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

What would be the benefit of the court establishing Dr Upton's sex? Is it in doubt? Surely everyone already knows he is male. The TRA and NHS Fife argument is that it doesn't matter that his sex is male and that this is obvious to anyone interacting with him; what matters is what he says he is and if he says he is a woman then he can use women-only facilities based on that because his identity and beliefs should be 'respected' (or rather, demands made for others to agree with his identity and beliefs should be pandered to). Producing his original birth certificate or a lab report of his DNA wouldn't make any difference to this argument.

Is it these people? (Again a link from somebody else last week)

Rise of the New Elite - Matt Goodwin

Just on the subject of EDI and employers engaging Stonewall law rather than the actual law; I do wonder if we are not going to see a raft of negligence claims against Stonewall for misrepresenting the law and giving incorrect legal advice to paid up members of their diversity scheme?

If a lawyer or trade union had given poor or, as in this case, simply incorrect advice then they should expect to be slapped with a Professional Negligence claim.

So I do wonder if the solvent days for Stonewall might be about to end.

I do appreciate they operate as a charity so are not mega rich but if they are offering bad advice for a fee then there should be 'come back'.

In most legal proceeding a claimant has to prove all the facts that their claim depends on.

Some facts can be assumed that the court or tribunal has judicial notice of (eg a dropped object falls to the ground) but other wise things hve to be proved.

Thus the question of whather Dr U is a man or woman - despite his assertion that he is a woman - might need to be proven. eg was he permitted to be in the female CR?

As I've said in previous posts, I'm not sure why a claimant in one of these TWAW claims hasn't introduced expert medical/scientific evdence theat (1) sex is real (2) there are only two sexes (3) you can't change sex

'Stonelaw' introduces concepts to DEI that don't seem to have any relation to existing UK law particularly the right to have an identity affirmed. I'm not sure which article of the HRA this is supposed to stem from, but if it's respect for private life, that is restricted where there is a need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

However, Stonelaw teaches that 'rights aren't pie' - that it's divisive and exclusionary to suggest that giving a right to one group might adversely affect another group. The right wing twin of this would be 'all lives matter', or the Men's Rights Activist argument that women just need the same rights as men, and should stop moaning about pay gaps. This links to the idea that any kind of discrimination is bad, so it's easy to anticipate changes in the law - sex based rights are discriminatory and = forcing Rosa Parks to sit at the back of the bus.

Obviously NHS Fife should have sought legal advice, but at what level are employees expected to realise that their training course was wrong? I can understand why a 25 year old woman who just wants to be 'kind', and sometimes pops in the men's at a club if the queue is too long, would just assume that it was old fashioned to want a single sex changing room. I honestly think I might have at the same age. However, rather than correctly spotting that this is because of inexperience and a lack of empathy, many older people genuinely believe that youth bestows better understanding of these issues.

This is the crux of the Alison Bailey appeal. She won her case against her employer but not against Stonewall, who she claims caused her employer to discriminate against her. She has been granted right to appeal, and if she wins, this will have huge implications for orgs like Stonewall who would then be held liable if they give dodgy advice. It would be a much needed wake up call, and hopefully would give them the much needed boot up the arse that they need.

I am sure she'll be fine. Firstly because A & E consultants are not easy to get. But secondly the only thing she definitely did wrong was disseminating a biassed account of the event. If her opinion was so influential that those responsible for managing the nurses forgot all objectivity and training and rushed to do her bidding it is hardly her fault!

Ah thanks, I hadn't realised that.

How many of those have you had, Boily?

If she wins against Stonewall the fallout of will be spectacular to behold.

Every parent whose child trans at a stonewall accredited school?

Oooof.

@thenosiesttermagant 'Safeguarding is about protecting the most vulnerable.
Transactivism is about claiming vulnerability for the most powerful...'

Wow, haven't heard it put that way before.

If I were JR I'd completely ignore this.
The detriments will be irrelevant if the harassment claim is not upheld.
She will throw everything at disproving the harassment.

She has to prove or show that a typical person wouldn't think that:

1. DU did not personally harass SP regarding her sex under the EA (simply by being in the CR)
2. The NHS did not indirectly allow SP to be harassed under the EA (by DU being in the CR)

(While the converse is true of NC)

JR's original defence plan was to paint SP as a radical Trump supporting TERF lying in wait for DU. Hence all the stuff about strong opinions and her husband's Facebook.

I'm sure she will continue with that line of argument, but given what's come to light, it seems a pretty flimsy - and demonstrably not something that public opinion seems to be behind if we take numbers of comments & articles online as an indicator.

