The Durham and Darlington NHS Trust has just forked out -u187,000 in
damages to a group of nurses whom it forced to share a changing room
with a man who pretended to be a woman. In addition, the Trust has a
legal bill of -u600,000 for its own expenses and will have to cover the legal costs of the nurses, which are likely to be as much again.
Unfortunately, the old adage "go woke, go broke" will not apply in this case. Instead of the persons responsible for this policy being forced to
pay for their vicious stupidity, the money will come out of Trust funds (either directly or through increased legal insurance costs) which means that patients are the ones who will suffer.
The Trust has been forced to abandon its "Transitioning in the
Workplace" policy which claimed that it was designed to "create a safe
and productive workplace environment for all". In fact it destroyed the
safe and productive environment for women in favour of catering to the
sick fantasies of a single man who claimed to be a woman.
Ridiculously, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has brought charges of misconduct against four of the nurses - they are guilty of "hate crime".
We can but hope that the woke Council will look at how much such an
attitude has cost Durham and Darlington Trust and decide that being
trendy is a bit too expensive a pastime to be worth pursuing.
Or perhaps they can look at the Good Book and remember that when God
made humans "male and female created He them" - not 197 genders (or
whatever the latest figure is) but just two.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The problem with your post is that these are not your real reasons. I imagine that you don't give a damn about the 4 nurses, and are only a
bit more worried about the NHS wasting money.
You are anti-trans for honestly held religious reasons. That is aI advanced both because both are relevant.
position that a person can decently and logically hold. So, why advance other reasons?
On 26/06/2026 17:20, GB wrote:
The problem with your post is that these are not your real reasons. I
imagine that you don't give a damn about the 4 nurses, and are only a
bit more worried about the NHS wasting money.
On the contrary, I feel deep sympathy for these women forced to undress
and dress in front of a bearded man - and then threatened with wholly
bogus claims of "hate crime" just because they protested. If the
government is serious about reforming the NHS, its first step should be
to sack everyone who is not medical, maintenance or cleaning staff.
There would be fewer dead babies, for instance, if those mis-managers
had all be sacked ten years ago.
You are anti-trans for honestly held religious reasons. That is aI advanced both because both are relevant.
position that a person can decently and logically hold. So, why
advance other reasons?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
And you couldn't re-recruit them, because you've sacked HR.
On 26/06/2026 17:20, GB wrote:
The problem with your post is that these are not your real reasons. I
imagine that you don't give a damn about the 4 nurses, and are only a
bit more worried about the NHS wasting money.
On the contrary, I feel deep sympathy for these women forced to undress
and dress in front of a bearded man - and then threatened with wholly
bogus claims of "hate crime" just because they protested. If the
government is serious about reforming the NHS, its first step should be
to sack everyone who is not medical, maintenance or cleaning staff.
There would be fewer dead babies, for instance, if those mis-managers
had all be sacked ten years ago.
I was staying out of this thread but where is your evidence that the
nurses were force to change in front of a bearded man?-a In the pictures I've seen, Rose Henderson is unbearded.
But I thought you would be in total support of a bearded person being in
a female changing room if they were a trans man, after all they would be biologically female.
On 28/06/2026 13:28, John wrote:
I was staying out of this thread but where is your evidence that the
nurses were force to change in front of a bearded man?-a In the
pictures I've seen, Rose Henderson is unbearded.
I decline to comment about your hormone levels, but I can assure you
that at the end of a long shift I am distinctly bearded, even if clean- shaven at the start.
But I thought you would be in total support of a bearded person being
in a female changing room if they were a trans man, after all they
would be biologically female.
I suggest you try and keep up with the news as reported in the national press. Doing so would save you embarrassing yourself with foolish comments.
It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself are insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using aI have no idea how the nurses would have reacted. Possibly they would
female changing room.-a I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
that were the situation and not a trans woman.
