NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #22

[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 last 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It is planned that it will resume on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July and then there will be 2 days of submissions from counsel meaning that the hearing will end on 30 July.

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
Thread 19: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274571-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-19
Thread 20: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5275782-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-20
Thread 21: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5276925-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-21

See here’s the problem. It doesn’t matter how “genuine” or “sensitive” Upton is (though I have my doubts that someone who was truly genuine and sensitive would dismiss the distress of another person simply to exercise their “rights”). He could be the loveliest, kindest, most saintly Paddington Bear of a man on the planet. That would still not change the fact that he’s a man and shouldn’t be in women’s spaces.

But I agree. The supporters are likely to be young women who don’t want to be seen to be like Sandie (ie, old, bigoted, unkind, on the wrong side of history, pick your epithet…). It’s interesting, though, that they spoke anonymously.

I really worry about these members of staff.

When a woman says she wants same sex care she is not making a character judgement on the male staff. She just doesn't want care from a man.

If IB had been more experienced/ better qualified/ properly supervised, she’d have realised NHS Fife should have had a policy on this.

Wrong person for the job.

Thats an NHS Fife failing.

Precisely! Upton was all over this as well - it was impossible, as far as he was concerned, that Sandie was objecting to him being in the CR because he was a man (completely benign behaviour from Sandie). It had to be because she was transphobic and/or was accusing him of being a rapist.

This twisting of plain and (not that long ago) perfectly acceptable and unremarkable requests - same sex care/space please - into something that’s beyond an insult is so much part and parcel of the whole trans agenda. If you aren’t centring and validating and celebrating ME, ME, ME, then you are committing actual genocide. They are like toddlers who get given the wrong coloured plate.

On the topic of EIA - here is NHS HighlandEIA for trans and non binary staff. Under “ who will be impacted “ its apparently only T and NB staff .

https://www.nhshighland.scot.nhs.uk/media/4dabiec4/eqia-supporting-trans-and-non-binary-staff-guidance.pdf

Getting into medical school is a bit more complicated than what tariff they claim to require, although this reckons Dundee is one of the easiest. https://bemoacademicconsulting.com/blog/easiest-medical-schools-to-get-into-in-the-uk

FIFE doesnt seem likely to be top of the preference list for many young doctors, given what has been said here about the quality of care.

If this has been posted already apologies for duplicating, but this clip lays bare the absolute legal & ethical quagmire that Scottish society has been groomed into by activists hell bent on convincing people that women's rights are expendable.

https://x.com/kathmurray1/status/1895186848672292935?s=46

Ash Regan questions the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission on their absence/silence on the questions on women's human rights across a variety of issues, including this case. And the inability of Professor Angela O'Hagan to give a coherent answer shows that even if IB was in a position to question/challenge the prevailing narrative that's been spread within the NHS & elsewhere - largely via Scotgov funded activists given free reign to promote their bastardised interpretation of the law as they wish it to be - she's a small cog in a much larger machine that would continue the gaslighting/obfuscation over women's basic rights to things like privacy, dignity, safety etc. SHRC have been absent. EHRC has been absent - they've stepped in now but their hesitancy in doing so across so many instances where women are being discriminated against, victimised, harassed, losing jobs etc. is prolonging the issue & allowing this stuff to continue. It's just not good enough IMO.

IB has questions to answer on the absence of any impact assessment for a position she claimed was absolute in terms of DU's right to access female only changing facilities. Even if she was completely confident in her view & NHS Fife's position on this, her job is to carry out impact assessments across a variety of areas within her organisation, taking into account legislation that's applicable. She's still responsible & her boss is also going to have to account for this. But they're both going to find out that they're paid to do the due diligence on this stuff, and lots of appeals to emotion from activists convincing them to ignore lots of legal reasons to give them what they want isn't a substitute for doing the jobs they're paid to do.

I'd love to know what the legal people in the NHS have said about the breach of the Workplace regulations & how that impacts the actions they took - when the H&S regulator themselves are so blasé about employers breaching the Workplace Safety legislation when the issue is flagged to them, it just looks like collectively across all the various levers & stress points where policy meets reality, it's a massive gaslighting exercise to simply ignore women as human beings with human rights & legal protections underpinning those rights/laws.

https://x.com/mforstater/status/1895014562082025708?s=46

"When Eleanor Francis told the H&SE about her workplace toilets the regulator did not deny it is a breach of regulations to allow men into the ladies but said it did not “present a serious risk of harm”.

I'm struggling to find where someone who does question the policy activists have told them should be followed i.e. that men should be allowed to use female facilities when claiming to be women, would get the correct answer on whether it was legal to put in place a policy that breached H&S legislation as well as the EA2010. The problem for IB & her boss, they're paid to find out & understand how all of this works practically for staff & patients. Why they failed to do that for this particular issue will be illuminating from NC's cross examination of them both.

