NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #7

[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: https://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

Thread 6: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269635-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-6

It's the same one

At that point, Fife's interests and his have diverged, haven't they, which was a possibility discussed earlier? Interesting.

Ready, and with only one meeting today. My phone has just told me I used it this week 40 minutes more than the previous week. No shit, I'm amazed it wasn't more!

Rather grimly I haven't been catcalled since I was about 14.

It seemed to happen again lot from the age of starting to grow breasts up to my GCSE study years where I rarely left the house.

Agree completely with this.

This morning we will find out whether Fife and DU have finally complied with their disclosure obligations. I hope they have because I don't want anyone to be able to claim that SP only won on a technicality. I also hope that the tribunal doesn't use the fact DU doesn't have a GRC to find in SP's favour, thereby ducking the bigger issue. I hope they find that, even if Upton had been in possession of a GRC, he had no right to be in the women's changing rooms.

This is one of those cases where I wish we had the American concept of punitive damages, allowing the court to award SP a settlement so big that other organisations that have been captured by this ideology are forced to wake up. Trans rights are NOT women's rights and trans women are NOT women.

I (man) have had random shanter (shit banter) from builders for wearing a pink top*. I wouldn't exactly call 'nice top mate hurr hurr' a cat call but I mean maybe some would.

*Isle of Wight, Red Funnel ferry seems to be a TARDIS to 1975 some times

There are no similar practical intricacies for men, in my experience. I know what you are talking about as I've seen my DW do those manoeuvres on a beach, and very impressive it was. I didn't bother trying to hold a towel round myself for the less than twenty seconds of nakedness.

In a changing room with a row of showers and no curtains, I just shower as efficiently and quickly as I can while studiously avoiding any appearance of being interested in anyone else in the room, as does everyone else as far as I know. Among adolescents at school, there was some childish behaviour, which I won't describe; I think it came out of embarrassment and insecurity. By the age of about 15 we had all left it behind. I think if girls had been present, it would probably have continued for longer, based on the way a few boys behaved away from changing rooms.

@IDareSay thanks so much! I'm ridiculously invested in watching him be cross examined!

I hope what we'll get at the end of all this is not just clarification, but confirmation that if you don't want to use the changing room appropriate to your sex, then you use a gender neutral one. That's your alternative. Not the opposite sex changing room.

But I don't think this was ever about being scared in the men's. It's not about a third neutral option being unavailable (because if there was a alternative for SP, there was bleeping well an alternative for Upton.)

It is about being in the female changing room. It has always been about that. He wanted to use the female changing room and so that's what he did. He did this knowing that it would upset female staff. We know this, because he was on the lookout for signs that they were upset. He kept a diary to prove it.

The NHS changing room policy is 'anyone can use any changing room they like' (when you take away the nonsense and put it in language that a five year old can understand). We've been given a million excuses to justify it - 'feels' like the opposite sex, harmful to mental health if not allowed access to the opposite sex changing room, 'scared' in the correct changing room but no proof of this needed, no-one can tell what sex anyone is anyway, if you notice that someone is in the opposite sex changing room you've the pervert for noticing etc etc. But all they're doing is trying to say that it's not what it looks like.

To those speculating about DU using the ladies because the gents was a scary place. That hasn't been mentioned at all. From his comments about using the female CR elsewhere and having a right to use it I assume he felt entitled because feelings, because special, because Stonewall Law and because hospital/NHS policy.

I guess that DU went to Edinburgh, which is completely 'use the loo you want', not sure when but for a while now.

I was at Potterrow SU a year or two ago and the doors to the large toilets in the basement just had a list of contents, rather than (as previously) Male and Female. So the ex-male toilet said sth like "Urinals and stalls" and the ex-female toilet said "Stalls".

A few people on X were suggesting that over the weekend NHS Fife had offered to settle and were turned down.

I hope that NC is able to throw the book at them (preferably an entire library's worth)!

@Zebracat

I've just logged on and remembered that you don't have to wait until the actual live feed starts to disable your camera and mic. You can do that by scrolling down to the icons while you are WFTCHTJoin.

