"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 7

[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)
Thread 6, 04-Nov to 05-Nov; RH (day 10), SW (day 11)

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

Thanks @OnAShooglyPeg I'll keep that in mind. I did note that he called RH a nurse, but at least he is helping to publicise the case.

During these past few tribunal days I kept thinking of this quote. Every time "it's complicated" came up, every complaint dismissed, every nurse prejudged for Being The Wrong Sort Of Woman.

Edited to add image attaching

Donated. They do need a lot more carrots - I see they have set a target of £50k which means they won't get anything (our pledges will be returned) if they don't hit that target. Foolishly? Maybe there's a shadowy backer who will make up the difference at the last minute if necessary. I suppose this one is likely slow through a combination of (a) the case is happening anyway which is what's necessary for the rest of us to benefit (b) people (like me!) who don't share Christian Concern's other positions hesitating to associate themselves with it. That's what leaving the "display my name with my pledge" box unticked is for, though.

It's not unusual for new fund raisers to go up slowly and this one if only a few days old. The word has to get out and some people may already have spent their terfy funds elsewhere this month and will donate later.

Google support the Darlington nurses to find a garden.

Gardening done from Ireland, where this issue is waiting in the long grass to bite several complacent arses.

Thank you, really important points.

It is very unusual (have never seen it) to force someone to appear before the Tribunal. The powers of the first tier tribunal judges are quite limited. For example, Judge Kemp could not order Dr Upton to produce the phone for forensic examination but 'encouraged' the Rs to allow the examination.

Has anyone else got any good podcasts to listen to?

I've got a car drive to do later.

The most recent This Isn't Working (22/10) had a good discussion about the NHS as an employer and their priorities re PCs.

Strange but True Crime on BBC Sounds.

Presented by the lovely Rima Ahmed.

Lucy Worsley’s Lady Killers and Lady Swindlers are both excellent.

I find Bruce Bowman / BoswellToday quite loathesome, I'm afraid.

He is some sort of business consultant at a loose end, who monetises the work of TribunalTweets by generating low-quality un-fact-checked AI summaries of those women's extraordinary hard work.

Initially I thought he was directly connected to TT because of the vague and evasive way he said he was part of a team and denied using AI. Eventually he was called out, and on 10 August he showed a very nasty side of his character on Twitter. Then he cried victim, disappeared until the heat lessened, and came straight back for more monetising as soon as TT's next case came up.

I’ve planted, metaphorically and physically a few spring bulbs to overwinter. Late to the party I know. I will follow their progress keenly for green shoots of optimism however harsh the winter. Spring however late always comes. Important to ‘keep the flame alive’ and current. Tête-à-tête by the way.

There is a good rate of success in these cases. I love that people are chipping in with anything from £5 to £250 (just the ones I've seen).

You called?😁How I wish I was the real thing. It's so badly needed! A big thank you to TT and all the re-tweeters. This case is insane and simply must be won by the nurses. I am in awe of their courage. Going to garden now.

What a shame, I wasn't aware of that. 🙁

I’m always so wary of these Johnny come latelys to this subject, on Twitter.

Especially men, riding on the coattails of women who have been grafting for bloody years,

Just looked at this video again

Look North (North East and Cumbria) - Evening News: 04/11/2025 - BBC iPlayer

It feels like it has changed significantly

Didn't it originally start with footage of RH entering the court then followed by footage of the nurses doing the same?

It looks like the faces of the other NHS personnel have been obscured in the footage of RH getting into the car after the day's proceedings?

Am I misremembering?

Edit - spelling

I know the NHS is captured but a lot of places have changed their policies and not one single case has been brought by the trans lobby. Not one. (To my knowledge)

Absence of evidence isn’t proof - but if men should be allowed into women’s changing rooms you’d have trans supporting allied law firms running these cases up and down the country surely.

That's a really good point.

I think it is reflected in the response to the Supreme Court ruling by Northern Pride and Curious Arts. They have used the ruling as an opportunity to promote "Trans Allies" training courses to businesses and to advocate for the provision of "gender neutral" facilities amongst other things.

I understand that this letter has ben sent to hundreds of businesses across the North East.

OPEN LETTER TO NORTH EAST BUSINESS LEADERS: IMPACT OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON LGBTQIA+ RIGHTS
12 May 2025
www.northern-pride.com/post/open-letter-to-north-east-business-leaders

Extracts from the lengthy and detailed PDF letter attached to that page:

What the ruling means and why it matters?:

● Legal Definition: "Woman" and "man" are legally defined based on biological sex assigned at birth, regardless of any Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
● Exclusions Permitted: Trans women, trans men and non-binary individuals can be lawfully excluded from single-sex spaces designated for women/men, such as bathrooms, changing rooms, and shelters.
● Equality Act Protections: While the ruling narrows the definition of "sex," trans individuals still retain protections under the Equality Act's provisions for gender reassignment.
● The ruling, alongside EHRC guidance, risks eroding trans rights and could legitimise exclusion and discrimination in health, education, and public life.

1. Create an Inclusive Workplace
Businesses should foster a culture where all employees, including trans individuals, feel welcomed and supported. This includes implementing non-discriminatory hiring practices, providing gender-neutral facilities where possible and offering training on gender diversity. A safe and inclusive work environment not only boosts employee morale and satisfaction but also attracts diverse talent, contributing to innovation and productivity. Furthermore, it helps minimise legal risks and reputational damage associated with discrimination.

7. Foster Safe Spaces for Trans Customers
Creating an inclusive environment for trans customers is just as important as fostering an inclusive workplace. Businesses should provide gender-neutral bathrooms, use inclusive signage, and train customer-facing employees to be respectful and supportive of all customers. This ensures that all individuals feel comfortable and respected in the business’s space, which in turn encourages customer loyalty and attracts a more diverse clientele.

(Hint of legal consequences, my bolding below)

The ethical responsibility to foster inclusivity and equality is at the core of what makes a business truly supportive of its employees and customers. Supporting trans individuals not only reflects human rights values but also strengthens the company’s culture, attracting and retaining top talent. In a broader context, businesses that support trans rights are more likely to build strong brand loyalty, as consumers increasingly seek out companies that align with their social and ethical values. Moreover, by ensuring trans inclusivity, businesses avoid legal risks, improve employee morale, and contribute to a more diverse, equitable, and productive workplace.

It is the ITV coverage that starts with Rose/Tyler entering the Court and ends with the walk to the car with faces not blurred:

www.itv.com/watch/news/employment-tribunal-hears-from-transgender-worker-at-centre-of-nhs-changing-room-row/62krvdl

The BBC coverage has not changed.

@POWNewcastleEastWallsend thats impressively empty and vague and confusing, short on specific actions and reluctant to say that there are legal risks from “trans inclusion” as well. It sounds like it was written by AI.

Have donated to the crowdfunder. Many thanks for these threads.

OK - thanks for clarifying.

Why did the BBC blur but not ITV?

ITV doesn't have to run things through a BBC LGBT+ Desk?

The tribunal seems to have gone over and above to protect RH by not discussing that he would be a witness until the day it happened, and then by requiring questions to be framed by pointing to, and not reading out much of the previous witness evidence. But there is no requirement on the press to do the same, without a court order for anonymity?

Making a woman explain her previous sexual abuse in open court, and robust challenging of her evidence, yet tip toeing around a TiM in the way we have seen here, is surely unequal treatment of witnesses?
Would this in itself be grounds for an appeal does anyone know?

I have no idea re the legalities but it's such blatant disparity.

Really, really weird that all other witnesses were listed and scheduled in advance.