It does goes go on to discuss single sex spaces:

"Single Sex Spaces
A consideration regarding access to toilets has also been made to balance the needs of non-binary employees, employees who wish to access single sex spaces for privacy and dignity relating to religion or belief, and disabled employees. The most practical solution to balance these needs has been to retain some single sex spaces while also redesignating some toilets as all-gender or gender-neutral toilets if this is not present, in addition to accessible toilets. This allows all to access toilets appropriate to themselves and their needs without unduly infringing on the availability of toilets to disabled people or others, where current estates allow, in line with the Equality Act 2010. Solutions will remain proportionate and with objective justification if accessible toilets are the only possible gender-neutral toilet facility. A tailored approach would be required across the board to consider on a local level the best solutions where buildings offer limited facilities, as a universal approach would not be feasible. However, the needs of non-binary staff and patients will be included in service redesign initiatives"

However, I think this might be discussing whether toilets should be single sex or gender neutral, not who should be able to access single sex toilets.

Well... they do say there will be an "indirect positive impact" on their colleagues as well from "choice and increased provision". I

And they say more lower down. Under Toilets Given the high proportion of female workforce in NHS Highland, it may be of potential benefit to women to have more toileting options in the form of both gender neutral and female single sex toilets. So it looks as if somewhere in the waffle they do think there should be female single sex toilets.

I did enjoy this choice contribution under Impact on characteristics of disability & sex: There may also be indirect positive impacts on protected characteristic of Sex by raising awareness of menstruation in men's toilets, which will positively impact gender equality issues more widely.

"However, I think this might be discussing whether toilets should be single sex or gender neutral, not who should be able to access single sex toilets."

Exactly. Because it then fails - because they fail to acknowledge that the policies that have been pushed across the NHS remove the very single sex facilities the moment they permit men to use women's facilities. It's like a form of madness being caught in the logical fallacy circular argument in a loop where they (wilfully) never acknowledge how the policy of inclusion (of men) in female single sex facilities removes them as single sex facilities.

I discovered that the College of Policing are using a similar bonkers EIA a while back. We can read these junk documents, but have no avenue for complaint.

But, following from the EHRC's letter to Fife nhs, is there scope for us to complain directly to the EHRC about these bogus EIAs? Could we, as individuals, just send a complaint in to them, saying can you take a look at this??

IANL. What do others think? Is it worth doing?

Apologies for the cultural insensitivity and stereotyping, but can't help imagining this all being discussed and implemented in an episode of Hamish Macbeth.

Particularly the bit about the new bins in the men's toilets.

It's like a form of madness being caught in the logical fallacy circular argument in a loop where they (wilfully) never acknowledge how the policy of inclusion (of men) in female single sex facilities removes them as single sex facilities.

Queering the circle.
It takes a tribunal like Sandie's to uncover this as you need the public to wake up and go "WTAF" at the unfairness. I've got the popcorn ready for June and June - the mass reversal of ferrets will be astonishing.

Plus the Sarah Summers case in Brighton (why the fuck has it take 4 years to get a court date for that one?!).

The equality impact assessments in my organisation for the trans policy states that it has the effect of making single sex facilities into mixed sex ones but says this will have no negative impact in terms of the protected characteristics of sex or religion. That is obviously not true but it's stonewall law

It needs calling out. A flawed impact assessment is a faulty, or poor quality, piece of staff work that affects patients and employees.

I don’t know what the routes are for flagging it up. How would we flag up other poor work from an NHS Trust?

They might be fine sharing with Beth but would they be fine with Isla or some other creep?

It has to be a hard no, and if those 3 who say they are fine with it be brave and put your name out there or I'll conclude your another of those man-women.
Or maybe your just incredibly nieve and too young to remember how many people trusted certain celebrities and religious figures.

Yes. They have no clue about the whole idea of trying to balance competing rights.

It was the same in the comments section on an article shared in FB while the tribunal was ongoing - most Fifers were disgusted at Upton; one person who claimed to be a female patient wittering on about how caring Upton was when she went into A&E with endo.

I mean...the gynae who did my hysteroscopy in October was gentle and caring, but he wasn't pretending to be a woman. (Fife, but not the Vic.)

A subject matter expert was hired to make an assessment to support the review and update to existing guidance.

I wonder where this "subject matter expert" came from.

🤯🤯🤯

I don’t like this timeline. Can I swap to one where people aren’t idiots please?

Some years back, we were told that my now late father might need a procedure on his carotid arteries, but that it was extremely dangerous. (Fife.) We were eventually passed to an Edinburgh hospital.

The doctor we saw talked about the same procedure. I said, "But I thought that it was really dangerous?"

Pause. Doctor: "Not if it's done here."

I’ve no comment on this particular incident, but it’s a good example of the scrutiny and bad publicity that NHS Fife must now expect.

What a cock up they have made.

Heads must roll. The entire Board and some senior managers need replacing so that the Trust’s reputation can be rebuilt.

Having some gender-neutral facilities as well as the single sex facilities might be a solution, but only if trans individuals are ordered to use the gender-neutral facilities. The likes of Upton will, as we know, say that this is transphobic and refuse to use them, which makes it pointless.

I've not checked back, but from what I remember the evidence given to the tribunal was '3 trans staff' - but not confirmation of male/female/other.

It’s like a playground popularity content, isn’t it…?