Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #13

1000 replies

nauticant · 11/02/2025 15:38

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 was obtainable by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access.

However, as a result of problems with the liverstreaming, apparently as a result of a very large number of observers, remote public access to the hearing was suspended on Tuesday 11 February. It was suggested that it might be reinstated at some point but I wouldn't count on it.

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
Thread 12: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272276-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-12

OP posts:
Thread gallery
35
lifeturnsonadime · 11/02/2025 22:08

TriesNotToBeCynical · 11/02/2025 22:04

The GMC are completely captured by the government (source of appointments and gongs), and if politicians change their mind so will they.

There is no evidence that the Labour party is going to back women on this issue.

prh47bridge · 11/02/2025 22:09

TriesNotToBeCynical · 11/02/2025 22:06

It was at the very least a disciplinary offence, not seeking consent. Whether it was any kind of sexual offence depends on the motive.

Agree completely, which is why I think it should be reported.

RethinkingLife · 11/02/2025 22:10

Boswelltoday update post for Feb 11

Day 7 UPDATE Peggie v NHS Fife (covering late morning and PM session) - Upton’s Defence Crumbles as Cross-Examination Exposes Contradictions and Concealed Evidence

The late morning and afternoon sessions saw Dr Upton’s evidence unravel further under cross-examination from Naomi Cunningham, exposing more inconsistencies, evasions, and clear attempts to obscure the facts.

His failure to provide a precise date for the resus incident became the focal point, with Cunningham demonstrating that his own phone notes recorded a much narrower timeframe—between 25 October and 18 December. Yet, when asked during the investigation, Upton failed to disclose this, instead offering a broader range that conveniently made it harder to verify his claims. When confronted, he admitted this was an "error," but the pattern of vagueness was too convenient to be accidental.

Cunningham then exposed another contradiction: while Upton claimed not to recall working with Peggie on the peanut allergy case, he conceded that he did work with her on the same shift with another patient. Peggie had given a specific date—Halloween—tying the incident to a child who suffered an allergic reaction after eating a Snickers bar. Upton, however, feigned ignorance, unable—or unwilling—to link the patient to a date.

His defence crumbled when Cunningham pointed out that this meant the incident could indeed be dated, directly undermining his attempts to blur the timeline. The questioning made it abundantly clear: Upton was being deliberately vague, likely to prevent scrutiny of his allegations against Peggie.

Cunningham then turned to the chronology of Upton’s complaints, revealing yet more late-disclosed documents that showed he had carefully constructed his story over time. Despite claiming he reported the incident straight away, his actual complaint evolved over weeks, with emails sent to the BMA, Antony Wilson, and others only surfacing at the last minute.

The judge’s patience wore thin as it became clear that relevant documents had still not been produced, leading to more delays. Upton attempted to justify this by claiming some were on his personal email, yet Cunningham exposed how key material had simply been omitted. When asked whether he had handed over everything as requested, he weakly replied that he "believed so"—a phrase rapidly losing any credibility. The judge, clearly frustrated by the incompetence and obstruction, acknowledged that the case would not conclude this week.

Cunningham, unflinching, stated that compliance with document orders had been "at best incompetent and incoherent," warning that more delays were inevitable if further missing evidence had to be requested. She pointed out the unfairness of leaving Upton under oath for long periods due to his own failure to provide full disclosure in a timely manner.

Despite this, NHS Fife’s legal team, led by Jane Russell, attempted to downplay the significance of the missing documents, insisting they were irrelevant. The judge disagreed, noting that relevance could not be determined until all materials were properly reviewed.

As proceedings wrapped up, the tribunal confirmed that cross-examination of Upton must be completed by 2:30 the next day, with further witnesses—including Esther D, Isla Bamber, and Vic Valentine—scheduled to follow. Cunningham requested that all missing documents be provided by 5:30 that evening, printed and ready for review. The judge agreed, setting the stage for what is likely to be another damning day for Upton and NHS Fife when the tribunal resumes.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1889334248139804941

Paragraph spacing by me for readability.

x.com

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1889334248139804941

JasmineAllen · 11/02/2025 22:11

Greyrockin · 11/02/2025 21:52

Just trying to catch up. Wasn't able to join the observers online as I was office based today. I haven't had the email about proceedings only open to press from now on, just wondering if it's only been sent to people who logged in today? I'll find out tomorrow i guess.

Has David Tennant been proposed to play DU in the film? He'd be a good fit, lots of empathy... 🙄

It's been suggested but David Tennant is too diddy.

NotAGentleReminder · 11/02/2025 22:14

HelenaHandcart · 11/02/2025 21:32

Would a male nurse, walking unannounced into a room in which a woman was in the middle of having a camera inserted into her urethra (by a doctor, with another nurse already present), and lifting up the sheet be considered a sexual assault? I'm asking because this happened to me just 2 weeks ago, and I still feel so violated. Still can't get my head around it. The doctor and nurse said nothing and I can't get my head around that either.

Sorry to hear this. It sounds rude and unprofessional at the very least. If you wish to make a complaint I would do so. At the least it needs to be fed back to that staff member with a reminder of preserving patient dignity.

AAT65 · 11/02/2025 22:18

I have only been following since thread 7 so haven't read the detail of SP's examination or where she might be now. However, the Telegraph article under her photo refers to her as a nurse at Queen Margaret Hospital (which is in Dunfermline, Fife). Hope that means she is settled in a new post away from the odious BU and the unsupportive clowns at the Vic.

