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

Knowing what we know now about the shitshow of R1's processes and documentation, it seems even more ridiculous (if possible) that JR spent so much time cross examining Mr Peggie on each of his Facebook posts

She's being paid to make the best case she can. It's shit for her (and probs shit for her career) that the facts of the case are very much not in her favour and all she can do is attempt character assassination.

Blimey you lot, it's the weekend. However, since it's most likely going to be needed at some point today, here's the next continuation thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5270365-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-7

If I might make a request, would it be possible for posters to fill up this thread first before moving over to the next one? Thanks.

I guess if he didn't leave then DU would potentially have felt this was a reason for bites in a phone too?

Quite. Current wisdom on reddit is that this is clear-cut case as the Trump-loving transphobe has admitted harassment and hopefully "the jury" will decide that she needs to go to jail for the "assault" <facepalm>

Tribute to Sandie's dad is heading towards the 10k now, it's at around a 25% addition to the charities yearly budget. .

A reminder that Sarah Holman and Faye Russell-Caldicott are involved in cases about single sex facilities in England and gardens can be found in the usual place.

Case in point - not a group of people in touch with due process and facts...

@nauticant I hope it is ok that I posted a summary (by me) of the legal claims that Sandie has brought to the Tribunal and the initial NHS/DrU responses at the very top of #7. I was getting lost with NC's timeline questions and the Tribunal details help to explain where she is trying to fill in gaps. I hope it helps others too. Thanks for posting this thread and bringing my attention to this - fascinating and important stuff

I've been having a browse of Facebook and the vast vast majority of comments a more behind Sandie. Sunlight.

I thought it was helpful. I had wondered about including something like that but shorter in the OP but that ends up with a huge OP, so getting the summary in at the start of the new thread is a good idea.

'That's been asked about many of these Employment Tribunals and my view is that even when the defendents/respondents spot that they're on a hiding to nothing, or, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, they choose to fight on to signal to particularly constituencies that they're so wedded to the right ideological cause, they're willing to go down fighting.'

My guess is that many of the decision-makers are literally frightened to disrupt gender ideology groupthink by bringing in ordinary commitments to facts and due process, and that they feel actively relieved by the prospect of a court case in which judges make decisions for them. They actually want a normal outcome and a return to ordinary principles of discourse but they can't achieve it without surrendering to the Leviathan.

Thanks for the timeline on the next thread, Knotty. It was something I thought about doing.

I'd love Tribunal Tweets to do an AMA (or an interview). I am in awe of the speed with which they capture most of the proceedings.

Does it run like a tag team, swapping every hour?

Did they originally train on court stenography machines?

I thought it was astonishing that JR's questioning focussed on opinion pieces in blogs and magazines and feelings. It never really got beyond the level of - "my feelings were hurt and I was crying and shaking"

I was waiting for the legal arguments - given that this is an ET - on policies, laws the complaint processes - what did SP/DU complain about, to whom and when to nail down the timeline and emphasize that these weren't spurious complaints. It all seemed really wishy washy ...

It was only when NC stood up that we began to talk about employment law. Then it transpired that there were huge holes in the timeline because JR's clients had not disclosed a lot of the documents ....

Booboobagins · Today 08:10

Peggie is toxic because she has made derogatory comments (actually her and her husband) about trans people. Imo she deserved to be suspended behaving as she did. She did not take positive action but acted out obviously hurting the Dr.

Which derogatory comments are those? Do you have a link to her SM?

She did take positive action and the management did nothing; in fact, they told her to take it up with Upton. She also waited outside, until he had finished.

Really, reading all the links here would aid your comprehension of the case.

Is Sandie likely to win? I am hoping so.

Thank you for extra special beetle hugs @Boiledbeetle and good to see a nice solid bloke holding the right kind of placard supportively.

Absolutely this is what I have been thinking over the last few days. For most people this is an absolute ball ache and not relevant or interesting, and huge distraction from life/work. But it is easier to go along with it for an easy life - and to side-step being accused of harrassment, accused of professional incompetence, being suspended at work, "career ending" allegations. For the NHS Fife, NHS Scotland and probably all other major institutions getting this all sorted legally one way or another for £200k is money well spent...

