"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

Are husbands allowed to come over full on family patriarch and announce they don’t want another man looking at their wife in a state of undress?
It’s not the point obviously and feminists will bristle but still it’s a manly argument especially for some men from some religions. If these courts are going to take evidence from husbands, or in the case of Sandi’s Peggie question their politics then I think they can have their views heard too.

I’m sure many if not most husbands and male partners would be willing to testify to support their wife’s and female partners desires for safety, privacy and dignity in the workplace out of love and respect rather than control and oppression.

Implied speculation about Mr Peggie’s motives and relationship with his wife are tasteless and inappropriate here.

More that Mr Hutchinson would be asked about the impact this has had on his wife in terms of her distress and how this has affected their home / family life. However, maybe that was unnecessary because Bethany was so an articulate, the distress caused is blatant.

All witnesses have written statements for the judges yo read and will set out in detail what has happened here we just get a few highlights.

As for Mr Hutchinson it is likely his statement does not help defence at all hence no questions.

Your friendly reminder ahead of this mornings session:

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.

We didn't see his witness statement so we don't know what his evidence is, but my guess is that it is to do with the effect on Bethany Hutchison of the Trust's and Rose Henderson's actions.

I don’t think it is pointless. We now have someone explicitly stating to the court as witness evidence that the impact on women of any man, whatever has happened, causes impact, and what that impact is. Bethany was great here because she articulated perfectly that the risk to women isn’t just that someone will harm you physically, voyeurism is harassment. Being watched by a man in an intimate space is a violation. We already have criminal laws about this.

Honestly, I’d live to use see some of these men charged under voyeurism, exposure, and harassment laws for this behaviour.

Just popping in to say the Telegraph's report on the tribunal has appeared on MSN's offering on my laptop as the first item, so it's getting a wider audience. With a photo of Rose.
How he can see himself in the mirror and think he even approximate's to a woma I can't imagine.

TT

We resume

I think sorting the bundles

I can post TT for the next half hour or so, and hope someone else can pick it up after that.

He knows he doesn’t. He just enjoys making everyone else saying it. 🤨

I have reported my post, to be careful

TT

J - before we hear from council, because of numbers coming in, setting up is one of the cumbersome experiences esp when lot of people. Would you rather we were outside while you set up?

[general agreement] Swearing in and general housekeeping

I really hope Rose is called as a witness.
The NHS Fife case hit the TV news the day Dr U stood up in court and insisted he was as biological woman. He was shown on camera entering and leaving the tribunal

I’m very glad they’ve twiddled the camera.

Some TiMs state that 'Transwomen don't owe you femininity', meaning that they are women because they say so, and they shouldn't need to do anything to 'feminise' their appearance.
So Rose would fit right in with them😑

TT

NF - please could you take the thin folder.
NF turn to p70 NF - your statement p 76, is that your signature, have you read recently and contents true
CH - yes

TT

NF - volume 3 the big folder part 1. P955 please. Is that your statement for resolution proc
CH yes
J - these files are heavy
NF let us know if they are difficult

TT

NF - the plan in the witness bundle please turn to. I am going to point to it and if you might need to do the same. Various names and here in the middle your name, Carly. Is that your ? in the CR. If you keep the plan for now, but turn to statement, p70

TT

NF - if you look at para 7 p71. 'on many occasions...very tight black boxer shorts..' can you please show on plan where you were when this happened and where Rose was. [advises how to hold plan so can see]
CF - I was here walking up and down here.

TT

J - between Rose and Joanne?
CH - yes
NF one other thing, need another bundle...p521

NF - para 24 of statement p74, also you say 1st July saw inclusive sign on CR. Do we see a picture of that
CH - yes
NF I now stop asking and SC to ask

J - [housekeeping comments about room for seat and moving around room]

We have a Bundle Bod

It's definitely a violation of boundaries, which the hospital have shown they will make no effort to maintain.