"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

Yes, they seem to have an awful lot of breaks.

Although it did dawn on me that these were 'comfort breaks'

Right, I have a task to do that can't be put off any more, so I'm going to take one for the team and step away from my laptop for 30 minutes, which hopefully means it will start imminently. Please don't fill up the thread in the meantime.

Well I have a gym to go to. Now I’m stuck at home waiting for developments. Boo.

If that's the case I hope the judge in his head will be screaming about the schedule and timings and how one super special person is fucking it all up!

You are a funny bunch. I had a few belly laughs.

Of course its pure speculation but if we are delayed 1.5 hours because the laywers need to be especially nice to Rose and not say hard things to him -

while on day one Karen Danson was told she was a liar when she recounted how his abuse of her brought back memories of her childhood sexual abuse -

then they are no better than the useless HR and TW who avoided saying hurty things to Rose - like maybe you could change elsewhere since you are a man and this is the women's changing rooms.

He's just a person like any of the other witnesses. No one else gets the special caste treatment. If he is happy to be a voyeur in the ladies at least have the balls to own it.

Ah I'm busy this afternoon with work. Hopefully can catch up later

while on day one Karen Danson was told she was a liar when she recounted how his abuse of her brought back memories of her childhood sexual abuse

This sprung to mind for me too. Outrageous.

Do you remember when a bloke stripping down to his holey boxers in the ladies would have been arrested, not treated as Super Special Sparkles by a court?

Ah, those were the days...

Surely though if you're looking to get to the truth of the matter you need to ask the probing questions, the difficult questions, not go through what you must not say lest it give the delicate flower an attack of the vapours. IANAL though.

I would think it's more about making sure the matters at hand are clear. There have been a couple of occasions where NF seems to have strayed a bit off track and the Judge has had to rein him in and be clear on how it's relevant to the case and what is being judged. I have no idea though.

I wonder whether there might be an issue with effectively accusing him of a criminal offence in a civil case...? Pure speculation and IANAL but I have a hazy feeling that you can't be asked to admit to anything under oath that would make you criminally culpable if that isn't what the case is about. Anyone know if this is nonsense?

I have just been catching up with the threads - thanks to all posters as I have found it very helpful to read your input.
I too will be horrified if the male who says he's a woman allegedly in holey undies in the female changing room wanting women to get their kit off for him is treated with greater consideration and kindness by the tribunal than the vulnerable female witness who has previously experienced CSA. Disgusted in fact.

Witnesses are accused of criminal behaviour in civil cases all the time. Theft, assault, all kinds of stuff. It won't be that.

It's more likely to do with questioning not relating to claims which have been dropped.

Fair enough! Not that then. 😁Thanks.

I bet when Rose does make an appearance is "womanised" to the nth degree and will be speaking in his best womanly voice. It will be very different to the unit we have seen in photos.

<Munches on freshly made chip but tie with tomato sauce>

I am looking at the testimony from Jane Shields again as her name came up recently.
Jane gave testimony on the morning of the 28th. She is a nurse anesthetist. I don't know how NHS teams work but I am guessing she is part of Theatres.

Thanks to Tribunel Tweets for the following

First met Rose in 2019.
Would met him in CR 3-4 days in 7
Confirmed that she had a direct conversation with Rose about fathering a child
This was during the night shift
Rose was at this time a 2nd year student
Other staff members were present (she names them)
Supports this claim (BH et al)
We were very aware of disparity in the staff
People didn't feel comfortable in the CR
We discussed this in breaks and with family
Jane Shields has left the Trust

The BBC reported that Jane also said

She asked her manager why they were expected to share a changing room with a man
She believed 80% of the female staff were not happy Rose was allowed to use the changing rooms

(She was also the one who brought up the diversity excuse and bullying)

This would appear to flatly contradict the testimony of TW on all 150 staff members in Theatres being happy and supportive of Rose.

Given SC cross-examined one witness on how big the holes were in RH's boxers I really hope the judge isn't going to limit NF on this in order to save RH's feelings.

Hi @nauticant - I think the only thing that has been dropped is the allegations around Tracy Whitaker ensuring that Rose post claim was able to be in the room with an uncousious Karen Danson while she was exposed at the groin for intimate gynae surgery. We know she got PALS involved so was saved a further assault thank heavens.

But aside from that female facilitated attempted abuse - all the other claims stand unless I have missed something.

The nurses were clear that Rose was naked bar his boxers through which they could see his male genetalia, he asked KD to get undressed, he stared at women's chests, used his phone in the changing room (suspected recording) and so on. All that was put to the witnesses and they were called liars/ embellishers/ told it didn't happen.

Well this is just rude

It's healthy if it's on whole grain bread, right? Asking for a friend.

I really feel so very sad for Karen Danson, what’s she’s been through as a child, then been repeatedly exposed to this debacle in the CR, been treated without any compassion by LMs when she’s complained. Then that same LM’s (? TW) level of contempt re KD’s gynaecologist op and KD’s reasonable request. Followed by having to expose herself again to all this trauma in this ET. Being called a liar by SC during day 1 and THEN, having her LM’s (?Tracey Wainright) total contempt for her, explicitly verbalised with the throwaway line “ Can I just say that were a lot of untruths in KD’s PALs complaint” to the Judge. 😡😡Disgusting. I want to give KD a hug if I ever met her in RL. She’s such a very brave woman, all of the claimants are but Karen in particular, I really feel for her and hope she has loads of support around her in RL.

I'm still ploughing my way through Thread 5 but wondered if I'd annoyed the clerk or something as I've been WFTCHTJ for an age. Seems it's not just me.

I wonder if there is a Pete the Plumber issue here? NC's argument is that it is sexual harassment for a biological man to be there at all. But you could argue it depends on his intention - that would be awkward questioning, unless the judge agrees with NC, in which case intention is irrelevant