I do hope so, JR didn't have much to go with apart from the personal attack approach similar to that in Jo Phoenix's case - but it isn't over under the final whistle. NC will do her utmost.

Ifs fascinating and am so glad Sadie took such a massive stand for women.

If more women continue to do so, then it will stop the pandering to allowing men into women's spaces.

Would these men be happy with mixed sex changing rooms (along side womens and men s) to go into, where anyone can change, or specifically want to be in womens only spaces? Seems the logical answer.

As if not comfortable In men's, then mixed sexes would be s good compromise.

Then it would be apparent their reason to go into Biological womens spaces if keep pushing agenda

@Lunde

I thought it was astonishing that JR's questioning focussed on opinion pieces in blogs and magazines and feelings. It never really got beyond the level of - "my feelings were hurt and I was crying and shaking"

I was waiting for the legal arguments - given that this is an ET - on policies, laws the complaint processes - what did SP/DU complain about, to whom and when to nail down the timeline and emphasize that these weren't spurious complaints. It all seemed really wishy washy ...

And the Judge clearly thought the same!
Firstly asking JR how the articles and bits of US law were relevant?
Secondly having to step in at the end of JR's questioning of SP to get the facts of the matter - exactly what happened when, where, what was said by whom and when.
It seemed really unprofessional but not asking questions can be a strategy - we will need to wait to find out

I'm not a lawyer. But I can't really see that either NHS Fife or Dr U have a leg to stand on. They implemented an illegal policy of allowing a man into the women's changing room, and then punished the woman who complained about it. Their rationale seems to be that she was harassing Dr U, but from Dr U's own testimony, the harassment largely seemed to constitute of not making eye contact, or leaving the changing room when he was in it. Knowing what hospitals are like, it's really hard to see how that meets the level of harassment.

There were also charges that Sandie had put patients at risk, if I've understood correctly, but these seem incredibly flimsy and implausible.

Finally, there is the issue of the missing documents: NHS Fife are now on the back foot because it seems they didn't disclose all relevant documents to the tribunal. Sandie's lawyer has implied that the missing emails will reveal that the hospital, having failed to find anything material in its investigation of Sandie, then colluded with Dr U to invent the patient safety charges. If this is true, which would be extraordinary, then it will be absolutely catastrophic for the hospital and Dr U.

But of course, who knows how the minds of tribunal judges work? After the infamous ET of Maya Forstater, which found her beliefs were not worthy of respect in a democratic society, anything could happen.

They don't seem to have recognised

• the circular definitions that have trapped SP in this Catch-22 of NHS Scotland/NHS FIfe's policies on this matter and the inherent conflict with other legal protections and policies.
• that, at its heart, this ET is about the matters that NC is starting to elucidate: it's about due process (e.g., the evidence for the suspension and who scrutinised it and made decisions), competing legal protections and policies, about what people thought they were investigating and when, and what implicit/explicit direction did they receive.

This said, as in the 2019 Forstater vs CGD ET, it is possible for judges not to grasp the issues although we are now in a post-Forstater, post-Meade, post-Phoenix etc. world. I would expect that a panel and judge as experienced as the ones for this ET would have well-formed views of what is relevant to the matters under discussion.

ETA: somewhat x-posted with RoyalCorgi.

Thank you very much, if we need to crowdfund I will be back! If anyone is interested in volunteering, send me a DM on here. It's difficult and stressful but we feel like we are making a difference.

Not a Moleskine. Presumably the ET funds don't run to those. It was a large sized exercise book. I almost expected him to put the date at the top and underline it. [Unlike Fife NHS who seem not to date anything they produce.]

Yes!

This said, as in the 2019 Forstater vs CGD ET, it is possible for judges not to grasp the issues although we are now in a post-Forstater, post-Meade, post-Phoenix etc. world. I would expect that a panel and judge as experienced as the ones for this ET would have well-formed views of what is relevant to the matters under discussion.

I thought the Judge's deliberations in the Case Management Order were very balanced and thorough. He gave evidence based on opinion or feelings much less weight than concrete examples/facts. If he does similar for the actual Tribunal deliberations I think we are all in good hands

Can you imagine the speed they 'd answer the other posters at? No waiting 5 hours for the OP to type up to twenty responses before getting to your question!