Page 32 | "Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 8

ThreeWordHarpy · 2025-11-11T11:44:23+00:00

_[[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5423587-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread Thread 1]]_, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, KD (day 1 of evidence) and BH (day 2). _[[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5432103-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-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) _[[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5434742-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-3 Thread 3]]_, 28-Oct to 29-Oct; AT (day 5&6), TA (day 6&7) _[[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5435420-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-4 Thread 4]]_, 29-Oct to 31-Oct; TA, AM (day 7) JB (day 8) _[[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5436397-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-5 Thread 5]]_, 31-Oct to 04-Nov; JB (day 8), SW, CG, JR (day 9) _[[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5438539-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-6 Thread 6]]_, 04-Nov to 05-Nov; RH (day 10), SW (day 11) _[[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5439172-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-7 Thread 7]]_, 05-Nov to 11-Nov; SW (day 11), closing submissions 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 now complete. Submissions are being made on November 11th. To view the hearing online requests for access had to be made by October 17th. The hearing is being live tweeted by _[[https://x.com/tribunaltweets Tribunal Tweets]]_ who have background to this case on _[[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/eight-nurses-v-county-durham-and 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

Lilyfreedom · 16/01/2026 13:51

The point is that to be compliant with the 1992 regs, communal changing facilities must be seperated into male and female facilities. I don't see how providing the Terfy nurses with their own facilities deals wiht that problem. Providing seperate facilities for Rose is the only answer.

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:53

spannasaurus · 16/01/2026 13:45

No it wouldn't. The ruling says that Rose should not have been in the female changing room.

Show quote history

I do agree with this, he shouldn't have been in there, and they were wrong to allow him to use that room. However if the trust had been able to argue that the nurses who objected were given a changing room which was clearly single sex, and was in all the ways that mattered as good, or better than the one they originally had, then the trust might not have got such a kicking in this tribunal.

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 16/01/2026 13:53

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:37

222 That we found that Rose, personally, did not behave improperly whilst using the changing room, in no way diminishes these very real and genuine perceptions of the Claimants, all of whom were fearful of the risks at the very least, to their dignity, bodily integrity and privacy.

I'm disappointed at this finding

Several women mentioned Rose's holey pants, the staring and the "aren't you getting changed?". While these actions didn't endanger the women, I think they are inappropriate in a workplace change room and were no doubt intimidating and possibly degrading. On the balance of probabilities it sounds to me like these behaviours did happen but obviously the panel chose to believe Rose over the women.

BettyBooper · 16/01/2026 13:53

NeedMoreTinfoil · 16/01/2026 13:47

Looks like the BBC have amended the wording now - well done everyone who complained about the misquote.

Wow! They have indeed!

Good job wims!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/01/2026 13:53

Lilyfreedom · 16/01/2026 13:16

It is terrifying - there are already references to suicidality under the post about the case. There is an awful lot of legal illiteracy there, which of course is understandable if you are not a lawyer, but they seem to genuinely believe it is about Rose's "trans" status rather than that he is a male.

Show quote history

Why vulnerable people siloing themselves into these echo chambers (and no peeps, MN is not an echo chamber in the same way, your opinions may be disagreed with, but if you remain civil you won’t be banned) is a very bad idea.

lcakethereforeIam · 16/01/2026 13:54

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:51

270 We accept – as does the Respondent – that women are more likely to have experienced sex-based harassment and sex-based violence than men. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this is so. The risk posed to women generally by this state of affairs causes a reaction in many women and leads them to adjust their own behaviour according to the circumstances. Women do not have to experience sex-based harassment or violence personally. The experiences of some women can and does have an impact on others. Depending on the circumstances, a woman might experience fear and distrust in the presence of a man even though, objectively, as a matter of fact, the man is an entirely innocent actor. We take an example that we can all recognise, of a woman walking alone on a street at night, whereupon she notices an approaching male. She crosses the road to avoid the man, holding her keys in her hands in the event she needs to defend herself or she phones someone or pretends to do so. The approaching male is a perfectly decent and innocent person with no intention to harm anyone and is oblivious to the woman on the street. He would feel offended at the thought that someone might regard him as potentially harmful. But it is not the individual’s character that dictates the reaction in the woman. It is not the man himself but the fact that he is a man. The difficulty for the woman in this example is that she is unable to police the character or the intent or motivations of the approaching male. She is fearful of the risk presented in the knowledge of women’s experiences in life generally. Her reaction does not depend on personal experience, although of course it may be explained by this. The Tribunal is able to draw on its own experiences of life in recognising these fearful, defensive, precautionary traits in women in certain circumstances. They are not irrational reactions. On the contrary, they are entirely rational, based on the lived experiences of other women generally. Many women will feel anxious and may take extra precautions in what men might regard as normal situations.

