"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

When is voyeurism not voyeurism?

Sexual offences Act (2003)
Voyeurism: interpretation
[F1 (1)
For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and-
(a) the person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,
(b) the person is using a lavatory, or
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.

67.Voyeurism
[F4(1) A person commits an offence if-

1. for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
2. he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.

The hospital knows the nurses did not consent. That is clear. It is also clear a changing room (or toilet cubicle) is place of reasonable privacy. It emphasises that it is a place where you can just be in underwear, which getting changed being a private act. Therefore it can only be the sexual gratification bit that is the contested bit in a case for the hospital actively aiding voyeurism.

Without knowing ‘intent’ we do know that Rose wanted to get married to a woman. I think is perfectly reasonable for the nurses to be worried and discussing the intent. To do that, you have to work out the mindset of the individual at each moment they enter that private space.

An option is to enforce private, individual spaces available to both sexes. This is the solution given by Dr Beth Upton. It is the solution that least bad for healthy men. It is not ‘inclusion’ because these designs have been shown to be worse for health and safety (particularly for women, children and the medically vulnerable). You can’t have a proper ‘lock’ because of safety in building regs. You have to make it completely private due to legislation and building regs. So you end up with lots of little unsecured, sound resistant, totally enclosed rooms, accessible to both sexes. I have data to show what you think could happen, does.

Or you could just enforce single sex spaces. Like societies around the world have done in the past. This is much more simple.

I think the best expert witness for SST's is @Keeptoiletssafe

although it will be lovely to see Prof Phoenix.

I don't know. The trust is in breach of the 1992 workplace regulations. I don't see how there can be any argument about that. Once the tribunal has found that they have breached those regulations, and have failed to address that breach, then surely everything else (sexual harassment, discrimination, victimisation) follows on naturally from that? What am I missing?

so the expert witness is Jo Phoenix? I'm a bit confused as she's an academic isn't she? Surely someone like Maya may have been a better bet?

Maya was brought in as “expert witness” on Sandie Peggie and Jane Russell took the piss out of it. It really needs to be an academic I think.

JR criticised Maya in the Peggie case saying she wasn't an expert. I suspect that Prof Phoenix can be seen as an expert as an academic criminologist who will no doubt have a raft of stats at her fingertips about what TiMs and other men have been known to get up to when in the ladies...

The schedule is still uncertain:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1982794418634510382

Jo Phoenix is an academic in criminology.

Thank you for reminding us.
Organisations who enable men to access women and girls undressing in changing rooms, showers etc are potentially enabling the criminal acts of voyeurism and indecent exposure.

This needs to be said every time someone argues for men in these spaces.

Yes, but she also opened a research centre, the Gender Critical Research Network, which co-ordinates work in this area, so I would have thought acceptable to the tribunal. The Trust could retaliate by calling their own expert (Sally HInes?!) if they think her opinions are unreliable

Yes, I was saying I thought she was a great fit.

I'd love to see Sally Hines as an expert on behalf of genderism give evidence.

Jo will be brilliant
and yes her academic credentials will defang criticisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Phoenix

(Shudders)

Thank you for the compliment but I am voting for Prof Phoenix being much better than me!

How marvellous that Prof Phoenix feels able to appear to support other women after her horrible ordeal in her own tribunal.

I still feel confused by all this and why we need experts.

Suppose the trust had breached another aspect of health and safety regulations - for example, suppose it hadn't put in place fire doors or fire exit signs. Suppose staff had then complained about it and were fobbed off by the trust saying they were making a fuss about nothing. Suppose the staff had then gone to the media to complain about it and the trust claimed they were being unprofessional. Suppose it then went to tribunal.

Isn't it then quite obviously the case that the trust was at fault? However much the trust might complain that staff shouldn't have kicked up a fuss or talked to the media, the original, glaring violation was the failure of the trust to put in place the appropriate fire safety measures? Surely set against that it couldn't possibly matter that staff had talked to the newspapers or made a fuss at work?

I still feel confused by all this and why we need experts.

I agree. The law is clear; it was clarified in 2022 for those without a GRC, and this year for those with. I guess there may be an argument to be had about level of compensation but that is all.

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.

Which believers have said this?
There are also True Believers who think that being a woman means feeling a feeling and that it is nothing to do with being female or the body. That's why self-id boils down to "a woman is any person who says they are a woman". The idea that there is any other threshold - basic or otherwise - is offensive to their position.

I get why this individual presenting differently from Upton is important but they are no different where it matters.

I think that we all think it is blindingly obvious, but the courts and many organisations had a very different view for some time, even though we all now know it was/is unlawful.

It is just to spell it out for those at the back.

Are we back at 14:00?

Not today, it’s finished early @ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews

Ta. 👍🏻

They could sell tickets for that.

In cases of assaults/rape/voyeurism in toilets, as part of the sentence men have sexual harm prevention orders banning them from going into women's public toilets or unisex toilets for a set number of years.

It’s all farcical.

edit: as in farcical situation, not the banning.

Answering the 'why do they need an expert' question.

I think it has to do with detriments. If no reasonable woman would object to a man in the changing room then it is no detriment to the claimants.

If any (all) reasonable woman would object then it is a clear detriment.

Why is objection reasonable - because men are statistically more dangerous to women and men similar to RH are more dangerous than other men.

That's why JP.