NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #10

[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 February 2025 and is expected to continue for 2 weeks. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on Thursday 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
Thread 7: 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
Thread 8: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271511-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-8
Thread 9: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271596-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-9

In terms of the claims against DU, hasn't he already admitted that whatever SP did in the changing room it still would have upset him - so very much like he'd already taken against her and was on the look out for justification to complain about her. And if the datix/email refers to being compared to Isla Bryson (which DU has admitted is untrue) then he's exaggerated the main harassment incident. We're yet to hear about the timeline of when the patient safety concerns were raised I think?

On r/uk they have posted one today that is from earlier on tribunal and more favourable to Upton.

someone posted the telegraph one and they have managed to get it deleted as a duplicate - even though it’s clearly the more relevant article to post today.

and of course its crowd controlled which means vast majority of people who can post are trans people or allies so ends up a complete echo chamber of misinformation.

R/Scotland is a bit more balanced today (for now anyway)

'BU: She appeared angry. I consider line of dispute agressive, inappropriate time and place. I would describe it as confrontational if a patient spoke to me like that'

https://www.nhsfife.org/about-us/policies-and-procedures/general-policies/reduction-of-violence-and-aggression-at-work/

'4.6.1 NHS Fife reserves the right to prevent a patient accessing treatment or to withdraw treatment and services, where the patient's aggressive or violent behaviour impacts on or is a threat to:

• The safety of a staff member.
• Another patient or visitor.
• NHS Fife property'

If Dr Upton would class a patient raising concerns about his sex as 'aggressive', would this impact on patient care?

That last thread is very surprising for Reddit. I'm assuming that it being a UK specific section makes all the difference.

Am I the only one sitting here fretting about his wife? I'm really worried about her

In terms of his asking whether he could use the changing room or not - the impression that's been given is that that's not quite how it went. I would be very interested to hear exactly what was said.

He has confirmed that he assumed the right to use the female space and did so from day 1, without talking to any other members of staff about it.

At some point after that, he had a conversation about using them with his manager, it seems to make sure that she knew he was using the female space (as was his right, as he told everyone this morning, what with him being a biological female and all). It doesn't sound like he actually asked permission. There also seems to have been some sort of conversation to confirm that his manager would take his side if any female staff complained.

If a doctor sees a patient with differing 'gc' views as 'aggressive', will it affect how he treats them?

It intrigues me that someone so confident of their assertions would have wanted anonymity. I can only conclude deep down he knows he is wrong?(in my opinion)

I was wondering that. He's working in psychiatry. Assume some of his patients are going to be female, and traumatised.

Doesn't bear thinking about

https://x.com/holyroodmandy/status/1888970227657969972

'Dr Upton says that if a patient spoke to him the way Sandie Peggie had spoken to him when she said he shouldn't be using the female changing room, he would describe it as, "a confrontational encounter with an aggressive patient."'

Thanks to Mandy Rhodes, I thought that's what I heard.

I'm a lurker, I know little about tribunals or the law in general. I am gender critical though. Following today's events - the first thing I thought was hey, is this person Upton a psychiatrist? OMG, Physician heal thyself.

I'm also getting a subdued tone from posts/posters today. It's as if Upton's antics and utterances were expected and came as no surprise.

Last point, would anyone know how the panel is selected/comprised? Is it like jury selection? Is it the panel or the judge that decides the outcome or are they observers/advisers?

The sad and ridiculous thing is, he KNOWS he's not a "biological female".
WE know he's not a biological female.
HE knows we know he is not a biological female.

He knows all he will ever be is a poor facsimile (if that) of a woman.
He knows every cell in his body is male, from the day he was born until the day he dies.

All the rest is just noise.

And unbelievable entitlement and arrogance.

Yup, women having opinions = aggression. Women challenging male authority = aggression. Women feeling frightened of men = aggression.