Thank you Judge. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Abitofalark · 16/01/2026 13:54

SecretSquirrelLoo · 16/01/2026 11:40

The Darlington nurses will pass into feminist legend and song

Like 'The Grunwick Five' - a faint echo fifty years on, but who now would know who they were or what it was about? * Will the magnificent 'Darlington Eight' linger in a phrase fifty years from now, while the cause has faded from memory?

*They were women too; mainly South Asian, exploited in poor conditions and without trade unions: one was sacked, three others walked out in support and another was sacked. A protracted strike for work and trade union rights ensued. Our doughty police were involved, pitched against striking workers and campaigners.

Datun · 16/01/2026 13:54

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:51

270 We accept – as does the Respondent – that women are more likely to have experienced sex-based harassment and sex-based violence than men. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this is so. The risk posed to women generally by this state of affairs causes a reaction in many women and leads them to adjust their own behaviour according to the circumstances. Women do not have to experience sex-based harassment or violence personally. The experiences of some women can and does have an impact on others. Depending on the circumstances, a woman might experience fear and distrust in the presence of a man even though, objectively, as a matter of fact, the man is an entirely innocent actor. We take an example that we can all recognise, of a woman walking alone on a street at night, whereupon she notices an approaching male. She crosses the road to avoid the man, holding her keys in her hands in the event she needs to defend herself or she phones someone or pretends to do so. The approaching male is a perfectly decent and innocent person with no intention to harm anyone and is oblivious to the woman on the street. He would feel offended at the thought that someone might regard him as potentially harmful. But it is not the individual’s character that dictates the reaction in the woman. It is not the man himself but the fact that he is a man. The difficulty for the woman in this example is that she is unable to police the character or the intent or motivations of the approaching male. She is fearful of the risk presented in the knowledge of women’s experiences in life generally. Her reaction does not depend on personal experience, although of course it may be explained by this. The Tribunal is able to draw on its own experiences of life in recognising these fearful, defensive, precautionary traits in women in certain circumstances. They are not irrational reactions. On the contrary, they are entirely rational, based on the lived experiences of other women generally. Many women will feel anxious and may take extra precautions in what men might regard as normal situations.

Fucking hell, that's brilliant.

"We accept – as does the Respondent – that women are more likely to have experienced sex-based harassment and sex-based violence than men. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this is so."

I wonder if that's a dig at Kemp.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 16/01/2026 13:55

murasaki · 16/01/2026 13:51

Nothing, and he almost certainly would have done if the women had left him in his own in the main one.

Despite the fact that it would almost certainly have been a broom cupboard.

Show quote history

The fact that Rose didn’t immediately follow the women into the broom cupboard is a tacit admission that he knows he’s a man.

spannasaurus · 16/01/2026 13:55

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:53

I do agree with this, he shouldn't have been in there, and they were wrong to allow him to use that room. However if the trust had been able to argue that the nurses who objected were given a changing room which was clearly single sex, and was in all the ways that mattered as good, or better than the one they originally had, then the trust might not have got such a kicking in this tribunal.

Show quote history

The existing changing room also needs to be single sex to comply with the 1992 regulations.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/01/2026 13:58

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 16/01/2026 13:55

The fact that Rose didn’t immediately follow the women into the broom cupboard is a tacit admission that he knows he’s a man.

Show quote history

If he had done I think the only finding possible would be harassment on his part.

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 16/01/2026 13:58

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:51

270 We accept – as does the Respondent – that women are more likely to have experienced sex-based harassment and sex-based violence than men. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this is so. The risk posed to women generally by this state of affairs causes a reaction in many women and leads them to adjust their own behaviour according to the circumstances. Women do not have to experience sex-based harassment or violence personally. The experiences of some women can and does have an impact on others. Depending on the circumstances, a woman might experience fear and distrust in the presence of a man even though, objectively, as a matter of fact, the man is an entirely innocent actor. We take an example that we can all recognise, of a woman walking alone on a street at night, whereupon she notices an approaching male. She crosses the road to avoid the man, holding her keys in her hands in the event she needs to defend herself or she phones someone or pretends to do so. The approaching male is a perfectly decent and innocent person with no intention to harm anyone and is oblivious to the woman on the street. He would feel offended at the thought that someone might regard him as potentially harmful. But it is not the individual’s character that dictates the reaction in the woman. It is not the man himself but the fact that he is a man. The difficulty for the woman in this example is that she is unable to police the character or the intent or motivations of the approaching male. She is fearful of the risk presented in the knowledge of women’s experiences in life generally. Her reaction does not depend on personal experience, although of course it may be explained by this. The Tribunal is able to draw on its own experiences of life in recognising these fearful, defensive, precautionary traits in women in certain circumstances. They are not irrational reactions. On the contrary, they are entirely rational, based on the lived experiences of other women generally. Many women will feel anxious and may take extra precautions in what men might regard as normal situations.

