University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust: first to comply with the law?

Well, that’s the question we’ve been asking for years, isn’t it? I still remember my internal WTF when confronted with colleagues who clearly were so focussed on justice for anyone who crossdresses anywhere, anytime, for any reason* that they’d completely switched their brains off.

At the time I thought intersectionality meant we were weighing up ALL the reasons why an individual could be disadvantaged - sex, race, sexuality, religion, disability, etc - but it quickly emerged that trans self-declaration trumped everything else.

The sentence about checking to see what the result of non compliance would be (paraphrasing) is, to me, merely a wording used to head off TRA insistence on challenging it.

I tend to agree too but that is a management failing their duty was to the Trust.

But even the FU to the IOC shows there are serious problems at all levels.

I agree with you, but I think they didn’t feel they could cut him loose to fend for himself.

Fife board/employees could claim the moon was made out of cheeze but as the Hospital legal team has a primary (only) duty to the Trust that imo creates a conflict of interest where the two client interest allign but are never exactly the same.

It also creates a problem for the Trust in that it gives him possible access to privileged information which is included in the prep case file but not directly used in the case.

By right the Fife Trust needed to do a investigation with a view to a disiplinary on all the staff who were involved in the disiplinary which staff claim was not one (eg what is the Trust position? was it fraud to sign an ED staff member off with pay while "no" HR event was happening? Etc) and allegation of mismanagement of the patient. If he is party to the file on the investigation HR have problems with any other disiplinary (which the board may actually like as its a get out of jail card)

So Fife may have had to fund his team but the question would be why share the team [ < this is the "doubles the cost" per my original post ]

Then Fife should not have been sharing their legal team with a third party [(edit) (which also doubles the cost to the public purse). ]

ISTR Fife tried to claim that it was vexatious to include him and I guess they felt they had to support him for the same reason they have to pander to the “trans community” in everything else.

Theirs is not to reason why ....

The first line will be there because their employee will have accused them of a policy that discriminates against trans people. The obvious defence is to point out its a matter of law not policy. They don't need to muddy the waters with a statement that indicates their view on the law either way or seek to justify their decision to act lawfully by explaining they agree. The reference to legal advice will be to message that they have checked and whatever the employee says, know they are acting lawfully.

On the other hand, it might be, "The Supreme Court's statement of the law now supports us in rejecting the trans nonsense".

I'm getting more than a bit pissed off now.

As women we have known since it came into effect that the Equality Act 2010 didn't allow men (however they identify) to be in women's spaces because of the exceptions in the Act itself.

So how come people whose job it is to know this have got it so fucking wrong for so fucking long?

Two years ago, when I had 16 days in hospital on intravenous antibiotics for a very serious attack of cellulitis in my lower leg, I would have given anything for a nice quiet private room with my own handy ensuite. It always took me an appreciable amount of time to hobble painfully down the corridor to the loo with a badly swollen leg and a wheeled walker and I was woken in the middle of every night for a 30 minute slow infusion of the antibiotic and could rarely sleep more than a couple of hours at a time without some disturbance on the ward. I am not a sociable person when ill and would willingly forego companionship for peace and quiet.

Then Fife should not have been sharing their legal team with a third party which also doubles the cost to the public purse.

It brings to mind the largest container ships, they are so massive and their momentum is such that they have to turn their engines off four days before they arrive at port.

Yes. I was saying that there should not be 100% single occupancy rooms in hospitals. Some are required, yes. But single sex bays are safer overall for the reasons that single sex communal toilets are.

I can tell what risks they were not assessing, and this is of violent patients being allowed to roam the wards and attack other patients.

Which has happened to a friend.

It's much better for infection control to have single rooms not to mention privacy & dignity.

I recently had a spinal operation & was very grateful to be in a single room with en suite toilet.

On a different note, but also in Birmingham, I recently attended an event in a city centre office block, and was pleased to notice a neat typed sticker saying “Female” placed under the person in a dress sign on the toilet door. Toilet of the many cubicles with wash basins outside the cubicles variety. So not all organisations are playing we must wait for the EHRC guidance game.

No. Upton did not & could not ask to be added as a respondent. That's not how it works. Upton is a co-respondent & has been from Day 1 because Sandie Peggie took him to the Employment Tribunal..
It's irrelevant what Fife do. If he is found personally responsible for sexual harassment it doesn't matter whether Fife gave him permission or not.

I was as just coming in to say that - what the hell ‘risks’ are they assessing and which level of risk would they find acceptable to decide to continue with unlawful policies??

Since when did the NHS only decide to comply with the law if the risk of non compliance was ‘too high’? Unbelievable.

The legal fees are only a part costing.
Even the Bank nurse /or OT for SPs replacement in ED cost money. They had staff in on weekends pulling emails and other data and attempting to manage the PR. Staff meetings and an investigation which was "not" a disciplinary and then a formal recorded one (which will have come with legal advice) all cost money. There has to be a number of senior management special meetings etc.
I will bet was a whole lot staff cost which will not be costed correctly

They imo will be The Test Case for all the NHS. The EHRC have already been in contact asking for policy.

The witness and written evidence proves that no proper process was followed as policy was written and staff had no proper training.

It also proves that staff will ignore policy which is written down.

That staff were hired into roles which were poorly designed and they were not quallified for therefore Senoir managers signed off and sent flawed documents to the board meetings.

The senior manager in charge of the ED wanting to call the police to have a long term member of staff arrested over not wanting to be half-naked in a changing room and the doctor expecting other staff to bring him to a woman who said only same sex care show a massive culture problem.

And that culture is echoed as they pisssssed off the scottish information commissioner which will cost another small fortune as he has already said his team will be investigating them and going forwards they are on the "likely liers" list. (Someone needs to FOI the real cost of that IC investigation too🙃)

No one has every said "There is no magic money tree" to an organisation wishing to attend a tribunal.

Weasel words or 'we can't afford a tribunal' ?????

I suspect, since there are now additional cases, that it will hit the £1m mark - just think how many nurses, doctors, support stuff that might have funded for a year. All because a MALE doctor, who has separate access to the doctors’ lounge/area, decided that he should have a right to change in the female, nursing changing rooms.

Just to add to what you say, I was thinking this morning that what is going to set this alight in the NHS is when the legal bills of NHS Fife are revealed - the real amounts, I mean. Whether anyone cares about Sandie Peggie or women's rights or not, they will be livid that the board authorised the outlay of so much money in a case they were bound to lose and which, at the end of the day, was about forcing a man into the women's changing rooms.

Gosh. That's not a great idea. When my sister was in hospital, she was in six-bed bays both times. I think that's a good size for companionship but also not being stuck with the same person if you can't stand each other.

ETA: Plus the safeguarding concerns AnSolas mentioned above.