Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #17

1000 replies

nauticant · 13/02/2025 15:59

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. However, it is going to overrun and there will be an adjournment with the hearing resuming in July (current best estimate). 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 caused by 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
Thread 15: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273119-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-15
Thread 16: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273636-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-16

OP posts:
Thread gallery
35
thenosiesttermagant · 13/02/2025 16:30

ThatDaringMintCritic · 13/02/2025 16:21

Yes, doctors.net.co.uk is a real thing. From what a pro-SP friend told me there are mixed views. A lot of women doctors supporting SP, some male doctors agreeing with DU that women can't always insist on seeing a women doctor / nurse. Quite the bunfight. Be interesting to see if/how the case is covered in the medical press.

But that's not the question, the question is if a nurse should be forced to get undressed in front of a male doctor. Or not. And then suspended for if she says no to this.

IDasIX · 13/02/2025 16:30

anyolddinosaur · 13/02/2025 16:19

ED was newly promoted and clearly over promoted. But if something is new to you then dont just rely on others to guide you, check you are getting good advice! And you shouldnt need good advice to know you dont judge an issue before hearing both sides.

That advice and guidance appears to have come from a 25yo EDI officer who was only a few months into her job…

ThatDaringMintCritic · 13/02/2025 16:30

eatfigs · 13/02/2025 16:26

Would be interesting to see screenshots of doctors.net.uk showing what the reaction is. With names etc. redacted of course.

Sorry, I don't have access. My friend gave me a quick overview when I asked. Would be really interesting to see how this debate plays amongst doctors 'talking' in private.

Merrymouse · 13/02/2025 16:31

guinnessguzzler · 13/02/2025 16:07

Thanks for the new thread. Just caught up. Can I ask for clarity about one of the emails recently referred to, where KS is saying 'Dr U knows that we condemn SP's actions'?

a) Is that as bad as it sounds (it sounds to me like they have pre-judged the investigation AND communicated that fact to one of those involved)

b) Was that part of one of the sets of emails disclosed since the tribunal started, or had it been disclosed in advance, in line with the order?

This all feels very post officey.

Shetlands · 13/02/2025 16:32

My late Aunt Isabella was a Scottish hospital matron and she could have competed in the 'stern' olympics. I'm a retired headteacher and my 'stern' could peel wallpaper!

Burn us all! 😈

WhatterySquash · 13/02/2025 16:32

From previous thread - I think, in this situation, acting with integrity would require a degree of courage, which they all seemed to lack. I don't defend them, but in my view this illustrates the power of a narcissist in controlling the people around them.

On a local level it's that, but there's also the institution-wide level where the NHS (like so many others) has promoted the idea that anything trans people say is true however ridiculous it sounds (from TWAW on in), they must be pandered to and treated with kid gloves and allowed to control everything and never be told no.

Then not dealt with the fact that the idea that sex doesn't exist or can just change because someone says so is not compatible with medical care and treatment, or with safety and privacy for patients and staff. They contradict themselves on a daily basis because obviously recognising and understanding sex differences happens all day, every day in the NHS but everyone has to pretend GI is true 🤦🏻‍♀️

I did some NHS volunteering recently and part of it involved working with school students on work experience. Beforehand the coordinator emailed me to say the student I would be with the next day was non-binary and they/them, complete with painstakingly detailed, patronising explanation of what this meant and how to behave.

Went in, behaved respectfully and kindly towards the (clearly female) student, first thing the coordinator did was introduce her using she pronouns. Not deliberately - she was extremely earnest, preachy and rainbow-lanyardy. Just automatically and didn't even notice she'd done it.

There's a huge gap between the ideology that's been slapped onto everything, and how people actually instinctively think and behave - obviously. In a forensic situation like this where it's being picked apart the contradictions are going to be laid bare.

ickky · 13/02/2025 16:33

I think someone on the last thread mentioned about political belief.

I think they could add it as a detriment re SP's views on Trump. It has been mentioned a few times now.

What has her political views got to do with this case?

I don't care if she is a maga hat wearing full on supporter, she is entitled to her opinions. It has nothing to do with her right to change in a single sex space.

Hermyknee · 13/02/2025 16:33

How embarrassing to pretend you don’t know what male and female mean in front of everyone.

Jerabilis · 13/02/2025 16:33

Back to this Employment tribunal, one of the (many) reasons NHS Fife's handling of this makes me so angry is it means if they did have an employee who had done something seriously wrong they are so incompetent at the process they'd still lose at tribunal. Considering the law, having proper policies, etc it makes it fair for all staff, and this level of incompetence is infuriating.

Changingtides1234 · 13/02/2025 16:33

Sorry. I have been following. I hadn’t heard about this case until a few days ago, here. Why has it been delayed by 5months? Or July I think they said?

Harassedevictee · 13/02/2025 16:33

WRT the referral to OH, SP hadn’t displayed behaviours I would consider sufficient for a OH referral. However, DU definitely did in the distress they showed in the 24th and the subsequent sick leave. In my experience under the attendance management policy referring DU to OH makes a lot more sense.

KS’ email is dynamite as you never make a judgement without hearing both sides.

The bit I struggle with is SP worked two 12 hour shifts and had done for years NC - what is your shift pattern
SP - 2 night shifts per week, since 2000

Where as DUs shifts were varied
JR: What were your shift patterns at the time of the incident
DU: Varies typically 8-6 day shift, noon-10:45, or 2pm-mindnight, night shift is 10pm to 8:15 following morning. Studi days mixed in, 9-5. Five shifts/week

It should have been relatively easy to take SPs existing fixed shift pattern and slot DU in so his shifts didn’t start/end or overlap with SP. For example if he did Saturday 10pm to Sunday 8.15, SP did Sunday and Monday nights and DU did noon-10:45 Tuesday then fit in other shifts Wed, Thur, Fri.

Keenovay · 13/02/2025 16:34

Hermyknee · 13/02/2025 16:33

How embarrassing to pretend you don’t know what male and female mean in front of everyone.

It's certainly been bracing to witness people of normal intelligence but compromised by gender ideology, systematically challenged in court.

I just hope NC can get one such witness to implode in embarrassment on the stand, and admit 2+2=4 and sometimes a penis is just a penis.

Right now the faithful are upholding the approved narrative that sex is ultimately a holy mystery that cannot ever be fully grasped (except perhaps by trans initiates...)

Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Bunpea · 13/02/2025 16:35

The BMJ is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, which is wholly owned by the BMA. As we know, the BMA leadership is captured by TRA. So I think we know what we can expect of any of its publications.

thenosiesttermagant · 13/02/2025 16:35

I noticed earlier that they were trying to change SP's shift patterns but didn't even consider (seemingly) doing this for DU.

CerealPosterHere · 13/02/2025 16:35

can't always insist on seeing a women doctor / nurse

probably true. I’ve worked in a hospital where one year every gynae reg and consultant was male. If there’s no female doctor you can’t insist on seeing one. However you can insist you don’t see a male.

Important distinction. Might mean you see nobody or have to go to a different hospital but that’s an informed choice women can make. Should be able to make.

EasternStandard · 13/02/2025 16:35

ickky · 13/02/2025 16:33

I think someone on the last thread mentioned about political belief.

I think they could add it as a detriment re SP's views on Trump. It has been mentioned a few times now.

What has her political views got to do with this case?

I don't care if she is a maga hat wearing full on supporter, she is entitled to her opinions. It has nothing to do with her right to change in a single sex space.

This is similar to trials where the victim's character is assassinated

She was wearing a short skirt etc

So bad

rebmacesrevda · 13/02/2025 16:35

Changingtides1234 · 13/02/2025 16:33

Sorry. I have been following. I hadn’t heard about this case until a few days ago, here. Why has it been delayed by 5months? Or July I think they said?

They realised yesterday they've opened a can of worms, and they need a lot more time to pick up all the worms. July is the next available time they can reconvene to continue picking up worms.

NebulousHog · 13/02/2025 16:36

I am feeling a new direction of rage; the sheer number of women that one man's ludicrous manipulation and bullying will impact. Everyone from Sandie all the way to JR - and much further if the GMC don't sort their registration issues out.

murasaki · 13/02/2025 16:36

Changingtides1234 · 13/02/2025 16:33

Sorry. I have been following. I hadn’t heard about this case until a few days ago, here. Why has it been delayed by 5months? Or July I think they said?

