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

The comment mentioned on the Medium article upthread has now vanished, but this one is still there and hasn't been removed yet (though it probably will be soon): https://medium.com/@notashley/nhs-fife-v-bigots-what-the-law-says-about-trans-inclusive-policies-de613665cf74

It’s a big leap to infer that “suitable” accommodation must be whatever matches a person’s self identified gender. Gender =/= sex. The nurse did not object to the doctor because of the doctor's trans identity but because he is male. If he was not male, he would not have a trans identity. As soon as a male-bodied person enters a woman's space, it ceases to be single-sex however he identifies. I disagree that the nurse will lose this case. I think it's pretty much a shambles on the part of NHS Fife.

Playing devil's advocate - are there any grounds for NHS Fife to win?

We have to remember that this case is not about what is fair or reasonable - courts do not have a history of fairness to women - but points of law.

What points of law can NHS Fife argue in their favour?

I'm so sorry this happened to you and your DD. What a failure of the school's safeguarding responsibility. Heads really must roll. 💐

A lot of it's to do with what's proportionate to the case you're making. The level of intrusion has to be justified & it's likely that there wasn't enough justification to ask for forensic examination of the phone. It's the cross examination & answers given that's raised the level of concern, along with the disclosure issues as well. That all amounts to the justification to go as far as asking for his phone to be forensically analysed.

NHS Fife gave his evidence more weight because he claims he made contemporaneous notes at the time of incidents he's used to pad his complaint/hate incident out. You tend to take a witness as you find them unless they give you reason to doubt what they're saying. DU's own evidence from cross examination has given NC enough to make the application. Whether it'll be granted is unclear. It seems obvious to us, but NC needs to make the legal case it's proportionate & necessary, & who knows if the judge will agree.

Well, Croft vs Royal Mail is a Court of Appeal case. That sets a precedent but it isn't very clear. But what I think it said was that there should neither be a blanket 'no' nor a blanket 'yes' to TW in female changing rooms.

Whereas the other cases (Jaguar Land Rover is one, and that VERY odd NHS case where the NHS agreed that some (in my view) highly unlikely things (notes in lockers I think) had actually happened don't set a precedent.

This case, however it goes, doesn't set a precedent either BUT as this is getting so much press, it will be highly influential.

@Swashbuckled - I certainly dont know. However if not she been living as a woman for longer than Upton, there are a few records.

@KnottyAuty Upton started his campaign before the CR incident by keeping notes on Sandie.

Hello, a thank you from another lurker to all those managing the threads and posting regularly here. Sadly I couldn't follow the trial online when access was allowed as I work in early years. At my setting our phones are in our lockers during the day. We keep our phones in lockers to keep the children safe but also to protect ourselves: if we don't have our phones about our person, we can't do anything untoward with them. Hmm.
I tried to catch up with TT in the evenings but found that I needed your commentary to help understand what it all meant. So read just the threads instead - many thanks indeed.
My own children are variously engaged or not with the groupthink. I had a productive conversation about the trial with the teen who's not, where we talked about the Captain Underpants books and film. The reader knows that the point is that Captain Underpants is delusional and can't really fly... One of my other teens has recently read 1984 and was very excited about it, so I'm hoping to draw on that at an appropriate moment. It was incredible when Naomi quoted 1984.
Anyway, looking forward to getting to bed at a sensible time rather than staying up late catching up in the evenings! Sandie, if you ever read these threads then you are a proper LEGEND.

Could it be possible that notes were kept about others ?

I would bet money on it. The first time he noted Sandie was waiting outside for him to leave he noted that there was someone else with her.

I struggle to imagine that Sandie was the only person to look at/not look at, speak too/not speak too, leave a room/not leave a room etc. So when it comes to the prospect of notes on the none compliance of others, as my dad would always says 'I'm not a betting man but I'll have a fiver on that'.

