Darlington nurses win their employment tribunal

[Lovelyview]

https://christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/victory-for-darlington-nurses-as-judge-rules-policy-that-allows-men-into-womens-changing-rooms-is-unlawful-harassment-and-discrimination/

Brilliant news!

I've just spotted this, WFTCHTJ - I saw the press review but unfortunately the subtitles were a bit wonky but between what I could hear and what I could read, I recall that B Spence made the point that it was odd that these men who claim to be women barge their way uninvited into women's spaces and demand their rights [hitting the desk with his fist] with no regard for anyone else, in what is a stereotypical male way. Other insightful stuff too.

I was interested in what the other reviewer had to say - a journalist called Susie? Boniface. I've never noticed her being particularly GCish when I've seen her in the past - not pro-genderwoo either, in fairness. Not like the wonderful Sonia Sodha who often does the press review on Sky, who is always so calm and articulate in defending women's rights

She obviously didn't have a lot to say on the subject [afraid of repercussions?] but said that everybody has rights, but your rights are limited at the point where they impinge on other people's. It was a bit cryptic, but it was obvious that she meant that trans rights shouldn't override women's rides.

It was unusual to have both reviewers, who are often picked to give two different takes, in agreement on this being 'a victory for common sense'.

On reflection, it was a shame that one of the reviewers wasn't a trans ally, it would have been interesting to see them arguing in favour of Rose!

So good old Rose could have danced around the changing room naked kicking puppies for all they know, Unison still support him and his non existent “right” to invade our spaces.

Sincerely hope she or her representatives get to put that POV forward in a tribunal or other court case.

A toxic melange of her digging her fingers so deep into her ears she hits grey matter, with "I'll scream and scream until I'm sick!"

How can Unison promote something contrary to law, doesn’t it up the chances of their members running into a legal issue?

Flip a coin
law >>> feelz
Best of three
law >>> feelz
law >>> feelz
Best of five
law >>> feelz
law >>> feelz
law >>> feelz
So, Unison, Labour, Good Laugh Project etc, how much longer do you want to keep going?

If there advice is still yes you can use that space how does that even work? It ends up in court

I suppose at some point the law will be aimed at the unions

What's especially worrying about this is that she has no notion of how this makes her look, which just speaks to the bubble she operates in.

You'd think!

Clearly the ideology trumps all that.

They could but it should be in the context of ‘we wish to change the law on this’. For example: ‘we at unison intend to campaign to change the law to force all female employees to strip off in front of their male colleagues if the male colleagues wishes it’.

Dickheads!

Not sure if this has been posted:

The Darlington nurses’ trans row proves self-righteous union bosses have no interest in protecting their female front-line staff
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/19/britain-unions-captured-insane-middle-class-gender-ideology/

Can be read in full at https://archive.is/ZjDpR

Thank you for sharing that. Several excellent points, and this:

HR departments are circle jerks of self-righteous fools who write policy for each other without understanding the law or having any conception of competing rights.

Sadly, that's not opinion, it's hard, proven fact. In court, in several cases. Witnessed and recorded.

'Writing policy for each other', indeed a circle jerk of competitive virtue signalling, and not writing or caring about at all the actual people their post was ever imagined or created for in the first place.

These NHS HR people are not professionals. They are less use than telephone sanitisers.

From the judgment (my underline):

121. Ms Bailey spoke to someone at the South Tyneside Trust who told her that its policy had been through their solicitors who confirmed that it was in line with current legislation and guidance. At the time Ms Bailey was not aware of the content of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. She became aware of these at some point in time. It is more likely than not that this was after proceedings in this case had commenced. She was not alone. Mr Thacker did not become aware of them until March 2025. When he read them, he understood two things: firstly, that they provided for single sex changing facilities for men and women and secondly that they were binding on the Trust as an employer’s obligations in the workplace. The Trust’s TIW policy had been drafted and reviewed in ignorance of these Regulations.

had been through their solicitors

I constantly see this and grimly laugh. My brother is a solicitor. He wouldn’t do the conveyancing on our house as he knows nothing about conveyancing, or write our wills as he knows nothing about that. He certainly wouldn’t defend me in court if I were arrested. Solicitors are specialists and it is likely that your average inhouse NHS solicitor mostly specialises in contracts with various suppliers. If I asked him to look over something not his area (as a relative, not a client - clients he would direct to the appropriate colleague) he would read it though to make sure it sounds like it made sense but would know nothing of the legal requirements of that area.

Also (I think) because Rose was not the duty bearer or employer.

im glad they can’t claim the policy was fine but “some women are creeps”, at least.

A good friend of mine is a Unison rep. I mentioned the Darlington case before the judgement. I requoted Rose as saying something like “Aren’t you going to get changed yet?” which she repeated and seemed to have taken in as a bad thing.

Unfortunately that aspect didn’t appear in the judgement.

I normally see her in an online hobby group at least one of whom is non-binary, so I don’t like to bring up the subject there. I saw her several times last week, in person at a different shared hobby. The Unison statement hadn’t come out then: I must find another opportunity.

Yet another example that seems to show that "socialists" really hate women.

https://socialistworker.co.uk/lgbt/fight-to-defend-trans-rights-in-workplaces-after-tribunal-ruling/

Thanks for the link, but I read the first lines of the article and gagged, so I didn't get very far.
The anti-women protestors that turned up at the Senedd on the Day 199 protest, were sponsored by the Socialist Workers Party. They had 3 minders there giving out the placards, they'd been re-identified from another protest, you could read the original message on the back. 😂 Revolution on a shoestring.

I love to know what exactly the SWP are getting out of this, why they're supporting/funding so many protests

As far as I can make out the SWP does not actual political work itself, but turns up at demos organised by other people with enough placards to make it look like they are the organisers.

They are the sort of cuckoos of left wing politics.

Why do they do it? Some sort of strange male bonding?

Dont forget this is what they grew out of. ie Remember Comrade Delta
https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2014/05/comrades-war-decline-and-fall-socialist-workers-party

TRAs are so sucessful because they exist on the long standing anti woman politics of MRAs. If the MRAs weren't still the dominant culture in the UK (and elsewhere) the TRAs anti woman politics would not have been so quickly taken up and promoted.

Anyone wanting a palate cleanser, have a read of some Morning Star coverage on gender issues. Proper structural analysis. This from October is good, directly critical of the Scottish TUCs stance on women's sex based rights.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/road-ruin

I too would like to know who's funding the SWP on this one.

What a contrast with the SWP. Very reasoned and calm.

Not a mention of women's rights from the SWP, I hope their female members are cancelling their subscriptions.

Folx on a placard. That's not going to make 93.67% of the population go, "Er, what?" and disengage immediately, is it?