"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

Feeling a bit 🤢, perhaps was unwise to scoff the fish finger butty and chips before all this talk of damaged pants.
My DH is content to wear t-shirts and jumpers with holes in (until I get hold of them for fancy darning), but never pants.

Why was he wearing boxers with holes in them though?
A bit of a costume failure surely?
No girly frilly knickers .
He was deliberately signalling his maleness.

RH: Not my standard practice

Interesting. Not standard = sometimes not never.

TT

NR: [ref p44] Ms Bradbury WS, please read pp44-45.
RH [does]
NF: She says wandering about only in boxer shorts. Again you say - ?
RH: False allegation
NF: Moving about, but not like that?
RH: Yes

Fortunately for him I think he's too young to have a prostate issue. An older man would be asking for a comfort break by now after a big jug of water.

RH: I expect some of them are slightly damaged yes

Then

RH: No - one pair maybe - mainly my underwear is not riddled with holes

Hmmmmm?

I was wondering about the holes too. The only reason I can think he would wear them is so the nurses may "accidentally" get glimpses of his genitals. Obviously that is pure speculation

TT

NF: She says, more than one occasion - para8 - you say the same?
RH: Yes
NF: para9 - says you stared at her and others
RH: Again, false allegation

NF: We also heard from Sharon Trevarrow, you know her?
RH: Not personally
NF [ref - p650]

It's really bizarre though, because we don't have self-ID as law and we never have. So whatever your position on people with GRCs, there is no excuse for allowing people to self-ID into women's changing rooms.

TT

NF: This is i/v with ST Sept 2024, she was ward housekeeper. p651 she's asked if she knows why other staff raised concerns - she says, you looked ppl up and down. Is that false?
RH: Well obviously I have seen ppl in CR, but not looking them up and down

All these props to your fantasy suddenly getting names and voices.

TT

NF: She says locker close to yours did you know that?
RH: I don't know who she is, so no
NF: She's asked about inappropriate behaviour, she says, just staring and looking at ppl
RH: False, I don't stare

I'm imagining a smug smile as he says this

DH has holey underwear and socks and hankies, because habit and comfort. I take the piss out of him because we're both well paid professionals who can afford to have a sufficient supply of smalls in good repair. But he's responsible for his own clothes and laundry and makes his own decision on what to wear. Even as I eyeroll and threaten to buy him socks for Christmas.

His job does not involve undressing in front of others though...

RH: Well obviously I have seen ppl in CR, but not looking them up and down

Oh well in that case, our mistake and case closed! Obviously all the women are liars.

I think NF is being quite clever here. From what TT says, he is getting RH to undermine his own witness statement by gradually walking back the certainty of his assertions.

RH doesn't want to flatly contradict the claimants, so he says he might have done something but not usually/often. Which contradicts his earlier statement that he didn't. And is now effectively accepting this claimant's statement (minus the word often).

Perhaps that's how he got the holes?

The 'holey boxers' sounded like a bit of exaggeration previously, things said to make Rose seem worse than he is, but lo and behold, he has confirmed it.
So the complainants were not lying about that; just everything else, acc to Rose.

This has reminded me my pants do need a cull of knackered elastic pairs. The holey ones go in the bin as soon as I spot the hole!

True, but if you think a man can ever turn into a woman, then you have the problem of, well, when, how? Obviously not by acquiring a piece of a paper, that would be silly...so, how would one know, other than by asking him? Helen Joyce has a good thing about the analogy with how introducing a single falsity like "0=1" into a logical system brings the whole thing down. Ex falso quodlibet.

TT

NF: There are transcripts in the bundle Feb 2024 and May 2024, have you read those?
RH: I know they're there, not sure I have read all of them.

The thing is that women immediately clock it when a man looks them up and down, it is usually very quick, but you still catch it.

Being large of nork, I have had this many times, women notice, no matter how surreptitious.

And this is the thing. Does he act how he thinks a woman would or does he do what is least likely to get him into trouble and end him up at a tribunal.

TT

NF: One partic bit from May, [missed page, 368?]
NF 16:52 and 17:17 Lianne Dennis talking, do you know her?
RH: No
NF: If you read those entries
NF: She says she felt you were staring at her chest.
RH: That's false

Hope he gets asked why umpteen witnesses are lying.

Can it be bigotry? Transphobia maybe?