Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #63

@janeszebra

I like use of 'eternal' but suspect you meant external.

Yes, finish him off NC!

TT

NC quotes this note - SP's level of discomfort. That could not be clearer of sex realist belief 'you are not a woman because you say you are'
NP SP had not expressed that belief but I go back to make the point about the hurdles,

it's my belief that it would be further along in the process where more of the facts are known that SF would make a decision about legal support.
NC - SP said in evidence that she didn't know what GC was. She wasn't the expert was she? Not her to know her beliefs were protected in law?

NP - no but it would have been too early to bring legal referral
NP this was an enquiry, a brief call. SP made it clear she was going to be suspended. SF place to advise on that, and to meet and to formulate response. An initial call doesn't cover all that you describe

Which they are now using to justify not helping her. Circular or what!

I think he's well and truly fucked himself there! Truly showed the union's true colours!

That'll teach me to rage type!

"There's a man in the women's changing room and I don't think that's okay."

<<Gets suspended for having a belief>>

Union: She didn't say it was a firmly held belief therefore nothing for us to concern ourselves with.

Have I got this right?

This is the reason for all the fuckoffs.

NC quotes this note - SP's level of discomfort. That could not be clearer of sex realist belief 'you are not a woman because you say you are'
NP SP had not expressed that belief but I go back to make the point about the hurdles

Nick Wallis's version
NC [takes NP back to SF's note of SF's first convo with SP in which SP tells SF she did not want Dr Upton in her changing room because he was a man and reads it out] - that's a clear demo of her GC beliefs NP we did not know it was a firmly held belief

Yes. Yes, you have.

Yep

it's my belief that it would be further along in the process where more of the facts are known that SF would make a decision about legal support

but not too fucking early to give Sandie reassurance that there was a legal way forward open to her if other routes were unsuccessful!!!!!!!!!

TT

NP - I would not expect that for the reasons I gave earlier.
NC - how long would you expect that call to be NP about 30 minutes.
NC it was put to Ms Peggie and she thought it was more like 10 minutes. Those notes don't account for a 30 minute call

J - coming to end?
NC - short further section.
NC - turn to page 425.

NC - that's MG letter 21 May have you re read recently?
NP - yes
NC - she expresses disappointment that RCN hasn't resolved single sex provision. Turn to p969

TT

NC - that is an short letter from SD to the Darlington NHS Trust? What was the reason a similar letter couldn't be written on behalf of SP and all her female colleagues
NP - managed by SWAG, we raised with SWAG.

That was what triggered all fucking off.

Blah blah blah blah - yawn.

And you can fuck off with your wanky acronyms too.

TT

NP - gives examples of how hospital structures differ between England and Scotland. How it's done via SWAG.

'Ought to have known' is a slippery old fish. One can argue that everyone 'ought' to know. SP ought to have known, because she ought to have been told. Doesn't mean she was.

I'm so angry

Nooo, my iPad just ran out of power and I am now out 😢

Probably best for your blood pressure

TT

NP - We raised it this way as this is normal process.
NC - page 427 your response to MG of 27 May, essentially saying what you've just said. The gist of that is that the scottish gov kicking this into the long grass and unions happy for this to happen.

(Glad: SWAG isn't in the list of acronyms in the header in TT's thread)

Bang to rights then, it was clear from SF first contact note and SP recollection that SF considered her a perp

and said will help you through the hearing that it as a holibobs.

Liars, exposed as liars.

Sitting on hands