NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #6

[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

Thread 5: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269149-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-5

True and a trans person who has had their male parts tucked inside-out to form a pretend vagina is still, and always will be male.

This is a landmark decision.

When I worked in Fife, the provision outlined here was the usual. If the hearing aid - often a cochlear implant - broke down or there was a class discussion, the pupil(s) concerned would need someone to interpret, but help wasn't available full time.

I had a colleague who took a BSL course precisely because he had one deaf pupil.

New builds in the LA (and Auchmuty is one) have specific tech available for hearing impaired pupils* so that they can hear the teacher but that won't help for group/class discussions.

*Think of the Greg Davies story of when he forgot to switch off his microphone.

Has anybody managed to make a sensible timeline of when the "but she was irresponsible/negligent at work" bit came into play? Surely that would be the first thing to put in a disciplinary letter?

Were I an obsessive note-taker/diarist I would be expected to be challenged about my tardiness, or otherwise, of the non-disclosure of fitness to practise complaints I'd raised.

It seems a bit smelly IMO.

Much as Dr Upton is the one who caused the grief in the first place by using the women's changing rooms, the real problem here is the 1st respondent.

NHS policy suggests that he was entitled to use women's spaces because of his gender identity.

There will always be men who ignore, disregard, or seek to breach women's boundaries.

The problem is the NHS, our beloved NHS, is facilitating men's desires and holding them over and above women's rights to single sex spaces.

I'll be very interested to hear from the NHS staff who have enabled this situation next week.

My understanding is that the first comms were titled 'hate incident' and contained no reference to patient safety.

Then this initial investigation (that wasn't an investigation) had ED taken off it, and a second investigation called 'formal complaint' then disclosed other incidents including the patient safety allegations.

Looking on FB, and it’s only a comment after one of the reports published, but someone has commented that Upton was in the process of trying to conceive naturally with his wife.

No wonder this stuff is hard for the average person to get their head around.

@PepeParapluie , ‘In relation to Dr Upton’s notes, I am sure they’ll have had to be disclosed - everyone is referring to them and he has referenced them in his evidence so they’re probably annexed to his witness statement.’

Yeah. There may be just a wee tad of Walter Mitty about them too though.

Not talking about the Upton fellow now. I don’t know what he did, or did not do.

Just reflecting in general about the possible reliability of men who exhibit one or more of the fetishes on the list that Maya Forstater presented during the ET. I think it will be part of the bundle.

Any man with one of these fetishes (in general) may not be the most reliable narrator. Just pretend that I was a bloke who enjoys performing/carrying out one or more of those fetishes on the list that Maya Forstater presented in her evidence at the Employment Tribunal. I could enjoy inventing a rather fictional version of events to meet my fetishistic goals. Or, if I was a rather vindictive person towards those who didn’t indulge my fetish (one on the list as per Maya Forstater’s evidence at the Employment Tribunal), I could create a very distorted scenario in my notes.

However, I suppose you could confine yourself to just looking at facts. Things that can be verified or confirmed as fact.

Actually, having said that about NHS Fife policy, here is the relevant FOI:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_single_sex_staff_cha#incoming-2845802

'NHS Fife does not have a Single Sex Staff Changing, Toilet and Showering
Facilities policy in place.
...
NHS Fife does not have policy in place to support staff in the workplace
who are transgender or staff who may be transitioning. However, support
is provided as required. A new Once for Scotland NHS Scotland Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion Policy is in the soft launch phase at present,
which will be adopted as Board policy. A copy of the policy and
transitioning guide are attached.'

(excerpt from transitioning guide)

'The Equality Act 2010 does allow the provision to exclude a trans
person from single or separate sex facilities. There may be some limited
circumstances when excluding trans people from using separate or
single-sex toilets or changing facilities may be lawful. However, this will
only be allowed if the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate aim. If a trans person is to be excluded from a single-sex
facility alternative, appropriate and safe facilities should be provided.

These kinds of decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Managers must balance the needs of the trans person to use this facility
against the needs of other members of staff. They should also consider
if other staff members will experience any disadvantage if the trans
person is allowed to use the facilities. To do this will often require careful
and sensitive discussions with all the staff affected, maintaining
confidentiality for the trans person. '

There was a similar ttc scenario in the Darlington nurses changing room case. I've no idea if that's being conflated with this one in Fife. (It might be relatively common, for all I know.)

@Cailleach1

Very true. And I like to think that would be obvious from the bias in his language, and his inability to conceal his emotions in his choices of words.

It was during the xmas holidays and Dr U was wanting immediate action. Not passified by the Datix he went on to make a formal complaint. Faced with someone insistant about a hate incident over the hols wasnt she just cornered?

I recommend not being ill in Fife on a Saturday or Sunday - or around a holiday. [Unfortunately, I have experience of this, both as a patient and as a patient advocate.]

There used to be another A&E in Dunfermline, but that was downgraded to a Minor Injuries Clinic.

OK, from TT for this morning's session about who did the (non)-investigation/investigation:

"NC: Now know there was an aborted IX by ED and then a Glancy IX....

(Further on)...NC: At 9pm last night we leanrt the document supplied to AG (Angela Glancy) as part of her IX was the hate incident and not formal CX.....

