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

Right - have to dash! Thanks @fanOfBen !

From TT:

re potential access of EM to RCN HQ
LM Any member could access library there. EM used to be member, no reason to think wasn't still. EM had made threats to women and I was concerned for my own safety.
DH Other RCN members also have access to spaces
LM Yes
DH NP may say

office access is secure, with key cards etc.
LM Yes, but people passing in and out through the day.
DH May hear evidence that EM was member and membership had ended.
LM I wanted my Lm to find out if still member or not, so to take particular care if individual turned up at

From TT:

building.
DH You didn't show RC these tweets when speaking with her
LM No
DH You didn't volunteer individual's name when talking to RC?
LM Don't think so from what I remember.
DH Something else was going on - some dispute between you and two potential colleagues at MBM

and Edinburgh Press
LM Yes. Received information that someone at Edin University Press had concerns c article - likening it to Islamophic material.
DH Article published 2 Aug 2020.
DH Action of EUP - just a blank box. Comment below that attempt made within publisher to prevent

publication. Dispute?
LM yes
DH Article pub by June 2021. You are mentioning and considering experiences you had with RCN and also Univ Edin complaint and referencing the UE event. You were packaging the three events together.
LM Yes, I suppose so.

From TT:

DH The blog you wrote. p 777, published - onto MBM website - Feb 2025. First para refs report that RCN has refused to support SPeggie. Then, this blog is advice and guidance by MBM.
DH Can you recollect - there's another version of doc in bundle p 811 - a complete version.

DH In introduction is hyperlink to report c RCN refused to represent SP. Link appears to be Daily Mail article, published 19 Feb 2025 and updated following day. This DM article appears to have some part to play in motivating you to post this blog.
LM Yes. Came to SP hearing

From TT:

and sat in public gallery.
DH Blog posted soon after DM article - two days.
LM Correct
DM In article I don't see any ref by you to any other source re what was decided by RCN re representation of SP
LM Don't understand what you mean

DH It is proceeding on base that RCN refused to represent.
LM We take it as read that article as own sources. We put 'refused to represent' in inverted commas as it wasn't our words.
DH In article you are offering view on RCN publication re legal assistance to members.

From TT:

DH You conclude re how RCN tells members how to deal with t id patients. Then go on to consider effect on workers. Did you have your own view as to whether RCN should have provided legal assistance to Sp when you posted this.
LM No - didn't have the information. We saw it

as a situation of t patients with respect to others. No view on if RCN should have supported SP.
DH You and RC after outcome of ix. You said you were getting frustrated with RC's handling of issues.
LM Yes
DH And that played a part in you resigning when you did.
LM Yes. Fair

DH You've raised no claim in response to these events.
LM No
DH Events were some time ago. Looking back over a number of years.
LM Yes
DH Thank you. That's all.
J Any re exam?
NC [can't hear]
LM When informed i was being ix was v stressed and thought losing job. So I contacted

From TT:

journal editor to remove my name from publication - thought it might help re RCN Editor said days away from submitting final draft. I asked him to remove my name.
Article has been cited 76 times. Never written for peer review before. SPS policy found to be unlawful since,
sex and gender bill changed, and woman = bio f was upheld by Supreme Court. I would have been proud to have my name on it.
NC How would your employer have felt about having your name
LM RCN pro seem unhappy - couldn't extract from Lm, All she said was the way I define woman

Christ on a bike…..Sandie and the Darlington Nurses complained too much and in the wrong way…Lisa didn’t complain enough….

LM is an example of one of those conscientiously law abiding women. I think DH was struggling in cross exam apart from "it's a long time ago".

No RCN witnesses yet, but the defence showed that at least one RCN rep was tackling the employer about this.

I have to go out for up to 2 hours soon after 1pm. I hoped half of that would be during the lunch break.

Annoying. I'm not hungry yet (having just eaten all my snowballs).

TT at least in my view a bit behind, one more post should be coming... That was a very effective ending from NC again there, asking LM why she hadn't pursued an ET on her own account, to which she said something like "I hadn't the stomach for it, if I'm honest".

Also DH seems to suggest that there was a conflict of interest that RCN were rightful about ??????

Rather points to institutional bias LOL

From TT:

[should read: RCN would probably have been unhappy]
NC You didn't go further
LM I didn't have the stomach for it. Things going on in my personal life.

LM It's an intrusive process which can go on for years - MF, SP - are individuals, exceptionally brave to go on. I decided to leave and do the work I wanted to do.
[end of LM evidence]
J Mustn't discuss evidence to anyone still to give evidence to tribunal.

I had to log out as someone called me. Please, what did NC say about eunuchs?!

No pity from me i was forced to eat a pack of cheese and onion crisps.!!

not sure what to have for lunch <says with head in fridge>

He didn't get the link originally, but after complaining yesterday he's now got access. His live last night was more encouraging than NW's coverage. He picked out some of the legal threads NC is likely to pull on later.

And it has been determined by the SC that a woman is defined by her biological sex. This is the law (in the lucky UK), and, as such, always has been the law. Anything else is a misrepresentation of the law. So, surely RCN cannot have a term and condition that obliges their workers to misrepresent the law. Or, punish their congregation/ sorry members for correctly following the law.

Yes i have watched his talk from last night too.

DH You've raised no claim in response to these events.
LM No

I don't know why DH thinks that is a point worth mentioning. The question here isn't whether she was treated unfairly by her employer (its not her tribunal), but what light RCN's treatment of her casts on whether or not her sex realist position contradicted official RCN policy. And, thereby, what light it sheds on whether they had adopted a policy which precluded them from supporting Peggie.
If official RCN policy was to accept gender ideology and deny the legitimacy of single-sex spaces, then any disciplinary process against LM would have been 'fair', in the sense of being consisted with their stated policies. The very fact of its fairness would be the mic drop.

(Edited for grammatical gobbledegook)

Gah!! Due to the early lunch I'm going to miss them both as I'm going out shortly. (Armed with successfully printed out paperwork from last night that I nearly forgot to put in my bag, I've just noticed it sat on the table!).

I bet I miss all the good stuff!