I'm so near but so far with my husband. Completely in support of Sandie but then says things like "with the sexual element around fear of attack or being filmed or perved on, wouldn't employers be in a difficult situation if a straight man complained about changing with a gay man, for the same fears? Or even if they all happened to be gay men and don't want to get changed together in case of attack or voyerism or secret filming?"

I think what he means is if employers accept that men are a threat, don't they have a duty to protect male employees from each other too?
I got fed up to be honest, he's too detached and theoretical about things for me to be able to discuss it. Also said he would have a problem at all getting changed in front of women. Thinking about health care actually, there are many men who would prefer intimate care from a woman rather than another man so I wouldn't be suprised if they also wouldn't be bothered about mixed changing rooms for themselves, given that the fear element is removed. Possibly it would make things safer for men.

As a separate note, a gay male friend is in a meet up group for other gay men. They meet locally then head to the Village together, that sort of thing. A TiF has started turning up and they are all a bit WTF? But none of them has said anything or told her not to come. They are all just hoping she'll stop coming. I wonder if she feels accepted as a gay man, when actually they all discuss her, feel she shouldn't be there and hope she won't turn up.

Sorry to ramble!

It's usually on at about 10.00?

The EHRC argued at the Supreme Court that section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 changed all existing legislation, so 'woman' in the 1992 Act would include men with GRCs. They claimed it was only subsequent legislation that had the option to specify a s9(3) definition so that woman could be limited to its biological meaning.

Although no-one took the time to examine all existing relevant laws to figure out if it made sense given they had clearly been written before trans was even a thing.

I've used the tribunal tweets link in the absence of a response to a remote viewing request. I was swarmed by the transactivists previously and am banned, I am getting the following response, as attached - is it just me or is the tweeting not live at the moment?

Finally caught up with the thread! It was only started on Saturday afternoon.

That could have been a significant offer or could simply have been a drop hands one where both withdraw from the action and walk away with no money exchanging hands @Madcats.

Legend has it that the main library at George Square hasn't got any books on the top floor because the architects hadn't taken into account quite how heavy three floors of books were, and it would be structurally unsafe. I have no idea if that's true but when I was there, in days of yore, the top floor indeed had no books and was closed off.

Would be epic if NC's closing remarks were 'having delivered the book to my learned friend via upper limb projection at best speed, I invite them to file it in the top floor'

I was musing on another contradiction in all this stuff:

If we know DU can't have a GRC because he was only "a woman" from '22 and the incidents occured in '23

But to get a GRC you have to "live as a woman" (there aren't enough eye rolls) for 2 years

But as it stands according to Haldane you are legally a man until you get your GRC

How does anyone fulfil the requirements if they continue to go to the male toilets and changing rooms?

Any which way they are breaking the law or failing to demonstrate required actions

The whole thing is so stupid that I can barely engage with it BUT it is unfathomable that law makers created such socking great contradictions and loopholes and expected everyone to muddle through

I think it's possible that the tribunal could find both that Dr Upton was entitled to be in the changing room (which would be mad, because he isn't, but you never know with tribunals), but also that Sandie Peggie was unfairly suspended because she didn't actually behave in a threatening manner or put patient safety at risk or anything like that. And also that the hospital didn't follow the correct procedures.

Because when you look at Dr U's evidence against Peggie (not making eye contact etc) it really is feeble stuff, and in the context of the NHS, barely worth noting. I'm sure most of us have heard pretty horrific stories of bullying in hospitals, and if the worst you can say about someone is that they looked at you in a funny way, or didn't look at you at all, then you're going to get short shrift.

Morning, everyone 😊.

Slightly regretting my late night in the pub, but on my second coffee and will come round.

Wanted a big screen, so have my laptop set up but also wanted to walk round the house and not miss anything (if need be) so have set up my iPad too.

Does anyone know how long we might get for lunch (assuming things go as they usually would) as need to plan a dog walk without missing anything?

There has never been any requirement to use opposite sex facilities in order to acquire a GRC. The whole 'living as the opposite gender' is a red herring; it is simply a matter of paperwork.

Technically, even if FWS win at the Supreme Court that just fixes the definition of woman in the Equality Act. It's a whole other argument about the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992...

Sometimes with really tricky cases, an Employment Tribunal can find a way out by deciding in favour of a claimant on the basis of unfair process rather than getting too snarled up in delving too deeply into hideous and highly contentious complexity.