Thread by @tribunaltweets

2023 - no interactions with RH? Remained the case?
BH - conv when changing he walked through door, looked masculine, got shock. I walked out.
SC - Were you ever alone with RH?
BH - only on that one occasion.
SC - P10 of little bundle press release of CC p 11.

SC - "There have been times when I havebeen alone with Rose and panicked."
BH - misprint.

SC - so one occasion you just told us?
BH - yes.
J - only occasion?
BH_ yes.
SC - all claimants have made allegs concernign RH and want to know which are yours.

SC - p116. List. Not doc you created. We have allegs of harassment. First is using cr. More specific ones. First one not by you?
BH - No.
SC - second one, not one you personally exp?
BH - No.
SC - third, initiating conv
BH - not me.

Several Q&A missed, technology issues.

SC - go to vol 2, part 1,
[bundle shuffling]
J - do we know what we're looking for
SC - what we're looking at is transcript of you on Radio 4 Woman's hour, section says 'originally quite hostile', 'this isn't a campaign against this person, they have been a catalyst, raised

awareness of the issue, RH's presence has been a catalyst for change, agree?
BH - yes
SC - so you've created a narrative around Rose,
BH - I think that's outrageous that you are saying that we are lying, that women forced to change in front of a man, women that have suffered

sexual trauma, to say we are lying,
SC - I didn't say you were lying
BH - embellished, exaggerating whatever
SC - its a narrative
BH - it's outrageous that you would say that
SC - well we will have to agree to disagree
BH - yes

SC - would your views on RH be any different if they had fully transitioned
BH - no
SC - directs to page in bundle, this is the transcript of meeting on 19 Feb, this meeting discusses the matter we are concerned about, at 13:43, you say 'that's the thing where do we draw the

line, I would be more comfortable with people who had been fully transitioned' was that your position then
BH - no, its not my position. I was trying to get them engaged with the idea, some women are more comfortable with those who have done more to look like women,

SC - May meeting someone else says 'people might be more comfortable if RH had fully transitioned' is that your view
BH - no it is not
SC - now going through timeline, from when you raised concerns with Sister (not giving evidence)
BH yes
SC - were you aware she was asked to

participate in resolution procedure
BH - no
SC - you say 'I raised my concerns', was she your immediate superior,
BH - yes
SC - was it an informal chat
BH - it was an informal chat about a serious concern
SC - you complained about the Trust's lack of response, who failed to

respond? Sister Q?
BH - she went and spoke to senior managers and escalated up chain of command
[bundle shuffling]
SC - there's an email, 17 Aug, you are not recipient, may not have seen, so Matron of theatre has written to Leslie Smedley
BH - have been in touch with her

but wouldn't recognise her, she's in HR
SC - email indicates convo going on, do you see that
BH - others have obviously raised concerns here
SC - yes, but there's a response, and now another email, you can see in 2nd para, 'its a minefield', can you agree that issues hadn't

been resolved, but that it was being dealt with.
BH - well it looks like they were discussing it but no one was talking with us, we didn't know
SC - email 19 feb email from ward manager, Claire Gregory, by this point were you receiving legal advice
BH - no

SC - this email, several upset members of my team in day surgery unit. This follows a meeting, how many were at this meeting
BH - 15 maybe
SC - were they all nursing staff
BH - nursing staff, housekeeping staff and nurse assistants.
SC - purpose of meeting was to raise concerns?

BH - yes
SC - and people were able to speak freely
BH - yes
SC - you secretly recorded that meeting
BH - yes
SC - why
BH - I wanted to have an accurate record, I thought that CG wanted me to raise concern and I thought we should do a collective complaint

SC - did you get agreement to record
BH - no
SC - why not
BH - it didn't cross my mind, it was for my personal use, I wanted it, I didn't know we would be in legal proceedings, only person who came back to me was CG, none of colleagues there complained

SC - isn't this an underhanded thing to do
BH - I had no malicious intent
SC - I'm not saying you had a malicious intent,
BH - I have spoken to most of them, none of them had any problem with it, I'm a busy person I finished the meeting and then went right back to work, I needed

something to help my recollection.
[discussion between J & SC about current doc]
SC - transcript, you say 'is this more about feeling uncomfortable or do we have to have an incident'
Wasn't that your concern in this meeting
BH - Yes, concerned that there was a man in the female

changing room,
J - there are two aspects, was RH there and what did RH do
SC - so in this meeting, concerned about RH presence rather than what he did, quoting 'its more about that it poses risk to women' its how you were approaching it, as a risk to women
BH - yes

SC - was CG sympathetic to your concerns in that meeting
BH - yes
SC - made no attempt to stop you from expressing your views
BH - yes
SC - she emerges from that meeting as your spokesperson
BH - she had similar concerns to us, so yes.

SC - so she is relaying concerns to management, reports back specific concerns about conduct and more generally that RH was using CR, do you accept that she conveyed substance of meeting
BH - she did her best to convey that
SC - subsequent to this that you approached CLC

BH - yes
SC - you approached CLC, with their help that the letter is drafted and sent to director of work force. We'll look at that letter now.
SC - 27 March letter, do you agree that as a summary it does 3 things; makes allegations about RH, refers to trust policies and

points to CG as liaison.
BH - yes
SC - now on to RH has stopped female hormones, how did you know that
BH - it was common knowledge, I asked a number of people, some of whom were friends with him, they confirmed
SC - so you're saying that you spoke with friends of RH

BH - yes
SC - who were they
BH - I don't want to name them, they were afraid of retribution, some were bank workers, would not get any more work
SC - has anyone lost their job
BH - no, it was a climate of fear, everyone was afraid that they might face disc procedures, people

were afraid to speak.
SC - but nothing happened
BH - nothing happened, no one came to speak us, no one did anything
SC - but no bad consequences for you
BH - this inclusivity stuff is rammed down our throats, we had to go to kindness training because of this, people are afraid

SC - but nothing bad has happened to you
BH - threats of disc, meeting of 15 April
SC - we will come on to that, so how did you confirm this info
BH - when theatre staff come down with patients we talk,
SC - so did you ask them 'is this true about RH'

BH - yes, I did
SC - you won't name them
BH - no
SC - what if RH says none of that was true
BH - I would doubt what RH said
SC - so you wouldn't believe anything they said
BH - He's a man, pretending to be a woman, he's upset that he's no longer allowed to use the female CR

and that we raised concerns about that and the actions that followed.
SC - that may be a good place for a break.
J - admonition to witness, 10 minute break.
End of morning session part 1.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.