A bit of light humour ( sort of ), courtesy of Mr Menno...
twitter.com/MrMennoTweets/status/1671234354729689089?s=19

I’m the same. What kind of a time must she have had since he decided he was female? She married a man… now she’s under all kinds of pressure to go along with all this bollocks. I bet the household is all about him, his needs, his thoughts, his appearance. He’s a textbook narcissist.

The panel is usually comprised of one judge who is a specialist in employment law and two lay members who aren’t legally qualified but have other relevant employment experience. The entire panel will discuss the case and decide the issues, but the judge is the one who writes the judgment.

I’m still trying to get my head round how this man sat there and with a straight face said he was a biological woman

I mean it’s utterly utterly insane

what if he’d sat there and said he was a wombat or a table or a small village in Shropshire?? They’re all equally as untrue and yet somehow in the upside down, everyone is meant to nod and say “no obvious man of course you’re a biological woman”

it’s absolutely fucking mad! I worked with people who believed untrue stuff like they were Jesus or were napoleon - that's why they were in a psychiatric ward

But this guy?? This utterly deluded guy?? We make him the fucking psychiatrist treating them

Omg I blink and suddenly we are on thread 10 and I've not even finished thread 7 or read 8 or 9 yet! Annoying I couldn't watch the tribunal today or catch up with threads as they were happening.

I've just decided to start here and gather all the summaries as much as I can.

Like others, I'm finding DU v v creepy. He's coming across as a psychopath and I'm not saying that lightly.

Good luck to NC for tomorrow continuing on with her questions and more love sent to Sandie and family. X

And the woman who questions him faces work sanctions

The whole thing is beyond

Time to reassess

Great question. I don't have an answer but am bumping to see if someone else does.

It's very worrying that this has got this far and that he seems to have some traction.

Are any of our legal eagles able to give any idea how this is playing out or is it too early to say?

I'm not sure I believe that he genuinely believes it's true. Suspect he knows full well he's a man. If he was genuinely deluded he wouldn't even say he was trans or go through all this linguistic gymnastics trying to convince. I think it's about control, an obsessive urge to make other people say he's a woman. Rather than a genuine delusion. But then I have only brief experience of psychiatry in my training so not an expert.

I work in risk assessment and management and it is simple. There are two components of a hazard, likelihood and harm.

Most females who are assaulted are assaulted by males. This is consistent accross all cultures. Most females are assualted in private spaces e.g. in the home. Most violence that females experience is sexual violence. These are undisputed facts.

I am still yet to see good quality research that reports on the strength difference between female and TGWomen after transition. The lowest I have been able to see is that even after the effects of the hormones have plateaued, which is currently reported to be 3 years, is that TGwomen retain a 15-20% overall strength advantage over the average women. This could be due to the fact the average male is in general bigger due to the effects of puberty. It of interest to me why this has been reported on as it would be very easy to test.

Therefore we can say that females are much more at risk from physical and sexual harm and coercion and intimidation from males, than from other females.

The second part is how we are able to permit females to participate in society with decreased risk of harm. The gold standard to managing hazards is to remove them completely. This is why we have single sex spaces around specific activities that females will be at risk at being harmed i.e. spaces where you may have to manage or expose your genitalia and physical activities in which someone with a minimum 20% strength advantage due to their biology.

It is very obvious that the male TRA'shave used language to distract from the actual risks. In this case, the use of pronouns in relevant because it refers to sex of the people permitted in this space. It is not being used as a way to hate of shame someone, but identifying that a hazard to the safety of the females using that space.

I would also point to the fact that this is anti-social behaviour on the TGwomans part. I think most TG women would draw a line at other women to undress in front of them. They would reasonably ask for an alternative space so they can get on with their lives, rather than forcing others to comply.

To add to this, they will have been through a robust recruitment process and have ongoing training. They are part of the judiciary and will have taken the judicial oath. Unlike jurors, they are paid professionals.

Your final paragraph sounds like the premise for a horror film.