NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #5

[nauticant]

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 January 2025 and is expected to continue for 2 weeks. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on 6 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely can be obtained by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access.

The hearing is being live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr. This also has threadreaderapp archives of live-tweeting of the sessions of the hearing for those who can't follow on Twitter, for example: archive.is/xkSxy.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse

Thread 2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2

Thread 3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268347-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-3

Thread 4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268942-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-4

That poor mother.

Well, yes, I'd assumed it meant that kind of twaddle @Areolaborealis, I'd thought it was WeeBisom's own view from the way it was written & used without irony here, which was puzzling.

When I cried at work after the death of a baby, nobody comforted me. But then I'm just an ordinary woman, not a special one.

The fundraiser is now at over 5k!!
Both Sandie's mum and daughter have commented on X how touched they are.. which hopefully means Sandie feels our support.
I agree with a pp that it would be nice if it was going to Sandie and her team but at least the family can feel the support out there for them.

"As Sandie’s mum I would like to thank everyone for your generous contributions to Alex fundraiser. It’s been an exceptionally difficult time for our family but the compassion shown to Sandie is absolutely overwhelming "@

Sorry about the stupid gif....didn't mean to do that 😳
But I guess it kinda fits...

I've just caught up.

I find it hard to remain focussed on the job of the tribunal as much of the discussion seems to be about wider issues that I think of as being tangential to the claims laid.

It strikes me that it might be easier to show NHS Fife have indirectly discriminated against SP by failing to provide a single sex CR than it will be to show they and DU have harassed and victimised SP - which is what SP's team need to prove to win the case. I guess NC’s job today is to get evidence in front of the panel that regardless of DU’s hurt feelings, his behaviour amounted to harassment and victimisation.

Interesting.

Reading your post, it struck me that the people (quite literally) surrounding Upton are enablers.

If I asked my mother to come and sit with me in a court case where I was implicated, I’m fairly sure she would agree to come and sit in the balcony or wait for me nearby. If I said I wanted her to form part of a protective barrier, hiding me from sight and sitting close in a phalanx around me in court, she would sympathize, but would point out that I was an adult and should stand on my own feet, walk in with my head held high and answer as truthfully as I could.

The behaviour yesterday is entirely abnormal. This is not a famous actor, at risk of unwanted attention, or a criminal keeping his face covered. This is a person who claims to have been harassed and victimized. Such a person should have nothing to hide.

I am with those who suspect he won’t turn up, but perhaps you are correct, @Bannedontherun and he is so buried in his bubble world that he won’t realize the impression he’s making.

Hope the link works. Share token to today's Times.

A picture is worth 1000 words.....

Activists made my life miserable, says trans row doctor

www.thetimes.com/article/87df304f-0349-48c9-b0a5-7b327b84607f?shareToken=abe5d1ec544c4fc17236af5302ee77da

I asked on the last thread but there was no answer, was any explanation ever given for the 5 or so people accompanying Dr U? I am guessing SP couldn't avail herself of the same support because everyone close to her has been called as a witness. For fuck all reason.

Ha, if one of my brothers would have asked this of my mother I would have scuttled off to find some shelter until it was safe to come back out.

💛

https://alexander-herschell-bell.muchloved.com/

Fairly sure it was envisaged by the transactivists who pushed for it, and indeed deliberate. If you read Hansard, various things were questioned at the time (including the language confusion) by Norman Tebbit, amongst others. It was passed on account of the politicians who voted being persuaded that it would only ever be used by a maximum of 5000 people out of the whole population. The shitshow was exactly the intent of Christine Burns and (I think) Stephen Whittle, who ensured it and the EA were so loosely worded as to cause maximum opportunity for expansion of who could be regarded as “trans”.

It was passed on account of the politicians who voted being persuaded that it would only ever be used by a maximum of 5000 people out of the whole population.

That was the 2004 GRA, not the quoted 2010 Equality Act - which applies to everyone.

Checking in.

Thank you all for this thread which has been gripping. I have just cancelled my commitments for today and applied for a link so I can watch. Just taking the dog out but I'll be back in good time.......

WTF, The Times refers to SP as 'a Trump supporter' 🙄

I've no idea if SP is full on maga or merely agrees with something he once said but I do know any political affiliations are not relevant to this case.

I'm surprised at The Times.

Thanks for the link to The Times article.

I think being involved in this tribunal must be grim for DU, deserving or not. He wants to be regarded as a female, yet him being male has become a point of national interest. Finding oneself being the subject of national interest would be overwhelming for most people, even if it is for positive reasons.

I think some consider what he is going through to be deserving punishment for his wrong doing. Even if this is the case, I think it's a stretch to suggest he is pretending to find the process difficult.

What he’s now going through now is awful. What Sandie has been going through for over a year is awful.

He initiated both situations.

The line in the Times where DU ‘didn't look at the other women in the changing room’ is interesting.

Other is obviously a controversial word in that sentence and perhaps best avoided, but….
If you remove it, the issue is spectacularly obvious.

His actions have undoubtedly led to this situation and neither of them would be here and suffering if it weren't for this.

For what it's worth, I expect he is either highly egocentric or narcissistic and did not think beyond what he wanted at the time of the incidents or now. I expect he is solely focussed on the impacts on him and has little or no regard for SP's experience.

Thanks for sharing the Times article @Cismyfatarse The article itself seems quite one sided but I suppose that is a reflection of where things are at in proceedings. And, as you say, the pictures really say it all.

I will add, on the point (in the article) of not being fit to practice due to being trans, there may be some people out there who really do think that, but for the vast majority it's not about Dr U being trans, it's about Dr U's behaviour demonstrating clearly that this is someone who has no care or respect for others' boundaries, particularly women, and through the tribunal, showing themselves to be someone completely incapable of handling stress, conflict or any kind of difficult situation, all of which really are important for anyone working in healthcare.

Similarly, the objection to Dr U being in the changing room was due to Dr U being a transwoman ie a man. Had a transman wanted to changed there and it been objected to, that could be said to be on the basis of their trans status.

To have reached maturity and never have been spoken to 'like that', where 'like that' seems to mean being told no or that someone disagrees with you really is quite remarkable but would go some way to explaining the fragileness and inability to cope.

I think NHS Fife massively fucked up but my goodness me this really is the definition of cry bully. And again I suspect Dr U genuinely has no awareness of that, in part because Dr U has been enabled over a sustained period of time to believe that any objections to Dr U's behaviour is down to transphobia.

Apologies. You are entirely correct and I missed the fact it was the EA under discussion in this case. The point still stands though. The confusion appears to have been entirely deliberate on the part of transactivists.

The line in the Times where DU ‘didn't look at the other women in the changing room’ is interesting

I imagine this is a key aspect as to the claim of sexual harassment. Did his behaviour inside the CR amount to harassment? I expect standing in the corner, turning you back to wine when changing and not looking at them when changing all communicate the opposite of harassment.

I agree - absolutely deliberate. Hence the massive fuss kicked up when people suggested it needed to be clarified.

I wouldn't say that article was particularly pro Sandie. Which is rather interesting coming from the times.

I wonder if they are pre-empting accusations of bias, because the next article might be one by Janice Turner.

And despite all that, the facts are still stark. A man in a woman's changing room, making women feel uncomfortable, and crying when they object.

Every single one of those comments on the Times article, as far as I can see, is in support of Sandie Peggie. Has there ever been any other issue where there is such a massive disconnect between what the authorities (government, universities, NHS leadership etc) think and what the ordinary mass of people think?