Jerabilis · 11/02/2025 22:20

JasmineAllen · 11/02/2025 22:11

It's been suggested but David Tennant is too diddy.

That didn't stop Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher! I'm sure DT could identify as taller.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 11/02/2025 22:21

After hearing the descriptions of Lang Cleg's contributions and expertise, I feel sad that their thoughts are no longer part of these discussions.
Perhaps the landscape has changed enough for a return?

Szygy · 11/02/2025 22:23

I've finally caught up with the latest thread (until it takes off like a rocket again) so I’m just quickly saying thank you to nauticant for keeping us all in order while I’ve got a moment.

Cismyfatarse · 11/02/2025 22:24

Anyone know if you can attend in person, as an observer. I live nearby and have some time....

KnottyAuty · 11/02/2025 22:24

HelenaHandcart · 11/02/2025 21:32

Would a male nurse, walking unannounced into a room in which a woman was in the middle of having a camera inserted into her urethra (by a doctor, with another nurse already present), and lifting up the sheet be considered a sexual assault? I'm asking because this happened to me just 2 weeks ago, and I still feel so violated. Still can't get my head around it. The doctor and nurse said nothing and I can't get my head around that either.

I am so sorry to hear that. I think you should raise this with PALS. When I had an internal ultrasound last year, the nurses were very careful about counselling and support. This would not have happened. Apart from anything the door should have been locked - DS had a urology exam this week and the Consultant to was very careful to say he was locking the door to avoid any unwanted arrivals. You are not being unreasonable

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/02/2025 22:25

Yes you can but it's likely to be busy so I'd get there early.

Cismyfatarse · 11/02/2025 22:25

Is it first come, first served?

fanOfBen · 11/02/2025 22:26

Cismyfatarse · 11/02/2025 22:24

Anyone know if you can attend in person, as an observer. I live nearby and have some time....

Yes, you can - at the judge's discretion, but there's been mention of an overflow room, so I think you'd be likely to get in. If you can go, do report back when you get the chance! (I think you probably have to wait for breaks or something unless you have special permission, though.)

socialdilemmawhattodo · 11/02/2025 22:27

DrBlackbird · 11/02/2025 19:03

FFS. This is definitely as a counter to the support for SP dad fund raiser. But beautifully illustrates the difference between those supporting DrU ie wealthy, privileged, bekind, insulated from every day stresses and low wages raising money for treats for an equally wealthy dr. Whereas, SPs money was being raised for a charitable cause in memory of a regular person loved by his family.

Sorry, I don't agree. My understanding is that SP's legal fees have been covered by an anonymous donor (guess who?) so SP has no further need of a fundraising for her legal fees, hence the supportive donations to a charitable cause supported by the family. Whereas this fundraiser for DU. Treats are a way to make it clear that it is for the individual, not for legal fees. Perhaps these are already covered via their employer. So your slightly snide comments about wealthy, privileged, etc, aren't really quite ok.

KnottyAuty · 11/02/2025 22:28

Cismyfatarse · 11/02/2025 22:24

Anyone know if you can attend in person, as an observer. I live nearby and have some time....

The email about restricted online access included this line
An observation room is available in the Tribunal building with limited capacity.

So probably first come first served. From other comments I think it is a separate room with a big screen for viewing what is happening elsewhere in the building

Coldiron · 11/02/2025 22:28

Jerabilis · 11/02/2025 22:20

That didn't stop Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher! I'm sure DT could identify as taller.

Can we have Brian Blessed as Pete the Plumber?

nauticant · 11/02/2025 22:30

There's now a report on Radio 4. It's real reporting.

OP posts:
NoBinturongsHereMate · 11/02/2025 22:31

HelenaHandcart · 11/02/2025 21:32

Would a male nurse, walking unannounced into a room in which a woman was in the middle of having a camera inserted into her urethra (by a doctor, with another nurse already present), and lifting up the sheet be considered a sexual assault? I'm asking because this happened to me just 2 weeks ago, and I still feel so violated. Still can't get my head around it. The doctor and nurse said nothing and I can't get my head around that either.

I'm so sorry that happened to.you.

It is definitely reportable, if you want to. It breaks several.rules on consent and how intimate examinations are conducted, and is an assault (although potentially not sexual.assault specifcally). I'd start with PALS to get the details of the staff invocled, and you could then also report to the relevant professional bodies and/or the police if you wish.

You're likely to get further with the hospital and professional bodies than with the police, but that doesn't mean you can't try - just prepare yourself for a difficult and very drawn out process, or dismissal. I don't wish to be discouraging but ...

ArabellaScott · 11/02/2025 22:31

Cismyfatarse · 11/02/2025 22:24

Anyone know if you can attend in person, as an observer. I live nearby and have some time....

I think so, yes.

'An observation room is available in the Tribunal building with limited capacity.'

Edit - I see everyone else already answered. Sorry!

Bannedontherun · 11/02/2025 22:32

@socialdilemmawhattodo i view your comments to be slightly snide

FannyCann · 11/02/2025 22:34

Thanks @RethinkingLife
Another great post for those of us in need of a summary.

nauticant · 11/02/2025 22:34

Radio 4 didn't go all Naomi Cunningham but it's clear that for this case with the massive public interest, especially in Scotland, being in the middle in their reporting might be prudent.

OP posts:
nauticant · 11/02/2025 22:35

It was Lorna Gordon doing the report on Radio 4 and there have been far worse reporters covering this beat.

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.