NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #19

[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, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It seems that it will resume on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July but it wasn't completely clear whether it might end a day or two later.

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
Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274332-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-18

Good point. I bet that's it, then; Rainbow hadn't started when she was in its target age range.

In case people want further information, here's the Twitter account of @FayeRC:

https://x.com/FayeRCTribunal

Just a note to say that I have a relative who was typing top secret material during later stages of WW2 when she was 15/16. (Manifests with super-secret technology. Because she'd never come across some of the words before, the public wouldn't, she 'corrected' some of them. She was taken aside to be told that those words were correct and to re-do the manifests. She and some other relatives had interesting experiences. )

You would think that wouldn’t you.
But it’s very clear that the lights are on but nobody’s home.

I was thinking about this. He's a gift to GC women.

If he had looked very sad and said "I, of course, acknowledge that my body is male but I know myself to be female, it's who I am".... obviously that's nonsensical but it'd land far better with uncritical people than "I'm female, actually - biologically female, don't you even know how that works?!"

But then if he admitted to being male does that affect his case? Does he have to fully commit to "I am female and nothing else" for his case to proceed? I wouldn't have thought so as it's going on Fife's policy which is about gender id.

Yes. (Source, chum who did this for a major Police force.)

Same year as my DH. He definitely remembers Rainbow and knows Bungle is the bear. We are obs a lower class lol.

Legally he was male at the time of the CR incident. Insisting he is female is staking a claim to be there regardless of the law.

It's gold laid out front and centre.

I think that because saying that you”feel like a woman” opens up the line of questioning “why/how do you feel like a woman”, it’s easier to just say “I am a woman.”

It makes no difference, because none of it makes sense anyway, and many people have clearly demonstrated that they’ll believe anything if it’s repeated often enough. DU is smart enough to realise this.

Someone upthread referred to him as a transvestite. I don't know if that word would get you cancelled these days, but it isn't one that is used any more (presumably because it is honest and accurate, and honest and accuracy is not what is wanted in 'the discourse'). They insist they actually do have a gender and that sex is irrelevant. Or nebulous. Or that their frock changes their biology.

There is that - this case has shed so much sunlight on the dangerous nonsense that is trans ideology. Now the law that has enabled Stonewall, GLADD, Gendered Intelligence etc professional activist-influenced policy needs to change to restore fairness, dignity and safeguarding.

DU really was his worst own enemy during cross examination

Yes, he's so bad he's good.

If only Fife had been more Zippy!

So born in the 1960s therefore too old for Rainbow.

I remember having a name the kids tv characters quiz at work when emails were quite new we needed people who were loads of different ages to answer. People only watch kids tv for a short time and only know the characters in that short window of time.

Even then, though... She'd have been born in what, 1930? Not much later. Anyone born earlier than about 1967 is too old for Rainbows to have started when they were in its prime target age group. So for Naomi's mum to have worked at Bletchley in the 2ww and for Naomi to have not watched Rainbows at say age 4, even though it existed, because posh, her mother would have had to have been at least 37 when Naomi was born, with older being more plausible. And though of course it happened, 37 was old to have a baby - my mother says she remembers being considered a geriatric primagravida at 25 in the 1960s! So sure it's possible but... Such consequential stuff we're onto on this thread, sorry for my part in it 😄

Re: IB. IB has a Global Public Health Masters degree with a component of Human Rights and Equalities, if I understood this correctly.

IB is appropriately credentialled: they were not advertising for a specialist in law because they weren't paying for that and already have access to employment and legal advice (it's a separate issue that it appears not to have been consulted or disregarded when it was (see HR contributions)). However, given the risk of IB needing to give evidence and serve as a material witness before an ET and the plausible necessity to present to various senior committees and NHS Fife's board, I'm surprised that this wasn't an essential requirement. But, if it's not in the job specification and JD then it isn't.

De-lurking to thank everyone for their insights and analysis on this case. I've been following these threads when I can in-between work.

Over in the USA, the push back against Gender GI came with the sports ad scholarships. People could see it was manifestly unfair and there were legal challenges at State level. It still boggles my mind that the California prisons case (women incarcerated with men) was lost, but it demonstrates the grip that money of money and middle-class policy power. Little Casey losing out on a college scholarship? Sue the school! Elsa struggling with sexual abuse from a GI she's been locked up with? Who cares?

I'm looking for the same nexus here: cases and examples that cost money and force policy change. It has to to shock the managerial class out of complacency and force them to realise its coming for their jobs and comfort. Otherwise, they will deflect and ignore the obvious outcomes.

I thought Maya's case would be the wake-up call, but obviously she is just one uppity woman. I think the Darlington Nurses might have a better chance. Ditto Sarah, doen in Brighton although I wish she didn't have to go through it. We need heads to roll and an explicit downside for management who choose to ignore women's rights.

Ah but back in the 70's tv had 3 channels and only a few hours of kids tv. Don't you remember being off sick watching Rainbows and then straight on to Crown Court. How did we survive!

Hate it to suggest so, but he really should be considered to be a poster boy for what many oppose - trans (vestites)(genders) in womens spaces.

He is a parody figure, utterly ridiculous claiming not to be a robot..... and identifies as a woman so therefore a female.

Not sure cogito, ergo sum extended to thinking you are something and therefore become it.

Reform also didn't stand at the last election.

If you meant 2019, Reform or UKIP (whatever disguise they were wearing) no they stood candidates down in that election.

In 2024 they most definitely did stand. In my own area, Oxfordshire, they ended up siphoning a lot of votes from the Tories and hence letting either LibDems or Labour in. Although in my own constituency Reform came a poor fourth and didn't affect the vote much.

As some PPs have said, I agree that DEI should be a force for good. I also imagine that many who work in that area are kind people and committed to good practice etc. But there are other things that have crept in presumably with DEI input that are plain ridiculous, such as menopause policies that erase the word woman and talk about “ people” which actually can exclude people who don’t have good English language knowledge and where clarity in particular re medical matter is surely needed. Lots of ripple effects it seems. I do agree with the poster who said it was reform needed in DEI rather than throwing it out in the proverbial bath water.

Re the GMC and intimate examinations - I checked their guidance. When I trained, it was an expectation that some women would understandably only want a female doctor to carry out an intimate examination and this would be a perfectly reasonable request. It was also acknowledged that a female doctor might not always be available and if a male doctor had to go ahead and do the examination (obviously the woman could refuse and if the examination was immediately medically necessary and should not be delayed until a female doctor available, refusal to consent would have to be carefully documented) then a female chaperone should be present for the examination. Male doctors were advised to have a female chaperone present even if the patient said she wasn't bothered about having one.
Anyway, the current GMC guidance on intimate examinations and chaperones says nothing about the sex of the patient, doctor or chaperone. I looked through my paper copies of GMC 'Good Medical Practice' from when I graduated (20ish years ago) and could not find anything in there about it.
www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/the-professional-standards/intimate-examinations-and-chaperones/intimate-examinations-and-chaperones

Go back to your manager and flag this to them. If possible in a group setting. Then say you’ve been following the Peggie case and that this training doesn’t seem align with the law? And ask how you’d ask for a female only space in the maybe rare chance you’d need one without being called transphobic? You can ask how is it OK for diversity policy to override safeguarding because that’s not right? Example would be how this was a factor in the Oldham situation when loopholes were exploited by criminals. How is this gender situation different? They probably won’t be able to answer but asking the questions will be enough if we all do it.

Poster Princess, please.