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

Not a computer person? No? Really? Hmmm.

Yes, there's no way he's forgotten those conversations

Exactly. Lawyers want it all pinned down. If DU can't or won't pin it down, then they can't find in DU's favour. Hence why it was so useful when DU's evasiveness forced NU to define terms - and thereafter she could just use male/female and man/woman without all the biological/natal/extra. And suddenly it was so much easier for her to question - and so much more difficult for DU to obfuscate

You are doing a grand job

Thank you @ArabellaScott and @eulittleb831 and @RethinkingLife for the info on hate crime and The All Important Timeline. Yes, hopefully today will be very revealing and will shine a light on why it's not a hate crime (even by Scottish law standards) to recognise someone's sex and expect your employer to do the same.

Also thank you for sharing that fantastic article about the delightful Pete (and her [sic] real life comparator, Annie) @Justme56

I really hope that an outcome of this case is that gender identity belief is declared in court to be not WORIADS because it represents a danger to society and that defending it as a belief (including positioning it as fact, despite the Nolan Principles already being in place) is a complete waste of public funds. This case alone has revealed that a doctor who believes in it would fail to treat a patient like Pete as a male (even if Pete is taking medication such as oestrogen), instead elevating a belief in gender identity over the reality of biological sex, and is therefore a danger to any patient. Obviously this case has already exposed how coercive it is to push gender identity belief onto fellow colleagues, to the point where facilities that have been purposefully set up for female safety and dignity are now compromised. Yes, I think a belief in transubstantiation is just as mad as a belief in gender identity, as I said on a previous thread, but I can accept that it's WORIADS in law because it's not impacting anyone else. If priests start demanding that the wine they have transubstantiated is now accepted in NHS blood banks, and calling anyone who says no a bigot, I'll push back on that belief too.

To quote RedToothbrush:

It is disturbing and disgusting that a male can stand in a court of law under oath and swear blind he's biologically female, especially when he's a doctor, and not being held in contempt of court. Regardless of his gender identity.
The very nature of being trans is that your gender doesn't align with your sex.

I think/hope this case will be a game changer in the legal conversation. I accept that it won't be a precedent, because it's not (yet....) at the stage of appeal but these words have all be said and heard in court. There's no undoing that. I should imagine that the number of solicitors and barristers who want to back gender identity belief as a legitimate, WORIADS belief (or "fact") in court will drop off a cliff. I wonder how Ruth Crawford is feeling about the next stage in the FWS case.

I can’t imagine the BMA has been similarly lax in its note keeping, unless it’s a fellow TRA of course, giving “off the record” advice.

Because he has omitted to disclose it, as per the court order. He is more than capable of thinking on his feet (as you would expect, working in ED).

Why has nobody asked him why there is no Datix if the allegation was so serious.

Let's hope BMA keep proper records

Forgotten how to take notes, confused about how to search emails. What is this performative bewilderment.

It's not very convincing that a young, intelligent man with a medical qualification would be confused about these things, I doubt it will play well.

@KnottyAuty Maya F's evidence was not rejected. There was a discussion between Judge and barristers about what category of witness MF was, and clarification that SP wasn't calling her as an Expert Witness (Expert Witnesses have specific procedural rules/requirements eg formal written instructions agreed by both sides, impartiality, no bilateral comms with one party etc etc).

There was no controversy or dispute that none of this applied to MF. But DU's supporters have misunderstood/misrepresented this as the Judge criticising/denigrating MF and her evidence - which he didn't.

TT tweets from this morning

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1889602296952000545.html

I'd imagine that if the BMA haven't kept records it is just yet further proof of their complicity.

That or more proof that DU is in contempt of court.

Thank you for all you do ickky

Wonder why we're having a break when proceedings only started 50 minutes ago?

Is it possible that some of the "communication" was by letter?

He uses specific language for a reason.

What a weasel.

I notice from TT that he insists he's provided all email communication with RR and NM. And that he wouldn't need advice from the BMA about making false allegations against SP - which is not the same as how the questions were asked.

Although that may just be imprecise reporting from TT.

Hopefully the Irish work experience student has a press login and is carefully recording the direct quotes.

for men to use the ladies toilets

It's phone communication he's trying to forget.

Any individual keen on not sharing them could easily delete them in his phone. Or come out with the old 'Oops, I dropped that phone overboard' line.

In a civil case between private individuals it's difficult to get phone records off a third party service provider without a court order. Although it is possible.

And for completeness, thank you again to @prh47bridge for confirming that the Forstater case did not give gender identity belief WORIADS status when it found (in paras 107-108) that Maya's lack of belief that "we all have a gender identity" was protected in law.

Dr Upton really is putting gender identity belief on trial in this court room. Very visibly.

Of the two 'incidents' the resu incident is key as for the other one the person in the conversation said they didn't notice Sandie ignoring Dr. Upton.

If it were the case the Sandie was say on triage duty but had to help with resu sensibly she might ask the doc to do obs.

I guess she also have interpreted "do you want me to leave so you can do observations" as an offer to do observations.

I notice from TT that he insists he's provided all email communication with RR and NM.

I think maybe he's setting up plausible deniality with "I've searched to the best of my ability", "I don't quite remember dates", I'm not a computer person" so he can say he didn't conceal anything if it's brought up.

That is exactly what he’s doing.

DrU has to be careful about the impressions[s] he is conveying - he talks the talk of someone totally in charge of himself, and everyone and everything else, combative in verbal exchanges, careful to take contemporaneous notes, unintimidated by being in a court/tribunal setting before a judge, using inappropriate phrases like 'go for it'..

But he got all weepy at hurty words, and now can't remember things and 'is not a computer person'...

People notice contradictions like that. Operation Let Him Speak is working.