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

NC: So what happened after video?
JW: I tried to speak and initially couldn't but got mic working in the end, and I then explained who I was - as per my email, RCN, Scottish Lesbians, had been intervenor.
JW: Q had been how did people feel and I said, relieved. Because v clear definition of what a lesbian is; same sex attraction, not opt-in. I also said that I could appreciate that judgment cd pose some difficulties for nurses bcs many trusts have self-id policies re wards etc
JW: And it is going to be frontline nurses that are going to have to tell people which ward to go into, by sex, and that would be tough when policies had been wrong for so long.

Thanks. I had forgotten how bad things were a few years ago

JW: Also said I disagreed with JGM that judgment was 'complex'
NC: Any responses to you?
JW: Quite soon after a trans-id man said he fundamementally disagreed with me and that it was hard for him.
JW: And a couple of ppl in the chat said they were upset I had been allowed to speak, asked "Tommy Robinson next?" and someone said "what about hearing from trans" which of course we immediately did. Convenor had congratulated me on my politeness when I spoke.

NC: How did you feel about it?
JW: A bit confused - particularly later, I wondered even whether she had been surprised to hear from me at all, that I wasn't upset even though lesbian, or whether she thought ppl with my views would have expressed differently or something.
NC: And then?
JW: I think DEI director was next but I was completely distracted by all the blowing up in the chat - saying "there are bigots in every community" and how they knew lesbians in relationships with trans-id men, so I can't remember anything about the speech.

NC: And after the speech?
JW: We were invited to say what we needed from the RCN - very open Q -
NC: Invited how?
JW: I can't remember - perhaps a powerpoint slide -
NC: I meant what did they want you to do?
JW: Put views in the chat
JW: So I said, I wanted RCN to follow the law. Most responses were "respect ALL genders" kind - I was the only person expressing any support for the SC judgment, everyone else thought it was a disaster. One person said RCN should campaign to change the law.
JW: I think it was about then that I and one other person got concened about the tone of the chat comments, I decided to say something and this other person did too - we said "this is a bit heated" or somthing, and facilitor asked everyone to keep it respectful.
NC [ref 600] NC: What's this document?
JW: About half way thru session I started photographing the chat - on my phone - bcs I was so concerned at some of the things being said.

JW: The person who made the 'tommy robinson' and 'bigot' comment was called Hazel, at the end the chat was off and we were invited to speak by doing a hands-up and Hazel was invited to speak, and I decided to record what she said and the facilitator response. 'A' is Hazel here and B is facilitor. What A says is aimed at me, I was the only person not saying SC ruling BAD.

JW: So she compares me to a racist, an anti-migrant / anti-muslim bigot, she calls me exclusionary and very very harmful to vulnerable ppl. And she ends with 'support for trans ppl'. I think she got quite emotional.
JW: Facilitator then said "we" meaning RCN recognised the potential for harm in what I had said, and that was why they had closed the chat.

This testimony is extraordinary and not in a good way 😕

NC: p601-605 what are these?
JW: They are my photos of the chat, the comments about me. The ones I've told you about. This one about TERFs. Someone else says, if this is what we are seeing then what are minority groups experiencing - pretty unpleasant.

Like this witness - straight forward.

JW: Hazel then says attacking trans ppl doesn't help 'cis' ppl (I would not use that word).
NC: Your overall impressions of session? And how close it was to how you had expected, from how it was advertised?
JW: Didn't know what to expect TBH. The judgment was an unusual thing and I didn't know any other similar sessions RCN might have done.
JW: But I had assumed that when they said 'safe space' that would mean that people could speak of their views - am v conscious I am on one side of v polarised debate - so I thought voices on all sides would be heard. Certainly didn't expect name-calling.

Yes, I'm back now (though, annoyingly, I'm once again WFTCHTJ - have to hope the clerk isn't too busy I guess).

NC: You used a vivid idiom when giving proof of evidence earlier? JW: I felt ambushed. It was quite the kicking - I was upset afterwards, left me feeling pretty wobbly even tho I am a pretty resilient person.
NC: No more Qs but Mr Hay will have.

Oh my. ‘she calls me exclusionary and very very harmful to vulnerable ppl.‘

Scene: A woman getting undressed, and a man (or men as they wish) wander in. Have an eyeful, and get their kit off. The man or men are the vulnerable ones.

It really is a war against women being able to operate safely, easily and comfortably in public life. Yes, men don’t give a toss. Indeed, many enjoying it all. Also, there seems to be no lack of women quislings to work against the interests of their own sex, and their daughters’ and granddaughters’ future rights and safety.

DH: I understand you've raised a claim re the events you've been telling us about?
JW: Yes
DH: You are a nurse, qualified 2006?
JW: Yes
DH: Member of RCN but not member.
JW: Yes
DH: Event was June 2025. If I suggest, stated purpose of event was for RCN to learn how members are affected?
JW: Yes, and what we might need going forward.
DH: Talking and listening aims?
JW: Yes

So another one suing RCN dear oh dear

DH: Attendance voluntary?
JW: Yes
DH: You said two types of session - online and in person, yours was online?
JW: Yes
DH: In your own claim, you've told us a lot of this in your evidence, if we go to 649 is your claim form.
DH: "The acts complained of" - you are second claimant?
JW: yes
DH: Th acts you complain of [gives para numbers I think 78.1 a-h]
DH: PF is claimaint 2?
JW: Yes

DH: And basically the acts complained of are all the things you've told us about here? They are comments by other participants in the session?
JW: This list yes.
DH: And the discrimination claim is set out in paras 79-86. In the footer we can see a date 21st November, when claim prepared. There's no hearing scheduled yet?
JW: No.
DH: Response to claim is at p655. Have you seen this doc?
JW: I honestly can't remember.
DH: But you do understand RCN is defending claim?
JW: Yes
DH: In addition to defending the claim, there is also a legal Q in the RCN defence, re whether RCN can be responsible for actions of members as opposed to its staff, you are aware?
JW: No, not a solicitor
DH: But at the least, claim has a long way to go?
JW: Yes

DH: Who put you in touch with Ms Fox?
JW: I posted after the event in a group I'm part of, saying how upsetting it had been, and someone in the group said PF had said very similar things about it and why didn't we talk to each other bcs v similar experiences.
DH: Whatsapp group or something?
JW: Yes

DH: Have just been checking whehter any more Qs and there are not.
J: I also have no Qs.
NC: And no re-examination.

[I'll move onto next thread now]

Me catching up

New thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5581909-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-63

"[...]Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own."

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Anyone on X could show Lisa Mackenzie some appreciation for her evidence! https://x.com/lnmackenzie1/status/2103107114994667941?s=20