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

Image won't upload.

Text reads:

At the heart of this case is an employer siding, apparently immediately, unquestioningly, and ferociously, with one relatively newly/employed doctor over one long-employed nurse, because she did not pretend she was OK with their decision to let him use the female changing room/

https://x.com/LucyHunterB/status/1887949642865721563

QTs this comment from Lucy's colleague, Kath Murray:

A Fife health board spokesperson said “It is important to recognise that at the heart of this case are two employees who should be treated with kindness and respect.” What utter bollocks.

Yes. That pretty much sums it up.

@Boiledbeetle thanks for posting this. I didn’t see MF’s session

It’s so useful to see it all written down with the facts and figures. Society has just relied on this being the status quo for so long we’ve all forgotten why we do what we do. And why it’s important. And why sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. And why it should remain so in the form of female only spaces like toilets and changing rooms

Is it because the NHS has been captured for a long time but most of the public don't realise? Maybe Stonewall-influenced policies with dodgy interpretations of the Equality Act are still in place and haven't been updated? EA and the GRA are too much of a mess for public institutions to understand and they have effectively erred on the side of self-ID because of the 'proposing to undergo' bit of the PC of GR which means a man only has to say he's 'living as a woman'/'transitioning' and this is taken as meaning he has the right to use female-only facilities? Or at least that they are worried about legal action if they don't let him use female-only facilities? I don't even know if incoming politicians can do much about it with the law as it stands. (As is probably obvious, I am not a lawyer!)

I actually agreed with the Fife spokesperson. Just is a shame that them saying is lip service if their actions are wildly different. I remain to be convinced about how SP’s need for dignity and privacy were regarded with respect

From Twitter

Rats didn't attach sorry. It was a cartoon of an enormous sobbing bearded TW in the Fife changing rooms saying to a rather stunned looking SP 'I just want you to take your clothes off Sandie. Why won't you do it? You're scaring me'

We were discussing further back the absence of photos of Upton, compared to Peggie, in the media. Not sure 🤔 if this one’s already been posted.

“You probably won’t have seen a picture of the doctor at the centre of the dispute in any of the coverage, and ultimately, the fact that he is a man ought to be enough to bar him from a female-only space. But for clarity, Dr Upton is a bloke who looks like a bloke. That he enjoys dressing as a woman and wants to compel the outside world to refer to him as such is undisputed. The bone of contention is whether it is legal to compel others to play along with his fantasy, and to what extent institutions ought to facilitate it.”

https://thecritic.co.uk/describing-reality-is-not-harassment/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3usLgRH1D1CwyLAhsA1tnWvewKqgnND86XWN1uQowkrmL2NVDARnNTjUUaem_UmOLecvklJjQ2H60FFTUQ

Sorry that was in reply to @EasternStandard

JR claims there are no mysteries that she cannot explain away.

Except she cant explain her assertions. She asserts there wasnt an earlier investigation but she cant say exactly what was and wasnt done at that stage, because no evidence.

Thanks for your post earlier checking the timeline and those involved in the investigations NotAGentleReminder.

Since the questions earlier about sharing a barrister etc I started wondering about the implications of being a “respondent” or “co-respondent”. Apparently it means that should the claimant’s case be successful then costs could be awarded. Respondents would be jointly and severally liable. Awards are usually to compensate the claimant rather than to punish the respondent.

In plain English if SP wins then NHS Fife and Dr U would each have to pay half of any award the judge sees fit to quantify. For example £21k for unfair dismissal. No limit for harassment or whistleblowing.

if SP wins then what’s the likely award for each of her 3 claims: indirect harassment, victimisation, and whistleblowing? Plus a potential libel claim on top of the professional conduct stuff is said to be unfounded?

holy sh*t

This is what Michael Foran says (my bold):

"The relevant rule in Workplace (Health, Safety, and Wellbeing) Regulations 1992 are a strict requirement to provide male and female changing areas where employment requires one to change clothing. NHS policies incompatible with these regulations are unlawful.

This is different from Schedule 3 of the Equality Act - provision of separate sex services to the public. The Schedule 3 exceptions* don’t apply in the workplace*. They are permissible but not mandatory. The 1992 regs are mandatory - there is now cope for justification for breach.

There is no scope for justification of breach*"

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1887476319576850683

edit of strange wandering asterisks

Thanks for posting this again.

I totally agree with this as it aligns with my beliefs as eloquently set out by Maya F’s witness statement.

However if Dr U purpose is akin to a modern-day-Trans-Rosa-Parks then their POV would be to ignore the law and push for civil rights-style legal change. In other words sex can be changed and so can the law to benefit a marginalised group?

There seems to be a distinct lack of reporting on today's court events in the National press, compared to the previous days this week.

Perhaps the DEI reporters take Fridays off. (Or more likely feel today's events need censoring from the masses)

Thanks for these threads!

Yes it is shocking. But, my feeling is that because of this the case will be won for Sandie as a result.

If DrU was a modern day Rosa Parks he would be the one fearful of repercussions for not sitting at the back of the bus. I think Sandie is much more akin to Rosa Parks in this instance. Two brave women.

Yes👏👏

I am a little concerned that DU may be a vulnerable person, perhaps ASD, who thinks he has found his tribe, has been coached that any challenge like SP’s is hateful bigotry, that as a good trans person he must be valliant and take the fight to the bigots etc and that this will be a lot for him. I suspect it will become clearer in cross examination whether this is the case or whether he has some of the harsher motivations being ascribed to him on Twitter.

SP is in the right in what she did, and women’s rights to their own changing room without men/male bodied people/TW should be upheld, but it may be that the real fault here is in NHS Fife encouraging his complaint rather than talking him down, in allowing the use by TW of the female CR rather than the allocated unisex CR, in the shoddy and secretive way they have conducted the investigation, suspension and litigation.

Not in my experience. The private sector is just as capable of making a pig's ear of everything.

Good point - although the mask, support posse and application for a close hearing with anonymity because of fear of violent repercussions and mental health complications don't suggest Dr U is all bright and breezy!

Also edited to say that it's not my POV - but my trying to explain why trans people aren't so concerned about the law as such, because they believe that it is wrong and should be changed

That's reassuring, in a way.

The days of employers erring on the side of trans ideology are over. This erring was always based on being sued by the trans ideologues, but now they are finding out that women are fighting back, underpinned by the law.

We do not know who is funding Sandie's fight back (although we may have suspicions 👋) but employer after employer are beginning to FAFO - women will be crowdfunded by the general public every time and we won't be silenced.

Think on NHS and all the rest. We are no longer cowed, so do your due diligence before entering the fray. You are looking increasingly stupid,

yes to this!