I am trying to spread the word. I have a few friends who are incredulous that this is even a thing, how can it not be sensible that a woman would not want to use a CR if a male-bodied person was in there? How is that anything-phobic in any way? They are uninformed about the case, but easy to talk to about it and its implications.

The harder situations are the ones who have drunk the cool aid, as it were. I feel much more apprehensive about talking to them. I have done it, a tiny bit, wrt this tribunal, but I will admit there are a few pithier arrows I have notched but am afraid to let fly. I want them to realise how deluded they are without my explicitly pointing it out to them - that would be so much easier…

They are trying for even if we didnt do things perfectly suspension wasnt a detriment, it protected Sandie from further accusations. That might work if they'd explicitly come out and said we find there werent any patient safety issues. However supervised practise after a couple of months - that's not support. Shifts being changed on return is not support. They are clutching at straws.

And didnt the very first hearing admit he was male? They couldnt ask for anonymity on the grounds of his trans status not being known to everyone if he wasnt known to be male. And it was shown in court that patients had recognised him as male.

Well, it’s always the rage that makes me do a rhyming thing. So here’s a rhyming thing.

Upton’s Delight:

I do worry no one saw me
For the genius that I am.
When I DARVOd in the courtroom,
They were my sheep; I was the ram!

Yet I spoke my words so softly
Like a genteel little miss,
And only showed my anger
With the merest little hiss.

See, my Dundee ID was Dragon
All dressed up as tiny Beth.
And if the mask slipped in my anger
They would see my fiery breath.

Hey, it was worth it for the show, girls;
How I made you stand in fear;
Undressing to your panties
Every time that I came near

Yes, I saw some of you shaking,
And inhaled those who felt rage;
Savouring who felt “done to”
While I locked you in my cage.

I did note your forced submission
And I felt it in my loins.
And I pulled on my big girl pants
When you sought to hide your groins.

You played your parts so well for me
To help you pay your rent,
And feed your bawling children.
‘Tis true that nurses are well-meant.

“Behold, I’m he; your lady doctor!
(No, you cannot see my balls
Peeping out behind my panties!
If you can, suspension calls….”)

But, oh, I bent you to my will so well,
And made you call me “she”,
I so loved you say that 4 is 5
While I stood to lady-pee.

So thanks, girls, for the good times.
You can be sure that I’ll return,
And, if not me, then one of mine.
But for now, we must adjourn.

The analogy doesn’t quite work because in your Protestant vs Catholic example both are belief systems that have led to cultural differences in how they lead their lives with ultimately inconsequential differences such as which football team they support whereas the gender vs sex is ideology vs scientific facts (truth).

Thats not to say class discrimination based on whether you’re Protestant or Catholic doesn’t occur (I’ve recently been subject to that combination of class and religious discrimination) but it doesn’t feel like the reality denial of the discrimination against the often working class women who won’t play make believe with the cross dressing middle class males

I've been musing on the last few days. I feel so much happened at the tribunal and there is still so much to come I will take a while to process it all. It feels exhausting.

But I have drawn one very clear and simple conclusion.

Upton is a liar. He is lying about his sex. And I had a growing feeling from the conflicting evidence, from the discrepancies and the gaps and the failures of disclosure, that if he lies about that he is capable of lying about other things too. 'Small' lies to prop up the 'big' lie. It is no surprise NC wants his phone examined. We shall see.

So I have concluded I cannot trust a person who lies about their sex. If they are lying to me about that, I shall always be asking myself what else will they lie to me about.

No, it doesn't. But I was trying to see how a clash that was genuinely about differing belief systems might have been tackled. This one seems to have been mishandled because everyone (except, possibly DU, if DU really doesn't understand biology, which is a problem in a medic) knew perfectly well that one person was rooted in reality and the other was playing a game. And had decided that a man's game was more important than a woman's reality.