JR must be delighted she has until July to come up with some other more convincing argument. I don't envy her her task!

Oh Tunnock's. Oh Tunnock's. how do I love you. Let me count the ways.

A quick thread derail into (fairly awful) Tunnock's poetry!!

T TUNNOCK LTD

This is a tale of Tunnock’s treats,

The ones that we eat at all of our meets.
Usually, there’s a selection from which to pick,
No one has difficulty wolfing them quick.
No, it’s hard to stop as they are so nice,
Oh yes to another, no need to ask twice.
Chocolate biscuit and mallow, caramel and wafer,
Knowing there’s Snowballs to finish off later.

Logs that are large, and come in bite size.
Tunnock’s will be in my hand when I die.
Dark ones as well? Well, there’s a surprise!

Now I'm not saying I am addicted or anything but...

Whilst the Tea Cake is not my favourite personally (I mean I love them but I love other Tunnock's products more!) I have been thinking on the matter of a Tunnock's Tea Cake:

The Tea Cake is
Eminently the crown
Atop the rest of the

Chocolatey empire
At Uddingston.
Kept there by people
Everywhere loving them.

Moving onto the Snowball I find they are:

Slightly different from a Tea Cake,
No biscuit base though.
Otherwise the same, except for
Wispy bits of coconut
Beautifully attached, in the main,
All over the outside.
Lots fall off during eating, but are
Licked off the wrapper at the end.

Heading towards my favourite, in second place for me is the Caramel Log:

Can eat these for ever
And a day.
Reminiscent of the wafer,
A different coating
Makes these delicious.
Enveloped in a
Liberal sprinkling of

Lovely roasted coconut.
Oh boy do they make a mess.
Gorgeous though!

For me though the most wonderful of Tunnock's products is the Caramel Wafer:

Can’t get enough of these.
A whole pack of 4
Remain uneaten for
About five minutes.
Mouthful after mouthful,
Eventually all eaten, and I’m
Left with a multitude of

Wrappers that I hoard.
Aware that I’ll never actually
Fathom what to do with them.
Even so in the drawer they go, as a
Reminder of my love.

Boiledbeetle 18th July 2023

What did the good doctor say? You're a woman if you move through life as a woman? Or some such bollocks. Hopefully other MNrs remember what he actually said

@Boiledbeetle that was magnificent. Brought a tear to my eye. Brava.

@anyolddinosaur

I was searching for Kate Searle the other night too, and found nothing.

Do we know whether she is definitely the kind of woman that was registered female at birth?

Well he doesn't bloody move through life as a woman does he with everyone falling over to do his bidding? Ridiculous nonsense.

B Arkers seems to do the job (thanks Douglas Adams)

If that's the criteria no transwomen are women because institutions like the NHS actually give a shit about them....

The Peter principle - right?
Promoted to their level of incompetence

Is there another principle for people who are too good at the job to ever get promoted? i.e. if they were promoted they would leave too big of a hole in the actual workforce. I think I have seen a few of these

Sleight of hand. I've got caught out by it dozens of times, but I've got better at saying 'even if this were true -WHICH IT ISN'T - the people we're talking about are 100% normal males with no known abnormalities '.

Did NC ask if Upton had any of these so called female indicators at all?

I agree. He's alleged to have induced the detriments against SP, that results in her supervisor suspending SP when HR were not on board. KS is likely to be dragged in as a 3rd respondent for her alleged inducement of the detriments to SP through her reaction to DU's disclosure to her, effectively interfering with the investigation process & pre-judging the outcome, sending emails to the A&E dept, and effectively 'force teaming'/putting ED under pressure in terms of actions to take over the allegations against SP (which grew arms & legs before SP was even spoken to).

Oh yes, there was this exchange with the judge on Tues:

NC - it's uncomfortable, it's hard to say, but because a man wears clothes, grows hair etc it doesn't make him a woman. It's a fact
JR - object, false premise it's a fact. it's her belief.
J - qu of case is facts and law. Might be a necessary fact, what is sex of R2
JR - we need a skilled expert to deal with sex qu
J - so put that later. C's case is that R2 is male. It is a disputed qu, it's a mix of fact and law.

What a mess.

Now now this is a thread for just the tribunal and sex/gender matters.
Stop being like DU and trying to kitchen-sink a whole load of other matters on top to confuse us! 😂

I proper SCREAMED when NC said about the phone! QUEEN!!!!!

anyway wrt Alison Bailey's case, if she wins, obviously it would impact Stonewall being able to influence policy / decisions etc in organisations, but what would it mean for other organisations? eg if the Mind charity wanted to advise organisations on mentally healthy workplaces?