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

Thank you, Dragon. And others.

Hopefully, when he's cross examined, we will find out why he thought it was something that Naomi Cunningham believes could be career ending for Sandie.

It just all sounds so bizarre. People leave A and E all the bloody time. due to having to wait for hours and hours.

I'm not sure what Sandie was supposed to have done about that.

Furthermore, if he genuinely thought a patient was in danger, why didn't he do something about it himself?

It's absolutely infuriating that so many people have to drill down into the minutiae of these ridiculous allegations.

Poor Sandie. She must've gone over and over all this bollocks in her head a thousand times.

I seem to recall someone saying Dr U went to speak to ED about one of the incidents after it happened. But I have only a hazy recollection.

Who did he go to speak to after the 'changing room incident', can anyone recall?

Certainly to me it looks like sneaky trumpet blowing that you don't deserve.

I don't generally disagree with blowing your own trumpet, but this one looks a little misleading!

This is why politics should be completely absent from the workplace. No lanyards, flags, badges, posters, training in 'correct think', etc. You cannot choose your work colleagues like you can your friends. You cannot drop them like you can your friends either. You have to be able to get on sufficiently well to do your job professionally and quite often the less you know about someone's political beliefs the easier that will be.

None of this is to say that SP has anti trans beliefs beyond the obvious basic GC ones - but if my understanding is correct, it doesn't matter if she does.

In the Miller case, I think the judgments would align to yours in many ways.

There is no question that trans people, who undoubtedly face much discrimination, are entitled to protection. No group should be subjected to harassment or prejudice. Nonetheless, those fighting for trans rights should not be allowed to trample on the cherished freedoms of others. These must include the right to talk about social and political issues in a way that does not break the law. As the judge in Mr Miller’s case, Mr Justice Julian Knowles, put it: “In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-harry-miller-twitter-and-the-trans-debate-thought-police-s5r6kqg0h?

She added: “The concept of a chilling effect in the context of freedom of expression is an extremely important one.
“It often arises in discussions about what if any restrictions on journalistic activity are lawful; but in my judgment it is equally important when considering the rights of private citizens to express their views within the limits of the law, including and one might say in particular, on controversial matters of public interest.”

Giving the high court ruling, Mr Justice Julian Knowles said Miller’s tweets were “for the most part, either opaque, profane or unsophisticated” but were still entitled to freedom of expression protections.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/21/ex-police-officer-wins-appeal-over-forces-guidance-on-hate-incidents

@Booboobagins this is exactly what Dr U feels about the incident in the changing room. For that POV Sandie has made transphobic comments by saying “you are a man” and asking them to leave the changing room. Saying that to a biological male in almost all other contexts is not considered toxic. From this POV Sandie is harassing Dr U under the Equalities Act.

the alternative POV is that Sandie is feeling embarrassed and intimidated by encountering a biological male in the changing rooms. It may also be unlawful under H&S laws. From this POV Dr U is harassing Sandie under the Equalities Act.

IMO neither are toxic but both are suffering from a lack of clarity in the law about their protected characteristics. Your summary is too simplified to be meaningful - sorry to be blunt

ED is (or was) Sandie’s line manager and Sandie complained to regarding the male doctor using female facilities. Highly inappropriate that ED should have been appointment to head the first (and apparently non-existent) investigation!

Was she involved all the way through that case, or only for the appeal which overturned the original judgement? It's interesting to see her prior involvement in Maya's long running case, given the cross examination that she conducted - especially concluding that she was no expert & unqualified, or whatever the way it was framed. I'll bet she relished the opportunity to cross examine Maya (if she was only involved in the appeal, did she cross examine, or am I right in thinking that it was for counsel to present the arguments at appeal with no further testimony from Maya at that stage?). I don't think she came out well in the end. I wasn't dialled in to hear it, but the overview from TT & here suggests she didn't 'land a decent hit' from that exchange.

Apologies

• complained to ED
• appointed

Is she on the witness list to testify? If so I think her testimony will be enlightening as (I think) she did seek advice/guidance, but didn't go back with anything to advise Sandie. Am I right in thinking that she has to consult the EDI cohort at the hospital? I'd definitely like to hear more about that.

I can't see that the NMC would consider these non events as meeting a threshold for investigation.

The patient leaving before being seen - DUs issue on this is that before just documenting that they weren't seen as they'd left, he wanted to enquire from the triage nurse (SP) who'd assessed them whether she had any concerns that she hadn't documented. He couldn't find her to ask so tasked an HCA (Rhianna) to find her and ask the question. Rhianna went off and found SP and they returned to the vicinity of DU while Rhianna related the query. DU waved hi at SP in acknowledgement that it was he who had asked the question and SP said loud and clear in his hearing to Rhianna that she had no additional concerns re this child and it was all fine, before she returned to whatever she was already doing when pulled away to answer this query. His complaint is that she didn't reciprocate his wave or address her answers sufficiently to him, rather than to Rhianna who was the one who talked to her as they walked towards him together.

There was no detriment to the patient, there was no avoidance of answering the question. No information was withheld.

The patient in resus - SP hadn't done all the obs on a patient before DU came into the cubicle, so asked him to do them while clerking the patient. SP left the cubicle.

