NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #24

[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
Thread 22: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5280174-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-22
Thread 23: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5285690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-23

I wonder if the fact that it says “by Mumsnet” in the headline is problematic. It wasn’t Mumsnet, and they didn’t commission this or anything, it was just random people who met on Mumsnet. Do we need to be concerned/ask them to change it?

Blimey! I’ll email him.

Thank you! Just worried about the legality side of things… 😬

I was going to comment in this too. It’s research by Mumsnet users or members.

Fantastic to see that in the Express. Shout out to all the 'hardy Scottish mums', love it! I am honestly in awe of you all pulling this together and getting such good coverage. It was great the Express article ended with this: 'The damning dossier was released just a few weeks after a report found that there were nearly 250 sexual assaults and 15 rapes which took place in Scottish hospitals in the last five years, with this being partially blamed on mixed-sex wards.' It really hammers home the risks.

Well done wims!

Thanks for the new thread @nauticant . And @KnottyAuty I too am appalled that speech therapists are being allocated to this and not to help our DC. My DC is non verbal, did have words as a toddler (single words) but regressed and now aged 6 basically just screeches or hums.

Speech and language worked with him for about 6 months when he was three then they said they couldn't do anything more for him, gave us a bunch of resources to do it ourselves (which we do still use to be fair) and we are now off any sort of list for additional help. I'll need to get a re-referral and it's now a longer waiting list. We are paying a private therapist who does behaviours too, hoping it helps but it's sucking us dry.

University of Sussex fined £585,000 in transgender free speech row - BBC News

The university clearly hasn't got it yet. They describe the judgement as, "unreasonably absolutist definition of free speech" and say they intend to challenge it in the courts.

Joining in again. Bouquets to @nauticant , @KnottyAuty and all the 'auditors', linkers and the other usual suspects.

Absolutely! This is great work by Knotty and her helpers.

Thanks for the new thread nauticant .

Well done KnottyAuty and helpers on the policy search!

The wasted speech therapy resources is scandalous. Sorry so many of your DCs are stuck on waiting lists.

A huge well done and thank-you to @KnottyAuty and all the other auditors. 👏 👏 👏 This is such amazing work.

I agree that journalists are often short of time, and in my experience if you present them with an almost ready-made story, with the facts to back it up, you’re likely to be pushing on an open door. There’s scope and appetite to make a splash on hospitals in other regions too, I think.

I’m hoping to join in and do my bit on the England audit, I just need a big work deliverable out of the way first and then hopefully I can carve out a bit of time 🤞

Wtf is an “unreasonably absolutist definition of free speech” when it’s at home?

Surely the definition of free speech is absolute, no? Did I miss something?

Wow that’s some fine!?
They must have pots of cash to waste if that’s not given them pause for thought.

"unreasonably absolutist definition of free speech" ah yes bavk to that ahead of the law thing?

versus

The OfS stands for the widest possible definition of freedom of speech: anything within the law.

No, you didn't. Provided you stay within the law (e.g. you aren't inciting violence), free speech is an absolute right. It is protected by article 10 of the EHRC. The only restrictions allowed by public authorities are:

Personally can't wait to see the TT tweets / watch online the court case Sussex intends to bring. Hope the VC gives evidence. I hope it gets wide coverage so that potential students can really see what the Uni stands for. Sunlight etc.

Not sure how that posted! However to continue, the only restrictions public authorities can put on freedom of speech are to:

• protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
• prevent disorder or crime
• protect health or morals
• protect the rights and reputations of other people
• prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
• maintain the authority and impartiality of judges

The university appears to believe that they should be allowed to put further restrictions in place.

Edited to add that any restriction must be appropriate and no more than is necessary to address the issue.

It appears the current leadership of the university has learned nothing from the Kathleen Stock debacle and thinks GC views should be suppressed.

Yes, well done Knotty and team this is proper grassroots feminism and research. Hopefully I'll be able to contribute later this week.

Hats off to Knotty and the audit team.

Thank you prh47bridge your contributions are always salient and pitched appropriately at us non lawyer-y posters.

Thank you - that confirms my suspicions; really nice to have it spelled out so clearly. You must be a lawyer or something.

Humour aside, this whole “get ahead of the law,” is interesting. I’m curious to know where the concept came from, and at what point we tipped over the line from “you are not legally obliged to do more than is required within the law, but if you do you will still be within the law, and may make some people happy,” to the very muddy waters of “you are not legally obliged to do more than is required within the law, and if you do you may actually be breaking the law (though we won’t make this clear to you), but we encourage you to do so anyway.”

Thanks wims!
Clearly couldn’t do it without you - loving the team effort 😍

We have a small handful of London trusts to audit. If everyone manages to take one ir two and we can get them done this week, I’m pretty sure the press will take the info. The comments under the Telegraph article were enlightening - readers think it’s a local Scottish problem… so let’s enlighten them! Do come over to help - some light googling from your sofa will be a huge help and all anonymous. Xx

It's interesting that the Express had a more informative article, I'd have assumed that the Telegraph would have.

A few years ago I would have said the same about the Guardian and the Daily Mail.

We’re in upside-down world now.

I know, strange times indeed.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Outstanding work @KnottyAuty et al

In case anyone isn’t following the policy audit thread, this is the second Telegraph article based on what was uncovered:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/394004db1ff6d092

(No idea how long the share tokens last, will pop direct link and archive up in a second.)