NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #15

[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 once it was in to the second week it was looking like this would not happen. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 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 livestreaming, 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 don'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
Thread 13: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272398-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-13
Thread 14: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272939-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-14

"Cunt" is rude, but not pejorative. It is a simple insult. It could not for instance result in a defamation action. The other word, especially if qualified by relating to particular circumstances might be said to lower the reputation of the person so described, and be defamatory.

Apparently, KS's statement suggests that this is what DU reported to her.

It seems unlikely that she believed this to be true, as surely she would act on this immediately. It seems likely that she will say her statement is worded clumsily and she was referencing the area called 'resus' and not the act of resuscitation. This will reflect phenomenally poor communication in a serious matter, so will reflect badly on her- but less badly than neglecting to address a serious ftp issue.

The toilets in my sons school are like this. On either side of a corridor with a large communal sinks. As there is cctv in the corridor there isn’t vandalism/ toilet seat breaking going on as they’d track down who was last to use that cubicle. Boys use one side, girls another although technically unisex.

OMG these threads are something else. Only just got to the beginning of this one because I had to work today (boo) but wanted to say thanks to everyone especially @nauticant for thread wrangling and @ickky for updates. I think if I'd been following live my head would've exploded.

I'll bow to your better knowledge of the Court systems.
Yes I hope it goes Sandies way and she can put it behind her but something makes me think its not going to end in July.

What a fine mess all the TWAW shite has gotten us into. I'm sure people will look back in 50 years with a WTAF face?

Identifying however you please, is not the same failing to respect a patient's explicit request for a woman. If you are playing silly buggers by using your own definition of woman, rather than what an average person has a resonable belief to understand by the word woman, you are playing with fire with regards to legally given consent. You leave yourself open to potential complaints or legal recourse.

The safety of patients should come first and foremost and after reading that reddit thread of doctors I've got a fire in my belly that this is something that shouldn't need spelling out but unfortunately we are having to spell it out. BU is not the only doctor who would act without consent however is the only doctor identifiable today which is unfortunate for BU, but even more unfortunate for the patients of doctors across the GMC jurisdiction who have also stated that they disregard patient consent.

If Dr Upton puts his beliefs about biology into action then he is a danger to patients as are those doctors who seem to agree with him and support him.

The witness accounts say SP had started doing Observations - then DU came in and because the case was urgent there was less time. DU asked if SP wanted him to wait for her to finish the obs. She said he should do them and left. If that's all you know it sounds odd. But there was a lot of extra info from DU - in other words it wasn't unusual for a Dr to do obs and case history with a rush case. This was rush at the end of the shift and also rush because of resus. It you had heard DUs words to describe it (Fri/Mon?) it sounded like nothing. DU seemed to have rowed back to a mild position. Obvs the legal teams had seen the bundle and knew it contained "hate incidents" and reports and complaints described with much more vitriol - so the whole thing for DU looks like a massive own goal.

Did anybody else note that today, Upton referred several times to "the hate incident "? That, to me, is significantly different to his email, titled "hate crime."

Is he trying to downplay things, because he's realised that it's a streaking, flaming blue pile of mad bollocks, which wouldn't surve scrutiny from average seven year old?

I've no idea how many people use the GMC register to check a doctor's sex/gender/whatever the category is. I check it from time-to-time if I have concerns regarding the behaviour of a doctor I've met, and I want to know what their registration status is.

Please assist me with a word that is acceptable for use on this forum whereby I can convey that it is totally unacceptable to me and I consider an affront when a man claims to be biological female and imposes himself on the female estate, and I shall use it from hereon, cheers

A horrifying effect of the GRA is that if a person in possession of a female GRC is asked if he is actually a woman he has to say yes. To do otherwise might be unlawful deception. The GMC might conclude that he has to volunteer the fact that he used to be a man, but that is a fudge and certainly has not been established.

It's absolutely dreadful that we're in 2025 and right to consent seems to be something the captured ideologists seem to feel entitled to withdraw from us.

Boiledbeetle · Today 16:26

Just buy loads of crisps and pop and lock them and the kids in the cupboard under the stairs. They'll be fine!

OK, Aunt Petunia. Don't be alarmed by the flock of owls.

Her notes and emails have bee referenced during the questioning but no - observers don't get to see the bundle. I imagine more items will be quoted when it is KS' turn on the stand

I've just been re-reading the TT of SP on the stand (again) and the thing that strikes me over and over is how composed she remains, and how she never ever muddies the water - even under cross. She doesn't try to bring DU down (he will do this himself in due course...), or use cheap or snidey shots. Unlike the patronising 'Not like a court', 'That's what a deadline is' 'that's what contemporaneous means' etc etc

Factual, to the point. DIGNIFIED.

I've been supporting someone the last year going through a vindictive harassment claim and the stress is unrelenting - I cannot begin to fathom doing it on such a public platform.

I am in awe of SP.

Let them speak. Let them speak.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Have a whole dictionary, I'm sure you can find a few words that works for you without getting you deleted or banned.

Yes, don't know if this is a Scottish thing, I got to see the Forstater, Bailey and Phoenix bundles, but not the Roz Adams one.

Is this an insidious threat?

Bet they're better behaved than the kids!

No. Just stop asking women to do things for you when you are perfectly capable of doing them yourself.

Medicine is not my field so I may be misunderstanding

A female patient asks to see a female doctor, she gets seen by a trans doctor who does not pass. The patient discretely asks other staff (hopefully avoiding a charge of bigotry and transphobia) and they all agree that the doctor is female.

Still not satisfied the patient contacts the GMC for confirmation that the doctor is female and the GMC confirms this.

The patient's consent has been falsely obtained.

How would it ever be possible to complain about this as all of the relevant organizations have lied to the patient?

No, it’s sarcasm. Do your own work.

Edit to add sorry for the cross post Boiled.

I didn't know I was asking any woman to do anything for me - I asked what word what be an acceptable substitute and I would use it from hereon.

You are an intelligent man. Find your own words.