Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #62

Lunch!

From Nick Wallis

SP yes
DH now you say you found this email in Aug 2025 in your junkbox. Do you accept now that SF had taken steps to provide you with a written rationale for why your legal support had been refused.
SP yes
DH there's a letter or email you send to NP on 3 March 2025 p417 and I think this email is the first time where you say in writing and in terms that "the RCN of nurses has failed me from the outset". Is this email of 3 March 2025 the first time you suggest the RCN...
... has failed you from the outset?
SP yes
DH despite the fact that your solicitor had been in fairly regular contact since the beginning of 2024. Could you not have raised it before? [something about the lack of legal advice]
SP "I believe it should have been offered"
DH I have come to the end of this section - it might be a bit early, but could we rise for lunch?
J yes - [gives warning about talking about evidence during lunch to SP] can we all come back at quarter to.

Oh dear, she said it ‘in words’ 😧

Would interpretative modern dance have been better??

From TT:

DH despite the fact that you and MG were in regular contact with SF
SP yes
DH plenty of time for you to express your concerns to the RC
SP I believe it should have been offered
DH by March 2025, you are disappointed that RCN is not providing legal support and it is that which

has motivated you to say that they have failed you from the outset.
SP yes
DH - Judge i'm moving on to another topic, it might make sense to rise early if that's okay with you
J - yes, it's not 12:45, the clerk will bring you back in at quarter to 2.

Part 2, morning, ends.

Probably!

can still hear naomi

Phew, break. Is there someone who could do this afternoon? If not I can, but it would be nice to have a break.

Sandie seems to be easily agreeing with all the points about how she didn't explicitly ask for legal support. Presumably she was expecting that, and the fact that this case is being brought means that NC et al think that doesn't matter - the RCN had a duty to offer, as Sandie suggests she'd have liked them to? Will be very interesting to see how this goes.

I can hear Nick Wallis searching (in vain) for the bundles.

She'd objected to a man in a women's changing room. She didn't need to 'express holding a sex realist belief'. It was bloody obvious.

Hmm my take is, i think that DH is trying to imply, that there was a concerted attempt by the witches Coven, to entrap the RCN and then sue them as part of a wider strategy.

He cannot say it directly because that would involve NC.

I think it possible from the beginning there was a lot of pro bono (work on the part of MG and NC) and that the strategy, (if there was one) was to get the bloody union to recognise the problem with TWAW, for female workers, and do something about it.

And the mystery funder wanted that too.

I think Sandie is just not that politically astute, and likely not to get the line of questioning, and is just being honest.

No offence to Sandie, she is single minded in her approach which is to assert her rights, and i love her for her efforts.

I think Sandie is just not that politically astute, and likely not to get the line of questioning, and is just being honest.

Sandie is (of course) giving honest answers to questions. Whether she understands the purpose of the questions or not isn't relevant or something she should consider.

We and the Judge can easly tell when a witness is trying to evade the truth because they want the court to think one thing or another, and it's always a bad idea.

I think my tribunal watching so far supports the idea that actually, it doesn't help when you can tell that the witness knows where counsel is going with the questions. They still have to answer honestly, and it many ways it's easier if they just do so completely plainly without spin. Either there's a legal argument that works with the truth they tell, or there isn't - they can't influence that much by the time they're on the stand.

xpost with MyAmpleSheep , glad we agree!

Too blinkin’ right! How many years had SP, and many more women, paid their dues, to discover that the bro’s couldn’t give a toss about their rights. That all the bro’s and bro enablers were happy to see those women potentially open to sex offences such as peeping and flashing by other men. Recording is on the uprise now too. Why don’t we make it easy for men, eh? That women might be left in a situation where they have to duck and dive in order to not be stressed by being in that situation of comfort, safety and dignity being completely undermined. In the very areas that pretended they were for women only.

Those unions very very happy to take their money for what could be false pretences of providing support, and fighting for their rights. One might think it is a sort of fraud, or theft when they refuse to represent them, or at least represent them properly.

Dh [...] a new allegation about you misgendering DU and that was included as an amendment to the existing third allegation against you which was being investigated.
SP yes
DH and this was about things you yourself had said during the investigatory process [My bold]

FFS!

"Why did you tell Dr Upton to leave the changing room?"
"Because he shouldn't be there."
"Misgendering! Burn the witch!"

How was she supposed to explain that she was objecting to a man in the women's changing room without calling him a man?

Quick mention, with video of Sandie arriving, on BBC lunchtime news.

We and the Judge can easly tell when a witness is trying to evade the truth because they want the court to think one thing or another, and it's always a bad idea.

Unless you're Upton and your judge is Sandy Kemp.

There's another point to draw from this too. There's nothing wrong at all with taking an event of discrimination and building around it a campaign to try to force organizational change. What you should not do is engineer events or manufacture facts to suit a campaign already under way; that is not coming to the law with clean hands.

The fact that SP hadn't at her first contact with the RCN heard of "Gender Critical" and that she failed to recognize or mention that she had been a victim of discrimination or harassment at the outset stands very much to her credit. It shows that the campaign came as a result of the facts, rather than creating them.

On the subject of who has rights, here are some choice quotes from different TRA's on Reddit, about SP, and in respect of today's hearing

Why for the love of anything is this vile human being allowed to have any kind of legal action? She was proved to be a blatant racist and transphobe for a start. Why does our country and legal system give more rights to horrible people like this and deny us basic rights

Hopefully the court is reminded that Peggie is a vile racist as well as a disgusting transphobe.. just a general, all round disgusting person.

I feel like calling her a person is stretching it.

If anyone was wondering.

only some women deserve rights, and those women are Nice Ladies who’ll suck our cocks.

Oh right. So it is a stretch to call a woman a person. Somewhat medieval, these wonderful, self-proclaimed champions of human rights.

Actually they have that one covered

Q - After all, are we sure she is a biological human?
A - Biological, probably; human, no.

So, no human rights accrue to SP.

I think that was Tempest. It's part heard resuming in December.

What's the case reference number for this case, pleaee?

Seems you can still request access, but I can't find it