Do you hear that, judge Kemp?

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:59

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 16/01/2026 13:53

I'm disappointed at this finding

Several women mentioned Rose's holey pants, the staring and the "aren't you getting changed?". While these actions didn't endanger the women, I think they are inappropriate in a workplace change room and were no doubt intimidating and possibly degrading. On the balance of probabilities it sounds to me like these behaviours did happen but obviously the panel chose to believe Rose over the women.

Show quote history

I think from what I've read so far, that the tribunal felt that the behaviours may have happened, but that the malice, or deliberate intimidation the nurses attributed to the behaviours were more to do with how the nurses felt about him being in the changing room, than they were about what Rose was actually doing.

So for example, they found that Rose probably did make eye contact with one of the nurses, but that wasn't intended to intimidate or cause discomfort. However the nurse who experienced it, did experience those feelings because she was already distressed about Rose being in the changing room in the first place.

I suspect that there actually was an element from Rose about being stubborn and a bit vindictive about being in the changing room, but there's nothing to prove that behaviour to the point that the Tribunal could point at it and say 'here's proof that Rose was being intimidating or vindictive'.

Quote from the judgement:

218 We have already addressed Lisa Lockey’s evidence on this issue (paragraph 200 - 201). We did not accept that Rose, in fact, gave her a long, direct look albeit we have no difficulty in finding that there was eye contact between her and Rose. Eye contact is a perfectly natural aspect of human interaction. It would be odd if people were expected not to make eye contact with each other and for us to find that there was none. We repeat our findings regarding Mrs Lockey already being uncomfortable with the presence of Rose in the changing room. In such circumstances, any eye contact is likely to be exaggerated in her mind and we find that is the case here.

MarieDeGournay · 16/01/2026 14:01

Sky News covered the nurses' press conf live. They were very impressive. One of the q [inaudible] seemed to be about how they would work with Rose in the future, they said they would be professional, the patients were the most important, etc. They also said that it wasn't personal against Rose - and referred to him as he/him throughout😄

lcakethereforeIam · 16/01/2026 14:01

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 16/01/2026 13:53

I'm disappointed at this finding

Several women mentioned Rose's holey pants, the staring and the "aren't you getting changed?". While these actions didn't endanger the women, I think they are inappropriate in a workplace change room and were no doubt intimidating and possibly degrading. On the balance of probabilities it sounds to me like these behaviours did happen but obviously the panel chose to believe Rose over the women.

Show quote history

While I would have liked to see Rose get the comeback he deserved I'm not too unhappy about this. Even if it wasn't Rose. If it was Anne Other tw, who wore sturdy pants, was discreet and totally respectful, this judgment kicks him out of the women's changing room too. If Rose's behaviour had been judged unacceptable then Anne could argue he could still get changed there.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 16/01/2026 14:01

Remind me: did Kemp mention anything about the FWS judgment, cos Sweeney raises it almost straight away; and says that he’ll ‘respectfully adopt the terminology of the SC’.

BunfightBetty · 16/01/2026 14:02

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 16/01/2026 13:58

Do you hear that, judge Kemp?

Show quote history

Hear hear!

Great to see this written so clearly into the judgement.

Datun · 16/01/2026 14:02

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:59

I think from what I've read so far, that the tribunal felt that the behaviours may have happened, but that the malice, or deliberate intimidation the nurses attributed to the behaviours were more to do with how the nurses felt about him being in the changing room, than they were about what Rose was actually doing.

So for example, they found that Rose probably did make eye contact with one of the nurses, but that wasn't intended to intimidate or cause discomfort. However the nurse who experienced it, did experience those feelings because she was already distressed about Rose being in the changing room in the first place.

I suspect that there actually was an element from Rose about being stubborn and a bit vindictive about being in the changing room, but there's nothing to prove that behaviour to the point that the Tribunal could point at it and say 'here's proof that Rose was being intimidating or vindictive'.

Quote from the judgement:

218 We have already addressed Lisa Lockey’s evidence on this issue (paragraph 200 - 201). We did not accept that Rose, in fact, gave her a long, direct look albeit we have no difficulty in finding that there was eye contact between her and Rose. Eye contact is a perfectly natural aspect of human interaction. It would be odd if people were expected not to make eye contact with each other and for us to find that there was none. We repeat our findings regarding Mrs Lockey already being uncomfortable with the presence of Rose in the changing room. In such circumstances, any eye contact is likely to be exaggerated in her mind and we find that is the case here.

