Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 ··· 6 7 8 ··· 39 40

Original poster

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 20/04/2025 08:15

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

OP posts:

Thread gallery

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 13:33

vandelier · 21/04/2025 13:11

@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.

The oversight Stonewall receives is to ensure that it complies with charity law and, as it is also a company (as are many charities), company law. No-one oversees the guidance given by it or any other charity, although it is, in some circumstances, possible to take legal action against a charity on the basis of advice it has given. However, in general, the onus is on anyone taking advice from Stonewall or any other charity to ensure that it does not lead them into acting unlawfully.

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 13:35

NoWordForFluffy · 21/04/2025 13:19

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!).

Show quote history

The barrister used by NHS Fife and Upton is very firmly in the TWAW camp.

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 13:36

NoWordForFluffy · 21/04/2025 13:25

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.

No, it hasn't. However, as was said in the Forstater case, the bar for a belief to not be protected is very high - think Nazism. Whilst it is not guaranteed, I would be surprised if Upton's beliefs are not protected.

NoWordForFluffy · 21/04/2025 13:36

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 13:35

The barrister used by NHS Fife and Upton is very firmly in the TWAW camp.

Show quote history

Ahhhh. There you go!

I'm sure they had a very enjoyable conference in that case.

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 13:38

CharlestheBold · 21/04/2025 13:16

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.

As far as I can see, everyone knew Upton was a man, so I don't see how HR can be censured. In any event, if anyone did try to take action against them, they could simply argue that they were following EHRC guidance with no reason to believe it was incorrect.

SternJoyousBee · 21/04/2025 13:47

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 13:33

Show quote history

I think there are some organisations in the last couple of years who have dropped out of the programme. Don’t know if that is just budget savings measures or because they saw the error of their ways in going along with their guidance. I have seen several examples of gender being listed as a PC instead of gender reassignment

SternJoyousBee · 21/04/2025 13:50

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 13:38

Show quote history

I believe the HR rep was advising a course of action that they didn’t follow. They preferred to listen to the wee lassie in charge of DEI

NoWordForFluffy · 21/04/2025 13:53

SternJoyousBee · 21/04/2025 13:47

Show quote history

I had to raise this with my previous firm, as their DEI training had this (it meant one of the quiz questions at the end had no right answer, so I felt obliged to tell them!).

IHeartHalloumi · 21/04/2025 14:00

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 12:35

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.

Show quote history

They don't need to convict Upton of perjury for him to be struck off. If the tribunal find that any of his evidence was deliberately falsified then that would be grounds. I'm referring to his statements about SPs patient care, not his personal sex/gender claims though. See the case of Dr Jane McLennan, who falsified a psychiatry report for an Employment Tribunal -

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/regions/renowned-edinburgh-psychiatrist-struck-off-for-misleading-and-inaccurate-patient-report-549364

SternJoyousBee · 21/04/2025 14:04

If I was cynical I would say gender as a PC instead of sex has been deliberate obfuscation to further the narrative of GI.

If I was to be more charitable I would say that the majority of people use gender as a synonym for sex (which was how it always was in the past) but that the confusion is still relied upon to further ideology

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:21

Oblomov25 · 21/04/2025 11:54

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.

That may end up being the case but there will be a lot of awkward details to fudge:

NHS Fife had no written policy about trans use of the female facilities. They had no EqIA. For this they should be fined by the regulator/EHRC. The young woman Isla Bumba who was head of DEI is yet to give evidence. She was responsible. I’m a bit worried for her. The public scrutiny is going to be horrible. I hope she is Ok - but if she comes out and try’s to bluff then she maybe does deserve some criticism. Will she take the blame for the NHS Fife board? A convenient blame hound I think.
Theres already a lot of press interest in how much the legal costs have been defending indefensible actions. The press are on to this and the figures will come out and someone will have to take responsibility. Who decided to pursue the case is the question on everyone’s lips? And also the Board’s because they must be wishing they’d paid Sandie off handsomely with an NDA.
If SP proves her claims (seems to me like she had proved a few in Feb and the SC ruling does a few more) she’s entitled to financial compensation. It’s likely to be a lot. Taxpayers will be rightly upset this has been done in their name with their money.
Dr Upton is jointly and severally liable for any award to Sandie. If DrU is found to have made up all the claims and victimised her, then taxpayers will be in uproar if we have to pick up the Dr’s half of the bill… remember it’s DU that decided to use the CR and keep notes and complain about hate crimes… He got sympathy in the hospital but now the truth is coming out that’s probably running thin - especially once we get to see the notes (ETA that we assume are on his phone) that he kept on all his colleagues highlighting that it could have been any of them in Sandie’s place. If NHS Fife can unravel all of that without anyone getting into trouble then they will be displaying insight and skills which have so far not been demonstrated 🤣

