"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 6

[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)
Thread 5, 31-Oct to 04-Nov; JB (day 8), SW, CG, JR (day 9)

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, NHS 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
AT – Anna Telfer, NHS Deputy Director of Nursing
SW – Sandra Watson, Matron for General and Elective Surgery
JR – Jodie Robinson, manager of Rose

He does that every time. Back of the room first in an orderly fashion.

And he does the flimsy water intro with almost all the witnesses.

He was a tad kinder to Rose given he is a man pretending to be a woman and for a man of EJ Sweeney's era thats a tad embarassing for the wee lad - but I am not seeing special treatment.

Thank you

About the judge's manner - I agree he was more solicitous towards Rose than towards any other witness. There was a definite "don't you worry your pretty little head about it" sort of vibe. ARGH!

So looks like a man. Sounds like a man.

I am going to re-read the beautifully writted decision from the same judge in the 2022 Darington tribunal this evening, and trust that the canny Judge will not let us down.

I've personally no problem with comments on Rose's appearance during the break, in as far that it is relevant to the case. I would prefer it if posters could refrain from mocking or gratuitous comments though - whatever we think of Rose's actions to date, Rose is still a human being and so due the usual basic courtesies.

@fanOfBen from the same book (see photo)

It's been very helpful at stopping me posting something I shouldn't during this tribunal!

Unsurprising as is a man....

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Yep. I’m still unsure why so many people claim this is complex

No
He presents very male to me.
Long scraggly hair with obvious male pattern baldness ladies v neck dress /top ( can only see him sat down). It doesn't look like he is wearing much make up (can only see the court video). No attempt at a faux feminine voice.

There's something deeply unsettling about him

I’m not sure “I had no reason to give them a hard stare” is consistent with what I understood was his earlier (witness statement?) comment about hatred and bigotry towards him, commented on by NF in cross examination.

Someone who was there, did he actually say "I had no reason"?

@ThreeWordHarpy I'm going to have to seriously disagree with you about RH being due the usual courtesies. Not in my book, he isn't.

Yes.

I'm currently giving some of my lunch a hard stare. Not because I don't appreciate DH sourcing me a feijoa (one for the Kiwis on the thread) but because I know from long and bitter experience that any imported feijoa will have been picked far too early and will inevitably be a disappointment.

I swap you a few Chilean guavas (actually ripe, maybe on the brink of going over a bit) for a feijoa.

Given your user name @slug I'm puzzled as to what a feijoa could be? A plant, perhaps?

Regarding the person with what I assume to be a dog, I thought I heard it as 'Pratchett', which did make me pause and worry that they may be on here, as I know there are a fair few Terry Pratchett enjoyers. I'm not familiar with the software, but I would have thought the Clerk could ensure everyone is muted as they enter, or at least be a bit quicker on the button if something happens!

Not in the profession. But Judges can and must. (As do juries in criminal trials.) It's the judge of first instance's job to assess the credibility of the witness based on their entire aspect. That's one reason why appeal courts don't mess with factual findings and determinations of who was telling the truth and who wasn't. appellate courts often have transcripts but they can't see the way the words were spoken, or the way the witness behaved in the witness box. All of which is relevant.

Yes it's very clear that everyone in my 'room' is muted judging by the symbols next to their names. I understand the clerk can mute the whole room so no idea how the dog thing happened.

Maybe the person logged in in the wrong way?

Have you ever considered re-training as a dry-stone waller? I reckon you'd be ace.

I think it's because it was widely accepted in various circles - incl obviously the NHS - at the time that being transgender meant that you effectively became the opposite sex. It was even recognised in law i.e. the GRC.
So nobody felt they could deny that a man who said he was a woman was in fact a woman, as far as things like CRs, toilets, pronouns etc., and they appeared to be protected by equality legislation.

Wrong in so many ways, but that was how situations like this arose - a man said he was a woman, and the law appeared to back him up, so everybody went along with it.

Trans campaigners were very vocal and had lots of influence on the media, the law, parliament etc. , and feminists were feminazis, to it was easiest to side with the trans identifying man.

I don't approve of or sympathise with all the supporters of Rose and DrU, but I do see the topsy-turvy social and political environment in which it happened.

Feijoa are a type of guava. It's the taste of my Kiwi childhood www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/24/the-indescribable-scent-of-feijoa-the-exotic-fruit-that-became-the-smell-of-new-zealand-childhood