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

I only really understood this after reading the Standard article, but claimed that SP had abandoned a patient in a life threatening situation;, but only thought to mention it 8 months later in the context of it being rude to a doctor.

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/trans-dr-beth-uptons-biologically-34659416

FAFO. 🤭🤭

As for comments about 'hovering', I'm clearly getting very confused and misreading this:

The quote I've read upthread says:
JR: p262 in main bundle. This is re 24/12 incident. You say colleague leaves, you go to bathroom, other colleague leaves, you say 'she's still hovering' - can you describe where this means you and she were standing?

Now maybe I've totally lost the context, and I'm trying to understand it fully, but

If I was a woman who had been put in a position by a male that had made me feel uncomfortable, I'd expressed it made me feel uncomfortable but this male understanding how it was making me feel was still persisting on behaving in the same manner

...I think I'd be in a place of waiting around to ensure this male had definitely gone before I went somewhere or did something to ensure I really wasn't going to 'accidentally' get put in the same position again in a not so subtule demonstration of power.

And thats what I can't get my head around, because the quote states that Upton had ALREADY USED the shared facilities and therefore theorectically had no need to use them again for any time soon.

So my question is why was Upton was paying so much attention to where Sandie was all the time in this context. Thats not normal. Sandie's position is irrelevant at this stage. Why be so bothered by it? Sandie wasn't a threat - physically, verbally or otherwise. Sandie simply wanted to AVOID Upton and a difficult situation and thats what Sandie had expressed. Sandie did not want a conflict. Absoluetely nothing here says she wanted to provoke conflict - she just wanted privacy and dignity.

So why was Upton acting like SHE was the threat? Sandie really should have been invisible at this moment, especially if Upton saw 'all women' as equals and exactly the same. What was it that was problematic here if biologically they were all women? And what would Sandie make an allegation about??? On what grounds? It makes no logical sense as an argument.

Indeed if Upton really thought she might make these imagined erronenous allegations, then Upton's actions of self protection should have been to also avoid using the facilities at the same time as Sandie; not make comments about her hovering AFTER Upton had already left and used the facilities.

It does not make any sense to be monitoring Sandie so closely AFTER THE FACT.

Apart from in one scenario:
Upton was planning to make Sandie feel uncomfortable again and was pissed off that Sandie had Upton's number and was reading the situation enough, not to put herself into that potential scenario.

As I say, it really makes no logical sense to be worried about Sandie's location AFTER you've used the facilities for their intended purpose, if your concerns are all about Sandie making potential nefarious allegations and using them to oust you. You only might concern yourself if you were GOING to use them.

Unless of course its got nothing to do with using the ladies toilet or changing room at all. Its just a room after all. And instead its got everything to do with using the women who frequent them in some way whether it be validation, a power trip or for sexual gratification. (or a combination of the above).

Its another angle that I'm struggling to wrap my head around. I've tried to work out if I've got the context or understood the quote incorrectly, but it still makes no sense in terms of relevance. I can only assume I've got completely the wrong end of the stick or I can only draw the conclusion that this exchange is another weird own goal.

Good points FiveBarGate.

Thanks for everyone who added to my list of some-of-the-most-startling-things-I-heard-from-Dr-Upton.

Trouble is, defining law in sex is a massive mis-step. As Kathleen Stock goes into quite well, it is in fact quite complicated in the corner cases - but with complications that medics understand quite well and that are already, in developed countries, handled ordinarily. IANAbiologist but I think the simplest one-phrase summary is "you're a man if you have a functioning SRY gene, which means your body will be on the developmental pathway towards producing sperm" (but you can, in extremely rare cases, have that and still have XX chromosomes, because relocation). What we need is trustworthy birth certificates, recording the best available medical understanding at birth registration time. In the UK, I think it's right to say, that would be fine - it doesn't really happen that there are doubts later than that. But we need to stop falsifying birth certificates! We really are close to the point where it will be time to start insisting that stop.

His career is already over.

Nobody wants to be the supervisor of someone endlessly making HR complaints about staff. With the threat that if you don't enable them them they will accuse you of a hate crime as well.

I had a miserable year with a trainee who was in my office every week to point out exactly what her hours were and wanting rotas adjusted down to the hour.

But they were a doddle compared to trying to manage Dr Upton.

In addition to the excellent list of highlights by nauticant I have pointed out to my DH the difference between the still photos of DU in the newspapers and the live video of the court stream.

The stills are mostly headshots which focus on lovely long hair, dangly earrings and makeup. His coat is thickly padded and he's wearing a soft scarf. At a quick glance you might read this person as a woman.

In the moving images in the court room, no longer bundled up in layers of clothing his height, hands, body proportions, hairline, the way he walks and talks and stands are all unmistakably male.

So the GMC is not recording / monitoring the EA 2010 protected characteristic of “sex”.

KS also seems to have helped DU to draft and submit Datix complaint which seems over and above her role as outlined by DU.

Most people do not want to cause offence at work so there is a natural tendency for people not to rock the boat.

All you need is a few weak willed or poorly informed to gently side with T and people like SP end up with a mountain to climb.

Should make the arguments easier. I'm hoping Helle is busy updating her "you are talking out of your arse" links for all this new stuff!

The whole thing is just such a farce. Of course he's male. The only reason the tribunal is happening is because he's male. If he was a female none of this would have happened. The judge and even his own barrister knows he's male - they've called him 'him' that many times. No one has asked for a sex test. He's parents, his friends even his wife - they all know he's male. The question is how far should everyone including his patients and colleagues go along with his desire to be treated as a woman?

And the soft voice and chilling calmness - I found that intimidating over a screen. Can't imagine how that would be in a CR at midnight. DU knows very well how to intimidate - as demonstrated by having friends sit behind the barristers table or by giving CN hard stares. These weren't the actions of someone who was feeble and vulnerable at all

Isn't that a bit difficult when checking somebody's CV?

I think I've missed that, can you point me at it?

I didn't understand this bit - DU was asked about the summary sheet and asked to confim that there were more details covered in the full submission. I assume that is in the bundle - does it show DU or KS submitting the datix?

Wasn’t that the key point in the ERCC tribunal? That there was no way she could have framed the question asked on behalf of the service user without being accused of inappropriate behaviour?

Why have NHS Fife and DU got the same lawyers? (Apols if this has been covered already, I haven't read all pages of all threads.) It looks like he might have led them on a bit of a witch hunt and their positions are therefore not entirely aligned.

This is always the way IME. There's a trans woman catwalk model, androgenous looking, long blond hair. I can't remember their name.
If you see a photo they look reasonably like an attractive androgenous woman but my God, once you see them walk the runway there is no doubt they're male.

A man can have all the cosmetic surgery, make up etc money can buy but will never be able to change their make musculoskeletal set up to a female one.

Imposition of struggle sessions on people guilty of wrongthink. You are correct.

@JasmineAllen the hips don't lie.

You can fake a still photo, even better if you can photoshop it but a whole human, in motion, you can tell.

I had not though of struggle sessions and courses people are sent on to 're-educate' themselves

There's been lots of speculation about the implications of this but it hasn't got very far. Initially it was clear they both had the same interests - make SP shut up and go away. There was a question about whether it was ok to add Upton as respondent - maybe adding an extra lawyer for him when he was added was hard to contemplate because they hadn't wanted to add him in the first place? Now it seems likely that JR is in a tight spot trying to defend both. KS being added as third respondent seems like an interesting wrinkle, because at first sight, her interests are likely to be closely aligned with Fife's, so adding a different lawyer for her (if that's even possible in the middle of a tribunal) is probably unnecessary. I suppose, though, there would be no point now in adding a different lawyer for Upton given that he's already given evidence. If this goes to appeal, who knows what will happen... but quite hard to imagine, right now, that it will need to.

A man can have all the cosmetic surgery, make up etc money can buy but will never be able to change their make musculoskeletal set up to a female one.

Yup. As I pointed out to DH I can instantly tell if the figure walking behind me on a dark street is a man or a woman. I don't need to see a face or what they're wearing.

There's a lot of love for Naomi Cunningham on Twitter at the moment. Saw this and thought it summed it all up.