"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 2

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Link to Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, evidence from KD (Day 1) and BH (Day 2).

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. 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 and at Christian Concern who are supporting the nurses via the CLC.

The hearing started on October 20th, with evidence starting on October 22nd and is scheduled to last 3 weeks. To view the hearing online, requests for access had to be made by October 17th. The hearing is being live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets who have background to this case on their substack. An alternative to X is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

The Judge made clear at the start of the public hearing on Day 1 that only TT or press have permission to tweet. If online observers see/hear something in the court that isn’t reported by TT, we don’t mention it until the next time there’s a break. This is a very cautious approach to avoid any accusations of “live reporting” on MN. Commentary on the content of TT tweets is fine as soon as they’re posted on X.

Key people:
C/Ns - Claimants, the Darlington nurses
R/T/Trust - Respondent, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
J/EJ – Judge/Employment Judge
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for claimants
SC - Simon Cheetham, KC, barrister for respondents
RH - Rose Henderson, trans identifying nurse
CG – Clare Gregory, ward manager
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, second claimant to give evidence
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany

Other abbreviations:
WFTCHTJ – Waiting For The Conference Host To Join
ET - Employment Tribunal
DMH/H – Hospital, Darlington Memorial Hospital
CR/CF - changing room or facilities
IX - internal investigation
XX – cross examination

I also think it’s a red herring. Trying for a baby with his wife is just something that underlines he is (1) a man (2) sexually interested in women (3) sexually active. Those are the relevant points. Are they in dispute?

It originated from people "from theatre":

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1981022198916694454

I don't quite agree about Rose 'trying for a baby."

Historically, it has been said that one of the ways a man can prove he's a man is to father a child.

Edit: Even better to father a son.

That's back in history but some may still think that way.

I assume that the Trust is trying to explain the length of time this is all taking by blaming the nurses for being unnecessarily awkward, and evidence of their mindset is that this story was being circulated, fed to the Press, etc. So can't see that tjhe baby story is relevant to the tribunal for any other reason, but yes, it looks as though it could be basis of further action if they can ascertain sources

That was a decent justification by LL to explain why the claimants were willing to believe the story about RH having stopped hormone treatments to try to father a child.

I wouldn’t want him in my changing room whether he has stopped hormones or not. Because he’s a man.

@AKnitter The old connection between the idea of being a father demonstrating you are a man has been severed by the Gender Recognition Act and supreme court judgements since, but some people don't realise that . The law now confirms a man can have a certificate saying he is a woman - but the only thing he can't change is being a father, he doesn't become a mother.
The same about being a woman who gives birth- she will remain mother in both law and reality but can still get a GR certificate saying she's a man.

The UK SC said it was linked to the human rights of the child and child welfare .https://childrenoftransitioners.org/paperwork/

@nauticant - yes (in my imagination) he would have said something to fellow staff in theatre where he worked which then would spread through the organisational jungle drums.

Are they treated as completely separate cases? So for this case where the nurses are claiming harassment, is it relevant if they harassed him? Or is there a separate disciplinary investigation on that? I’m trying to understand how it works. If someone hits me and I hit them back, then it’s usually relevant to my defence that they hit me first, but I can’t see how that would work in an employment situation.

If there was lots of gossip circulating about RH, then line managers/snr mgt would have been aware and shld they have put a stop to it even before RH made his harassment claim?

@Chariothorses

That's useful information.

I don't think it would change how most people think, if they think fathering a son makes someone more of a man, though.

@AKnitter Yes most people will never have to even think about it! The judgements just make it even clearer 'gender' in the Gender Recognition Act doesn't affect family reality/ biological sex- sex and gender are different.

The Trust had taken a ridiculous amount of time before the nurses went to the press and took legal action. It was the delays in the process and the hostile environment that led to Rose being discussed in the press. So if the Trust wants to take action against the nurses they should own their contribution to that.

Rose is a man with a female partner. Therefore he clearly has a sexual interest in women. Perhaps he thinks lesbians stare at womens breasts in changing rooms, but they dont.

So sorry, I had to take a call.