The patient had obs done, the patient was not left alone, the patient came to no harm and their care was seamless and unaffected. It is not outside a doctor's competence, ability or job role to carry out obs. There will be nothing in contracts or job descriptions that rules obs a solely nursing task. DU has stated that he doesn't have oversight of SP job list and doesn't know if she left to attend to a sicker patient or more urgent task (like giving pain relief to another patient who couldn't wait and SP considered the patient in question in safe hands with DU full attention) .

When you look at NMC fitness to practice hearings these are usually very grave. The incidents above are replicated in EDs around the country every minute of every day.

@Zaco1 you've accidentally posted on the discussion thread about an ongoing employment tribunal. You should get some help if you start your own thread in Chat, or maybe one of the Home and Garden topics?

Hope you get it sorted.

As in the Essex listing, JR was in the 2019 ET where she acted alone and her sole legal opposition was Anya Palmer.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e15e7f8e5274a06b555b8b0/Maya_Forstater__vs_CGD_Europe__Centre_for_Global_Development_and_Masood_Ahmed_-_Judgment.pdf

I've been thinking of "interested parties". I am curious that I haven't heard from Stonewall or any of a number of TRA organizations (even Scotish ones with many letters in their names). Have any of them made any statements supportive of the need for Dr U to use female CRs? Or come out saying that anyone objecting should be considered guilty of harrasment?

I mis-occupationed Anya Palmer, she's a barrister.

Apologies. I was trying to remember when Peter Daly got involved and then muddled up what I was typing.

There’s a TiM vascular surgeon and a TiM orthopaedic surgeon at Edinburgh hospital. Would they work in Fife too? Is that why Upton was so confirdent about the changing room, maybe other TiMs use it too?

Yes, that struck me also. Is that what they call a legal fiction?

I particularly liked this quote from the clicky-on bit headed:
What Others Say

“Jane is utterly committed to cases. She knows the documents back to front and has a compelling and straightforward advocacy style.”

Needs editing to add:
As any fule kno

Szygy got there first, and was a lot more practical and helpful than I was

Sorry Zaco1 your post has appeared in the wrong place, but it must be very worrying for you, you need to be warm and comfortable all day and you need to watch the bills too, I'm sure we can all identify with that!

I don't know what to recommend, but maybe somebody could point Zaco1 in a useful direction?

All the best, Zaco1, hope it gets sorted, and stay warm.

Re Tribunal Tweets: I wanted to show my appreciation but I couldn't find a way of donating that didn't involve signing up for monthly donations. However, there is a 'gift a subscription for a month' option for a one-off £5 (or £50 for a year). You can't gift it to yourself, so I gifted it to my DH!

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=web&utm_source=subscribe-widget-preamble&utm_content=154549697&next=https%3A%2F%2Ftribunaltweets.substack.com%2Fp%2Fpeggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr&gift=true

This preemptive noting down of perceived slights does make it look as if DU was on the lookout for something to claim harassment/transphobia/etc

He'd marked her as a witch (for not getting undressed in front of him) and so anything she did or didn't do after that was evidence of wrongdoing.

Sandie leaving the changing room and waiting outside was wrong, but so was Sandie using the changing room because it made him feel 'unsafe'.

Sandie not making eye contact with him was wrong, but so was Sandie making eye contact with him because that's 'aggressive'.

He doesn't want to be around Sandie because he's 'scared', but has a problem with Sandie not saying 'hello' to him. No doubt if she did say 'hello', that would've been logged as a microaggression too for 'tone'.

You just can't win with someone so determined to be offended.

I think NC was using the term "potentially career ending allegations" to refer to the wider theme of DU suggesting that SP was so transphobic and had allowed her issues with DU to affect her practice so much so as to endanger patient care.

He has only (so far as we are aware) given the 2 non events as above as examples of his wider concerns about her poor practice.

As they have been reported by him so far they do not adequately represent the issues he says there were as they do not appear to have in anyway resulted in poor outcomes for patients (or even created a risk there may have been like outcomes).

NC wants to know and see the documents that relate to these allegations, and any others, to check they were properly investigated and that a conclusion was reached that clearly explains how a plan of suspension then supervised practice was arrived at.

If that is extent of it, It's gobsmacking that it was even mentioned. That JR even thought it sufficiently significant to bring up!

Not saying hi to somebody or making eye contact and asking a doctor to do some obs??

Ffs. I'm getting wound up all over again !

Quite apart from anything else, she had already told him that she felt embarrassed and intimidated by him. How can he be so clueless just not realise that complaining she wasn't warm enough towards him makes him look as creepy as fuck.

Yes - it is the exact reasoning from the judge in deciding for openness:

• the importance of public scrutiny in matters of significant public interest and “vigorous” debate
• the importance of that transparency to ensure the truth is told by all - anonymity breeds a tendency for rules to be relaxed or ignored
• that Dr U was already identified as a male by impartial patients occasionally so their being publicly named did not expose their Trans status or put them at additional risk compared to any other participant

Knows them back to front, but also doesn't spot missing documents! 😬🤔

And for whoever mentioned it above, the cab rank system is for criminal cases only. NHS Scotland / Fife deliberately chose JR for this case.