Show quote history

Yeah I don't think there's a woman here who doesn't think he was getting off on it, on some level.

But proving it is another thing.

As they say, you can't forbid eye contact between people using the same changing room.

Fortunately, the entire eye contact shenanigans has now been pre-empted by him not being allowed in there at all.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 16/01/2026 14:03

lcakethereforeIam · 16/01/2026 14:01

While I would have liked to see Rose get the comeback he deserved I'm not too unhappy about this. Even if it wasn't Rose. If it was Anne Other tw, who wore sturdy pants, was discreet and totally respectful, this judgment kicks him out of the women's changing room too. If Rose's behaviour had been judged unacceptable then Anne could argue he could still get changed there.

Show quote history

Exactly. How the (trans identified) man behaves is irrelevant, really. His unwanted presence is enough.

Lilyfreedom · 16/01/2026 14:05

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 16/01/2026 14:03

Exactly. How the (trans identified) man behaves is irrelevant, really. His unwanted presence is enough.

Show quote history

Bad behaviour on the part of the man muddies the waters: the point is that even the most well-behaved chap needs to stay out of our spaces. I think the judgment does an excellent job of explaining how rational perception of risk is just as important as actual risk: a complete answer to the "but trans people are no threat to you" gang.

Chariothorses · 16/01/2026 14:05

There's some interesting initial legal analysis from - legal feminist and anyabike - on x- you can look it up here if not on x
nitter.poast.org/

Datun · 16/01/2026 14:07

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 16/01/2026 14:03

Exactly. How the (trans identified) man behaves is irrelevant, really. His unwanted presence is enough.

Show quote history

Exactly. what one doesn't want is a situation where an employer thinks a man can gain access, on the promise of good behaviour.

Or the nonsensical case-by-case bollocks.

This way, it's all and any man, full stop.

Makes it much easier to implement, too. Takes all the judgement out

DrPrunesqualer · 16/01/2026 14:07

katmarie · 16/01/2026 13:51

270 We accept – as does the Respondent – that women are more likely to have experienced sex-based harassment and sex-based violence than men. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this is so. The risk posed to women generally by this state of affairs causes a reaction in many women and leads them to adjust their own behaviour according to the circumstances. Women do not have to experience sex-based harassment or violence personally. The experiences of some women can and does have an impact on others. Depending on the circumstances, a woman might experience fear and distrust in the presence of a man even though, objectively, as a matter of fact, the man is an entirely innocent actor. We take an example that we can all recognise, of a woman walking alone on a street at night, whereupon she notices an approaching male. She crosses the road to avoid the man, holding her keys in her hands in the event she needs to defend herself or she phones someone or pretends to do so. The approaching male is a perfectly decent and innocent person with no intention to harm anyone and is oblivious to the woman on the street. He would feel offended at the thought that someone might regard him as potentially harmful. But it is not the individual’s character that dictates the reaction in the woman. It is not the man himself but the fact that he is a man. The difficulty for the woman in this example is that she is unable to police the character or the intent or motivations of the approaching male. She is fearful of the risk presented in the knowledge of women’s experiences in life generally. Her reaction does not depend on personal experience, although of course it may be explained by this. The Tribunal is able to draw on its own experiences of life in recognising these fearful, defensive, precautionary traits in women in certain circumstances. They are not irrational reactions. On the contrary, they are entirely rational, based on the lived experiences of other women generally. Many women will feel anxious and may take extra precautions in what men might regard as normal situations.

We’ve had exactly the same conversations here on the feminism threads
Exactly the same analogies and examples given by mumsnet.
I remember making the comment myself, with others, about the keys and women saying they crossed the road etc

Mumsnet is proving to be such a great voice for us.
< waves to judge and panel>

ArabellaScott · 16/01/2026 14:08

Lilyfreedom · 16/01/2026 11:55

From the summary, I think they have succeeded in the main. It is disappointing to lose in respect of Rose's conduct, but we want to keep men out of female spaces, however those men choose to behave once they have been granted access. So better this way round.

Much better.

Whether or not this Tribunal found Rose to be a creep, or the loveliest most sweet and vulnerable and well meaning 'transwoman' doesn't matter.

He's a man. He stays out.

ArabellaScott · 16/01/2026 14:10

MarieDeGournay · 16/01/2026 14:01

Sky News covered the nurses' press conf live. They were very impressive. One of the q [inaudible] seemed to be about how they would work with Rose in the future, they said they would be professional, the patients were the most important, etc. They also said that it wasn't personal against Rose - and referred to him as he/him throughout😄

Huge congratulations and thanks to all of these super brave women.

You shouldn't have had to go through this.

We are all in your debt.