Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 24/03/2025 19:16

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
39
prh47bridge · 02/04/2025 11:23

Merrymouse · 02/04/2025 10:40

Again, I don't understand which part of the Fife case is considering whether the hospital has a duty to comply with the 1992 regulations.

Is there something I have missed?

Whatever the judgement is, I can't see how it would include the judge saying 'and the 1992 regulations are unenforceable'.

Is the assumption that Fife will appeal and that this will go to a higher court and that part of that will be challenging the validity of the 1992 regulations? That course of action would seem to be both expensive and unpopular.

I think Fife want the courts to say that references to women in the 1992 regulations include trans women. If the courts accepted that position, Fife's approach would be in compliance with the regulations.

Merrymouse · 02/04/2025 11:43

prh47bridge · 02/04/2025 11:23

I think Fife want the courts to say that references to women in the 1992 regulations include trans women. If the courts accepted that position, Fife's approach would be in compliance with the regulations.

But I thought the recent high court judgement demonstrated that trans women without a GRC are definitely male in law.

Also didn't the post office worker judgement decide that the post office did not have to allow the claimant to use female facilities because he did not meet the criterial for having transitioned?

Difficult to understand how a court would think it was their duty to override those judgments.

Peregrina · 02/04/2025 12:16

Do they not look to what was intended at the time the law was written? At the time, the idea that some men could declare they were women and expect to be believed would have been regarded as absurd.

prh47bridge · 02/04/2025 12:21

Merrymouse · 02/04/2025 11:43

But I thought the recent high court judgement demonstrated that trans women without a GRC are definitely male in law.

Also didn't the post office worker judgement decide that the post office did not have to allow the claimant to use female facilities because he did not meet the criterial for having transitioned?

Difficult to understand how a court would think it was their duty to override those judgments.

They are, but that doesn't stop NHS Fife wanting to get a different ruling. You might be surprised to find the number of defendants in employment tribunals who try to argue for a different interpretation of the law to the one set by previous judgements.

prh47bridge · 02/04/2025 12:23

Peregrina · 02/04/2025 12:16

Do they not look to what was intended at the time the law was written? At the time, the idea that some men could declare they were women and expect to be believed would have been regarded as absurd.

Parliament's intent when the law was passed is significant, but so is parliament's intent when passing new laws that might alter the interpretation of an older law. I am, therefore, uncertain as to how these regulations apply to a man with a GRC. However, a man without a GRC is definitely a man for all legal purposes, so has no right to be in the women's facilities.

KnottyAuty · 02/04/2025 14:53

prh47bridge · 02/04/2025 12:23

Parliament's intent when the law was passed is significant, but so is parliament's intent when passing new laws that might alter the interpretation of an older law. I am, therefore, uncertain as to how these regulations apply to a man with a GRC. However, a man without a GRC is definitely a man for all legal purposes, so has no right to be in the women's facilities.

The problem is that "HSE must focus its resources on matters that are creating serious ongoing health and safety risks. Based on the information provided, any actual risk to health and safety does not reach that threshold, therefore we will not be taking any action". So even if there are laws, they are not being enforced. Completely pointless

NoBinturongsHereMate · 02/04/2025 14:57

No risk to health and safety?! Do they know about the number of rapes and sexual assaults in hospitals?

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 02/04/2025 14:59

NoBinturongsHereMate · 02/04/2025 14:57

No risk to health and safety?! Do they know about the number of rapes and sexual assaults in hospitals?

No, because they can’t record them, because “sexual assault” isn’t a category that’s available on DATIX.

I may be getting the wording slightly wrong, but that was the gist of a FOI on sexual assault for one of the NHS trusts I audited…

KnottyAuty · 02/04/2025 15:03

NoBinturongsHereMate · 02/04/2025 14:57

No risk to health and safety?! Do they know about the number of rapes and sexual assaults in hospitals?

