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

[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 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

Are you not perfectly capable of doing that as you are the one who wants it?

https://workforce.nhs.scot/supporting-documents/guide/conduct-policy-guide-to-suspension/

The process for NHS Suspension is in this link.
It looks like they maybe hit a handful of the requirements and broke lots of the other rules, so in my completely unprofessional opinion it looks like an illegal suspension

Yes exactly - it's a logical conclusion

I find it hard because I see it as an erasure of lived experience having been through it.

I know of a number of people who actively and openly are supportive of their family members but privately really struggle with the psychological impact of it. It's taboo and not something people share out of stigma and a sense of failure or being judged by others. They know where I stand on it but it doesn't make it easier tbh. It's almost easier to just put on a front and pretend everything is ok. Even when it's obvious to others that they are not ok. There's almost a Stockholm syndrome going on for some I think.

Back in the day the Beaumont Society said that the wives of those who transitioned had a huge rate of mental breakdown. That's a pro trans group that was on record saying this.

Yet to date no one has actively looked at the psychological impact on family members of the disruption to their own identity. Identity is not individual, it's also collective with the collective group identity of being part of a family and your place within that family being one of the most important layers of identity. We know disruption to this type of identity can cause psychological problems. Yet there is no research on family members changing identity and the disruption this causes. The lack of research in this area bothers me precisely because we know about issues about disruption to identity in other areas.

So to see a male doctor who is currently specialising in psychiatry say, that they are both biologically female and a transwomen, is something in itself I find somewhat concerning in its own right quite aside from the circumstances of where it's been said. For multiple reasons.

I think about the family a lot. It can not be easy for them regardless of what their opinions are.

Again, not sure what the purpose of your response is - @ickky is posting TT, all I am saying is that they will get lost/swamped on this thread

Then go on Twitter and follow Tribunal Tweets. ikky is not here to do your bidding

What on earth are you going on about?

One thing that struck me is that Upton and Fife claimed that there was no investigation, but were forced to concede that there was one; surely that's perjury.

Their defence will be that investigation, like sex, is a nebulous concept.

There are a lot of people watching TT's tweets their last post has been viewed 3000 times already.

It's not for them to say whether the investigation identifies as an investigation, and the investigation is not obligated to tell us either.

Hi @ickky good idea but peeps hate bobbing between threads

Ikky is very kindly copying the tweets to here on this thread. You want a full chronological order of the tweets then go to straight to the source.

I would add that there has been no concession as yet to the existence of a prior investigation. Upton agreed that in one email the author said they 'were investigating' but there is room for JR to argue that the author of the email misunderstood their role or used the term loosely for simplicity etc rather than being proof, in and of itself, that a prior investigation took place. What that moment did reveal was that Upton had been lying about that communication in that he had said the author wasn't investigating when clearly the author communicated that they were.

@FannyCann

It amazes me how these types of people play the court for all it's worth and ignore common conventions/rules around behaviour.

DU ignores convention (could be OK) but doesn't seem to play by any rules of decency.

I am and will. For other readers it will be convoluted and confusing with overlap, am trying to assist and give clarity.

4000 now

I think maybe 1000 of them is me refreshing. 😂

Me too - lucky I work for myself and the boss lets me fixate on the internet - unfortunately my clients might object to delays with their work tho... party poopers

It all comes down to language in the end. One person's "investigation" is not an actual investigation to another person, just like "male" means different things to different people these days. A nebulous investigation, as it were.

Their follower numbers have shot up from something like 29.6k last week to 32.3k now.

It's hard enough to follow one thread without following multiple, and as for posting on multiple threads, that's an unreasonable ask. Best to just pick the one that suits your needs and use it, rather than trying to control other people's posting habits.

I am pages behind you lot. Any idea what the delay is this time?

Michael Foran hasn't tweeted this morning, so I an a bit clueless.

Far too confusing. If you just want to read TTs it's easier to do so via Twitter!

I am really looking forward to the blending of the C&P Tribunal Tweets and MNer commentary on this thread. That would be lost if there was a separate thread. I've also got nitter open for the unadulterated TT.

I think most people will cope just fine.