From TT

NF - picture of CR, is top right your locker?
LL - yes
NF - bundle 3 vol 1, pg 468, statement of yours, you put into Trust procedure?
LL - yes
NF - answers to qu from SW in that process
LL - yes
NF - handing to SC

SC - staff nurse with trust since 2020?
LL - 1991, day surgery 2020
SC - pg 55, heading first encounter with RH 2023, say not notified RH using CR, heard from someone else. Your locker v close to RH. You'd never seen till this time?
LL - had a diff locker
SC - still in room
LL - yes
SC - Aug/Sept sometime?
LL - yes
SC - first see RH
LL - yes
SC - first occasion you see RH, doesn't do anything inapprop to you?
LL - no
SC - what were you keeping to yourself in statement
LL - discomfort at a man using the CR
SC - the effect of that person in that space?
LL - yes
SC - say you mentioned to AQ, when?
LL - not 100%
LL - aug/sept maybe
SC - what did you hope AQ would do
LL - escalate, discuss with management to see what could be done.
SC - AQ was sympathetic you say, also thought inapporp.
LL - yes
SC - you understood your manager agreed with you
LL- I'd say so

From TT

SC - go on to discussing with colleagues, we are interested in your experiences, para 23. Jan 24 now. You say end Jan, 5:45 ish, you walked in it was packed RH often there this time. Start/end shift it's busy?
LL - cause we start 7am usually just day surgery, also finish together
SC - theatre kicking out time?
J - like last orders
LL - yes
SC - RH by locker, already changed,d idn't seein
LL - a state of undress, no
SC - your perception RH there longer than necessary
LL - agree
SC - RH interacting with people? Colleagues
LL - yes, assume so
SC - you say RH gave you a look
LL - yes
SC - would RH know who you are?
LL - don't think so.
SC - going quickly, para 28, you recal conv in the I room, who is Mel?
LL - retired I think, think she was a sister in theatres, maybe eye surgery.
SC - JP and Mel in conv, gives
SC info about RH, who initiated?
LL - think they were talking, I'd heard rumours, wanted to know someone who knew RH so I asked
SC - already rumours
LL - yes
SC - you asked Mel, didn't divulge her source?
LL - no
SC - so Mel was just spreading rumours?
LL - maybe
SC - why accept

From TT

SC - rumours as gospel truth?
LL - these people worked with RH, RH liked talking about personal circumstances, no need for malice, he must have been discussing it.
SC - we have nobody coming to Trib who RH has said anything too.
LL - don't know
SC - para 38,
SC - meeting then arranged by 2 HR managers, first meeting you had with HR about these issues
LL - yes
SC - you say a notice was put up about meeting, i understood it meant anyone concerned could voice them to Ms Atkinson and mr ward (?)
LLyes
SC - you went having spoken to lawyer
SC - you could set out your concerns then?
LL - yes
SC - how many in meeting
LL - 20+
SC - how many knew you were secretly recording?
LL - a few of them, not a big secret, whoever wa sin kitchen before we went in I told
SC - how did you record? Phone?
LL - yes
SC - on table?
LL - pocket I think, quite muffled
SC - did you annouce youwere recording?
LL - no, lots knew
SC - who
LL- beth etc
SC - no thought for others there?
LL - though accurate account needed, rather than minutes
SC - why not say that?
LL - didn't want behaviour to change, when you tell

From TT

J - to record
LL - yes
J - it was your decision? How did it become you doing it?
LL - we talked, we decided one or two of us would do it, wasn't a specific get her to do it.
J - just wanted to understand how it came to be you
SC - what happened to recording, sent to lawyer?
SC - listen to it?
LL - sent to lawyer, sent to Beth who forwarded it on. Don't know how quickly
SC - pg 63 - you ref to transcript, para 43, some 6 months after TE promise to look into it wasn't good enough
LL - we sent end of March, letter with real concerns about his behave
LL - urgent concerns, it was a safeguarding concerns there should have been action
SC - i???
LL - she said it was a behavioural issue, we didn't know, I said it was in the letter she said wasn't, women saying RH was observing with a keen gaze
SC - TA was listening to your concern
LL - yes, but they should have been looked at already, 6 weeks beforehand
SC - what did you expect from TA and mr moore (!)
LL - something more concrete than we'll have a chat with Rose, she should have said we'll remove him till ix, not have a chat later in week, not good enough
LL - for me.
SC - lets look at what she says pg335, at 44mins read through transcript. TA says we'll come back to you and keep CG updated if thats OK. I've listened. nobody says not good enough.
LL - no, I always need to reflect on things, we all wanted to think about and discuss

From TT

SC - 45:12 she said I can see your feeling and want you to work with us on solution. doubt Sincere?
LL - yes, CG said we needed educating etc we knew what they thought
SC - that was a diff meeting, but that's why you doubt sincere?
LL - yes
SC - pg 63
SC -- when you talk re: threat of disciipline, is it just the mention of it ?
LL - yes
SC - would you agree the wording not threatening
LL - I felt it was
SC - it's just those words, others agree with you. Also was RH entitled to raise a complaint
LL - yes
SC - and needed ix?
LL - yes fair enough
SC - and process needed following?
LL -it was unreasonable when we were all anxious about it to say we can't talk about it
SC - but confidentiality, why is that harassment according to sex?
LL - because complaint was about a man using our CR
SC - suggesting

SC has finished his cross-examination. That was solid no nonsense from LL and she got in some nice replies.

