NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #12

[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 was expected to continue for 2 weeks although at the start of the second week getting everything done in this time period was looking less certain. 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
Thread 10: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271723-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-10
Thread 11: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272046-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-11

And this is why we need a crystal clear legal definition so we don't have to listen to any more of this bullshit.

I have to say the response from the minister was to the point, and I think is positive. There was no waffle or trying to side step as we've seen on numerous previous occasions.

The mood music is that the government has got the message that forcing women to change with males does not have public consent and is so toxic it's something they can no longer word salad their way out of it.

I agree, this has been the most gripping. I haven't done any work at all...I just can't focus on anything beyond how absolutely bat-shit crazy this all is.

And watching Dr Upton sitting there smugly, patronising everyone with his self-righteous pronouncements which are dangerously delusional....aaargh...I want to run out into the street and scream "do you all see it now...do you all see where pandering to this lunacy has got us????'

Seen on X (with thanks to toooldfirthiskindofthing):

He's making some notes, he's emailing twice, he's using your space cos he's not very nice, Dr Upton's coming to town.

On the question of women only changing spaces that would be the workplace directive 1992 - not sure of proper title

As regards toilets there are two cases i can think of one i cannot recall the name of about a woman on a construction site not having adequate facilities with a lock on the door and the Earl Shilton Town Council one where the clerk had no access to a female toilet, and had to use the male one.

I’m in the NUJ, not sure if that would get me in…..

<opens front door tomorrow to find 500 MNetters standing outside>

It's my fault re "Teams" as that was the the application on my Mac that initially tried to open the link. They are using something called "Kinly Secure Meet", The cheapest Meet package seems to be for 50-500 rooms

Boring details here:
https://www.applytosupply.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud/services/617697576476767

So, been in meetings most of the day. Anyone care to do a précis of today's events?

Hahahahaha!

I feel the need for a fishmonger butty now, anyway been fun arguing with Dan Hodges all day. My X is a bonfire because JK replied in the thread, it's going to combust, a bit like the tribunal.

I'm not sure it helps to try to legally define 'male' and 'female' any further. Have I understood correctly, legally a man is a male person of any age and a woman is a female person of any age? The only reason 'male' and 'female' need any further definition now is because the GRA and PC of GR have created a situation where 'woman' means a female person of any age as well as a male person of any age who either has a fake birth certificate sayimg he is female or who says he intends to live in the acquired gender of the opposite sex or whatever the nonsense wording is. And vice versa. If the GRA and PC of GR go then we don't need any further definition of male and female. That just leads to DSD gotchas and 'what about people who can't produce gametes?' gotchas. We all know what male and female mean.

They only announced that it was the system being overwhelmed once we’d all been kicked out so we couldn’t have self organised. Also most of those watching are not likely to be in mumsnet so that would be unlikely to work. Also if the actual reason for the issues is too many logging in we shouldn’t have to self impose a cap It should be managed by the tribunal staff. Don’t give out 700 codes if the system can only cope with 400. At the beginning of last week there weren’t that many watching but obviously as the case has hit the headlines it’s generated significant public interest.

Fishfinger, I'm not an cannibal.

I'm afraid I'm pretty sure there's no such legal right, and given the problems today I wouldn't hold your breath.

I want a fishfinger butty now!😂

I just want to lob something else in here. I had a light bulb moment regarding DU and his behaviours his grandstanding, lying and controlling behaviours.

I recognised these because i have worked with and been trained about personality disorders.

I reckon he has a borderline personality disorder.

I checked this out on research.

There is a lot of papers suggesting that up to 80% of “transexuals” in treatment have this condition.

Naz Hakeem concurs.

It seems that his bosses were so keen to support his trans identity they have not noticed, or it masked the real problem.

This cohort are very difficult to work with, over or under react, lie, and believe lies and most of all

CAUSE CHAOS WHEREVER THEY GO.

You know you've been on these threads too long when you read that as 'Kinky secure meet'!

I don't understand why you can't just have a livestream that you log into and can watch with a password. I'm not an IT person but it seems so basic.

We have 'legal' sex in law but not really anything that upholds 'biological sex' explicitly because rulings have muddied the waters on this.

That's the problem and as yet, no one in government has decided this needs spelling out beyond dispute. The last government were going to, the Labour canned the proposal.

Ultimately the situation is, it will be forced either politically or through the courts because there is this problem.

The public want the legal position of biology being recognised though. And that makes it sticky for labour who are stuffed full of activists who don't agree with the public.

I think they likely don't have a livestream because they don't want untraceable people watching - they want a known list of observers. Remember the strictly forbidden to record rules - that would go out of the window if they had a [edit to add: YouTube - they could have a special system one but then they'd have a new set of IT problems and they'd still need the interactive video link for when witnesses need to be remote] livestream, there would be no way to prevent people recording and no way to narrow down the list of people who might have done it if a recording were later released.

I don't know about Dr U being a psychiatrist, but he definitely needs therapy for his fragility and seeing offence where none exists in reality. I mean, how does this man get through the day?!

It's the same logic that follows from this

Cucumbers are 90% water. Jesus could walk on water. I can walk on cucumbers, therefore I am 90% Jesus.

I’m not sure about Scottish law but an ET I attended in England said that remote access is at the judge’s discretion.
Anyone can turn up though.

The simple answer is they have probably never needed to as the system they have works, just not when there's 600+ people trying to get on.

I will say that they should have forseen this happening. The number of remote viewers for hearings has been steadily increasing since the Forstater days and so, in my opinion, they should have already prepared for this day, rather than letting it fall to pieces as it has.

Probably the same reason we don’t have a national NHS IT system - the people making the decisions on these systems aren’t users and don’t understand what is the key functionality that must work reliably and robustly. In my experience they get distracted by shiny, useless functionality and/or cost. And drastically underestimate the time and resources to install, roll out and train people in a new IT system.

When I watched the Amy Hamm Tribunal this is how it worked. From memory I don’t think you even needed a password you just clicked on a link and appeared directly in the courtroom. So simple.