NHS Fife tries to silence nurse

[Hoardasurass]

So as has been mentioned on threads about the Darlington nurses a nurse is sueing NHS Fife over its trans staff policy.
The poor nurse was forced to get changed infront of a man in the female changing facilities, when she complained about it she was 1st told to change in a cupboard if she didn't like it, then they tried to bully her into swapping shifts so she didn't work with the man in question (she wouldn't), then they wanted her to move hospital (again she refused) so then they suspended her without pay for months until her solicitor got involved and now they are trying to gag her by insisting that the court case (starts in February) must be held in secret (I wonder why) and will be in crt next month asking to restrict reporting on the case.

This case is really important in Scotland because the trans staff policy that's going on trial in this case is the Scottish government's own policy used in all public sector organisations in Scotland and works on self id. So when this case is won it will finally kill the Scottish government's self id policy in all public bodies

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nhs-fife-fights-secret-hearings-33877891?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Agree and there seems much more support from journalists (with brave exceptions) and institutions for compelled speech and censorship (via things like 'non crime hate incidents) than in the USA where the right to free speech is embedded in their constitution and society.

Indecent exposure (flashing) is against the law. It's a crime. As is voyeurism.

Why have some people and organisations been allowed to decriminalise these laws? Why are police forces failing to investigate when women discover men in places where they're undressing?

Indecent exposure (flashing) is against the law. It's a crime. As is voyeurism.

Why have some people and organisations been allowed to decriminalise these laws? Why are police forces failing to investigate when women discover men in places where they're undressing?

This. Trans rights activists seem to have managed to shift this in the same way they are trying to do with sex by deception law.

I can see how this "indecent exposure" stuff would play out in court, assuming that Dr Upton just acted the way a normal person would do in a changing room.

"You're accused of exposing yourself in the changing room."
"Well, I did undress there, but that's what the changing room is for."
"But that was the women's changing room, and you're male."
"Yes, it was the women's changing room, but I'm a woman, so it wasn't indecent."
"No, you're a man."
"Oh no I'm not."
"Oh yes you are."

That's the real issue, and any accusations about exposure can't be resolved until that question gets resolved.

If he hasn’t got a GRC (or didn’t then) then it is very straightforward; in law he is a man. If he has got a GRC then he is still a man but the law is an ass.

I do think we need to keep pushing this. Why does indecent exposure not apply to a man claiming to be a woman if he exposes himself in the female changing room / showers etc?
As for voyeurism, remember this man claiming to be a woman who repeatedly wandered through the female changing rooms when teenage girl competitive swimmers were naked and struggling into tight swim wear? Although Swim England immediately realised the problem and changed the rules (to bar volunteers) no consequences (apart from the glare of publicity) as far as I can see.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12350741/Parents-raised-concerns-transgender-pool-official-using-womens-changing-room-time-young-girls.html

Why does indecent exposure not apply to a man claiming to be a woman if he exposes himself in the female changing room / showers etc?

Good question. What do you think, Bridget Phillipson and Shabana Mahmood?

Isn’t the real question ‘why don’t the police and courts arrest and prosecute these men?’ The law must still apply.

If he hasn’t got a GRC (or didn’t then) then it is very straightforward; in law he is a man. If he has got a GRC then he is still a man but the law is an ass.

But the law isn't currently clear on this issue - this is exactly the point the Supreme Court has been tasked with trying to resolve.

It is if he hasn’t got a GRC. And given he graduated as Theo he wouldn’t have had time to ‘live as a woman’ for two years before this event in question so couldn’t have had one then even if he has one now.

The Supreme Court is considering only those with a GRC and the fact it even has to is why I say the law is an ass.

I wasn't sure about this clip at the time. Altho I agreed completely, I thought it was too soon to persuade people.

Given the number of men we've seen acting just like this, it feels almost tame now.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/DBG_new-end_070118.mp4

I hadn't seen that. It's a belter! 😀

But yeah, 2019 seems a long time ago.

I just saw recently that our first minister has moved away from the Twaw and has now said that a man is a man and a woman is a woman

seems like he has understood that voters do not like this stuff

sturgeon was urging him not to go back on the conversion therapy bill she tried to get through

interesting times in Scotland

Are we sure that's not just "Brexit means brexit", Scottish edition?

I have received an email stating the trial is available for remote viewing.

You need to email the court on Friday 31st Jan and a link will be sent to you.

The email address is

[email protected]

I really now think that equality issues should be removed from HR depts and policy staff ( and certainly external 'training' organisations) and just be the preserve of lawyers. HR and policy staff have too often proven themselves to not understand the law.

‘Not understand’ 🤔 Often there is no misunderstanding, they just don’t like it and want to push their own ideology instead.

What is the exact name of the case when asking for a link?

Tribunal tweets gives it as
Peggie vs Fife Health Board and Dr. B Upton
due to be heard Feb 3-14. (It's a case, of course, not a trial, to be technical!)

Interesting that it will be able to be viewed - the case management document said

"The Respondents rely on what has happened at other ET hearings, but those other cases are of only limited assistance. For example, the final hearing in this case will be in person, not via video/CVP, removing the risk of online abuse by remote observers in the CVP ‘chat’ facility. The final hearing will be in a hearing room with limited capacity for observers to attend. Any disruption from third party attendees will likely be met with a warning followed (if persisted in) by expulsion from the hearing room. "

I had taken that as indicating that only in person observers would be allowed, but maybe all it means is that there won't be any possibility of people taking part in the hearing seeing, hence being affected by, any online abuse from online observers? Not that it seems likely there would be any, in any case - online observers have been very well behaved in previous cases, haven't they?

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr

Funny you should say that, because I've even begun to think that the EHRC is part of the problem. Another layer of interpretation. Their guidance becomes widely accepted because it's written in a more accessible way than the actual statute - even if their guidance is biased, or just plain wrong.

I think I said Peggie Vs NHS Fife/Upton starting on 3/2/25.

Apologies for calling it a trial. I know its a case but I was quickly trying to relay the email on here whilst I remembered!

it seems likely there would be any, in any case - online observers have been very well behaved in previous cases, haven't they?

I've been in a couple where there's been trouble. People giving themselves offensive psudeonyms, claims that witnesses have been contacted etc.

Interesting. Yes, I assume they mean that those in the courtroom will be unable to see anything that is happening online.

I think I can only recall one off-hand comment from all the cases I've viewed remotely, and they were quickly expelled. In the olden days, it was mostly helping people with connection and bundle issues.

bundle issues

That brings back memories 😂😂😂