"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

C4 also just referred to their ‘transgender colleague’ which is a cause of confusion as this could be a trans man.

Those scolders are unsurprisingly absent from this thread this afternoon! Can't think why that would be at all! 😀

Wow. Just watched Bethany Hutchinson on C4 news. She kept it short, sharp and succinct. Well done her!!

Poor C4 news having to face reality 😆

@FallenSloppyDead2 Thanks to all who forced that change. It’s important. Bethany held firm on C4 news too, despite the interviewer trying to make her feel bad for calling Rose a man. Language is so important, it feels like we’re slowly able to reclaim the language, thanks to those way braver than me who held firm during the wilderness days.

the verdict 'exposes the extent to which the NHS hierarchy has been captured by extreme gender ideology and its willingness to sacrifice women’s safety and dignity in order to uphold it'.

Is this not clear? I am not being snarky at all - I just really thought this was a great thing?

Thank you, it was having lost on some of the findings re Rose I had wondered about so great to get your legal insight. I also thought that it would likely be spun as petty if they did try to.

She really is a very good communicator.

As for the cost of sorting the mess out? How come the cost is the problem of women at all? It's the justification that's always dragged out. We can't safeguard women cos it's too expensive. Well how fucking expensive is it to take you to bloody court? Fuck off and sort it you spineless twats.

They hoped this would all go away in a haze of be kind/broaden your mindset with a dollop of ignore the hell out of it. In the words of St Ben of Cooper, it would be unkind of me to ask how that’s working out.

But the Sandie Peggie and Kelly rulings found differently so would they not also be quoted?

I wonder if Any Questions will cover this?

I don't drink, so I'm having a celebratory chinese instead. Crispy duck OD here I come!

I’m only half way through the judgment but I kept noting down the paragraph numbers I wanted to quote here/go back and savour later. After a while I had to go and get some more post-it notes.

Heroes may not always wear capes but sometimes they wear wigs and gowns. Judge Sweeney, I salute you.

You would quote a non-binding judgment as an illustration of reasoning the judge is likely to find convincing, eg quoting a foreign jurisdiction dealing with a similar issue. So you would have to be in desperate straits to quote Kemp. I doubt if even he would try it

I understand it was stayed for one of the nurses because she was ill.

All the extracts that have been posted here seem admirably clear. Bit like the SC! The panel have clearly done a thoroughly professional job.

In the case of the SP judgment, they would obvs have to only quote the accurate and non fictional bits. And I'm not sure the bits left over would be that much help.

I just wish they could correctly spell “Phoenix”! They keep spelling it “Pheonix” and it’s giving me a twitch.

That is the sort of thing that is suitable for a Slip Rule amendment....

It must be a great thing to be Judge Sweeney, knowing that your clarity and logic has to withstand the scrutiny of thousands of people you know nothing about, but be aware that the comparison with the spiteful fictions of Sandy Kemp inevitably turns you into the legal version of George Clooney. Good on you, Seamus, you wear your wisdom lightly.

Well this is very good news. The Emperor is perhaps not totally naked, but everyone has seen his holey boxers.

See a couple of months ago most of us would have gone "huh?" at that. But know thanks to Kemp we are all nodding along going "yep. Totally".

A few more years of this and we'll all be doing law degrees with a view to going into employment law!

To add to this discussion of the comparisons between the recent judgements,

Seamus uses the phrase of being “unsurprised” by Jo’s report and the feelings and fears of women in general about males being a risk or perceived risk.

he was unsurprised in his findings more than once.

He also had the balls to click on links to documents not before him, and presumably was pleased to discover he did not explode his brain.

I cannot help sensing that there is a side eye to the Kemp judgement, in the way this judgement was set out

or perhaps a judicial eye roll…

one can dream.

The attempted guilt tripping there was painfully unsubtle.

She says she’s notifying them, so they are likely to do that pretty quickly!

I am convinced he’s gently taking the piss out of Kemp