"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

@ProtectedlyInsufferable glad you said that as i think so too.

Thanks to all for the extracts and commentary. Haven't skimmed the judgement this time as being unusually productive (it won't last), so very grateful for the summaries. And thanks to the Darlington sheroes, should you be reading this. Fantastic news, and so clearly and convincingly expressed. It's such a relief to see it all laid out that way after years of verbal contortions and reality-denial. Like 1984 closing with a hopeful promise of change.

😁

Sorry, I cannot imagine anyone quoting either of them. Not unless they took a very big deep breath first ....

What a great day.

It’s a day ending in Y, after all.

I used to dutifully append IANAL to any comment on legal issues. My knowledge hasn't increased much from fuck all, but having witnessed the risible pish Sandy Kemp and Jane Russell et al came out with I no longer feel the law is something only high minded and super clever people can grasp.

Imagine being a KC and deliberately mispronouncing people's names like you're eight years old, ffs. In court!

“Risible pish” is a comment worthy of a legally qualified academic IMHO @ArabellaScott

I have a Phd in creative swears.

Absolutely. I’ve been saying this for about 8 years here. Safety and safeguarding are of course critically important, but proportionally TRAs make the argument that they are being unfairly “demonised” for the actions of other men, that attacks are rare, and it’s quite convincing to bystanders. Privacy and dignity and as we see, women’s own article 8 rights in that regard are less easy to handwave away.

The spin with the marginally less clueless TRAs now seems to be that this judgment is one of three (Kelly/Peggie/Darlington) and the other 2 went in their favour, so either this one is wrong or the Supreme Court judgment is because it’s too “confusing”. I think they know the privacy and dignity argument holes all their cases below the waterline, because whatever the facts of the case, it’s not reasonable to make women undress with men present. I’ve argued with male TRAs before about this and seriously this angle hadn’t even occurred to them, that their presence could be considered harassment in and of itself (though because Rose had permission, he isn’t considered to have harassed himself in this case). Darlington will have to look at changing their policy, I think, and Wes Streeting will have to take note, at the very least.

One thing that wasn’t asked during the tribunal was would have ‘Rose’ asked a man if he was going to get changed, and paraded around in holey boxers in the men’s changing room. I think not. This is a pity because it would have shown the sexual harassment clearly.

You are correct, thats why i think the judgement was tactical, with a pin hole focus on women's rights to privacy and dignity, acknowledging women’s heightened alertness from the risk of a male including at night, even where there is no real danger.

the judge brushed aside the possibility of Rose bad faith intentions and instead focussed on the nurses reasonable perceptions as to how he made them feel.

it side steps the argument that trans people who behave well are different from those that do not (ergo Peggie Kemp Judgement) it would muddy the waters.

Thank you to the Darlington nurses for pursuing this. Can we now go back to men in women’s spaces being not being accepted please.

Yes, good point. Because the intention is irrelevant at the end of the day. Just stay out.

This is the Ch4 interview referred to upthread

They interview some bloke from TransActual called Tammy Hymas who tries to smear the nurses because their case was supported by Christian Concern. I think he's a failed Labour Councillor.

I'm not 100% sure but I think the Ch4 woman avoids using pronouns for the fragrant Rose.

She looked like she'd swallowed a wasp! Good for Bethany, who didn't back down an inch.

From the end of the interview

... really important that clear guidance should be given to organisations ...

It has but the government has chosen to ignore it

The thumb screws are on for Phillipson IMHO

Never have I known a govt go on as much about rule of law as Labour, Starmer specifically, to then be so lax on, um, rule of law.

Particularly when Starmer is, ahem, a lawyer.

Snap! Celebrating with a Chinese takeaway tonight and toasting the amazing nurses with 0% beer as we’re doing dry January!

Fascinating in the C4 piece, the trans activist bemoaning the ruling, saying there is no clarity in the law and transgender individuals demand clarity.
I think we know that's coded language, and an implied threat to the Labour govt, Phillipson in particular, to roll out the official guidance to somehow prioritise trans in women's sex based spaces, and that there will be Hell to pay if she caves to the gender critical take.
Of course, that take is the take clearly laid out in the SC ruling, no ambiguity, and is encapsulated in the ECHR working advice to the govt.
With the Peggie and Darlington results, Phillipson is losing any cover she thought she might have had, her wiggle room is pretty much down to zero.

Well this is still going, I guess conversation got split over a couple of threads. Nevertheless, just a reminder that the continuation of this thread is at https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5476620-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-9

Ive only skimmed the discussion since this morning, busy day. Time to read the judgement and catch up on here tomorrow.

I’m very happy to continue on these sequential threads, @ThreeWordHarpy.

Thank you for the new thread, and I see that @SexRealistic has very helpfully posted up the link to the judgement, so it’s all good to go.

Very insightful comment

Depends on why they are quoting them?

Kemp has been so roundly disgraced it will be a brave judge or lawyer that wants to risk any quote surely?

More likely quoting to expose the idiocy