"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.

R.e. concerns about the petition. HR should have spoken to the nurses and asked them to raise a formal complaint instead. And offered as part of this process to survey staff members discreetly themselves.

TT's 1st Morning tweets

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1983831992635728121.html

or to save you time, all that was said was

CONCERNS

It really jumped out, I agree it was very disturbing.. TT isn't 100% perfect but what would sound like 'cancer' - 'answer'? but that doesn't make sense in the sentence.
If she said it, it is a remarkably nasty and inappropriate way to describe the actions of the complainants, and is indicative of a very negative attitude to them. There wouldn't be much chance of getting fair and balanced treatment from someone who is prepared to use the word 'cancer' like this.

TA has managed to be a worse witness than AT and that is a HUGE accomplishment.

I thought when she started this morning that she had taken a leaf out if ATs book ( I would dare dream if suggesting that he has ‘advised’ her) but she cannot help herself and she’s spewing words and tying herself up in knots.

We are blessed with this J.

I'm a bit behind. Sleeping like the Lion Sleeps Tonight, except most of the time.

I saw that @RightsRaptor asked for a t-shirt. In the absence of Boily, who is watching us, I have stepped in. An appropriate lanyard autocrat with the t-shirt, as requested.

She nearly admitted it but I want NF or the Judge to get TA to admit that there was no way of balancing the rights of the parties without breaching the Trusts policy.

It’s built right into the policies, isn’t it?

One of the things I told new auditors when they joined us looking at this stuff was pace yourself, because you are going to be reading lots and lots of things that make it clear that the NHS has no regard for the rights and dignities of women (and children) whatsoever. And it will make you sick.

Yes, that does sound more like it. The guidance was wrong but Stonewall and chums made it sound more wrong by insisting that the bar of a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim was impossibly high. So even under the EHRC's wrong guidance, I would have thought it was definitely proportionate to exclude an intact male with stubble from the female CR.

I’m not listening in, but it seems most likely to me that “cancer” is a mishearing of her favourite answer”concern”.

Thank you for the t-shirt and lanyard, Myrtle!

I was thinking of you and was about to post that we are missing Myrtle's TT-ing which has .een so much appreciated in the past. It looks like none of us was in a position to copy TT systematically this morning, that's life!

But please keep resting Myrtle, you've been through the wringer surgery-wise [though not literally, I hope😦] and you need to focus 100% on getting better.

Between TT on Twitter and on Nitter, and the occasional cut and pasting, we seem to be following proceedings OKishly

That seems plausible.

May have been covered already, but I suspect "cancer" is a typo for "concern". (AGAIN.)

I hope you're right.
The stress is on different syllables in the two words, it would be quite difficult to mis-hear conCERN for CANcer - but it's possible.

But maybe plausible for TT’s autocarrot to turn a somewhat mangled “concern” into “cancer”? If we’re thinking generously?

Perhaps missed off the last n and then concer got autocorrected?

Presumably at the end of proceedings there's an official record, which will show the correct actual wording?

Well, it goes nicely with the attitude that they couldn't be right because the policy said the TG person must do whatever they wanted and no one else had any rights. Therefore, the TG person cannot be in the wrong. I'm so old that I remember the original Star Trek and this was the sort of conversation that happened before the computer blew up...

Depends if anyone's stumped up for the cost of a transcript I think, so it's not guaranteed.

In a NE accent you might stress the first syllable? Disclaimer: I didn’t hear it.

Only if they have official court transcribers, I think. Which is why Peggie’s team paid for them to be present at the second stage of her tribunal, iirc.

We usually see the transcribers if they are there, and the J is particularly alert to giving frequent breaks as transcribing needs a lot of concentration.

In my very limited experience.

NF just asked if TA could confirm or identify errors between the transcript of the secret meeting and the covert recording. TA was evasive in a very clumsy way. Tut tut.

Hearsay can be relied on if it benefits RH. Nothing the C’s say can be addressed unless it comes to an unidentifiable member of staff on form 163a, in triplicate, in purple ink, witnessed by the CEO of the RCN and delivered by pigeon.

@maltravers

You forgot printed out in triplicate and buried in soft peat for three months.