Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 5

1000 replies

ThreeWordHarpy · 31/10/2025 12:22

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&7)
Thread 4, 29-Oct to 31-Oct, TA, AM (day 7) JB (day 8)

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, NHS trust Head of HR
TA – Tracy Atkinson, NHS trust HR.
AM – Andrew Moore, NHS Head of Workforce Experience
JB – Jillian Bailey, NHS Workforce Experience Manager

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
Easytoconfuse · 01/11/2025 10:32

Kucinghitam · 01/11/2025 10:12

Much as RH would make for riveting viewing, I don't think he is needed to make the nurses' case. The Trust's witnesses have amply demonstrated their uselessness, bias and hostile climate. (And ultimately it's not about how RH presents, he could be the loveliest, prettiest, pass-iest laydee in the universe - the point is that he's male.)

Exactly. That's why this one is so important imho. They can't say 'oh they hated them and were nasty.' It's just a simple matter of 'he's male. he's there. he got special treatment. he shouldn't have done.' It's like aiming the guns squarely at the management.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 01/11/2025 10:37

BigGirlBoxers · 01/11/2025 07:20

Regarding the hypertrophic managerial class in the NHS, and what they do all day, one thing that strikes me is that there has been a blurring of the line in recent years between HR and organisational branding in the NHS.

One witness explicitly spoke of the trust's need to attract more students by appearing as 'inclusive' as possible in their changing room policy (which clearly prioritises marketing over compliance). And, in general, NHS policy documents (in my small experience) tend to be written around 'trust values' which are thrashed out in branding meetings and plastered on all the hospital noticeboards.

I genuinely think that a lot of people working in HR/managerial roles in the NHS (and in quite a lot of other orgs) have lost sight of simple legal compliance as a standalone objective.

Branding has become such a massively pervasive priority. I guess this was (at least initially) in response to the introduction of the internal market . But it has taken off big-style in recent years, in all organisations and even for individuals.

Anyone who so much as writes a blog these days habitually thinks in terms of 'personal branding' - and making use of all the little frills that tech offers in that respect. And so any old manager - not just the trust's marketing dept - can easily slip into branding mode when they are working on policy documents and other elements of their job. Much, much easier, when working on a policy, to make sure that it incorporates all the approved buzzwords rather than, say, reading the 1992 Regs and commissioning a technical survey of health, safety and welfare provisions in a building.

And the currently pervasive preoccupation with branding gets supercharged when it meets one particular area of compliance - equality. It is the arena, above all others, in which nice words and lovely font colours etc, can be mistaken for the real world tasks of equality. It is easy for people to con themselves that the tasks of equality belong entirely in the world of appearances (not in, say, the real-world fact that healthcare workers of colour were much more likely to be working in dangerous frontline roles during covid, and are more likely to get severer outcomes in disciplinary processes).

So people really believe that they are doing their job properly if they have endless meetings to ensure that the trust's 'mission statement' is accurately reflected in all of its various health, safety, welfare, equality, etc, policy documents. They genuinely believe that operating in the realm of appearances is what is required of them.

To an extent, this reflects what has happened in wider society. We've all been sucked away from basic materiality into the endlessly reshapable online world. In fact, that is the context that has partly facilitated the whole transgender phenomenon: The material reality of sex - just like the material reality that lies behind nicely formatted policy documents - is demoted as people choose self-branding over substance.

And this is a very big part of what is driving the electorate towards Reform as the only option that might possibly make a binfire of all the bullshit and time wasting and highly paid nothing jobs piling up failures and messes like this one. They're right that it probably is the only option, but it's a bloody awful one.

QueenVanSeahorse · 01/11/2025 11:02

SelfPortraitWithKetchup · 01/11/2025 09:22

Is Mrs Trellis of North Wales a "lesbian", I wonder? 😁

It was Mrs Trellis in the Changing Room with the laminator the king of stationery

BigGirlBoxers · 01/11/2025 11:06

borntobequiet · 01/11/2025 09:41

I once had to keep a patient entertained for ages in an anaesthetic room

That must have been an interesting challenge.

Should've taken the patient to the theatreGrin

CriticalCondition · 01/11/2025 11:09

I've been musing on this. Yes, RH is a man and shouldn't have been in the CR, whether he was the most shy and/or 'passing' of men or not. But isn't his conduct as well as his presence in the CR an issue in this case?

Surely the nurses have suffered a worse detriment if the Trust have allowed a man they've been told was lingering/parading around in holey boxers to continue. The Trust took the view this allegation was not true/exaggeration. How reasonable was this stance?

It seems the tribunal will have to decide on the basis of RH's untested witness statement and the evidence given to them by the nurses who witnessed it. Which is unsatisfactory but the Trust seems to have decided the odds are better stacked in their favour if RH doesn't give evidence on his conduct. Something I am sure will not be lost on the very astute Judge Sweeney.

