"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 3

[AuthorisedCat]

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

Link to Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5432103-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-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

Yes, me too.

This is chilling, and so stupid!

Gender variant children and young people must be accorded with the same respect for the self-defined gender as are Tran’s adults, regardless of their genital sex.

So a young girl could wind up on a psychiatric ward with adult men regardless of the wishes of her family. A delusional man could be accommodated with vulnerable women. Was there no-one who could foresee the obvious risks here? If there were they must have felt utter despair at the insanity of the idiots writing the policies that were supposed to safeguard the actual mentally unwell.

The full merits hearing (what's happening now) was scheduled for April 2025 and that timing was revised in March 2025. The Cs were ready and the Rs were not. The case would have been pleaded (set out) prior to the Supreme Court judgment. I don't know how much this will have impacted the claims and the case.

Also the Cs still have to show the detriments, the institutional failure to address, etc. I think the facts would still have to emerge.
The clear difference is that the Cs now do not have to rely on their GC beliefs to say they were discriminated against because the SC judgment has said that RH is not a woman, even with a GRC.

It would seem then that everyone in the room agrees that RH is a man but out of politeness no one is mentioning this except for NF and the claimants.

Oh this one is tame. Many policies spell out that even if “trans” children’s parents object, the parents should be overruled and the children should be accommodated according to their own wishes even if the children are NOT Gillick competent.

For those not in the know, if you are Gillick competent, you have been deemed to be mentally mature enough to understand the ramifications of decisions you make. Obviously if you are not Gillick competent, you are NOT mature enough.

I didn't even get a sense from AT that he was particularly devoted to any notion of RH being a woman.

He almost seemed so shruggy and disinterested that it highlights his misogyny - his auto response to almost anything would have been that the women were the issue.

It's contrasting quite a bit with the Fife witnesses who all took to the stand to repeat TWAW and other absolute nonsense.

Everyone except AT who still doesn't understand but will say anything to ensure he's not holding the parcel when the music stops.

Annex B is the source of this 'ward of their choosing' nonsense, so it's in all trusts.

Indeed. How detailed and/or vociferous the instructions are do vary from trust to trust though. Some are egregious in their trampling of women’s and children’s rights.

ETA: it’s particularly horrible for mental health trusts.

This is how I read the judges comment too, although I wasn’t watching, so tone may have be different.

But more like trying to put him a bit at ease while he was being x’d.

i have only been able to watch in parts due to work commitments, but the lawyer seems to be doing a really good job to me (although IANAL, so no idea really 🤣).

Different approach to NC, but just as effective in getting the point across that NHS were wrong

"... and staff will be expected to comply" is chilling.

How on earth did Stonewall teenage-esque demands become rubber-stamped policy? It beggars belief. You can tell the parts copied from a SW template because it sounds like a petulant teenager wrote it, and it is usually at odds with the tone of every other part of the document.

its disappointing the lack of press interest and outrage compared to the SP case. I know there's been some press interest but not enough and the SP case hasn't been widely publicised outside of Scotland (although hopefully the outcome will be). We need more sunlight.
As an aside, I'd reallly like to see more universities taken to tribunal too.

The approaches are different but it's hard to see how much this is because of differences in how they argue their cases and how much is because of this comment by@Justabaker:

The clear difference is that the Cs now do not have to rely on their GC beliefs to say they were discriminated against because the SC judgment has said that RH is not a woman, even with a GRC.

We have been welcomed to the conference but the tribunal room is empty. Going to make coffee. it is sure to start when I leave the room!

I would buy this Usborne touchy feely book.

Still hidden in local news though.

Reporting for duty. By the skin of my teeth.

And we're off

Good to see some audit work being discussed on here @TwoLoonsAndASprout @Cantunseeit . Someone said upthread that the trust would try and claim they were following the outdated EHRC guidance and the Haldane judgement as a defence. However as we have seen the published policy of the trust went way beyond this in terms of self id.

Has the tribunal discussed when RH might give evidence? I had to go out yesterday afternoon so missed quite a bit, and will be out all day today.

Ooh.

Yes, my “favourites” actually specify that patients should be accommodated on the basis of their PRONOUNS… 😱😳

SC - Housekeeping point. Making the statement available eg to BBC?
J - make that available during break

J - is that by consent of parties?
SC - yes

NF - you still have the page open Mr Thacker - volume 1 , 379. This is the email 23rd May from Noel Scanlon.

So he initiated his retirement as soon as the shit hit the fan?

During the discussion between J and counsel about the request to access documents by the BBC the camera was on AT and he was looking particularly glum.

NF he decided to announce his decision to retire in June. After publicity in tabloids

AT - yes.
J - can I just check . You were asking about this yesterday. 378 was a response to 379. If we look at the timing..I’m a bit confused
NF - apologies the problem is in my head

NF - the same afternoon 23 May 2024 the trust contacted by a newspaper which provided a copy of the article the paper was proposing to print
AT - yes