On 29/06/2026 09:26, John wrote:
It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself areI have no idea how the nurses would have reacted. Possibly they would
insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their
biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using a
female changing room.-a I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
that were the situation and not a trans woman.
have been equally uncomfortable, but perhaps you would care to explain
why the rights of one person who is mentally ill should override the
rights of many perfectly normal people?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The mentally ill ones are the ones making a heck of a fuss about
nothing? Is that your point?
Actually, it's not a fuss about nothing. It's an opportunity to weep crocodile tears and get lots of compo.Again, despicable.
On 29/06/2026 09:26, John wrote:
It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself are
insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their
biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using a
female changing room.-a I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
that were the situation and not a trans woman.
I have no idea how the nurses would have reacted. Possibly they would
have been equally uncomfortable, but perhaps you would care to explain
why the rights of one person who is mentally ill should override the
rights of many perfectly normal people?
On 30/06/2026 06:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 29/06/2026 09:26, John wrote:
It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself are
insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their
biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using a
female changing room. I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
that were the situation and not a trans woman.
I have no idea how the nurses would have reacted. Possibly they would
have been equally uncomfortable, but perhaps you would care to explain
why the rights of one person who is mentally ill should override the rights of many perfectly normal people?
Does the NHS recognise transgenderism as a mental illness?
Does the NHS recognise transgenderism as a mental illness?What does that have to do with anything? Many things are not recognised
On 01/07/2026 12:19, John wrote:
Does the NHS recognise transgenderism as a mental illness?
What does that have to do with anything? Many things are not recognised
as mental illnesses until well down the line. The definition of mental illness is constantly being updated (and not always for the better.
After all, at one time homosexuality was considered a mental illness!)
Transgenderism isn't exactly new. Surgery was first performed in 1930,Lobotomies were also performed back in the 1930s. Does that somehow
so your claim that it's a mental illness is an opinion, somehow stated
as fact.
On 30/06/2026 14:55, GB wrote:
The mentally ill ones are the ones making a heck of a fuss about
nothing? Is that your point?
It says a lot about you that you can describe women being forced to
undress in front of a man as "a fuss about nothing". That is a
despicable comment that only a man would make.
I presume you would be
delighted to undress in front of women and flaunt yourself at them,
but
women - apart from professionals who are paid for doing so - do not want
to undress in front of men.
Actually, it's not a fuss about nothing. It's an opportunity to weepAgain, despicable.
crocodile tears and get lots of compo.
Kendall K. Down
It's not at all despicable. People have different ideas of prudishness.
I'm quite sure half the women complaining walk around swimming pools in bikinis, which is more undressed than they are in a work changing room.
If they are nurses, they must be very very familiar with seeing men undressed.
I presume you would be delighted to undress in front of women and
flaunt yourself at them,
Now, that IS a despicable comment. You should be ashamed of yourself - particularly as a moderator.
Have you not heard of naturism? It's not everyone's thing, but it's perfectly natural and normal.
Nothing made them sue the health authority except pure greed.
On 02/07/2026 12:29, GB wrote:
It's not at all despicable. People have different ideas of
prudishness. I'm quite sure half the women complaining walk around
swimming pools in bikinis, which is more undressed than they are in a
work changing room. If they are nurses, they must be very very
familiar with seeing men undressed.
While it is true that people have different ideas, the fact is that
these women felt uncomfortable about undressing in front of a man. Are
you saying that they should be penalised for their particular feelings?
That they *must* undress because *you* think they should.
I presume you would be delighted to undress in front of women and
flaunt yourself at them,
Now, that IS a despicable comment. You should be ashamed of yourself -
particularly as a moderator.
So why is it ok for you to demand that women undress in front of a man
but oh so terrible when I suggest that you should undress in front of
women? This wouldn't be the famous double-standard, would it?
Have you not heard of naturism? It's not everyone's thing, but it's
perfectly natural and normal.
Again, it's not everyone's thing - but you are demanding that women who
are upset should be forced to have your attitude. You, *as a man* are demanding that women should do something that you personally are happy doing.
Nothing made them sue the health authority except pure greed.
Rubbish. They sued the health authority 1) to ensure that they were
given a women-only space (as is their right), and 2) on behalf of all
women everywhere who face similar situations.
It is not just one health
authority which is ignoring common sense and legal rulings.
And before you go bleating about how dreadful it is that the health authority has been dunned for a large amount of money, a) the health authority could have avoided the whole thing by listening to the women
and taking action immediately instead of insisting on following its woke agenda
pay these damages. They should be taken out of the individual salaries
of all those responsible for this disgraceful policy. Every board member
who voted to allow men into female changing rooms should have to fork
out to cover the cost. It's easy to be woke and illegal when you know
that you, personally, will not suffer any consequences.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
*IF* it had been a matter of principal, they could have waived the compensation or given it to charity. Did they?
You accused me of wishing to flaunt myself naked in front of women. It's
an outrageous thing to say, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I'm not demanding anything. I'm saying these women almost certainly exaggerated their true feelings. As nurses they must have seen men
undressed many, many times. Nakedness goes with the job. Besides which
there are cubicles for changing, etc.
And, they selflessly pocketed a very large amount of cash. Very decent
of them.
The COA ruling came much more recently.
The health authority followed what they thought the law was. The COA
ruling effectively changed the law, thus wrong-footing them.
It's got nothing to do with woke, and everything to do with the law
being unclear at the time. It's now been clarified.
In practice, I think the NHS was either going to get sued by the
transgender folk or the bigots. As it happens, the bigots got in first.
On 04/07/2026 10:34, GB wrote:
*IF* it had been a matter of principal, they could have waived the
compensation or given it to charity. Did they?
They might have done that - but why should they? They suffered real embarrassment over the presence of this man in their private space, why should they not be compensated?
You accused me of wishing to flaunt myself naked in front of women.
It's an outrageous thing to say, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Yet you seemed to feel it was quite all right for this man to do the
same in front of the women. If it is outrageous for me to suggest it, it
is even more outrageous for him to do it!
I'm not demanding anything. I'm saying these women almost certainly
exaggerated their true feelings. As nurses they must have seen men
undressed many, many times. Nakedness goes with the job. Besides which
there are cubicles for changing, etc.
I don't know the set-up in that particular space, whether there were cubicles or not.
To see male patients in a state of undress is one thing; to be forced to undress in front of a man who is also undressing, is an entirely
different thing.
And, they selflessly pocketed a very large amount of cash. Very decent
of them.
As I said, why should they not? It might have been a nice gesture if
they had done so, but there was no legal or moral duty for them to
refuse the money.
The COA ruling came much more recently.
Even if your time-line is correct, the Trust could have apologised and stopped fighting the case as soon as it was clear that they were wrong.
The health authority followed what they thought the law was. The COA
ruling effectively changed the law, thus wrong-footing them.
If the law was ambiguous, the health authority could have applied that
rare article, common sense. Instead it chose to come down on the side of woke.
It's got nothing to do with woke, and everything to do with the law
being unclear at the time. It's now been clarified.
No one except the woke brigade found the law at all unclear.
Women have
a right to women-only spaces, a right not to be forced to perform
intimate acts in front of men. Nothing unclear at all - unless you are a woke Pooh Bear.
In practice, I think the NHS was either going to get sued by the
transgender folk or the bigots. As it happens, the bigots got in first.
A pity they didn't think of standing on the principle of common sense.
It doesn't take a legal genius to know that XY chromosomes are male and
XX are female, no matter what clothes you wear or what bizarre claims
you make about yourself.
Is it really so outrageous to expect that a health authority will act according to science?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I dispute that they suffered anything. *Some* women might have, but
anyone working as a nurse must be inured to that sort of thing.
There is some evidence that one or two of these nurses didn't get on
with that particular doctor.
Ghastly people, but what can you do? I expect some of them were
committed Christians.
You turned possible stubble (unlikely but possible) into a beard. Now, you're turning someone getting changed for work into 'flaunting'. It's
your MO. You grossly exaggerate in order to make a very poor point. In
this case, you have pretty much accused the good doctor (and me!) of a
sex crime.
We also don't know how many alternative changing spaces were available,
etc.
You mean once the Supreme Court had changed (well, reinterpreted) the
law. Of course, they stopped at that point.
They followed the guidance at the time. It would not have been common
sense to do otherwise.
Bertrand Russell: rCLThe whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full
of doubts.rCY
What the Supreme Court did was rule that the good Dr was (for one
specific piece of law) not to be treated as a woman. Despite, speaking
from memory, the Dr having a gender reassignment certificate.
You'll have to explain why it's common sense to ignore a GRC.
The law is complex, which is why it took a Supreme Court
judgement to change it.
It doesn't take a legal genius to know that XY chromosomes are male
and XX are female, no matter what clothes you wear or what bizarre
claims you make about yourself.
That's true, but irrelevant as it ignores the complexity of the law.
On 06/07/2026 11:02, GB wrote:
I dispute that they suffered anything. *Some* women might have, but
anyone working as a nurse must be inured to that sort of thing.
What? Inured to undressing in front of men? Have you talked to your wife
- or are you so misogynistic that women's opinions don't matter?
There is some evidence that one or two of these nurses didn't get on
with that particular doctor.
I've not heard that before.
Ghastly people, but what can you do? I expect some of them were
committed Christians.
All of them were women.
You turned possible stubble (unlikely but possible) into a beard. Now,
you're turning someone getting changed for work into 'flaunting'. It's
your MO. You grossly exaggerate in order to make a very poor point. In
this case, you have pretty much accused the good doctor (and me!) of a
sex crime.
Your insensitive attitude towards women is a sex crime, even if it is
not on the statute book yet. Is this the way you treat your wife? Do you have daughters? (For their sakes, I hope not.)
We also don't know how many alternative changing spaces were
available, etc.
Which this doctor could have used without upsetting anyone.
You mean once the Supreme Court had changed (well, reinterpreted) the
law. Of course, they stopped at that point.
The Supreme Court changed nothing. It merely recognised the biological
fact that a man is a man, no matter what clothing he wears or what silly claims he makes about himself.
They followed the guidance at the time. It would not have been common
sense to do otherwise.
Nonsense. No one with common sense has ever doubted that men are men and women are women.
What the Supreme Court did was rule that the good Dr was (for one
specific piece of law) not to be treated as a woman. Despite, speaking
from memory, the Dr having a gender reassignment certificate.
How does a piece of paper nullify the fact that his genes were clearly XY?
You'll have to explain why it's common sense to ignore a GRC.
Only a fool would think that a piece of paper changed a person's sex.
It doesn't take a legal genius to know that XY chromosomes are male
and XX are female, no matter what clothes you wear or what bizarre
claims you make about yourself.
That's true, but irrelevant as it ignores the complexity of the law.
The only complexity about the the law was that woke idiots interpreted
it to mean what its authors never intended.
On 06/07/2026 11:02, GB wrote:
Wow!! At the very least you need to calm down and apologise to GB, thatYou turned possible stubble (unlikely but possible) into a beard. Now,
you're turning someone getting changed for work into 'flaunting'. It's
your MO. You grossly exaggerate in order to make a very poor point. In
this case, you have pretty much accused the good doctor (and me!) of a
sex crime.
Your insensitive attitude towards women is a sex crime, even if it is
not on the statute book yet. Is this the way you treat your wife? Do you have daughters? (For their sakes, I hope not.)
So far, you've called me a sex criminal and a misogynist. Do you want to
get any other unpleasantnesses off your chest before we continue?
You should read the news! (Here's a hint: you won't find it in the DM.)
Actually, that was never explored at trial, although you may well be
right. :)
An absolutely lovely lady has been kind enough to be my companion for 48 years. Neither she nor our DD has ever accused me of misogyny.
Indeed. Or, the complaining ladies. But, then they'd have had no compo.
In general, people these days are far, far too concerned about their
rights, and not nearly concerned enough about their obligations. (You
might even agree about that!)
We all have an obligation to deal kindly and respectfully with our
fellow human beings. With a bit of kindness and consideration (all
round), this could have been sorted out.
Instead the nurses chose to bully the doctor and reduce her to tears.
The Supreme Court changed nothing. It merely recognised the biological
fact that a man is a man, no matter what clothing he wears or what
silly claims he makes about himself.
You once again are just completely wrong.
Pieces of paper are important. The bible consists of lots of them
stitched together.
You'll have to explain why it's common sense to ignore a GRC.
Only a fool would think that a piece of paper changed a person's sex.
Only a fool would break the law.
Have you read a single word of the SC judgement?Only what is reported in the media.
Wow!!-a At the very least you need to calm down and apologise to GB, that
is totally uncalled for.
On 06/07/2026 20:49, John wrote:
Wow!!-a At the very least you need to calm down and apologise to GB,
that is totally uncalled for.
GB has displayed a level of insensitivity towards women and their
feelings that I find astounding and apalling. It's the sort of stuff an incel might spout. The incel claims that women should be forced to have
sex with any man who wants it, GD claims that women should get undressed
in front of any man who wants to watch.
GB claimed no such thing. He was specifically referring to the case in Darlington.-a Bear in mind that the doctor had been using this changing
room for 4 years without incident.-a The changing room is used by 300 employees, less than 10% also raised objections after the nurse at the centre of this case raised her objections in 2023.
You've also repeated the claim (in the other thread) that Rose Henderson
was voyeuristic and harrassed the nurses.-a I pointed out to you this was untrue, so why repeat it?
The Employment Tribunal concluded that Rose Henderson had not personally engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment within the definition of section 26 and had not victimised the claimants. The Tribunal also
rejected the claim that the Trust had victimised the claimants
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2501192-24-Press-summary-of-decision.pdf
On 06/07/2026 13:49, GB wrote:
So far, you've called me a sex criminal and a misogynist. Do you want
to get any other unpleasantnesses off your chest before we continue?
Try to look at things from the female point of view instead of your
current "lad's" perspective.
You should read the news! (Here's a hint: you won't find it in the DM.)
Possibly because it is a scurrilous rumour rather than fact.
Actually, that was never explored at trial, although you may well be
right. :)
I'm pretty sure that I am right. You don't need trials or certificates
when you are actually a woman.
An absolutely lovely lady has been kind enough to be my companion for
48 years. Neither she nor our DD has ever accused me of misogyny.
I can only assume that you do not insist that either of them undresses
in front of unrelated men.
Indeed. Or, the complaining ladies. But, then they'd have had no compo.
The ladies were in the female changing room. Why should they be expected
to go elsewhere?
In general, people these days are far, far too concerned about their
rights, and not nearly concerned enough about their obligations. (You
might even agree about that!)
Yes, I do agree about that, though we might differ on what constitutes
an obligation.
We all have an obligation to deal kindly and respectfully with our
fellow human beings. With a bit of kindness and consideration (all
round), this could have been sorted out.
Certainly. The man could have changed in his office or chosen a time
when women were not in the room.
Instead the nurses chose to bully the doctor and reduce her to tears.
In fact, as the court case showed, it was the man who was bullying the
women by insisting on his "right" to undress in front of them and engage
in voyeurism when they were undressing.
The Supreme Court changed nothing. It merely recognised the
biological fact that a man is a man, no matter what clothing he wears
or what silly claims he makes about himself.
You once again are just completely wrong.
Completely wrong for agreeing with the Supreme Court that a man is a man?
Pieces of paper are important. The bible consists of lots of them
stitched together.
But nowhere in the Bible does it say that black is white or that a man
is a woman.
You'll have to explain why it's common sense to ignore a GRC.
Only a fool would think that a piece of paper changed a person's sex.
Only a fool would break the law.
If a law is stupid or wrong or evil - which this law was if your interpretation of it is correct (the Supreme Court disagrees, of course) then it is the duty of good citizens to break the law.
Have you read a single word of the SC judgement?Only what is reported in the media.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I have now read the judgement whose URL was posted by John. It is ratherHave you read a single word of the SC judgement?
Only what is reported in the media.
I haven't got time to deal with this today. I'll try to revisit this
thread another day.
On 07/07/2026 13:51, John wrote:
GB claimed no such thing. He was specifically referring to the case in
Darlington.-a Bear in mind that the doctor had been using this changing
room for 4 years without incident.-a The changing room is used by 300
employees, less than 10% also raised objections after the nurse at the
centre of this case raised her objections in 2023.
The fact that 300 said nothing merely proves that they were afraid to
speak out for fear of being victimised in some way for standing up
against the woke brigade. I admire the courage of the woman who stood up
for women's rights.
It's like the Lucy Letby case. I am aware of medical staff at the
Countess Hospital who are convinced the Lucy is innocent and was framed
as a scapegoat to avoid investigation into the chronic understaffing and mismanagement of the maternity wards, but they openly admit that they
dare not speak out for fear of losing their jobs or even being banned
from the profession.
You've also repeated the claim (in the other thread) that Rose
Henderson was voyeuristic and harrassed the nurses.-a I pointed out to
you this was untrue, so why repeat it?
A man who insists on using women's changing rooms does not need to do
any specific act to be guilty of harrassment. The mere fact of his
presence is harrassment.
The Employment Tribunal concluded that Rose Henderson had not personally
engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment within the definition
of section 26 and had not victimised the claimants. The Tribunal also
rejected the claim that the Trust had victimised the claimants
Thank you for posting the URL. I was interested in the following:
"The claimants also claimed that by accessing the changing room and by behaving in a certain way inside and outside the changing room, Rose too subjected them to harassment."
There are no details given of what this behaving in a "certain way"
might have been, but clearly the objection was to more than just this
man's presence
"Finally, the claimants claimed that the Trust subjected them to
indirect sex discrimination by (1) giving staff access to single-sex changing rooms based on self-declared gender identity and (2)
prioritising the rights of transgender employees to access changing facilities based on their self-declared gender identity over other employeesrCO right not to have to change in front of a member of the opposite sex."
In other words, the Trust did not give the women equal rights, but gave priority to the supposed rights of this man.
"They contended that the TrustrCOs PCPs put women to a particular disadvantage when compared to men, the disadvantage being that women are more likely to suffer fear, distress and/or humiliation caused by being compelled to undress in front of a member of the opposite biological-a sex." This is the point that I made to GB and which he, with his male-
orientated viewpoint, refuses to accept. We might think that women are
being "silly" over the matter, but the fact remains that it is a pretty general reaction.
And with regard to your final sentence above, you are being economical
with the truth.
"he Tribunal upheld parts of the complaint of harassment against the
Trust, namely:" and further, "The Tribunal also upheld the complaint of indirect sex discrimination, in that:"
In particular, the tribunal noted:
"by ... requiring the Claimants to share that changing room without providing suitable alternative facilities".
Another way in which the women were discriminated against was by
"referring to the need for the claimants to be educated on trans rights
and to broaden their mindsets". In other words, the woke managers did
not take the complaints seriously and merely accused the women of
bigotry (rather as GB has done!)
Finally:
"The Tribunal concluded that, by permitting a biological male, trans
woman to use the female changing room, the Trust was in breach of the Workplace Case Number: 2501192/2024 & others 4 (Health, Safety and
Welfare) Regulations 1992 (paras 309; 370-373; 381; 430-436, 440) and
had infringed the claimantsrCO right to respect for private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Trust was
unable to show that the PCPs were a proportionate means of achieving its aims (paras 425-446)."
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2501192-24-Press-
summary-of-decision.pdf
You and GB have been very free to accuse me of not telling the truth.
invite the unbiased reader to a) use the URL to check that I have
correctly quoted the Tribunal's judgement, and b) read the above and
decide who was telling the truth.
A man who insists on using women's changing rooms does not need to do
any specific act to be guilty of harrassment. The mere fact of his
presence is harrassment.
Your definition of harrassment appears to be different to most other
folk then. The tribunal states that she didn't harrass the nurses or victimise them, you claim she did. Who do I believe, Ken Down, who has
an agender against trans people, or the tribunal, who had no agenda
other than to decide on the case presented?
"The claimants also claimed that by accessing the changing room and by
behaving in a certain way inside and outside the changing room, Rose
too subjected them to harassment."
And that claim was rejected.-a Er, hello?
There are no details given of what this behaving in a "certain way"
might have been, but clearly the objection was to more than just this
man's presence
Bullshit.-a The tribunal found that Rose had not done anything untoward other than her presence in the changing room.
Both myself and GB were in agreement that the situation should have been dealt with differently, but at the time, whether you agree or not, trans women were allowed to use female changing rooms, As you know, the Equal Rights Act has now been clarified so that can't happen now.
So you read victimise and translate it to harrassment. Well done.
I can't speak for GB but I only pull you up when you tell lies, as I
pointed out above, you repeated something I already pointed out was a
lie, and by pulling out different sections of the report, you double
down on it.
At the end of the day the tribunal found in favour of the nurses, due to
the way the trust handled the complaints.-a The tribunal found no wrong
in Rose Henderson.
You have correctly quoted the tribunal, but distorted it to meet your agenda.
On 08/07/2026 13:38, GB wrote:
Have you read a single word of the SC judgement?
Only what is reported in the media.
I haven't got time to deal with this today. I'll try to revisit thisI have now read the judgement whose URL was posted by John. It is rather more favourable to my position than it is to yours.
thread another day.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Between 2010 and 2019 the NHS trust established its transition policy,
based on the then generally accepted interpretation of the Equality Act.
In 2025, the Supreme Court decided the Women Scotland case, which
changed the interpretation of the law.-a She was fortunate.
On 12/07/2026 22:05, GB wrote:
Between 2010 and 2019 the NHS trust established its transition policy,
based on the then generally accepted interpretation of the Equality Act.
Various trusts and bodies have been stubbornly persisting in this wrong interpretation in defiance of the law. What a pity they didn't show this same independence of mind and stick with science instead of a Gadarene
rush to be woke.
Just because something is "generally accepted" does not mean that it is right.
In 2025, the Supreme Court decided the Women Scotland case, which
changed the interpretation of the law.-a She was fortunate.
You mean, she was fortunate that the law stopped being an ass? Yes, that
is indeed lucky - and unusual.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The NHS trust had to make practical decisions based on the legal advice
they received. Your claim to know better is not based on an analysis of
the law.
On 13/07/2026 21:47, GB wrote:
The NHS trust had to make practical decisions based on the legal
advice they received. Your claim to know better is not based on an
analysis of the law.
No, it's based on scientific fact. Count the chromosomes.
How is it, I wonder, that you reject Genesis in favour of St Charles
Darwin on the basis of "scientific evidence" but are unwilling to accept science when working out that a man is a man and can never be a woman?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Understood. As I said, that's not an analysis of the law.
Ive never said anything of the sort. The Equality Act is all about how people should be treated.
On 16/07/2026 10:14, GB wrote:
Understood. As I said, that's not an analysis of the law.
So if I could persuade parliament - given the intellectual level of most
MPs I am not proposing an impossiblity - to declare that gravity was non-existent, I presume you would be happy to step off a 14 story
building. Never the mind science, feel the law!
Ive never said anything of the sort. The Equality Act is all about how
people should be treated.
Which means - correct me if I am wrong - that women should be treated equally with men and have women-only spaces in which they can feel safe.
Or does "equality" in your view mean "everyone has rights except women"? Certainaly some of your disparaging comments about these nurses would
seem to indicate that my suggestion is correct.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
If Parliament passed a law requiring people to jump off buildings,
they'd no doubt have to consider penalties for failing to comply. If the penalties were severe enough, it might be preferable to jump off the building.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:53:36 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,965 |