Edited for clarity.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 01/11/2025 11:14

borntobequiet · 01/11/2025 07:35

I’m just skimming at the moment but much of that ET seems to hinge on an inept and ill thought through PowerPoint presentation (a particular bugbear of mine). The judgement is really well-written, quite a gripping account.

I’ve just read through most of it, and the claimants sound like absolute nightmares to work with and manage.

EJ Sweeney is spot on that they’re both formidable and striking characters; and Tracy Wainwright may have been somewhat intimidated by them.

Madcats · 01/11/2025 11:25

Judge Sweeney's judgement was well penned; I reckon he'd write a good memoir in due course.

The thing that strikes me with Darlington and Fife is that staff disappear for weeks on end, seemingly at the drop of a hat.

From the earlier case:
MC 7/10/20 - 18/2/21

CB 26/11/20 - 14/4/21 and 20/9/21 - 8/12/21
This would have been right in the middle of Covid, wouldn't it?

oldtiredcyclist · 01/11/2025 11:26

Shortshriftandlethal · 31/10/2025 15:47

Usually it is indicative of not telling the truth, or certainly lacking confidence in what you are saying.

Edited

It can also indicate high stress levels and negative emotional feelings, or being overwhelmed by thoughts.

AnnaMagnani · 01/11/2025 11:32

While TW does look a lot better in the previous tribunal, there are a lot of red flags that she's a poor manager.

A senior manager not being able to do a powerpoint?
Gets 2 staff back, who she must know are bolshy, back on retire and return at a lower band and has failed to remind them that being a lower band comes with being reorganised and not having any say in it.
Completely fucks up telling staff how they are being reorganized.

OK, for the rest of it she is fine and the 2 complainants sound like a nightmare but TW essentially laid the foundations of their complaint.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 01/11/2025 11:56

Rightsraptor · 01/11/2025 04:51

I'm not getting anything when I click on your link, @NebulousSupportPostcard. Just blank with some teeny words top left, too small to read.

Sorry I keep messing up link. Carole Bailey v Darlington ET 2022

"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 5
NebulousSupportPostcard · 01/11/2025 12:05

Notanorthener · 01/11/2025 08:02

I skimmed the early part too and TW seems to have a staring role and be inept at people management… also suggests that people fall into 2 camps in theatre: team TW or not team TW. A clash of strong personalities. And the Trust won on most of the claims, but lost on how they handled the grievance process ie following their own policies. Doesn’t seem like the Trust (in particular HR and the effectiveness of its policies) learnt anything from that experience.

Interesting that it is ok in NHS to talk so openly about age profile of workforce and succession planing. I only have experience of academia where that is an issue and it certainly wouldn’t be discussed openly in a meeting - huge sensitivities around it and people would go nuts!

(Off topic, but that earlier tribunal shows why it is hard for people (often women) to get jobs that they are over-qualified for, even when they are desperate to take any job or need to step down for health or caring reasons - difficult management dynamics for both the more junior and the more senior workers.)

I wonder if TW felt emboldened to call out KD's witness statement as being 'full of untruths' because the same Judge found TW to be basically truthful (if out of her depth and largely inarticulate) in the 2022 ET.

I look forward to reading the decision on this, whichever way it goes! For someone who is impatient for brief answers in court, he is quite the storyteller in his tribunal decisions.😂

weegielass · 01/11/2025 12:13

I do feel they made a mistake not making RH a co respondent as that would highlight the sexual harassment element further and shine sunlight on this batshittery, especially if photographed entering/leaving the tribunal like DU was.

oldtiredcyclist · 01/11/2025 12:15

I had no idea there was a tribunal in 2022, was it about the same case? The submissions/evidence given by TW and other witnesses has been an absolute omnishambles.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 01/11/2025 12:22

I think we would all like to see the judge confronted with the large bloke who just wants women to take their clothes off for him. And let him stand and look at their exposed vagina while unconscious on an operating table. But I see that the hospital would desperately want to avoid that simply because it yanks the illusion away and the entire country will go wtaf.

anyolddinosaur · 01/11/2025 12:31

@DeanElderberry 0 is also a number 😀but we know Rose identifies as a lesbian, she has a female partner. So I suspect a "lesbian" did put up the poster.

Easytoconfuse · 01/11/2025 12:32

weegielass · 01/11/2025 12:13

I do feel they made a mistake not making RH a co respondent as that would highlight the sexual harassment element further and shine sunlight on this batshittery, especially if photographed entering/leaving the tribunal like DU was.