From TT

SC - it was the nature of the complaint, rather than standard request?
LL - expecting us not to discuss was causing real anxiety
SC - you don't mention letters about ix, but solicitor wrote on your behalf, not engaging but you did partially engage
LL - yes
SC - you felt entitled to solicitor for ix
LL - yes, the union rep was repping RH, when I contacted him he didn't bother to reply
SC - I don't understand that you are complaining about RH visiting Day surgery frequently and unnecessarily?
LL - no not me.
SC - just checking my notes.
J - one moment. We'll have a short break, I need a short conv with my colleagues. Don't talk about anything. Will send clerk for you in about 10 mins.

BREAK

"RH liked talking about personal circumstances" ( which was said in quite a manner of fact way i thought)

Catching up on some of the questions - hope I can help:

There was a biological man in the changing room. The nurses raised concerns in two meetings, one a smaller meeting and one in a larger forum. Ahead of the larger forum meeting 26 nurses signed a letter that raised issues.

In that letter - in which they are underlining the point Rose is a manly man - they say that he is not even actively transitioning as he has stopped hormone treatments. So no different to any other man in the building.

We TERFy types know it makes no difference if the person is trying to gaslight as a laydee or is a true Pete. However the majority of people think there is a spectrum of laydeeness. So what there were saying is that - even if the polcy says transwomen are women - Rose wasn't even meeting the basic threseholds of being a transwoman.

No GRC, no hormones (stopped in order to get someone pregnant), no dressing as a woman (boxers) etc. They were painting a picture that they were aware that Rose wanted access as a biological male - making no effort to be a 'transwoman' - to the female changing room and the trust did nothign at all about it - rather suggested they get re-educated.

Legally - Rose and Upton despite their 'transition spectrum' status are men. We know that. But some people did say men who cosplay as women have the right to be in womens spaces. What the letter says and what this point is about is to say - Rose was not even attempting to be a transwoman. So if the Trust in good faith like everyone else had a TWAW stance - no way should Rose have been considered a TWAW.

In summary - two seperate issues. Rose was a biological man so shou;d never had access under the law. Under the Trust's policy - Rose wasn't even presenting as a transwoman - so if you believe TWAW he shouldn't have been in the changing room. He was breaching the policy as not in active transition or living as a woman.

My DD was recently on a jury. I was commenting about something being general knowledge so a jury should know and DD corrected me and said from her experience the jury need to be told everything, no knowledge should be assumed. Reading TT I think the same about tribunal panels especially with the questions about ‘fully transitioning’.

They are interlinked but separate. At the ET the nurses are claiming RH raising a grievance was harassment of them for complaining about RH being in the CR.

RHs grievance I suspect was about harassment due to the unsubstantiated gossip being included in the letter of complaint and disclosed in the media.

The ET is hearing evidence that no one directly heard the TTC gossip direct from RH. This undermines one of the nurses points.

Separately the Trust has to consider RHs grievance and potentially as no witnesses at the ET heard the TTC gossip direct from RH it strengthens RH’s claim of harassment. It would take someone who did hear it directly from RH but who didn’t give evidence at the ET to undermine the grievance. As this is highly unlikely it is feasible RH’s grievance would be upheld.

For those saying it’s a red herring it isn’t if the nurses claim RH’s grievance was harassment. It’s why the Trust’s KC is asking every witness about it.

Most people have no clue that almost all trans identifying males have fully intact genetial and have penis in vagina sex with women in most cases.

They think everyone gets the chop, is lower risk and dresses all feminine and what not. Think Upton with his chest in a bra.

This case is great, and they were right to secure press on it - it really shows how absolutely batshit the ideology got. Even believers of the ideology when they see Rose and think of him in his boxers having PIV sex with a female partner in order to father a child, not a whiff of hormones about - they say he doesn't meet the most basic thresehold to call himself a trans identifying man. So even TWAW crew won't support him being in the changing room.