It was in the TT from day 1:
https://archive.is/xkSxy

They might come back to this relevant point again:

"NC - we have an additional document we want to insert into the bundle, DU previous GMC registration under the
name of Theodore Upton.
JR - that is opposed. I'm disappointed that MLC has deadnamed DU. Making that order might an act of direct discrimination and harassment against DU. Citing a case, deadnaming is an act of harassment.
Is the panel aware of deadnaming
J & panel indicate yes.
JR - deadnaming is a rejection of the person's identity and make them very stressed and it might affect the evidence they can give in this tribunal. Particularly egregious in a public hearing, anyone can harass DU
on the basis of previous name. Not relevant to the case. Do not need to refer to DU's deadname to deal with the case. Simply not relevant. To allow the document in is to harass the witness.

J - that's a tribunal case I'm not aware of, can you send to me. We will have
a look.
JR - yes.
J - it's not binding but I will take it into account.

NC - it is surprising that it is possible for DU to sue the tribunal for the manner in which it carries out it's functions. I don't have the case law to hand, but I can address you on that after a short
break but it's an extraordinary suggestion. It is not under any obligation under the EA that could give rise to cause of action against the tribunal or the judge.
JR has given evidence that deadnaming has a harassing effect and stress the individual. This case is about the
fact that not everyone agrees that men can women. The point of the claimant's case is that DU's identity does not trump reality. It is not of critical moment but there are questions I will want to ask DU about the fact that his GMC reg has changed from his original name
said to be relinquished and changed to a female name.
J - why wasn't this included earlier.
NC - I don't think C's legal team had found it until later.
(NC taking instruction)
NC - we proposed to add it to the bundle two weeks ago so it's not last minute.
J - JR says it's not relevant. Why is it relevant

NC - the medical professions and the NHS willingness to indulge the identity claims, the GMC is prepared to falsify a document...

J - the GMC is not a party here.
NC - it's a measure of the power the DU has been able to exercise
It says at the bottom of the previous registration 'not on the register, cannot practice as doctor', I want to ask questions about that.
JR - two points, this is not a roving public inquiry, its a tribunal case, we should focus on the issue. Second point is that people change
names all the time and it has no practical consequences.
J - I'm not going to try and make a decision quickly. It may be that I wait until we see what the questions relating to the document, I will defer a final decision on this matter. Will it be necessary before we get to 2nd
R?
NC - I don't think so, I'm content with your proposed course of action."

And that turns it back to the GRA, which is a legislation problem that wasn't thought through.

It could give a boost to the movement to repeal the GRA and there are already petitions about that.

Brilliant 👏👏👏👏

If it makes you feel any better, as a young graduate and socialist some 40 years ago i fervently believed many things to be obviously true and the "right" way to look at things which I now have serious doubts about.

I sometimes look back at my younger self and think "Christ - you were a self righteous know-it-all git, weren't you?"

Having said that I don't think I've ever understood this changing sex bollocks. I was swinging away from the left before this trans crap was a thing.

Thanks for that @FreedomandPeace
😊

Having cantered towards the end of my 6th decade, a chunk of which was in a City firm, a lot of men blag their way through life (or steal women's ideas and just repeat them...that's a whole new thread).

If a man speaks in a manly voice, or takes on the persona of a marginalised and oppressed voice, they tend to be believed.

The absence of any sensible procedure in SP's case is astonishing.

I know a lot of people don't read newspapers, just do Spotify, don't do Twitter/Mumsnet: How do they find out what DEI has been going on in plain sight?

Talking about this being a class issue - of the cases which have been coming to tribunals, how many directly involve men pretending to be women, and what social class would you say those men belong to? This "Isla Bryan" that was talked about; what social class was he? Or the rapist who couldn't have been because there were no men on the ward, until the CCTV showed a TW?

I am trying to make the distinction between those cases where people are hounded out for not repeating the TWAW mantra, but may not have been directly referring to a particular bloke.

Agreed. It was an interesting point that made me think about what was the core difference. I guess a genuine clash between belief systems ultimately comes down to who has behaved the worst which has some relevance in this case too. Although in assessing how someone has behaved it should never require someone to state a belief in something they don’t believe in.