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

[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)
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 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

On the other hand there were the Sandie Peggie and Maria Kelly verdicts, which went the other way. Hopefully they'll get it right on appeal though.

I was wondering if the face this is an English tribunal, rather than a Scottish one, might swing it re the Brighton School's potential legal advice.

I may be misremembering, but I think that the nurses’ evidence regarding Rose’s behaviour was weak. I am not saying that I don’t believe their claims but the problem was that some of it was hearsay and where a nurse was giving evidence about her own direct experience with Rose there was no additional supporting witness evidence so it was ‘he said, she said’.

Additionally it was often the nurses interpretation of Rose’s actions ( and I think some of it was absolutely correct) but that is hard to prove. If Kemp had written this judgement he would have condemned the nurses and dismiss them as individuals as being unreliable witnesses but Sweeney has not done that.

I am sooo pleased.

I was not suprised at the parts of the complaints were dismissed because the evidence was weak and woolly. However the judge covers the issues of perceptions and them not being unreasonable.

Still working my way through the judgement.

wims here are doing a grand job of the highlights.

I think this judgement stands out for its clarity, and makes the other two look weak - esp the SP one obvs! It is well written and eminently quotable.
For those reasons, it hopefully will have more general impact.

The nurses themselves are great public representatives, their press conference today was so well done - confident, relaxed and very diplomatic, and the fact that it is being broadcast unfiltered to the general public is important.

I think the whole judgement is a masterclass in clear, direct and straightforward writing, even when getting into the questions of law. Such a contrast from the Peggie judgement.

As an observation, the BBC report has now changed the photo of 'Rose' they are using to an even more blurry one! Can't tell you how much I detest the BBC fraudsters for constantly trying to lie/ blur reality that men who lie they are women remain so clearly blokes in nearly every case . They would never use a blurry photo like this anywhere else!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jv9l5n32zo

And the Bethany Hutchison quote has changed again...

'She said women deserved access to single-sex spaces "without fear or intimidation" and the trust's policy had been "degrading" and "dangerous".'

Still a big ol' obviously male lummox, mind.

Yes @BettyBooper - the fact fact men remain men, including if they lie they are women, and all men are the same risk to womens' privacy, dignity and safety, are the facts BBC trans bias and activists never want said!

I long for the day when facts, accuracy- and the fact women are people of equal value to men in dresses and deserving of human rights - are respected by BBC staff.

"Whether Rose ought to have had more insight into the effect on female colleagues of having to change to their underwear in the presence of a biological male is another matter."

I love this. It basically says that if Rose really WAS a woman, he would have had that insight.

https://archive.ph/gq5dd

Bbc article.

Generally, please archive BBC articles if you can. They are constantly tweaked and changed, and sometimes its useful to have the changes recorded.

Just copy the link into the box at archive.ph and hit archive.

Hm. Its possible he has plenty insight.

Indeedy

They would need to do it before they go bust, and that might not be long

This judgment has made me so happy!

All these men know most women don't want to get undressed in front of them- it's part of the thrill of AGP for many, as Naomi Cunningham has started alluding to in her legal cases.

Fascinating and disturbing in equal measures to see in real time how oh so subtle changes in the words chosen to represent a situation can convey such different meanings and guide the reader to adopt polar opposite views.

The fact that the nurses did not name "Rose" as a 2nd respondent (unlike Beth/Theo Upton in the Sandie Peggie case) suggests to me that they knew that any case against him personally would be weak? I have not read the full judgement yet - I'm saving that for this evening, with a celebratory glass of wine - but I haven't seen any mention yet of "Rose's" perambulations around the wards where the nurses just happened to be working and where he had no business being.

I think it strengthened the case by not having more than one defendant. They got to talk about Rose, but really, that was blaming the trust.

I also think they've been more compassionate towards Rose in their 'post match interviews' than Rose deserves. Classy.

443. 'We do consider the Claimants’ article 8 rights to be engaged in this case. They were provided with no effective choice of where to change their clothes. By introducing a biological male into the female changing room – the only space made available to them, this infringed on their rights to privacy and bodily autonomy. The Trust, as a public body interfered with that right. That interference may only be lawful interference if it is prescribed by domestic law. In the circumstances of this case, the Trust was in breach of domestic law, under regulation 24 of the 1992 Regulations. There was no pressing social need for Rose to be accommodated in the female changing room. Given the respective numbers of transgender staff and biological female staff, Rose could reasonably and feasibly have been provided with alternative facilities, unlike the Claimants and others who had expressed their discomfort.'

'Mr Cheetham’s submission amounts, in substance, to an argument that
Rose had and has a right to use the female changing room if Rose so wishes and
that if the Trust had instead provided Rose with separate, dignified alternatives and
limited access to the female changing room to biological females, that this would
have infringed Rose’s right to private life. We reject this. It is no more than saying
because Rose is transgender Rose has a right to use whichever changing room
Rose chooses.'

😁

Judgment neatly refrains from using feminine pronouns for Rose, throughout.

I was about to make a complaint to BBC, went back to the online article I read and it didn’t mention the bit about “transgender colleague”, so perhaps not all the BBC, cannot believe Im typing that! But I have to hope there are some sane journalists in the BBC.