I see your point, but there's also the factor of putting the blame squarely on the enablers, which in this case are the NHS trusts. All they'd have needed to say was 'Look, RH, we've had a complaint. Tone it down or change elsewhere.' It doesn't look to me as if anyone ever asked him what had been happening. If anything it looks as if they were very careful not to ask. (Happy to be corrected.)

borntobequiet · 01/11/2025 12:34

BigGirlBoxers · 01/11/2025 11:06

Should've taken the patient to the theatreGrin

😁

NebulousSupportPostcard · 01/11/2025 12:38

oldtiredcyclist · 01/11/2025 12:15

I had no idea there was a tribunal in 2022, was it about the same case? The submissions/evidence given by TW and other witnesses has been an absolute omnishambles.

Different case, but same department, same judge, and some of the same managers including Tracy Wainwright.

I found it when looking up next week's witnesses. Sue Williams possibly had a tangential role in 2022. I this case I believe she is an HR Lead and dealt with compliance on disclosures to the tribunal.

Lunde · 01/11/2025 12:43

borntobequiet · 01/11/2025 07:35

I’m just skimming at the moment but much of that ET seems to hinge on an inept and ill thought through PowerPoint presentation (a particular bugbear of mine). The judgement is really well-written, quite a gripping account.

Presented by Tracy Wainwright if I am reading correctly

Although the ET in this case appears to accept most of TW's evidence

WandaSiri · 01/11/2025 12:51

Easytoconfuse · 01/11/2025 12:32

I see your point, but there's also the factor of putting the blame squarely on the enablers, which in this case are the NHS trusts. All they'd have needed to say was 'Look, RH, we've had a complaint. Tone it down or change elsewhere.' It doesn't look to me as if anyone ever asked him what had been happening. If anything it looks as if they were very careful not to ask. (Happy to be corrected.)

I disagree.

According to the claimants, he asked whether KD was going to get changed and he walked around unnecessarily in holey underpants.
The Trust had an unfair and unlawful policy, but if we accept the nurses' evidence, RH has not just been quietly using the CR. His behaviour is on him and he should be called to account for it.

Edited for clarity

NotNatacha · 01/11/2025 13:48

Thank you so much for mentioning the earlier tribunal. It is fascinating, especially with the some of the same people in both.

I’m trying to read it properly and am only on p44 so far, but I was interested to see J Sweeney - see screenshot - give the tribunal’s opinions on the reliability of the witnesses. I appreciate that reliability is a very important aspect, but am not used to seeing it written down like this.

Apologies for the very amateur attempts to black out the witnesses’ names.

"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 5
SqueakyDinosaur · 01/11/2025 14:03

From that earlier ET, the Claimants sound like royal pains in the arse.

Easytoconfuse · 01/11/2025 14:04

WandaSiri · 01/11/2025 12:51

I disagree.

According to the claimants, he asked whether KD was going to get changed and he walked around unnecessarily in holey underpants.
The Trust had an unfair and unlawful policy, but if we accept the nurses' evidence, RH has not just been quietly using the CR. His behaviour is on him and he should be called to account for it.

Edited for clarity

Edited

Yes, he should have been called to account by the Trust but they enabled him and I'd even go so far to say encouraged him by making it clear to him that he could do what he liked. Focusing on him lets the NHS use the 'wrong bad apple but we mustn't ban all the delicate fragile transgender laydees' excuse rather than ramming it home that NHS policy was, is and I suspect will remain wrong.

IANAL but I think the tribunal are charged with whether the Trust did the right things in response to the concerns/complaints raised, not whether his behaviour was acceptable because he's not been named in the case? Wiser people than me have said that's why Dr Upton was named in the Sandie Peggie case. Again, I'm happy to be corrected.

AnnaMagnani · 01/11/2025 15:09

SqueakyDinosaur · 01/11/2025 14:03

From that earlier ET, the Claimants sound like royal pains in the arse.

They do but generally in the NHS, if people are pains in the arse, it's because they have been allowed to be for the last 20 years.

Also nursing management culture often appears to an outsider to be 'we're all great mates and go to the pub/on holiday together' until something goes wrong and then responses from management can vary from sacking and referral to the NMC to a pat on the head. All the more painful if a month ago you were on a girls' holiday with your manager.

The talk in the earlier ET of how close they were reminded me of the Benidorm Whatsapp group in the Sandie Peggie ET. We're all great mates until an opportunity to shaft each other arises.

I am often the only non-nurse in a team and the discussions about each other/their managers/who is or isn't getting disciplined and why can be eye-openers.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 01/11/2025 15:26

SqueakyDinosaur · 01/11/2025 14:03

From that earlier ET, the Claimants sound like royal pains in the arse.

Don’t they just!

So many grievances and porky pies told; which were all obviously stalling tactics cos they didn’t want to be moved from their ‘home’.

I was exhausted just reading about them.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread