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

[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&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

Also per Rose’s searchable photo - uploading here but happy to be deleted @mumsnet or @mnhq if not in line with policies

He may just have meant that Rose will say that in his statement, not in person.

Listening live it was really clear he meant - when we hear from RH they will say rather than RH said in their statement.

It was obvious but the phrasing changed the next day so I thought oh something’s changed

It could also have been the case that initially RH was slated to appear, so there were refs to what RH would say, but for whatever reason that has changed. KD was the first witness to appear so it's possible that between then and now something has come up to either prevent RH from appearing, or the respondents have changed their stance, or one or more claims were dropped so RH's appearance is no longer relevant.

The claim that was dropped was about the operation where Rose was planned to be present. Presumably dropped because eventually the Trust saw sense on than point. Personally feel it should have been left in as an example of how appalling the Trust/Rose were.

Ah, gotcha - thank you for clarifying that for me (and for doing it nicely, too).

You have a point to say “no men in our CR however they dress” because otherwise men will decide for us what level of flouncy clothes and lipstick should make us just fine with stripping in front of a TW.

It's a tricky one, and I understand both sides. But the fact is, that men, however they look, whatever piece of paper they have, are not allowed in women's spaces, the law is quite clear.

So it's not about the law.

But I do believe public perception is also important. Although their perception won't affect the law, it does affect women talking about it. It does affect how many organisations are digging in their heels. It does affect public opinion, and pushing through new policies.

Plus, it starts the conversation. It's a very interesting conversation to have. People who think certain men should be allowed and others shouldn't will absolutely get there in the end, when they realise you can't possibly make conditions. It's unworkable in reality.

So to me, it's not about the concept. The concept is absolutely no men, any time, any where, any how.

It's about taking people along with you.

And as for that chap on Reddit complaining that he's being singled out. Well how many options does he bloody well want?

He doesn't want to go in the men's, fine. He gets his own room, that's not good enough. And as a PP said, where are all the women who support him, why aren't they sharing the gender neutral room with him?

The fact remains that he expects women to take their clothes off in front of him in order to validate his delusion. Or his fetish.

it's quite extraordinary that he feels like he's the one being hard done by!

If he is going to give evidence in private I wonder if that means no press or members of the public or whether it will go to the extreme of excluding the claimants as well? I have to say I think that would be very unfair and contrary to the principles of natural justice. But it would suit his 'victim' narrative.

SC's comments about what RH's WS says and what RH 'will say' have flip-flopped back and forth and back again. The question may have been undecided, and perhaps was only finally determined in the private session this morning.

If a woman has to stand up in court and talk about her history of sexual abuse, then a man can stand up and talk about how he identifies as a woman. IMHO.

I have been surprised on a few occasions, that the respondent’s barrister is not questioning a number of witnesses who appeared in the last few days. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why this may be the case?

Because it will not help his defence case

He doesn't have to, and probably doesn't want to introduce any possible contradiction. Their witness statements have been submitted and he only needs to confirm those as being accurate, or allow for any corrections.

I didn't realise the difference between the Scottish and English systems, but I have to say I prefer the Scottish system. It takes longer (and is therefore no doubt more expensive all around), but it seems like a fairer approach.

RH will be doing anything he can not to appear. If I was him, there's no fricking way I'd want to appear.

And, sadly, the justice system still seems to expect women to recount their history of sexual abuse, but not for a man just stand there being his authentic self.

So it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he didn't get special dispensation.

edited to add, that on the other hand, many of these men think they pass flawlessly, are amazing, and the centre of not just their's, but everyone else's universe. So who knows...

Also, note the use of 'girl' in that post rather than woman. It's always girls

Oh well caught! When you say the phrasing changed, do you mean SC later made similar challenges with different wording?

I wouldn't be surprised either if RH is already not on the witness list, or if he becomes a no-show for other reasons. It would also make sense if he asked to give evidence remotely, to avoid press attention.

(Still hoping though!)

Presumably they will only call RH to give evidence in person if they feel it will help the respondents' case? Maybe they've decided it's best for him to stay away and just submit the written statement.

I know, it always makes me think it is paedophilic. Shudder

@OnAShooglyPegand @Hedgehogsrightsarehumanrightsthanks for your replies. This is what I assumed was the case but was surprised with a few of the witnesses.
I am also in Scotland where the reliance of WS is less and oral evidence preferred.

Excellent first witness this morning, let's sack the rest of management and put this Matron in charge.

No doubt if it had been her job to sort out she'd have insisted Rose used a private changing room. You know, the one the nurses moved in to with one cubicle and the obvious solution if Rose refused to use the men's.

You could double her salary and still save money.

No idea why the defendants put her on as one of their witnesses. Perhaps so incompetent they didn't speak to her first.

I imagine a lot of the woman had a crash course in gender ideology and thought they might have felt more comfortable with someone who looked less like a blokey bloke in the changing room. It seems they never experienced that in order to know. My suspicion is they would have been equally as uncomfortable.

I've been in that position of suddenly being asked to share a hotel room with someone I thought I accepted as a transwoman and it very soon focused my mind on the fact I couldn't jump the mental hoops to see him as anything other than a man who wished he was a woman (that I felt slightly sorry for at the time).
Despite never getting a creepy vibe from him and being in my very kind, virtuous and men who say they are women are the most opressed era, I would have felt no more comfortable sharing a room with him than my very good mates Bob and Steve who I trust implicitly. My privacy is still paramount whether it's Bob and Steve or someone trying their best to pass as a woman. I had somehow imagined it wouldn't be until I was in that position.

This seems quite astonishing from TT

NF In 2023 yr office is the locker room under discussion?
SG Yes. My door was always physically open on that corridor
NF Where were u movd to
SG Around the corner to the start of the ward

The Judge asked Claire (SG) to elaborate because she said initially "my door is always open" and he wondered if she was speaking literally or metaphorically. (not captured by TT). If that's right, that she physically had her door open to watch what was going on on her ward, then that makes the Nurse's claim all the more horrific: that the 'changing room' they were offered not only opened straight onto the corridor, but that the doorway offered a good view of people coming and going on the ward!

I don't think RH is going to give evidence in private. There's been no grant of anonymity in this tribunal. The tribunal will make reasonable accommodations, for example, allowing witnesses to appear by video rather than in person.

There's a witness statement, it will need to be sworn to part of the record of the tribunal. And if RH doesn't appear then none of that evidence can be relied upon - so no rebuttal to the accounts of the Cs witnesses about changing room behaviour.

I think it's a lose/lose for the R; the mind boggles at the 'impression' RH will make under cross examination and if RH doesn't appear then that strands SC with no way to rebut much of the nurses evidence.

But the primary offender here is not RH but the Trust, I think. And I wonder if SC is prepared to jettison RH.

Sorry, thinking out loud.

Thanks for that. Interesting. (But not really surprising tbh).