"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 4

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, KD (day 1 of evidence) and BH (day 2).
Thread 2, 23-Oct to 28-Oct; BH (day 2), CH, JP, MG (day 3&4), TH, SS, ST, LL (day 4), JS, AT (day 5)
Thread 3, 28-Oct to 29-Oct, AT (day 5&6), TA (day 6)

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 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 Seamus Sweeney
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
SW - Sue Williams, NHS Trust HR
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, claimant
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany
CH – Carly Hoy, claimant
JP – Jane Peveller, claimant
MG – Mary Anne (aka Annice) Grundy, claimant
TH – Tracy Hooper, claimant
SS – Siobhan Sinclair, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust
ST – Sharron Trevarrow, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust, former housekeeper and wellbeing officer
LL – Lisa Lockey, claimant
JP – Professor Jo Phoenix, expert witness
JS – Jane Shields, witness for the claimants
AT - Andrew Thacker, witness for the respondents, NHS trust Head of HR
TA – Tracy Atkinson, witness for the respondents, NHS trust HR.

I wonder what conduit there is between HR and H&S. do these people work in stovepipes?

From TT

NF don't understand?
J didn't catch last bit, forgotten?
JB yes just fallen out of my head
NF as and when it happens, when a group says it has adverse impact and falls within protected chara isn't

this when alarm bells should go off, need to go back to drawing board
JB would be done on indiv basis, impact assessment as and when

NF - quotes single sex female space example - page 105 you say no impact known between sex and gender, do you understand how that conclusion reached?
JB no I don't understand didn't speak to Pat about that.

Obvious impact: women are required to lose single sexed changing option, and men are not.

Privacy and dignity.
Variety of belief.
Culture.
Safety.

Duh.

There's no point in filling the damn thing out when there's no brain or knowledge to actually do it. Or will to find any inconvenient answers. Sickening how systems intended to help equality are being abused and warped to weaponise it against equality. By those who identify as more ethically EDIed than anyone else.

The cheek of the policy, basically saying fuck off somewhere else if you don’t like that.

JB is dim but a lot more honest than the other witnesses.

Needs flipping back at them.

Is your policy to exclude and discriminate against those unable or unwilling to submit to this?

<huge amount of wangling, waffle, denial, bullshit and panic to avoid saying 'yes'>

We have the policy. We have no guts to actually explain and stand behind it.

Impact “as and when”?!?!

🤯

From TT

NF policy assumes that there is a right of someone whose gender identity can use facility they chose
JB yes
NF and those that sex does align don't have exclusive use

JB yes
NF and they are displaced if object
JB look at other options
NF stronger than that?
JB yes

You talked about legal updates re Forstater you are nodding, came out June 21, bio sex immutable, and that having qualified as protected belief.
Yes

Came to knowledge of your team
YEs
Did anyone make the connection between that and your policy
Yes
Who made connection, you?
Yes

A bit rude to NF.

Please don't anticipate the reposts from TT. We do not have permission of the judge to report live and commenting on what you are hearing before it is posted here counts as reporting live.

I post when I see a tweet on TT's Twitter feed which is often in advance of it being reposted here.

You just have to have TWAW drummed into you at every opportunity and then everything else falls into place.

'Women are not impacted because the TIM men invading their spaces are actually just other women'

But TW are not women, they are men

👻👻👻

Oh My Days.

She has no idea.

there is no detriment because if they don't like it they just don't use the space duh

From TT

NF - did you go back to policy at page 105?
JB - sorry what?
NF did you go back to policy? Did you consider it was correct given Forstater
JB in terms of policy while it was known policy already had 'can use other facilities'

NF it respected the belief in that way
JB Yes
NF Isn't this detrimental treatment?
JB I didn't see it as detrimental, an option available if they manifested that belief.
NF policy doesn't even say care will be taken to make provision. Just says 'go use some other facility

JB you are making statement not asking question
NF [clarifies]
JB as part of update I wanted to update but at that time it did provide for it.
NF are you saying at this time are you agreeing it didnt provide?

JB that's what policy says, yes. They could chose to use other facility
NF was there risk assess ?
JB - if anything raised
NF so these policies are implemented [didn't catch]
JB correct

I don't think NF is going to spend long with this witness.

She's giving off Philomena Kunk vibes to my mind.

Yes, it looks like he's going to the point that the policy was useless, possibly non-legally compliant, and nothing that would happen showing it was wrong would get it to be changed.

At least the answers from this witness are commendably brief. Little word salad. Lots of yes and no. And loong pauses while she decides. NF is having to work quite hard to get the answers out of her. It's very slow.

Typo edit.

From TT

NF surely not line manger post implementation to be first to make judgement to make judgement as to whether it is safe under health and safety legislation?
JB - I don't think policy would be approved if unsafe. It would be a process, the checks and balances as part of process

NF at what stage would it be considered compliant with health and safety?
JB when it was written, or with unions, policy review, later stages - approval stages/process.
NF my q is was there provision for it to be done, a requirement at some stage?

From TT

JB - not a H&A policy?
NF no but it deals specifically with washrooms, changing toilets to which H&S leg is applied, yes?
JB Yes
NF hence my question.

.

JB - I don't think policy would be approved if unsafe
Therefore if the policy drives women into an alt. space to change away from men, it is by definition safe, so nothing to see here, no need to do a fire risk assessment or anything like that, if the policy was approved,it must be safe?

Obviously this makes no sense

Does the new space become an actual biological female only changing space?

Wouldn't in also be acceptable for Rose to invade the new space as well?

If it is possible to have a biological woman only space then why can't we give that designation to the original space and exclude Rose?

Right at the start before JB started given her evidence the stream showed those watching in person and one of the rows looked to be fully occupied with NHS HR and EDI people. JB will be aware of them watching how she performs.