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

FC=formal complaint

Formal complaint?

Formal Complaint

Formal complaint I think....?

NC by 15/1 ED knows something c resus complaint.

DU. Can't infer. Asking c xmas incident. She knows background but not what background is - from this email.

NC do you know any more about what b ground she might know?

DU no

He's coming across as a bit of an arse this morning already with his you say X I say Y comments

Even if they don't concede that point, they defo broke policy (I don't know how much of the policy is law tho):

1. Staff should be advised of their right to a legal rep at all stages - At the first meeting she was advised by Esther, but that was already too late as the suspension process had started. Notes from that meeting were used in decision making that went against her. Fife can try to claim that this wasn't an "investigation" maybe because they were following their "witch hunt" policy that month instead but it had a lot of features of one being done incredibly badly.

2. Noone should be suspended without them being given full details for the reasons, a time estimate of how long the investigation process, contact person etc. This has to be done in a certain time frame. There is a flow chart and templates for what should be done when. I'm assuming that the templates were not used. JR made a lot about the timings of things and what advice was given when questioning SP. So JR will presumably try to claim they followed the law, but ignored the policy?

3. The details of the investigations should be kept quiet and all parties advised not to speak to their colleagues about it for fairness. SP was out of work suspended, so complied. DU was in work and KS sent her "intemperate" email - thus prejudicing the whole department.

4. The suspension period should be as short as possible. It went on for months with multiple extensions prior to the details of the claims being made against her.

There were other things ... read the policy yourself and see ... IANAL and I need to get some actual work done today!!

Under Scotlands draconian hate crime bill it would be classed aa a hate crime and would have ended up in a criminal crt infront of a criminal judge who would have no choice but to throw it out of crt (free speech and all that) which would have killed the hate crime bill as it will never survive a crt case because it's based in the perception of the complainant not a reasonable person or reasonable belief.
I very much doubt that NHS Fife wanted to be linked to the 1st failed hate crime prosecution especially when it tanked the hate crime act so they appear to have decided to go with the bullying of SP in the hope that it would placate DU and coerce SP into capitulation and thus saving the public trial and humiliation, unfortunately for NHS Fife SP didn't back down and brought in the lawyers and has taken it to a public trial which has put them in a worse position than if they'd gone after her with the hate crime bill as they could have blamed it on the police, crts and the dodgy hate crime bill. Instead this is all on them and DU, it's turned into an unmitigated disaster for them😂

Interesting that one of the new documents provided may include the shift rota?

It seems that DU is struggling to provide any evidence about what happened with the resus patient he alleges SP asked him to do obs on. He says it wasn't the patient with the peanut allergy because he can't remember any incident with SP then.

However in his formal complaint he wrote that on the one occasion he worked with SP in resus she asked him to do obs for her.

He now says that was awkwardly worded.

What a mess.

formal complaint

https://old.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1inm8sq/did_dr_beth_upton_commit_a_murder_or_something

Was curious to read what Upton supporters are saying.

NC RR from BMA sends you your FC doc with his comments.

DU Yup. That's the doc.

DU DOn't have numbers. Oh, yes I do. Go for it.

NC 15/1 You forward to RR an email from KS on 3 Jan. Your reply to that email - I'll read your suggestions and adjust.

"NC by 15/1 ED knows something c resus complaint. DU. Can't infer. Asking c xmas incident. She knows background but not what background is - from this email. NC do you know any more about what b ground she might know? DU no"

DU's speciality is creatng an impression that everything is open to individual interpretation and perception......but only when it suits his purpose.

That reddit group doesn't half like to forget that Upton is a respondent not just a witness! Upton absolutely is accused of having done something wrong.

Great post, as usual.

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.

Isn't the 'putting on a front' also common with those that are suffering coercive control? Partly because the messed up logic is designed to undermine sense of reality and self and question previously accepted knowledge and facts. The abuser positions themselves as always in the right and the person / people they are controlling as always in the wrong (which even itself as a basic premise is so obviously unlikely to always be true). I think particularly for parents this is very difficult because you're used to sacrificing for your children in the first place, usually.

We saw attempts at this in court from DU to NC. No chance of it working on her, but the little things, the glares, the physical intimidation the flying monkeys doing his job for him - these are all part of chipping away.

The weaponising the court process to try and set up the coercively controlling narrative that DU is 'always right' e.g. by trying to force wrong sex pronouns and sex deception but then, when that failed, the chastising of SP's team for not doing what was demanded as 'transphobic hate' with no-one - not least the Judge or the court - reflecting on the fact that not only did SP's side not demand correct sex pronouns be used by DU's team, but they also haven't chastised them for using wrong-sex pronouns EVEN THOUGH as a doctor this could lead to medical negligence.

Only one side is trying to bully and control and yet the Judiciary seems blind to this, so captured are they.

It's tragic that society has got to this point.

I realise that they're making it all about them and their feelings.

In that cae, their investigation went on for an extraordinary length of time.It's not a complex set of allegations. Anything over one month is abusive towards SP.

Even if they don't concede that point, they defo broke policy (I don't know how much of the policy is law tho)

The internal HR policy isn’t “law”. But at an employment tribunal, failure to follow the internal HR policy is evidence of unfair treatment. If someone is sacked without the due process being followed correctly, that’s unfair dismissal.

NC 16/1 Yr reply to ED. You say I am waiting on BMA advice re wording.

DU y

NC but you had BMA comments previous day and we so no further advice c wording. Not correct.

DU Is correct. [reads] I understood that I was still waiting on further advice from RR.

Yes, see my later point about the fact that if the prior investigation is conceded then the are open to questions about process and procedure. As you rightly point out they are open to those with the current IX too but the distinction, I think, is that if there is sufficient proof of an initial, aborted, first IX then all parties JR is acting for have colluded to exclude this from the litigation and that could be contempt of court and that is separate concern than that of following process re suspension.

NC RR from BMA sends you your FC doc with his comments. DU Yup. That's the doc. DU DOn't have numbers. Oh, yes I do. Go for it. NC 15/1 You forward to RR an email from KS on 3 Jan. Your reply to that email - I'll read your suggestions and adjust.

What a smarmy little fucker........

Funny that DU has time to make copious timely notes about people making eye contact and whether or not they say "hi" during a busy A&E shift,

But claims of a major patient care incident? Didn't note it down ... can't narrow it down to within 2 months ....

People who habitually indulge themselves with hair-trigger self-importance are very trying, whatever their sex, age, job. The tendency to back off rather than confronting them is understandable (though not excusable if that means landing someone else in genuine trouble).

NC Was there any further advice.

DU Not that I could find, no email. He may have phoned me.

NC 18/2 email from ED. Following today mtg I require a statement from you re incident. I know you are waiting on BMA advice. She is getting impatient?

Almost as if he was making them up.