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
NebulousDog · 12/02/2025 10:20

I think Sandie thought Dr U made the complaint about Snickers patient, but Dr I said it was another patient (which he didn't manage to specify).

NB might be wrong way round

ickky · 12/02/2025 10:21

DU lots of q
NC no. One q. You know that giving AG specific date for IX will allow her to look for corroboration which she won't find
DU I can't be confident of date cos I didn't record it. We see more than 1 patient in shift.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 12/02/2025 10:21

Largofesse · 12/02/2025 10:09

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.

If this first investigation was not an investigation, it doesn't let NHS Fife off the hook at all. They can't reasonably suspend a nurse without immediately investigating. That has to be a contravention of their own procedures and policies.

bumbledenbarsk · 12/02/2025 10:21

Whoever is TTing today appears to have fat fingers. I appreciate their efforts, but they are not as clear to understand as previous days

SelfPortraitWithHagstone · 12/02/2025 10:21

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 12/02/2025 10:20

I would assume so yes

I did wonder whether it was TT commentary, transcribed under her breath, as it were...

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 12/02/2025 10:22

DeanElderberry · 12/02/2025 10:20

between a qualified medical doctor claiming biological sex is nebulous and undefined, and the fancy footwork around the undisclosed emails my question is

are BU's doctor BIG doctor pants made of this sort of stuff https://texfire.net/en/flame-retardant-fabrics/mineral-fiber-fabrics/ or are they just ordinary large undergarments that have to be replaced every time they are reduced to ashes?

Pricey either way, just as well there's a fundraiser.

Edited

When I make my pete the plumber apple catchers I shall ensure they are fire retardant and send him a free pair

frenchnoodle · 12/02/2025 10:22

bumbledenbarsk · 12/02/2025 10:21

Whoever is TTing today appears to have fat fingers. I appreciate their efforts, but they are not as clear to understand as previous days

There is a lot of pressure on them today.
I'm very grateful regardless.

ickky · 12/02/2025 10:22

NC You were deliberately obscuring date. Same as not limited dates between oct and dec earlier.
DU No interest in making IX difficult. Perhaps I was under pressure - I gave a correct range of dates. Whether or not precise or not up to you. I don't have info c date

fanOfBen · 12/02/2025 10:23

If NC's going to have this much back and forth with U the whole way, no way this is getting finished by 2:30.

ickky · 12/02/2025 10:24

NC Turn to FC. You say on the one occasion we treated a resus patient tog was when she asked me to take obs
DU Only occasion when she asked me to do something odd.

NC But you say, on the one occasion.. and then you say what happened.

ickky · 12/02/2025 10:25

DU Then i worded awkwardly,. Don't recall working with SP on snickers patient so didn't mention it - poss cos SP didn't do anything unusual or hostile then. NC Y'day went through chronology. 24/12 CR incident told Pitt

misscockerspaniel · 12/02/2025 10:26

NebulousDogwhistle · 12/02/2025 10:12

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.

She may have just as easily said/written "looking into", an unofficial look at the situation and not an official, human resources-lead investigation following NHS procedure. I am looking forward to hearing R1's evidence, as I think this is where the case will rest. DU is an entertaining/scream inducing sideshow.

NebulousDog · 12/02/2025 10:26

I can't believe that Sandy was being investigated for an alleged event that he can't date and another where the other nurse corroborated Sandie's version.

I get the feeling the hospital were terrified of Dr U.

Cismyfatarse · 12/02/2025 10:27

Has anyone else noticed that other witnesses / names are all actual women who were clearly frightened of him? No men (apart from Pete).

ThatsNotMyTeen · 12/02/2025 10:27

Wonder what JR’s application that she mentioned is for?

ickky · 12/02/2025 10:28

DU Also on 25/12 cos midnight
NC Also at that time you made note on phone in carpark
DU Early xmas day
NC 3am you sent email to KS copy Sr P. Also around then sent an email to BMA. Then BMA on 29 and phone call. 3 Jan sent draft FC to BMA

fanOfBen · 12/02/2025 10:28

JR said she might apply to vary (tighten) Judge Tinnion's order about disclosure so they don't have to disclose so much - maybe that?

ThatsNotMyTeen · 12/02/2025 10:29

fanOfBen · 12/02/2025 10:28

JR said she might apply to vary (tighten) Judge Tinnion's order about disclosure so they don't have to disclose so much - maybe that?

Ah - thank you!

JasmineAllen · 12/02/2025 10:29

NebulousDog · 12/02/2025 10:26

I can't believe that Sandy was being investigated for an alleged event that he can't date and another where the other nurse corroborated Sandie's version.

I get the feeling the hospital were terrified of Dr U.

Not terrified, complicit IMO.
They threw an experienced nurse under the bus with no proper evidence of wrong doing and all on the say so of a man with an axe to grind.

LoobiJee · 12/02/2025 10:29

ThatsNotMyTeen · 12/02/2025 10:27

Wonder what JR’s application that she mentioned is for?

I think it’s to restrict the disclosure of documents.

ickky · 12/02/2025 10:30

NC Sorry. Confused. Email from DU to BMA re thanking for advice and going forward to drafting FC [Robert Ronald and Stephanie X at BMA.] You met with KS. S BMA says hope mtg went well. NC KS asks you for written summary.

Largofesse · 12/02/2025 10:30

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 12/02/2025 10:21

If this first investigation was not an investigation, it doesn't let NHS Fife off the hook at all. They can't reasonably suspend a nurse without immediately investigating. That has to be a contravention of their own procedures and policies.

That's a good point. But NHS Fife are insistent there was no first investigation because there was only one investigation which began at the appropriate time. However, they are asserting that the author of that email was merely gathering statements for the investigation and not undertaking the investigation itself. So they are not claiming there was no investigation at the start of SP suspension just that there was only always one IX. This now seems unlikely to be true given the email introduced yesterday but more proof will be required, I think. It introduces questions about process in how a prior investigation, if such is proved to have existed, was aborted and for what reasons. NHS Fife can't agree it was aborted because there is insufficient record around procedure in relation to the suspension so they have to claim it didn't exist and that the IX they are presenting is, and always was, the only one.

Shortshriftandlethal · 12/02/2025 10:30

It seems it was the BMA who advised formal complaint.

NebulousDog · 12/02/2025 10:31

What is a draft FC, please?

ickky · 12/02/2025 10:31

NC That was 12/1. on 15th email from ED to DU, asking for initial incident at xmas. She is chasing.
DU Could call it chasing if you like. Asking for statement. ND She making distinction between incident at Xmas and background.
DU Y

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread