NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #25

[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
Thread 24: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5301295-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-24

😂😂😂😂

I hope this case does continue and Dr Upton is shown to have made malicious statements about SP's clinical behaviour and then lied in court about them. Lying in court is a very strong reason to be struck off by the GMC.

These misogynistic bar stewards are happy to take our subs every month and then arrange pile ons with their anti-women policies.

All this is doing is exposing it all, at a good time re Supreme Court ruling. No one is going to get into trouble over this, the hospital will claim that manager escalated it to HR/legal advice, and that nhs policies at the time were followed.

NHS (and many other companies etc ) and their policies, ie their interpretation of EA, GRC etc, are all being exposed.

But solicitors and lawyers will make tonnes ££ advising every company how their policies now need to be changed, since ruling last week.

Worse than that - Stonewall will make a tonne of money rewriting all their training and policy guides and selling it to the same organisations that they have led down this path

It’s hard to see how this can end up in anything other than a win for Peggie now. I was hopeful before but the SC case presumably puts it beyond doubt.

Assuming Peggie refuses to settle - can the NHS withdraw their defence and admit the claim now? I had wondered if that was an option, but I guess the fact they have put their arms around Upton and are also defending him may complicate that?

Also can Upton be found to have perjured himself when he said he was not male in the ET? Does he have a GRC now? He clearly didn’t when the incident occurred.

and @KnottyAuty thanks for doing this. Hope this isn’t too much of a derail, but I wrote to Kier Starmer as he is my MP and specifically asked him to intervene with the Royal Free, our local hospital, in light of the revelations about requesting same sex care in this case. His response is pasted below. In the link his office gives to the Royal Free DEI policy they have highlighted the hospital’s commitment to the protected characteristics and - of course - it misses out sex but includes gender! They just don’t see it. Keir Starmer is not going to stand up for women’s rights.

“Thank you for writing to Keir. I am responding on his behalf.

This office cannot comment in detail on the cases in Scotland or in Darlington as they remain before the courts.

The Royal Free Hospital’s DEI policy is published online here: https://www.royalfree.nhs.uk/about-us/equality-diversity-and-inclusion#:~:text=We%20recognise%20everyone%20is%20different,paternity%20or%20trade%20union%20membership.

We recommend that you consider the details it contains and then contact the relevant team at the hospital directly if you have further concerns. Their contact details are included in the above page.”

As someone who doesn't actually live in the UK, but I have been following the tribunal with great interest - can someone please tell me if Stonewall is a statutory body? Has it got Government approval and funding? Are its policies and "training" subject to scrutiny by the EHRC or equivalent Gov Department?

I am baffled at the power that organisation appears to have in the lives of people.

Can it be banned/outlawed/made redundant now, or what?

Apologies if I don't understand its place in public life.

EveryonesTalkingRubbish · Today 12:02

Well, that's a classic equivocation in place of an answer, isn't it?

It's supposedly a charity, but somehow has gained a great deal of influence.

When it was first set up, its focus was on gay rights and it did a marvellous job. It has now moved very far away from its founders' vision, as shown by the fact that at least one of them has been vocal in his disapproval of how the body now behaves.

Stonewall are not a statutory body but a charity. But they have managed (probably through good work in the past) to get a hold of lots of organisations via their Diversity Cgampions programmes.

To convict Upton of perjury, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew that his statement in court were untrue. If he genuinely believes the things he said he is not guilty, no matter how deluded his belief. It is highly unlikely he will be prosecuted for perjury. A bigger danger for him will be if he has acted on his belief that he is a woman and provided intimate care to a woman who has specifically requested a female doctor.

Latest from the GMC - doctors CAN hide their biological sex

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/19/trans-doctors-can-hide-gender-despite-supreme-court-ruling/

https://archive.ph/TXcBF#selection-3243.0-3247.492

'In a letter sent to Baroness Hayter, a Labour peer, earlier this month, the GMC said it was updating its regulations “to remove the requirement for a doctor’s gender, or sex, to be recorded on the Register”.
Charlie Massey, the chief executive, wrote: “We have now started this work to bring doctors into line with the approach we take for PAs [physician associates] and AAs [anaesthesia associates]. We would continue to collect such data on a voluntary basis as part of our routine diversity monitoring data collection. We will consider precisely what data to collect when we undertake the aforementioned work to update our approach to collecting and using equality, diversity, and inclusion data.”'

As, apparently, can Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates - whilst the GMC also tries to obfuscate about them being "medical practitioners" despite their lack of medical qualifications.

As others have said, Stonewall is a charity. It is not a statutory body. It was formed to campaign against a law passed by Thatcher's government (known as Section 28) prohibiting local authorities from promoting homosexuality and prohibiting schools from promoting homosexuality as a family relationship.

After Section 28 was repealed, Stonewall moved into policy development and ran campaigns to equalise the age of consent (which used to be higher for homosexual relationships), end the ban on LGBT individuals in the armed forces, allow same sex couples to adopt children and/or undergo IVF treatment, and introduce civil partnerships.

They do receive some grant funding from the Scottish and Welsh governments, and their most recent accounts also show a grant from the Foreign & Commonwealth Development Office, but these are a relatively small part of their income.

For nearly 25 years they have been running a Diversity Champions programme, which has been joined by over 900 organisations. The programme is about addressing direct discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals as well as more subtle forms of discrimination. It is through this scheme that they have been giving bad advice to employers.

To be fair to Stonewall, their advice was in line with that given by EHRC (the Equality and Human Rights Commission), which is a public body, funded by the government. The EHRC was involved in the Supreme Court case. They argued that the terms "women" and "man" in the Equality Act included trans women and trans men respectively and said that new legislation was needed to clear up the mess caused by that. The Supreme Court disagreed. An attempt to challenge the EHRC guidance through judicial review failed, with the judge saying that the case was "unarguable". I don't know the details of that case, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Supreme Court's judgement leaves that judge looking rather silly. However, Stonewall used that to justify their belief that the guidance they were giving was correct.

Having said that, Stonewall is very clearly captured by trans rights activists. Some of its founders have criticised its stance on these issues.

Stonewall cannot be banned or outlawed. However, it is clear that organisations should not automatically accept their advice as gospel.

Thank you - I wouldn’t necessarily think it would be in the public interest to prosecute him, I was more pondering if (a) it could impact his credibility before the ET, and/or (b) give NHS Fife grounds to drop him.

@prh47bridge Many thanks for that information. I still find it difficult to accept that Stonewall will continue to operate on its current trajectory (maybe it won't...) without any intervention from oversight bodies, but maybe that will happen now.

I suppose my bafflement comes from the fact that a non statutory body/charity can affect the lives of so many, without scrutiny or challenge. Maybe I have misinterpreted that fact though.

It will certainly impact his credibility. Even before the Supreme Court judgement, my view was that Upton and the other witnesses for NHS Fife had made so many obviously incorrect statements that their tribunal was likely to treat their evidence with great caution.

NHS Fife cannot drop him just because his beliefs are deluded. His beliefs are likely to be protected under the Equality Act, so dismissing him for holding those beliefs would be unlawful discrimination. They can, however, dismiss him on the basis of his actions, even if they are based on his beliefs. They can (and, indeed, must) tell him to stop using the female changing rooms and take disciplinary action against him if he continues to do so. They can take disciplinary action against him if he treats a patient who has specifically requested a female doctor (unless the treatment was needed urgently and there were no female doctors available).

As I see it now that the Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that it is Biological sex that matters will the HR departments be censured for not alerting the Fife Management that Dr Upton was a man? They knew his original male name and they know when he changed it.

Thank you - I guess it’s a fine line as to whether he (admittedly deludely) expressed a legally protected belief, or whether he openly lied about his sex.

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probability (i.e. what is more likely to have happened / be true in the circumstances, based on the documentary and oral evidence put before the court).

This means that the person / people making the decision will prefer one side's evidence to the other's (for whatever reason; you don't always get the decision you're expecting, as this is clearly subjective).

Dr Upton's assertion that he's a biological woman may affect how the rest of his evidence is viewed and what weight is put on it (for instance, if they decided that he was lying about one thing, they may decide that he's also likely to lie about other things as well, so yes, his credibility as a witness could be damaged).

I've dealt with some flakey / unreliable witnesses before now, but thankfully I've never had any come out with anything quite as batshit as insisting they're the opposite sex! I'm wondering how they dealt with this evidence in pre-Tribunal conference with Counsel, as it should surely lead to raised eyebrows (unless your barrister is of the same opinion, I suppose!).

His beliefs are likely to be protected under the Equality Act

This hasn't been tested though, has it? The Forstater judgment confirmed that not believing somebody can change sex is WORIADS, but we don't know if believing you can change sex would also be decided the same way by the court.

Would the manner in which he conducted himself in court also be taken into account. Same with the other witnesses? The refusal to give clear answers?

Yes, definitely. Rubbing the decision maker(s) up the wrong way (any witness, not specifically Dr Upton), isn't going to help in a civil case!

Lack of belief is protected so Upton could claim for discrimination on the basis of not having GC beliefs rather than claiming on the basis of discrimination for having Gender Identity beliefs