Conxis · 21/04/2025 14:29

Can I ask people here if Fife produce the metadata related to all the communications and documents relating to Sandie’s suspension, investigation etc this backs up all this took place when they say it did.
If forensic examination of the phone is denied and Dr Upton doesn’t provide the metadata relating to notes he was keeping about Sandie and about the patient incident notes, can the Tribunal decide to disregard his evidence relating to those events or pay little regarded to it?

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:31

EveryonesTalkingRubbish · 21/04/2025 12:02

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.”

Show quote history

In that case - defo do write to the hospital. The Royal Free were particularly egregious I thought. When they fudge the answer you write back and press them to be specific on single sex and that their definition of a woman is as the SC and that self ID will be stopped.

Theyll write back and try to avoid a direct answer. You press again. After 2 -3 evasive answers to specific questions you then have evidence of them being deceitful. You can then go back to your MP and say thanks for your advice. I did as you asked and got nowhere. Can you please help?

It’s a bit of a faff but just the process of asking polite but direct questions will prompt change. Even if it takes a while. Theyll see that we are watching. They know it’s illegal. We just need to be politely but doggedly persistent.

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:36

If you can get BBC podcasts look up The Nolan Investigates Stonewall. Brilliant explanation of how it’s got into everything by stealth - well stealth as far as the public are concerned but obviously with the help of the entire establishment and government using taxpayers money/grants etc. It’s a charity - recently had it’s US government grant funding cut and had to cut jobs.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/nolan-investigates/id1590366486

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:42

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 12:59

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.

Show quote history

To clarify - the EHRC used to be a member of Stonewall’s schemes! Totally compromising its ability to regulate on removal of single sex spaces… It eventually managed to throw that off and in 2022 produced good guidance which has been ignored. They are being undermined by government and suffer all the horrible attacks that other GC campaigners get. The current chair who is GC friendly will leave in November and it’s rumoured (on here) that Harriet Harman will take over - will be a disaster and probably no fines will be issued or regulation attempted. Those with GC views need to be very vigilant of this and supportive of the EHRC while theres time for them to flex

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:45

NoWordForFluffy · 21/04/2025 13:25

His beliefs are likely to be protected under the Equality Act

Can’t wait for the case where GI doesn’t get WORIADS. It can’t ever pass those tests as it relies on removing the rights of others as part of the belief system

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:51

SternJoyousBee · 21/04/2025 14:04

If I was cynical I would say gender as a PC instead of sex has been deliberate obfuscation to further the narrative of GI.

In the context of an EqIA it is completely unacceptable. The whole point is to list out the 9 characteristics exactly as the EA. In many cases sex and gender are conflated ir sex removed entirely. In at least one example sex was replaced by “gender/gender reassignment” as if we didn’t exist at all. An EqIA is a legal document with a specific purpose. I’m not sure how anyone can claim that altering legal terms isn’t obfuscation?! Charitable or not

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 15:03

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:45

Can’t wait for the case where GI doesn’t get WORIADS. It can’t ever pass those tests as it relies on removing the rights of others as part of the belief system

Show quote history

I'm afraid I disagree. I am confident it is WORIADS.

In the Forstater case, the barrister representing the respondents protested that the approach taken meant that only beliefs akin to Nazism or espousing totalitarianism would fail to be WORIADS. The EAT said that that is as it should be. I disagree with the GI position, but I don't think it can be equated with Nazism or totalitarianism.

