"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

Interesting too to compare how the two cases were run in court, timings, efficiency etc.

I was also disappointed 😁. However, I did catch Akua Reindorf being utterly brilliant on Times Radio earlier, being asked about the much delayed EHRC guidelines

Absolutely this. At last, it seems, sensible adults in the room. No room for any ambiguity or confusion now. Come on now, Bridget, speak up!

Fuck off and sort it you spineless twats.

The entire issue, from start to finish with every conceivable layer, from here to eternity - in a nutshell

The longer they ignore it, the louder the roar is going to get.

Honestly it's just pathetic at this point.

Stop pandering to a teeny tiny minority who scare the shit out of you or trying to prop up your utterly indefensible emotional neglect of your relative because you were too busy prioritising your career.

I love that the ruling says there are most likely countless more women in that department affected but it's perfectly understandable why they wouldn't want to speak out!

That was an extremely frustrating aspect of Big Sond's stupid view - "it was only her so what does it matter?"

I think we have established Big Sond is a dickhead. We are just waiting on a legal ruling that he's a dickhead.

This makes it far more likely.

Out of respect for Evan Davis not presenting PM on Radio 4 but possibly listening, they've gone for the option of ignoring this story beyond a brief mention of it in the headlines.

The judgement is one long intelligent and logical argument as to why biological males need to stay out of women’s spaces.

But why, just why does it have to be remarkable for a professional to demonstrate logic and comprehension of the key issues?

So many drive by scolders on FWR who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the bleeding obvious.

BBC1 headlines at 6pm said “objected to their transgender colleague” FFS man, just say the fucking word, man

Times article archive of an interview with Akua Reindorf:

https://archive.ph/Ry6Fr

But the social affairs editor who has just been on, nailed the key issues correctly. V pleased at that it is getting airtime by the BBC. About time.

Best they’ve done by far

Yes, we watched it. Alison Holt, wasn’t it?

Yes

It was good to hear Alison Holt mention the delay to the EHRC guidance being published. I hope Bridget Phillipson is feeling the pressure.

Please God that the tide is finally turning.

There is some evidence of improvement at the BBC, but they are still giving misleading intros and headlines ('objecting to transgender colleagues' makes the nurses sound like bigots), still using soft focus photos of the men and still up to their old tricks of activist wording in the body of articles until pulled up by enough women complaining.
Today's example of the latter was outrageous

Please do

Thanks all for the great updates and commentary all day. I'm about to watch the ch4 news. I wonder how they'll report it. I predict lots of sad faces and hand wringing.

Watching ITV news
why do they allow so called ‘advisors ‘ on that have no clue of the EA2010 or the Building regs

According to some transwomen advisor any one that wants a separate space should have it but ‘certain’ people should not be removed

How thick can you get that they still can’t comprehend plain English

The wholeITV news article felt biased

Any idea why it’s been stayed for one of the nurses? Or am I misunderstanding?

Question: would the nurses appeal in order to get it solidified as a precedent?

For anyone who missed it, this is the edit that the BBC made after women complained. I'm not sure which order the images will upload, but I'm confident that you can work out which version is Before, and which is After, the complaints😁

No. The findings re Rose are not appealable (in my view) and you cannot appeal something you agree with! I doubt the Trust will either, but we can only hope that they will be badly advised and choose to.

One comment I would make as a lawyer re the precedent value of this judgment: as others have noted, it has no precedent value at all. However, it will be quoted left right and centre in other cases as a proper statement of the applicable rules and principles in so far as workplace changing rooms are concerned. It is always helpful to have that articulated somewhere, even if not binding.