They have dodged the issue:
"Employers also have a duty under the Equality Act 2010. It is the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) as the responsible enforcing authority for this legislation, to judge whether or not the employer’s interpretation and application is correct and to take action if required."

Keeptoiletssafe · 02/04/2025 16:03

The DfE ‘don’t hold the information’ when I questioned who made the decision to alter the design of school toilets.

Which toilet you use and how it is designed DOES affect healthy and safety. For everyone but especially girls (because of them more likely to be the victims of assaults) and those having a medical emergency (some of whom have disabilities such as epilepsy and diabetes and should have a toilet cubicle that is safe).

When I asked the DfE who would be at fault if something happened in an enclosed private space inside a school they said schools should know their cohort and supervise accordingly.

At least one rape happens inside a school building each day. This was established by the BBC investigation in 2015/16. One of the discussions was there ought to be a central database to collate all this information. In 2021, when ‘Everyone’s Invited’ highlighted the dangers of what was going on, the government asked Ofsted to investigate. Ofsted said ‘It is hard to get an accurate picture of the scale and nature of sexual harassment and violence between children and young people in schools and colleges, as there is no centralised data collection of incidents and crime statistics are not published with a level of analysis to shed any light on this. It would be helpful if this information was available routinely.’ They also had to rely on the BBC figures from 2015/16.

Ofsted concluded ‘It recommends that schools, colleges and multi-agency partners act as though sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are happening, even when there are no specific reports.’ because they found it was so prevalent that children didn’t report it. So HSE surely has to assume the same?

@KnottyAuty I can’t see where you got the HSE quote from can you give me the link please? I have lots of evidence.

KnottyAuty · 02/04/2025 16:14

Keeptoiletssafe · 02/04/2025 16:03

The DfE ‘don’t hold the information’ when I questioned who made the decision to alter the design of school toilets.

Which toilet you use and how it is designed DOES affect healthy and safety. For everyone but especially girls (because of them more likely to be the victims of assaults) and those having a medical emergency (some of whom have disabilities such as epilepsy and diabetes and should have a toilet cubicle that is safe).

When I asked the DfE who would be at fault if something happened in an enclosed private space inside a school they said schools should know their cohort and supervise accordingly.

At least one rape happens inside a school building each day. This was established by the BBC investigation in 2015/16. One of the discussions was there ought to be a central database to collate all this information. In 2021, when ‘Everyone’s Invited’ highlighted the dangers of what was going on, the government asked Ofsted to investigate. Ofsted said ‘It is hard to get an accurate picture of the scale and nature of sexual harassment and violence between children and young people in schools and colleges, as there is no centralised data collection of incidents and crime statistics are not published with a level of analysis to shed any light on this. It would be helpful if this information was available routinely.’ They also had to rely on the BBC figures from 2015/16.

Ofsted concluded ‘It recommends that schools, colleges and multi-agency partners act as though sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are happening, even when there are no specific reports.’ because they found it was so prevalent that children didn’t report it. So HSE surely has to assume the same?

@KnottyAuty I can’t see where you got the HSE quote from can you give me the link please? I have lots of evidence.

It was in an email after I tried to make a report

PrettyDamnCosmic · 02/04/2025 16:50

prh47bridge · 02/04/2025 12:23

Parliament's intent when the law was passed is significant, but so is parliament's intent when passing new laws that might alter the interpretation of an older law. I am, therefore, uncertain as to how these regulations apply to a man with a GRC. However, a man without a GRC is definitely a man for all legal purposes, so has no right to be in the women's facilities.

Parliament's intention in passing the GRA was so that transsexuals could marry once they had "changed sex". The GRA would not have been necessary if same sex marriage had then been legal at the time. It's quite an eye-opener when you read the debate in Hansard & understand the intent.

Keeptoiletssafe · 02/04/2025 17:00

KnottyAuty · 02/04/2025 16:14

It was in an email after I tried to make a report

Thank you. I have had similar from the HSE.