It is only in extreme cases that a belief would fail to qualify for protection. Given existing case law on the Convention, it would be very surprising if GI beliefs did not qualify as protected.

spannasaurus · 21/04/2025 15:09

Gender ideology may be WORIADS but is it cogent. One of the conditions for a belief to be protected under the EA is that the belief is cogent

PrettyDamnCosmic · 21/04/2025 15:13

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:45

Can’t wait for the case where GI doesn’t get WORIADS. It can’t ever pass those tests as it relies on removing the rights of others as part of the belief system

Show quote history

Naomi Cunningham floated that as an argument at the UCU ET. I hope to see it properly tested.

ThatsNotMyTeen · 21/04/2025 15:21

I think a belief in GI will be WORIADS too

ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 21/04/2025 15:51

Hello again, I still have some catching up to do.

NoWordForFluffy · 21/04/2025 15:53

Gender identity isn't the same as believing you can change sex though. GI is exactly that, gender identity. I don't think you necessarily believe you can change sex even if you believe you can change your gender (I know at least one transman who doesn't believe you can change sex).

ETA: I think GI belief may be protected, but I'm not sure believing you can actually change sex would be.

Proudtobeanortherner · 21/04/2025 16:09

If LGBT rights are explicitly stated on the GMC website ( https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/patient-guides-and-materials/lgbt-patient-guide) has anybody explicitly asked the GMC to clarify the rights of women?
Even if they are trying to avoid recording sex at birth or gender now, presumably this could leave them open to discrimination cases on religious grounds, for example, even if not on the grounds of sex discrimination so they still need to keep a record of a healthcare professional’s sex. If they want to record gender as well then go ahead but isn’t sex the defining factor?

thenoisiesttermagant · 21/04/2025 16:35

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 14:21

That may end up being the case but there will be a lot of awkward details to fudge:

NHS Fife had no written policy about trans use of the female facilities. They had no EqIA. For this they should be fined by the regulator/EHRC. The young woman Isla Bumba who was head of DEI is yet to give evidence. She was responsible. I’m a bit worried for her. The public scrutiny is going to be horrible. I hope she is Ok - but if she comes out and try’s to bluff then she maybe does deserve some criticism. Will she take the blame for the NHS Fife board? A convenient blame hound I think.
Theres already a lot of press interest in how much the legal costs have been defending indefensible actions. The press are on to this and the figures will come out and someone will have to take responsibility. Who decided to pursue the case is the question on everyone’s lips? And also the Board’s because they must be wishing they’d paid Sandie off handsomely with an NDA.
If SP proves her claims (seems to me like she had proved a few in Feb and the SC ruling does a few more) she’s entitled to financial compensation. It’s likely to be a lot. Taxpayers will be rightly upset this has been done in their name with their money.
Dr Upton is jointly and severally liable for any award to Sandie. If DrU is found to have made up all the claims and victimised her, then taxpayers will be in uproar if we have to pick up the Dr’s half of the bill… remember it’s DU that decided to use the CR and keep notes and complain about hate crimes… He got sympathy in the hospital but now the truth is coming out that’s probably running thin - especially once we get to see the notes (ETA that we assume are on his phone) that he kept on all his colleagues highlighting that it could have been any of them in Sandie’s place. If NHS Fife can unravel all of that without anyone getting into trouble then they will be displaying insight and skills which have so far not been demonstrated 🤣

Edited

Show quote history

To be honest, as long as the amount of Sandie's payment doesn't exceed the amount of NHS money pissed up the wall on DEI / anti-woman policies / removing single sex spaces / misogynistic coercive control, then I'm fine with my tax being used in this way. And that must run into millions.

I hope Sandie gets sufficient to live off so she no longer needs her job in the NHS and can live the rest of her life in luxury / set up a private, women's only clinic. She deserves it, she will have protected thousands of women and girls by her actions.

And as for IB- she acted illegally and should lose her job. It's about time there was some adult responsibility here, she's paid enough. But I do agree board members should also be fired.

Flip

1 2 ··· 6 7 8 ··· 39 40

Please create an account

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

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is not accepting new messages.