"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

fab will do later when I get home - thanks!

https://www.cddft.nhs.uk/about-us/news/new-chief-executive-appointed-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-foundation-trust

Is anyone else reminded of the Donkey Sanctuary names collars with that lanyard? Do you think he is very very keen to be called Steve?

As another aside, it is interesting that they are a lot warmer about the outgoing post holder in this article than the other, where it just says Scothern is retiring. Vibes of an in and out crowd there.

I'd insist on calling him 'Steven', just because

Steve is gay and his partner is a nurse. Maybe he needs to work on understanding the homophobia behind transition. His mum was also involved in nursing, not entirely sure if she was a nurse. Maybe she can explain the nurses point of view to him.

I just saw the posts he put up referencing vaccines etc, I assumed it was part of his work handle

It's an observation about people's behaviour, intended to be amusing. Not a rule to be obeyed.

Also - I made a mistake: middle class people travel with one couple in the front, the other in the back. Working class - two men in front, two women in the back.

Have you actually bothered looked into Christian Concern and their history? It doesn't sound like it.

No I won't donate to a lobby organisation that preaches homophobia and has been publicly criticised for manipulating the parents of dying children.

The end doesn't justify the means.

Perhaps you should try and have some respect for others' perspective before you call it "disgusting" and "virtue signalling"...

Christian Concern are a worrying group
BUT
who else should the nurses have turned to ?

Their own Union (RCN) branded them bigots and refused to help.

Since Christian Concern won't get any of the money, I really can't see your problem in this particular case, even if you hate what they stand for. They stepped up to help the nurses when no other organisation did and every penny donated via CrowdJustice goes straight to the lawyers, not the nurses or Christian Concern. I don't like CC either, but I do want to help the nurses fight their case and this is the only way I can.

Much better women take harassment, strip quietly in front of men who are accused of distinctly dodgy behaviour, and lose their jobs than associate themselves with anything impure?

Not sure if this was covered earlier but Dr j Phoenix’s report is accessible via the TT Substack on this Tribunal.

also as a man, I’d like to make the point that I do not support or endorse the actions of RH in any way, and the Trust in this case has acted in an appalling manner. I suspect that most men think the same.

I do recognise that not all people fit neatly into the men / women categories and try to be tolerant of those who are different to me. But single sex facilities (note not single gender ) have to be protected by all authorities. I fully recognise that some would wish otherwise, but the only sensible solution is for organisations to provide gender neutral facilities for those who are unable to use the facilities that 99% of the population use.

They sound the antithesis of feminist, but they aren't the ones benefitting. The nurses are. The nurses who have been shafted by their employer, their union and denied all usual avenues of support.

My priority is aiding the nurses where we can, not some Christian fundamentalist organisation whose interests align with ours on this particular issue.

I do recognise that not all people fit neatly into the men / women categories and try to be tolerant of those who are different to me.

Yes they do.
Every mammal, including humans is male or female from conception to death

It is shocking how understanding of biology has been damaged by genderists

Exactly. It's the people who try to add other conditions and criteria to "man" and "woman" that are excluding people and creating pointless subcategories.

2 sexes - infinite personalities!

@OneCraftyMentor I havent researched your other posts but it's usual for TRAs to come and tell us we should not be donating to fundraisers. The usual impact is for donations to increase.

The money goes to lawyers, not to Christian Concern. The cost of this case is quite likely to be 50k already, leaving nothing to support the nurses against disciplinary action or challenging their union. Without CC this case would not be in the courts and the nurses are fighting for the rights of women of all faith and no faith. This is not about religion, it's about the needs of multiple women being ignored in favour of the wants of one man. .

I’m afraid your black or white view of the world, not recognising the protections in law of those who claim a gender different from their birth sex, is more than unfortunate. But I fully recognise your view - I just don’t agree with it.

The law is clear on single sex facilities in that their use is limited by reference to both sex.- claimed gender is irrelevant.

Word salad.

Humans (and all mammals) come in two forms - male or female

identities are like religions - personal and internal

I haven't said those things you claim I "don't recognise" - please don't lie about me.

Happy to discuss if you can manage, at the bare minimum, honesty.

People who claim no gender identity (not "gender") are also protected in law, by the way - from discrimination arising from said lack of identity.

The law protects people; people have rights.

All men have the right to use male spaces, even if they choose not to use the name Tyler. Men do not have the right to use female spaces.

"People who claim no gender identity (not "gender") are also protected in law, by the way - from discrimination arising from said lack of identity."

Having said this, I'm not sure if it's true as I've written it - it could be a GC belief (which has been been tested in court) but not actually necessarily equivalent to the PC of "gender reassignment" or lack of. I wonder if we'll ever see a case based on "lack of gender identification is agender therefore trans therefore comes under Gender reassignment umbrella" - sort of similar to the non-binary case - but that's a bit of a tangent...

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is very clearly defined in the Equality Act 2010. There's no room to add to it.

I was thinking about Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.

If (and I don't know how far this if applies) GR includes NB and genderfluid then I can imagine someone arguing it also includes agender. Just musing, really.

the GRA is clear about protecting a person living as the opposite sex. As is the protected characteristic of transitioning in the EQA

there was an application to the court for a man’s none binary status (a US citizen) to be recognised on his UK paperwork.

the court ruled this is not recognised in UK law

so no it’s not gonna happen

In the (unlikely) event of someone being discriminated against for not having the characteristic of gender reassignment I think they would have a valid claim. But in practice there might be better way to frame it.
edit grammar