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

So this is the gaping hole in his story. If a doctor observes a nurse engaging in behaviour that is dangerous for a patient; I would expect an immediate report, suspension, investigation. But it's like Schrodinger's cat. It seems to appear and disappear.

Really? I missed that, could you link to any info?

Is that true?

DU Corrected double negs eg I said I am a TW and the transcript said 'I am not a TW'. Obviously that I wouldn't have said that - transcript wrong. Some evidence I remember giving wasn't in transcript. Eg when I was summarising events at xmas. My message to x dept

Thank you in advance nauticant - although I’m starting to feel that keeping up is rather like this…

DU at xmas wasn't mentioned. I assumed summarised and wasn't clear why some bits had been summarised and some not. The part where I was asked to give my feelings and how coping with ongoing process. I mentioned the C side was trying to find my GRC status.

DU's memory has been to resus

So he's adding stuff to his statement in June???

GRC status is relevant per Haldane ruling.

Blaming investigation team…

DU I had to explain process of GRC acquisition and what it means to t ppl who don't have one. Was concerned that in my explanations I would have disclosed something in this legal case that was still being disputed. Other places in transcript had been summarised

Oh, I didn't realise they didn't want him as a respondent!! I'm not surprised from what I've seen/heard of him 😂

He ain't half as clever as he thinks he is. . .

You're quite right, of course. It's a good thing I'm not in the room. I'd not be able able to control my facial expressions, let alone my mouth!

It struck me that although Sandie Peggie wouldn't want the delay, the hearing being put on hold for a couple of months, which could very easily happen because of problems with availability of counsel and the panel, would give the NHS plenty of thinking time about whether to settle.

Getting a settlement would be straightforward, but would involve a grovelling apology to Peggie and a reinstatement with a guarantee of no adverse consequences for her, at the very least, and from what we've seen in the past, organisations captured by genderism cannot make these concessions, even though the alternative might cost them greatly.

The fact that it's been so derailed by the respondent's dodgy disclosure that it's inevitably going to go part heard and NC will now have the time and opportunity to apply for an order that the BMA disclose their records is gold.

All the prevarication, interruptions and ducking and diving have backfired massively.

even though the alternative might cost them greatly.

It's easy when it's not your own money, the taxpayer will pay.

In an amusing bit of local knowledge, I live very, very close to someone who will have taught him Biology.......!!

DU I asked for GRC status parts to be summarised if not needed for IX.

NC This is notes of that transcription after mtg. Not absolutely accurate, cos you and AG had excluded material you two didn't think was relevant to IX.

DU Yes. We had discussion and that was what we decided

It's also reputations and PR. We all still remember Stasi Dave, the secret note-taker who spied on Allison Bailey.

NC Original mtg notes as sent to you. Would you regard those as not relevant to this tribunal task

DU Don't understand q

NC First attempt of notetaker who was present at mtg, producing their accurate record. Altered notes of mtg produced and in bundle. Asking you what you know

Hasn't NC already stated they need to be adjourned and that SP needs to be asked further questions following yesterday's disclosures

Suggesting someone may be engaged in illicit activity with no proof could get you sued for defamation. Report your own post if you've done that and get it deleted.

As for breaks - judge is, I believe, not a young man and could have prostate issues. Most men get these eventually if they live long enough and I doubt Dr U will be able to identify out of them. If he takes oestrogen I think (but only a very quick literature scan) it could actually increase his risk either of prostate cancer or benign enlargement.

Yep, they decided the relevance. it is nor for parties to decide what is relevant and what is not

What 'we' decided.

Trying to shift responsibility of what was in statement to others I see