"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

Welcome back home. I hope the treatment ends up being successful and you're soon on the road to recovery.

Just to add my thanks to everyone else's, Myrtle - I'm watching bits of this one but your cut and pasting on other threads has been invaluable and you deserve a rest! All good wishes for your recovery. 💐* *

To pick up on two legal questions that were asked earlier:

1. It's not actually great practice to throw the kitchen sink in a claim and include multiple issues. It can dilute the overall force of your claim. It's much better to focus on a few of the strongest points only. Having said that, it is their right to bring any arguable claim. There can be costs consequences for claimants if they bring very weak claims and are repeatedly advised by the court that the claims are unlikely to succeed but this hasn't happened in this case I believe.

2. Why are bundles so bloody cumbersome? Most witnesses don't want to use electronic bundles so they have to use paper ones. And when you have thousands of documents this takes up time and is just generally annoying. There is court software that can be used for bundle management where witnesses are electronically taken immediately to a relevant page but this is incredibly expensive (thousands of pounds) and would never be and appropriate use of funds in a tribunal hearing like this. So we are stuck with the giant files and reams of paper.

You might like to respond to this poll, simplistic as it is:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37099296/poll-trans-staff-use-female-nhs-changing-rooms/

I'm hoping for Richard Dawkins 😂😂

Curious now who it could be.

Yes, but my question is who is he?

It would be utterly hilarious for Dawkins, one of the leading atheists globally, to join forces with Christian Concern to make a stand against genderism.

Many thanks to @ThreeWordHarpy, @MyrtleLion, and @IDareSay for keeping the thread going and for the TT postings, I have now managed you catch up after missing the afternoon session.

@WeeBisom that's interesting, thanks for that input. I'm someone who much prefers reading from paper, but surely there must be a digital solution? Paper can't easily respond to accessibility needs such as larger font or text colour, or even things like text-to-speech. It would be easier to set up a screen share for all parties so that everyone is looking at the same page and/or with a clerk to assist as necessary.

The guy who did the affirmation cameo is Alasdair Hutchison, Bethany Hutchison's husband.
The expert is someone else, we don't yet know who.

Thanks Wanda.

Glad to know Myrtle is finally home and resting.

Good article from the bbc but it’s stuck in local news funnily enough. Do feel free to click and popularise it…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl2dk54dy7o

Finally caught up

Thank you to all the copiers-and-pasters for keeping the rest of us up to date with TT, and to everyone for all the illuminating discussions. So many of you today commented on what a remarkable witness BH was that I really felt those of us without access were missing out. I wish they would live stream the whole thing!

@MyrtleLion , I hope you are settled at home and enjoying the sweetest sleep back in your own bed while the antibiotics work their magic

The article was on the England page earlier, rather than just regional.

Emma Hilton? She would be a good choice

Thanks so much. A real public service specially for those of us who aren't able to catch the tweets as work is a bit omnipresent at the mo. Does anyone understand why NHS Durham and Darlington are still trying to defend the case after the Supreme Court ruling? I gather even Fife have now introduced single sex facilities so I can't understand why they feel they've got a case?

Re: RH using the female changing room:

J: So where is the risk if RH fully transitioned?

BH: Men are still stronger, and you can't change sex. The fear factor still there - voyeurism still a risk. No way to know what a man's intentions are.

Somebody please explain. I just don't understand why the hearing is wasting time with this sort of question. There were other questions too I believe where BH was asked would it be acceptable for RH to use the women's changing room if he was further along in his transition. This is a Judge. He should know the law as was fully explained by the SC on April 16 2025 and that it would not matter how acceptable RH might be at whatever stage, to whichever women. He is a man and women's changing areas are for women.

"Where is the risk" ffs. The question is inappropriate, not legally grounded. Asking it suggests he does not understand BH's rights. This may end up going to appeal.

Perhaps they could start a coalition: Secular Humanist Athiesm and Christianity against Gender Bollocks more fondly known as The Contradiction Coalition.

Wasn't it that LWS in Australia that was turned by TRAs into a dangerous situation threatening/assaulting women (KJK had to be removed) where a group of Christian Fundamentalist men on a stand somewhere in the area were baffled to discover themselves protecting several middle aged lesbians from the ravening mob? They might not have agreed with each other at all on many points, but what they had in common were being decent human beings not about to stand by and see someone be hurt. And being appalled at the behaviour they were witnessing.

In terms of defending it I suppose there may be a couple of reasons

1. That they genuinely believe they behaved appropriately. That their actions met their processes, sufficiently protected the nurses, and the actions of one man ignoring that doesn’t mean they behaved badly just a little slowly.

2. That, despite offers to settle the nurses have continued regardless as the didn’t feel the approaches were significant enough to cease.

We haven’t got to trust evidence yet but this feels less vindictive so far. It feels like fear of opposing ideology (by trust leaders) and resultant delay in applying policy. It is likely the policy they were applying was Illegal in the light of the SC judgment, but they may want to defend it on the basis it’s what they were ‘told’. Obviously these views could change once we meet those involved.

I don’t have the particulars of claim so not exactly sure of what they have listed in detail. But on the face of it, allowing a man to continue using female changing spaces at all, obviously dodgy and harassment. Not acting IMMEDIATELY after complaints, I personally think it’s clear breach and constitutes the trust not protecting its staff from harassment and is easily viewed as discrimination on the basis of sex.

Bar any obviously loopy people from Durham and Darlington trust on the stand though, it may be a more boring conversation about policies and procedures. We could see some “we know he was born male but hospital policy is…” from individuals.

Secretly I’m hoping for some madness though!

I am catching up so this may have been said already. I wondered if the intent was to show the nurses are not transphobic and it’s the degree of Rose’s maleness they object to. I agree with previous comments that any kind of sliding scale would be impossible to implement in practice and the SC has made the legal position clear so this is semi-pointless.

That question really worried me.

That whole exchange worried me.

I wonder if it was to establish the level of harassment?

But I don't understand why he would talk about risk if he is considering a harassment claim.

It was a blink and you’ll miss it cameo.

I accidentally closed Edge while i was watching it, before he had sat down, and I had to log back in.
I wasn’t sure how long it would take for me to be re-admitted.
Which wasn’t long, but by the time i was back in, his chair was empty, and i thought ‘shit. What have i missed??’

Sod all, as it turns out!

Sometimes judges ask what seem like really stupid questions in order to have them on record or clarify what a witness is saying. I wouldn't assume anything bad about the judge asking those questions.

But it's a pointless thing to have on the record, and it doesnt need clarifying. He's a man. Nobody disputes he's a man. No men are allowed in women's single sex spaces. The law recognises man and not man; not degrees of man.