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

Thank you, @eatfigs . That's interesting, and also shocking.

On the new page for "Elisabeth Upton", he has a new GMC reference number and everyfink.

As a new doctor (he is probably late twenties) he is subject to the requirements of their approved practice setting scheme which is linked at the bottom of his registration. This includes:

"Your registered name is your full name as it appears on the medical register. Your GMC reference number is the unique, seven digit number we give you. It stays with you throughout your career."

Stays with you throughout your career unless we all change it, they mean.

"Patients, employers and others use these details to identify you and confirm your status on the medical register."

Safeguarding? Wot safeguarding?

Let's just say, if he attends, no one will possibly think he's a woman.

Well, the University of Dundee have their graduation ceremonies from 2021 online. The school of medicine too. Hmm. Think the tribunal need to go to Specsavers if that is the dude who is one of the respondents in connection with the dreadful treatment of Sandie Peggie.

Thanks Calleiach, that's useful info. I wonder how much he changed between 2021 and 2023?
s

It shouldn't really matter what he looks like, but we all know perception is everything.

But there's perception looking at a photo, and then there's perception in real life. And they are two very different things.

It’s clever naming him as a co-respondent, I agree the NHS trust would not have wanted that.

I am happy to be corrected, but I don’t think he has to give evidence he can just submit a witness statement. For example Mirdul Wahdwa didn’t. The question is does he have to attend.

The ET is on 3 February does anyone know if it will be streamed live and if so how we get access?

If you submit a witness statement then the other side’s lawyer gets to cross examine you on it.

I did a beginners' Ukrainian class. A young woman asked what the Ukrainian for non-binary was. She then asked about pronouns and verbs (both are gendered). She was dismayed to be told she'd have to choose between she or he. (Vin or vona.)

No beard but obvious 5oclock shaddow.
Hairline is the same. Quite obvious he is male "transitioning" to female.

I've emailed the court to ask if there will be remote access.

If there is, I'll share how to request a link to view it.

I suspect that you are correct and because he's a named respondent he's going to have to take the stand and be cross examined by niomi Cunningham 😁😁🤣🤣🤣🥳

Bearded middle class privileged bearded bro to ‘transwoman’ 🤔

Also his talk of ‘microaggressions’ and ‘misgendering’ and threats of how he will suffer harm if not affirmed - this is a man in a very powerful position over his patients gaslighting them. This includes psychiatric patients with delusions of their own and a tenuous grip on reality. Men who demand others must pretend they are women should not be working in such a setting.

In addition to Fife, Darlington and Defra cases, there is an ET case filed by myself, Faye Russell-Caldicott on Crowdjustice.com

Scotland is a bin fire where this stuff is concerned

If Upton is a co-respondent, that must mean there is at least one claim against Upton, separately from the claims against the Trust, yes?

This. I have a female family member with dementia and it would be unbelievably cruel to try and force someone who has limited mental capacity to a)lie about what they see and b) claim they're committing 'microaggressions' when they are suffering from loss of mental capacity.

This female relative knows what sex all her carers are and has asked not to have men provide intimate care (which thank goodness is being respected). She doesn't always recognise me, but the ability to correctly sex remains. It's an innate instinct. Given her childhood, this instinct has been important to her survival and to force her to accept male carers (providing intimate care) would be cruel, inhumane and would be to deliberately and maliciously cause her great suffering and deliberate harm.

Demanding psychiatric patients go along with your delusion as a medical professional is abusive and anyone doing this should be struck off. If a doctor was claiming patients not calling him 'King Charles' was 'harming' him, and forcing them to do that was put before THEIR medical needs, then he would rightly be struck off. Allowing abusive men access to psychiatric patients should be criminal.

Thank you Sandie Peggie.

You shouldn't have to do this, and thinking about how the policies of NHS trusts mean these abusive men can abuse and harm dementia patients has actually made me quite upset. As has the judge seeming to tacitly go along with the expectation patients should be abused in this way by use of wrong sex pronouns. The decline into dementia is so upsetting and honestly absolute torture for the sufferer and their family already. Being gaslit on top about the evidence of their eyes and ears on something as basic as biological sex would be unbelievably cruel and deliberate, malicious, inhumane harm which would surely breach their human rights. How on earth have we got here in a supposedly liberal society? Punching down on those really truly vulnerable in this way?

I did love this bit in the Times article.

"“Going to an employment tribunal is very stressful for all concerned, but everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing. Changing rooms are a place where we expect privacy. Courtrooms are not.”

Well, exactly. The whole idea this male bodied person should get to keep his privacy in the courtroom when he's taking privacy when undressing away from all women not happy to change in mixed sex spaces (without their consent and with added gaslighting on top denying their perceptions as valid) is ridiculous.

I agree with all of this. My mum's in a care home with dementia and I'd hate her to suffer if someone like that worked there. She's confused enough as it is.

@Snowypeaks

I am 🤏🏻 this close to taking annual leave from work and going to Scotland to watch this in 3D.

I haven't read the whole thread, so i apologise if this has already been covered.
But is the hearing going to be available to watch online?

I'm just wondering if there is anything we can do to get this perspective across about the harms of gender ideology to dementia patients. I bet most charities are captured, though I might start there to see. It really is a horrific abdication of care if this man is allowed to force his delusions onto patients. Which the NHS trust seems to be enabling.

The Judge is obviously sufficiently privileged to not have to think about this side of things - lucky him. If he gave it a moment's thought he'd realise that giving this man what he wants in court has the knock on effect of harming and abusing a whole load of truly vulnerable people. It's why using wrong sex pronouns and deception about sex is not a neutral act. At all.

As you can tell this has really upset me a lot. More and more I just think the UK is not a good place to live.

I don't know, I'm afraid. I'm not the OP, btw.

I thought the equal treatment bench book was changed?

I honestly just think the courts are not fit for purpose if they can force someone to lie in a way that is against their own case.

It's also damaging to society to enable an act in the courts that can undermine safeguarding - which deception about sex will do. Particularly in the case of someone in a position of power over vulnerable people as medics are.

There are many interesting details that were revealed in the preliminary hearing but I found the section on the therapist's evidence curious in how inconsistent it is with what Upton himself said to the court:

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Redacted-Peggie-Case-Management-Order-06.01.2025.pdf

The Tribunal also noted that Ms. Pollock had found that Dr. Upton was under a great deal of stress not just because of the hate crime but also because of 'micro-aggressions'. That finding was inconsistent with Dr. Upton's witness evidence, which was (in terms) that she generally felt well supported at work notwithstanding occasional micro-aggressions and was not under a great deal of stress and anxiety because of them. In the Tribunal's judgment, Ms. Pollock's letter 'crossed the line' from permissible expert opinion to unhelpful advocacy.

It is not just dementia patients, any patient when faced with such a man has the threat hanging over them of ‘affirm my fantasy about myself/be an unconsenting participate in my AGP or your treatment will be denied or delayed and I may report you for a hate crime’ (especially given his apparent lack of understanding of what a hate crime is). It doesn’t matter if he would actually do this, the implicit threat is there. On top of that his disregard for boundaries has already been evidenced by his use of the female changing room. Why should we think that attitude is limited to staff and not include patients?

Yes I agree. However I have direct experience with dementia patients so could provide a perspective here, other perspectives are to be welcomed.

I simply cannot believe the NHS trust is actively undermining safeguarding for patients in this way.

The fact the therapist was lying to the court is appalling but sadly not shocking. When are such people going to get fired for this shit?