NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #18

[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. 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
Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273827-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-17

What happens between now and the end of the tribunal if a female patient asks for a female doctor and Dr Upton takes himself to treat her? Would GMC not have to take some responsibility or would it be on the hospital for allowing it to happen?

If the gmc determine that he has breached their rules mid case then that might be prejudicial to his ability to defend the claim against him. It goes to his credibility and judgment. It would risk derailing this whole tribunal.

I think he's managed to raise enough questions about his credibility and judgement all by himself, don't you?

I expect DU will be subject to informal supportive supervision in his practice given the considerable stress he is under etc etc. In other words I would be amazed if Fife was not actively babysitting him.

Also lurking 👀 🪻

If ED had been the second woman to object to Upton in the changing room over concerns that it wasn't equality, would it have encouraged other women in the department to speak up.

ED is responsible for her own position. She was in a position of more authority and it would have been harder to suspend her and to retrain her, if she was doing her job in understanding equality AND safeguarding.

She has said by her own admission, that she might have taken a different tact and said no to Upton if there had been more opposition.

Therefore she wasn't actually taking the Equality advised policy route at all. She was taking the path of least resistance and would give her an easy life. And she was able to do this because she knew damn well she had an imbalance of power and everyone else felt intimidated by management on the subject - everyone junior was in no doubt she was TWAW from her framing.

Her framing was 'in order to make Upton feel welcome, we should accommodate him in the changing room. If you have a problem with that let me know'. Therefore by default saying if you didn't accept it you were considered as being unwelcoming.

And therein lies your issue.

ED wasn't neutral and ED made her opinion and that of managements clear to junior staff.

That is for the Tribunal. Scotland has very strict contempt of court rules and I don’t see how a conduct hearing could take place that didn’t involve discussions of evidence from the live Tribunal - that is not acceptable

I was wondering that if I had a trans child and I was conflicted about it, then having JR's job would be quite handy. I could go home having done my best to defend the trans rights. But simultaneously being part of the process which leads to more sensible and workable legal boundaries. And get paid well for doing it...

Another old timer here, I deleted my original account around the time of Jeffrey, then I had a break for a couple of years. I'm pretty much a lurker. I rarely contribute because everyone else is far more articulate.

Thanks so much to nauticant and ickky for all their work on these threads.

My only direct experience of a trans woman in a vaguely health related area was before I had my first baby, when I was in a bit of a hippy phase and decided I would try hypnobirthing. I found a local practitioner (female name) and emailed them. In their first reply they flagged up that they were a pre-op transsexual, in case that would be an issue. No attempt to hide it or assumption that no-one would realise, just a straightforward this is who I am, I'm giving you the option to decline.

Much more dignified and responsible than DU.

ho ho ho it's going to be Santa's little xmas pressie - what calls were made on 24th Dec 2023 to 4th Jan 2024 and then right through to July 2024. I wonder who was on speed dial. clears desk for 16th July

It's a mistake to think that gender reassignment in equality law relates to the acquisition of a GRC. The definition of gender reassignment as a protected characteristic in equality law predates the GRA, and is "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex".

This means that anyone who's even sugested they want to change sex, or is in the process of doing so (whatever that amounts to) or has completed the process (with or without getting a GRC) has the characteristic of gender reassignment and is protected against being less favourably treated than a person of the same sex without that characteristic. Upton clearly has that characteristic whether or not he ever gets a GRC.

There are a number of exceptions in the Equality Act where discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment is allowed (basically those where discrimination on grounds of sex are allowed, such as single sex spaces). There is nothing in the Act to say that the exceptions don't apply to a person with a GRC. The current SC case is around whether the GRA makes a person with a GRC literally/ legally a member of the opposite sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

Fair point.

I just wanted to point out that even if the SC ruling goes against FWS, and males with a GRC are female for the purposes of the EA2010, it will not give them a right to access services and spaces reserved for women & girls because the exceptions in the EA allow discrimination on the grounds of Sex and/or GR. (The exceptions cover sport, RCCs, communal toilets and changing rooms etc.) They would still not be permitted to access any services or spaces where women's human rights are engaged.

The EA exceptions would however not apply to women-only associations - Foran gives the examples of a lesbian walking group or even the Women's Rights Network (and I would imagine that would include the WI, or a women-only book club) - and of course the SG's "gender-balanced" boards which started all this off.

Above taken from Michael Foran in a WRN interview available on YouTube. This specific opinion comes at about 13:45

2

Or wanting to see if ED corrected him. She didn't

Following established hospital protocol, as Dr U has expressed an intention to act in a way that could definitely make a patient feel unsafe, I assume he will be suspended.

JoMarch. Well I never. Great to see you here.

It's a mistake to think that gender reassignment in equality law relates to the acquisition of a GRC. The definition of gender reassignment as a protected characteristic in equality law predates the GRA, and is "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex".

Predates the GRA? Eh?

The wording in quotation marks is from the Equality Act 2010.

The GRA is the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

But isn't that at the discretion of the service provider? It's a may, not a must situation?

However, Isn't there a current case in Brighton where a woman is claiming that provision is discriminatory because there are no single sex rape crisis services?

Thank you so much. Somehow I entirely missed the HR input.

So HR said - there's no evidence (which would suggest that Upton's complaint then may be either at best oversensitive reading things into a situation that weren't there or vexatious/bullying) and recommended not to proceed and ED and IB decided to burn the witch anyway? Fucks sake!

The HR are coming out of this quite well - but how are clinical staff allowed to overrule HR like that? So it WASN'T an HR approved decision to suspend SP over Upton's hurty feelings?

I note he seemed cocky in court - methinks his hurty feelings appear or disappear depending on the situation. No reasonable person raises a formal complaint over what he describes. It's a bullying tactic.

I wonder how many women have been subject to the same behaviour but didn't have the resilience to fight back?

I've just checked and her page no longer exists.

I hear there's a big basement room that hasn't been used since the 90s. Perhaps they could pop him down there until all this has been resolved.

This sounds mad!
Is this part of what's going wrong with NHS, finacially?

(I'm not very clued up on this so apologies of off the mark)

Bet he is wishing he had just disclosed the other items. The phone notes could open up a big flaming pile of doo doo. He was taking notes from the get-go and couldn't have known who he would use them against. Which means there is a very high chance that he wrote notes about his other colleagues - imagine finding out after all this and everything that has come out, that you were complicit in a travesty - but that with a small difference in the turn of events that it would have been you in SP's place... uncomfortable might be the feeling? But don't worry - be kind!

Useful to know.

Hopefully they've heard enough to make it an explicit ruling that having a belief in gender identity isn't WORIADS.

The fact that Dr U is imposing My Truth ("I'm a biological female", not self-electing out if female only intimate care is requested, not recognising sex as valid in Poor Misgendered Pete's medical needs etc) is surely enough to secure this as an outcome. At that point, imposing this belief on Sandie Peggie and the other women in the CR, by using the CR that has been set aside for women, is objectively wrong. Going on to insist that SP is investigated for not accepting this belief as truth is surely (objectively) bullying.

If the Supreme Court rules that sex means biological sex, even with the power of a £5 lady ticket, the SP/BU tribunal will look very..... odd.... if it upholds Dr U's Truth.

Sandie Peggie's composure and the strength that she has shown by raising this case are bringing the sunlight flooding in. The DARVO has been exposed ☀️☀️☀️☀️

Even the BBC might realise how stupid, inaccurate and subjective they've been with all their news reports with she/her pronouns for (transwo)men who commit sex and violent crime. Yeah, OK. Maybe not. But plenty of the public will. Hooray for Sandie and Naomi 👏👏👏👏👏