(Further on)...NC: the chronology appearing is that ED was still the Formal investigator appointed until at least Feb and then Louise Curren. Now know doc at 732 which had puzzled us, was supplied to ED on 14 Feb so she was still investigating then. It has been unclear...

NC: MG contacted the board [missed] on 14 Feb. That letter complains that suspension was ill judged, unlawful and R1 had mismanaged and to lift suspension and ensure F only CR return to F only use. At some point later, which may ot may not be connected, ED's IX was aborted and new investigator was found. To expnad on earlier point, we dont think 3 Jan order properly complied with. Decision to start new AG IX, her briefing, Discussions, Her notification that ED now a witness and not IX..nothing is in the docs we have. Unconcievable that no paperwork.

(Further on) NC: We told R1 that the orig IX was ED from clues in the bundle. Having deduced this as it hadn't been admitted and we werent told this. They did admit this and is common ground.
In light of this surmission, we asked for any docs re appointing new IX team (p419) If you turn to that briefly: on p5 of the 24 page IX report submitted 14 Dec. Recog that signif and regrettable delay, arising from staff absence incl sick leave. Workload demands, changing IX team. So was one of clues. MSF and ED as IXs were substituted to team lead by LC. We looked for all info related to factfinding referred to by AG in her 20 Aug interview w SP. AG says a couple of Qs and DU and LCs statement I can't give the info as wasn't part of orginal factfinding. We got admission that ED was the original manager of IX, the 14 Feb email attached to LCs statement to ED confirms ED was still in charge. Makes it clear beyond doubt that delib defiance of $a and 4b of the order. They knew full well orig IX and werent candid and didnt disclosed this. Was an early Jan meeting with Currier and ED but nothing in docs to indicate existance of that mtg. Interviewing the complainant didnt seem to have happened until 9 May, after cluster of interviews on 28th April. So no notes from mtg or correspondence about setting up. R1 says is no correspondence about the Cs suspension, but that cant be possible. It's an extraordinary thing to do w 30 yr old [I think they mean staff member of 30 years] staff member. Decided to tear up and start again and inconceivable cld happen w/out signif documents. Esp when EDs support was MSF and she's not called. When evidence of some support from MSF re Cs position."

Sorry it's long. So MSF was involved in the initial investigation, was supportive to SP in some way and then the investigation was handed over to LC and/or AG. MSF at some point went off sick (and is still off sick? Able to appear as a witness?)

Who is covering Sandies legal costs please?

@RethinkingLife

Ah, I see. Yes, possible conflation issue then.

But it could be common too. In my NHS Trust, there was a male nurse who moved on and later successfully applied for a new post as a woman.

It was a few years ago and it took a while for fairly straightforward and traditional senior management to get their heads round. Anyway, they did. But the MtoF hadn’t been back long when he got his female partner pregnant and applied for paternity leave.

I think people had assumed he’d had his penis removed and hadn’t realised this was possible. Their heads were frazzled.

I hope that NC delves into the note taking issue on Monday - how extensive was it? Did he take notes on everyone? Or was it just SP? It seems extraordinary that an A&E doctor had time to step away from duties to make a note about whether someone made eye contact or said hi to them.

We don't know.

@NotAGentleReminder so ED interviewed DU as part of an investigation but then it was realised ED was a witness. If that is correct it’s really problematic as you have a witness A (ED) hearing witness Bs (DU) evidence. This can result in the witness A (ED) when being interviewed possibly conflating their memory with witness B (DU) evidence that they have heard and written up. Essentially tainting Witness As evidence.

Not the brightest thing to do. It's totally bonkers. His life wasn't exactly in danger was it? Immediate action my arse .

How about I'll seek further advice, it may take a while given it's Christmas, but I'll get back to you.

Perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

JK Rowling ?

This case gets a mention in Janice Turner's column which is mostly about Trump's sport EO.
I like this sentence:
"Trump’s election has supercharged a move back to common sense. Pronouns are slipping off celebrity Twitter bios and corporate sign-offs. Sheep always wait to move with the flock."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/283bc90f-6aca-4d9b-b881-adf3b5b69c8a?shareToken=41ec6aa7360f82e0ec4596ec719d9b47

How are we supposed to know? Ask Sandie.

Haven't rtft but I just want to say how PEEVED I am that bbc news website has nothing even on its Scottish page about today's developments, whereas yesterday's headline favouring the fella was 4th on the MAIN page.

Peeved.

So Peggie was suspended after the first (not an) investigation, her solicitor wrote the hospital a nasty letter and the second investigation started?

As with sport, this is a simple matter being obfuscated by absurd beliefs few people share. Peggie was suspended for challenging a trans-identifying male doctor, Beth Upton, for using the female changing rooms. Yet she faced a legal battle even to name Upton (who sought anonymity), to call him a man or use male pronouns. But how else, she argued, could she convey how embarrassed and intimidated she felt late at night, attending to an unexpected period in an enclosed space watched by a male? “Do you accept that calling [Upton] a man not a woman is likely to cause immense distress?” asked the doctor’s counsel. “It’s the truth,” Peggie replied.

That's an interesting observation from the originator of declaring women who decline to use preferred pronouns as ultras.

As ever, I admire the clarity of JT's writing and her own advocacy in this general area.