw in Sandies case, they was a lot missing. I would have recorded it too.

Transition would require reversing time to the point of conception to change XY to XX. I don't suppose the man known as Rose has done this?

@ TwoLoonsAndASprout your post about tranny porn makes me wish mumsnet had a vomit button (!)

Assume it is the J?

I don't think I've ever heard of anything so chilling.

Reminds me of an ex-colleague who prided themselves on their kindness. To say it was weaponised ("You wouldn't want to upset ME, would you, because I'M KIND AND LOVELY") was an understatement.

Just in - caught up with thread. BH is on fire! ‘Come on if you think you’re hard enough’ vibes.

From TT

Didn't trust her.
SC - transcript of meeting, 308. How many attended.
BH - a lot. Very crowded meeting room.
SC - Medical staff and Janet Moore
BH - and an observer.
SC - Lasted an hour. PUt pov to Miss Atkinson. Said what you wanted?
BH - yes. No one tried to stop me.

And the accuracy of minutes, or rather full content, is in the gift of the minute taker, as hardly any bugger reads them to send corrections or additions. So it's easy to leave stuff out if you don't agree with it. I didnt do that, but it would have been very very easy.

Grumbles to self.

No, I don’t think so, especially since it seems to have happened because it was a break, ie the clerk did it rather than a technology fail.

I’ve had to leave, ask to rejoin, enter my code and be allowed back in many times this morning because of only seeing’s black screen. This is different, I think.

🔥🔥🔥🔥

I was bullied out of my job in the NHS and the stress of fighting it almost cost me my life. Hearing NHS people trying to stand up for themselves against management, especially in the Fife case, is really triggering. I wish I’d recorded my meetings, as my managers just lied and lied and lied and I wasn’t allowed to provide proof of the lies. Wish I’d had a Naomi, I dream of her skewering my bullies. Is that wrong?

What other choice did she have than to follow the process.

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

This will be the key aspect of the ruling, and I hope the judge is coalescent of it. The TRA line is that the implications of SC ruling simply can't be implemented because EHRC hasn't had its interim guidance allowed to come into effect. What this argues is that a correct reading of the EA 2010 can simply be nullified by obstruction and delay (with a healthy does of mendacity, e.g. Bridget Phillipson 👀)