Merrymouse · 02/04/2025 17:41

PrettyDamnCosmic · 02/04/2025 16:50

Parliament's intention in passing the GRA was so that transsexuals could marry once they had "changed sex". The GRA would not have been necessary if same sex marriage had then been legal at the time. It's quite an eye-opener when you read the debate in Hansard & understand the intent.

Also protecting privacy e.g. somebody starts a new job and is outed as trans because of their NI number. A GRC changes details held by HMRC.

On the other hand if you are a trans man trying to explain why you haven't inherited an estate that can only pass down the male line you are on your own. Apparently they had to draw a line somewhere...

KnottyAuty · 02/04/2025 18:01

Merrymouse · 02/04/2025 17:41

Also protecting privacy e.g. somebody starts a new job and is outed as trans because of their NI number. A GRC changes details held by HMRC.

On the other hand if you are a trans man trying to explain why you haven't inherited an estate that can only pass down the male line you are on your own. Apparently they had to draw a line somewhere...

Maybe it is that argument which could swing it all back - threaten the wealthy with a loss to their sister. If TWAW then TMAM so what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Merrymouse · 02/04/2025 18:16

misscockerspaniel · 02/04/2025 14:22

I know there is a Darlington thread but I am damned if I could find it

Nurses take trust to tribunal over trans colleague’s use of changing rooms

Apparently the hearing has been postponed from July to October?

moto748e · 02/04/2025 18:23

Well it's sooo complex, you see....

borntobequiet · 02/04/2025 19:25

@Keeptoiletssafe a teenage female family member has recently been diagnosed with POTS. I have seen her collapse very suddenly when raising herself from a sitting position. I can see how this could be a real problem in a fully enclosed toilet cubicle.

Keeptoiletssafe · 02/04/2025 20:12

@borntobequiet yes I know a young girl too with POTS. Her parents have to keep an eye on her to safeguard particularly against head injuries when she stands up too quickly. Other parents have spoken about epilepsy, asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, and adverse reaction to drugs too. All these conditions add up to a significant % of the school population being in an unsafe environment inside a private cubicle. And of course any child having a one off emergency (or assault) too.

Before all these changes, at least you had a chance of being rescued in good time as someone could see you on the floor.

Schools know children collapse. Why else would they have defibrillators and systems to alter the hinges so the toilet doors swing outwards.

It’s so frustrating.

IwantToRetire · 02/04/2025 22:01

Has this been posted:

Equalities watchdog to consider enforcement powers after NHS Fife exchange
The UK equalities regulator says it is considering whether to use its enforcement powers following recent correspondence with NHS Fife.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) had earlier sought to remind the health board of its “obligations” under equalities legislation.
It said assessments of new policies and practices which affect equalities legislation must be published.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-the-daily-telegraph-b1220008.html

EHRC letter to the Chief Executive of NHS Fife
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/our-letter-chief-executive-nhs-fife

Response from NHS Fife
https://www.nhsfife.org/media/vfud10dt/0324ce-ehrc-final.pdf

Equalities watchdog to consider enforcement powers after NHS Fife exchange

The Equality and Human Rights Commission had earlier sought to remind the health board of its ‘obligations’.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-the-daily-telegraph-b1220008.html

IwantToRetire · 02/04/2025 22:08

Technically he is probably right. ie NHS Boards are responsible for how their hospitals are run.

However as the Minister there is nothing to stop him writing to them and asking them to say how many, if any SS they provide.

Just as Kemi Bandenoch wrote to boards about implementing the SSE of the EA.

Its all part of playing down the signifigance of service providers providing SSS.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 02/04/2025 22:13

KnottyAuty · 02/04/2025 18:01

Maybe it is that argument which could swing it all back - threaten the wealthy with a loss to their sister. If TWAW then TMAM so what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Wouldn't work, because the detriment to the sister is to the benefit of the brother. What's bad for the goose is good for the gander.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.