Because they had 10 days scheduled, the respondents' KC fannied about interrupting and the judge didn't stop it, they lied about submitting all emails etc in contravention of the judicial order so had to give time for NC to read them, so now they can't fit everything in.

ThatPithySheep · 13/02/2025 16:36

On a previous thread someone noted NHS Fife had a note that a 'red' situation in terms of bad publicity would be press interest lasting longer than 3 days. I wonder how they feel now? Is there even a category for bad publicity of this level?

Also, if Trump gets to find out that a nurse is being pilloried for staying in his hotel, and the implication that she is a bigot because of this - I think NHS Fife really don't want the attention that would follow if he started talking about this

lifeturnsonadime · 13/02/2025 16:36

IDasIX · 13/02/2025 16:29

IANAL but it seems to me that the Scottish Government’s handling of the Salmond case is an appropriate comparator here.

The SG’s case collapsed on a technicality - the person assigned to investigate had had prior contact with the complainants and so the court found the process to be tainted with apparent bias and deemed unlawful (i.e. did not comply with procedures rather than illegal). Different type of case and different type of court, but surely this investigation is also tainted with apparent bias?

Sandie, NC, and their funders might want rulings on the substantive matter on SSS and whether it is harassment to call a TW a man, but they might not get that far if it falls on NHS Fife’s procedural failings?

This has a bearing on the claimants claim, so it is evidence that supports Sandie's claims against the Respondents, but it is not evidence that would get the claim thrown out. That's not desirable in this case in any event as it is the Claimant who wants to prove her claims.

NebulousDog · 13/02/2025 16:37

A guy called boswelltoday on X who did a really good summary of today's cross examination (though I am not sure I'm fully there with his some of his conclusions - yet):

  1. Davidson admitted that NHS Fife had no formal policy on trans inclusion in single-sex spaces. If there was no written rule, why was Peggie expected to comply with a decision that management was figuring out on the fly?

It shows that NHS Fife enforced an unwritten rule, favouring Upton over Peggie without due process. They were making it up as they went along.

  1. Peggie raised concerns in August, but only got an answer in October—a full two months later. Yet, when Upton complained, action was taken immediately.

It highlights the double standard. Upton’s rights were prioritised; Peggie’s were ignored. NHS Fife didn’t care how long Peggie was left in limbo—but acted instantly when Upton complained.

  1. Peggie was removed from work before an investigation had even begun. NHS Fife took Upton’s version at face value without hearing Peggie’s side first.

It exposes the utter lack of due process. Peggie was punished first, then investigated later—a complete reversal of natural justice.

  1. The decision to suspend Peggie was based on hearsay and unverified claims, including an alleged patient safety issue that was never documented.

It shows Peggie’s suspension was a pretext. They needed a reason to keep her out, so they grabbed whatever they could find.

  1. Jane Russell openly questioned Peggie’s political views and support for Trump. This suggests the case wasn’t about behaviour—it was about beliefs. It gets to the heart of the case—this wasn’t about what Peggie did, but what she believed. It wasn’t about inclusion, but about ideological enforcement.
thenosiesttermagant · 13/02/2025 16:37

What's the betting the DEI person is just really a T person? Have they done anything to improve access for disabled people, for example? My friend who needs a wheelchair says DEI these days entirely excludes her needs because they're too focused on rainbows. Ramps not so much.

A court case on DEI failing to represent all protected characteristics is needed methinks.

Merrymouse · 13/02/2025 16:37

Peregrina · 13/02/2025 16:24

Could it be that people like KS had already formed a dislike of the "stern" Sandie Peggie and were taking the opportunity to get rid of her from A & E. Not realising that someone with a reputation for being stern was not likely to take it all lying down.

I am speculating and if MN thinks that is wrong, they can withdraw my post.

From Dr Upton's evidence, he was striking pre-emptively to prevent her from making a complaint against him, so he was at least aware that others would agree with her.

ickky · 13/02/2025 16:38

Changingtides1234 · 13/02/2025 16:33

Sorry. I have been following. I hadn’t heard about this case until a few days ago, here. Why has it been delayed by 5months? Or July I think they said?

A few reasons. The respondent's not providing evidence, repeatedly even after a specific court order to do so, hostile witness arguing over the price of large gametes and the excessive objections from the respondent's KC.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread