Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #26

1000 replies

nauticant · 15/05/2025 22:36

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 doubtful whether pubilc access for remote viewing would be reinstated but recent developments (as of mid May) suggest that this might actually become available again.

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
Thread 25: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5318518-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-25

OP posts:
Thread gallery
45
prh47bridge · 09/07/2025 14:07

TriesNotToBeCynical · 09/07/2025 14:03

Wish you'd been around to explain that to every NHS dept. for whom I have ever worked! (There will be some sharing with juniors and other departments, but there will be an irreducible minimum of clinical decisions the remaining doctor has to make - only treating one sex could never work except perhaps in a supernumary post in an over-staffed London teaching hospital.)

edited typo

Edited
Show quote history

The courts don't always concern themselves with the practicalities.

IDareSay · 09/07/2025 14:51

Some wonderful photos here taken by Brindys Blackadder from the first part of the tribunal:

bryndisbphotos35bw.substack.com/p/sandie-peggie-v-fife-health-board

Needspaceforlego · 09/07/2025 14:52

NoBinturongsHereMate · 09/07/2025 08:00

It's the same in Scotland, at least - and I would assume England as well because prison policies are separately administered but are on the whole pretty similar. Complain and you lose privileges. Bringng a case after release would be safer, but prisoners tend to be from a demographic that can't afford courts costs and most won't know about the JKR fund. I suspect many also aren't keen to voluntarily spend more time in court.

That claim by NHS Fife that the costs won't affect patient care is ridiculous. Just the £25k excess would pay for several minor operations, or employ an HCA for about half a year. Never mind the national effect of the full bill.

Hard to judge the interim figure as a proportion of the final likely bill. The court prep costs - taking statements, preparing arguments, creating the bundles - I assume would normally come.almost entirely before the trial starts. That will be skewed in this case by Fife dragging their heels in disclosure so a lot more prep being needed between parts 1 and 2. And the damages award comes entirely at the end. So the figure so far could be considerably less than half.

Show quote history

I meant to reply to this earlier. I'd agree unwise for someone still in prison to try for a court case.

But it wouldn't surprise me to find a lawyer willing to take it on on a no win, no fee basis when someone is released.
Its almost money for nothing!

PrettyDamnCosmic · 09/07/2025 15:04

IDareSay · 09/07/2025 14:51

Some wonderful photos here taken by Brindys Blackadder from the first part of the tribunal:

bryndisbphotos35bw.substack.com/p/sandie-peggie-v-fife-health-board

Fab name! Fab photos!

MyAmpleSheep · 09/07/2025 15:22

prh47bridge · 09/07/2025 14:06

No, I'm not saying that at all. I was trying to give an example where the doctor's refusal to treat women based on religious beliefs would have minimal impact on patients - they wouldn't get treated by that doctor, but there would be other doctors who could treat them so they would not be discriminated against by being refused medical care.

This is an unproductive rabbit hole as I don't think any religion prevents doctors treating patients of the opposite sex. However, what I am saying is that, if such a religion existed, adherents to that religion have rights under the Equality Act and I am not convinced the courts would decide that it was lawful to discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs just because they want to work in health care. And, although I've followed the first post that mentioned this by referring to a male doctor who had religious reasons for not wanting to treat women, whatever the courts decided would apply equally to a female doctor who had religious reasons for not wanting to treat men.

Show quote history

what I am saying is that, if such a religion existed, adherents to that religion have rights under the Equality Act and I am not convinced the courts would decide that it was lawful to discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs just because they want to work in health care.

That's a stretch. You'd have to argue the religious doctor had suffered a detriment by being asked to treat both sexes compared to a non-religious doctor who was also asked to treat both sexes. What's the detriment?

prh47bridge · 09/07/2025 16:01

MyAmpleSheep · 09/07/2025 15:22

what I am saying is that, if such a religion existed, adherents to that religion have rights under the Equality Act and I am not convinced the courts would decide that it was lawful to discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs just because they want to work in health care.

That's a stretch. You'd have to argue the religious doctor had suffered a detriment by being asked to treat both sexes compared to a non-religious doctor who was also asked to treat both sexes. What's the detriment?

Show quote history

Going back to the original post that started this, the detriment is being sacked, disciplined or not offered a job because of their religious belief.

MyAmpleSheep · 09/07/2025 16:16

prh47bridge · 09/07/2025 16:01

Going back to the original post that started this, the detriment is being sacked, disciplined or not offered a job because of their religious belief.

Show quote history

I believe an employer has to consider reasonable adjustment for religious practice. It is accepted that might mean flexibility in scheduling days off to allow for religious festivals, where feasible. I don't think a reasonable adjustment is to accept that a current or future employee will decline to treat a specific half of the population. I can't see how that's even close to reasonable.

DontStopMe · 09/07/2025 16:22

I agree. If the job is to treat patients of both sexes, surely not being willing to treat half your patients would rule you out from the job in the first place? I can't see that not being able to do half of your job is something that can be covered by a reasonable adjustment.

prh47bridge · 09/07/2025 16:23

MyAmpleSheep · 09/07/2025 16:16

I believe an employer has to consider reasonable adjustment for religious practice. It is accepted that might mean flexibility in scheduling days off to allow for religious festivals, where feasible. I don't think a reasonable adjustment is to accept that a current or future employee will decline to treat a specific half of the population. I can't see how that's even close to reasonable.

Show quote history

As I say, we don't know unless the courts decide. And, since there is no major religion that prohibits health care professionals from treating people of the opposite sex, I don't think we will ever know.

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 09/07/2025 16:45

prh47bridge · 09/07/2025 16:23

As I say, we don't know unless the courts decide. And, since there is no major religion that prohibits health care professionals from treating people of the opposite sex, I don't think we will ever know.

Show quote history

I guess my question would be:

If the policy is that for X (so eg, in the case of the NHS, observation of bathing in a mental health unit) this must always be done by a professional of the same sex as the patient, but the policy is also, for trans people this must be done by a same gender professional as the patient, and the professional is not allowed to say “but this contradicts the first part of the policy,” where does that leave the professional?

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 09/07/2025 16:53

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 09/07/2025 16:45

I guess my question would be:

If the policy is that for X (so eg, in the case of the NHS, observation of bathing in a mental health unit) this must always be done by a professional of the same sex as the patient, but the policy is also, for trans people this must be done by a same gender professional as the patient, and the professional is not allowed to say “but this contradicts the first part of the policy,” where does that leave the professional?

Show quote history

I mean, I think the policy is in the main written for the benefit of the patients, which is as it should be, but I presume there is some consideration of protection (against claims of assault, voyeurism, or against a TiM patient requesting a same gender staff member for nefarious reasons) for the staff?

This is, to my mind, not dissimilar to the police same-sex vs same-gender intimate search issue.

Or am I misreading this?

CarefulN0w · 09/07/2025 17:36

I agree @TwoLoonsAndASprout IANAL but as employers have a duty to protect staff against sexual harassment, I’d argue that, for example, an AGP male looking for validation-or worse - could be considered?

Dwimmer · 09/07/2025 17:40

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Dwimmer · 09/07/2025 17:45

Or perhaps, what about a transideologist doctor refusing to treat a gender critical or sex realist woman?

Nameychangington · 09/07/2025 18:04

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 09/07/2025 16:53

I mean, I think the policy is in the main written for the benefit of the patients, which is as it should be, but I presume there is some consideration of protection (against claims of assault, voyeurism, or against a TiM patient requesting a same gender staff member for nefarious reasons) for the staff?

This is, to my mind, not dissimilar to the police same-sex vs same-gender intimate search issue.

Or am I misreading this?

Edited
Show quote history

There is no room in any NHS sex/gender policy I've seen for staff to say that the emperor has got no clothes. So there would be no way for a staff member to even suggest that a trans IDing male would have any ulterior motive for asking for a female staff member for an intimate procedure or to chaperone an intimate procedure. The relevant polices are extremely likely to frame that as transphobia, a hate crime, and liable to lead to that staff member being disciplined and /or reported to the police. TWAW, there is no other opinion allowed. See the NHS audit thread for many examples.

On a somewhat related note, a female prison officer was forced to do suicide watch on a male prisoner who IDed as female, he knew she had to watch him and used to masterbate at her. I think it was KPSS who uncovered that state sanctioned sexual abuse of a woman trying to do her job. HPCs are in the same boat as that prison officer.

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 09/07/2025 18:14

Nameychangington · 09/07/2025 18:04

There is no room in any NHS sex/gender policy I've seen for staff to say that the emperor has got no clothes. So there would be no way for a staff member to even suggest that a trans IDing male would have any ulterior motive for asking for a female staff member for an intimate procedure or to chaperone an intimate procedure. The relevant polices are extremely likely to frame that as transphobia, a hate crime, and liable to lead to that staff member being disciplined and /or reported to the police. TWAW, there is no other opinion allowed. See the NHS audit thread for many examples.

On a somewhat related note, a female prison officer was forced to do suicide watch on a male prisoner who IDed as female, he knew she had to watch him and used to masterbate at her. I think it was KPSS who uncovered that state sanctioned sexual abuse of a woman trying to do her job. HPCs are in the same boat as that prison officer.

Show quote history

Oh yes, I’m well aware of the policies - I’ve been an auditor since the beginning. But I’m also aware that, having been eyeballs deep in the horrors of the audit for so long, my perspective of what is lawful - or even acceptable - is maybe slightly messed up.

eta - by which I mean, sometimes the full dreadfulness of it just passes me by, because I’ve seen so much of it.

Nameychangington · 09/07/2025 18:22

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 09/07/2025 18:14

Oh yes, I’m well aware of the policies - I’ve been an auditor since the beginning. But I’m also aware that, having been eyeballs deep in the horrors of the audit for so long, my perspective of what is lawful - or even acceptable - is maybe slightly messed up.

eta - by which I mean, sometimes the full dreadfulness of it just passes me by, because I’ve seen so much of it.

Edited
Show quote history

I don't believe that putting HCPs in that position is either lawful or acceptable, but it's definitely happening. The chilling effect of the ideological capture in the NHS is very real for HCPs and 'thats the policy so you have to do it' has been thrown at me more than once, and I'm sure at many others too.

Fife are doing quite a good job of demonstrating that capture to anyone watching, while spunking ever increasing amounts of taxpayers money on their luxury beliefs.

prh47bridge · 09/07/2025 18:41

Dwimmer · 09/07/2025 17:45

Or perhaps, what about a transideologist doctor refusing to treat a gender critical or sex realist woman?

Or what about a gender critical female doctor refusing to treat a trans woman?

There is nothing in Muslim beliefs to stop a Muslim doctor treating Jews. There is nothing in trans beliefs to stop them treating gender critical women. These are all straw man arguments.

It is clearly not acceptable for a medical professional to refuse to treat a patient in need of urgent medical care regardless of their protected beliefs. If we move away from life threatening situations, it becomes less clear where the courts would draw the line. And that is what matters. You may disapprove of someone's beliefs, but any protected belief must be respected.

And as I've said, this is an irrelevant rabbit hole. Continuing this discussion is pointless.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 09/07/2025 18:43

PrettyDamnCosmic · 09/07/2025 12:13

Surely it's lawful discrimination to refuse to employ a doctor who will only treat one sex just as it's lawful discrimination to refuse to employ a doctor who will not prescribe the OCP or perform terminations if that is what the job entails? For example refusing to hire a doctor who will only treat patients of the same sex is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim of treating all patients that rock up in A&E or a GP surgery regardless of sex.

Edited
Show quote history

just as it's lawful discrimination to refuse to employ a doctor who will not prescribe the OCP or perform terminations if that is what the job entails?

It would be lawful to refuse to employ them in an abortion clinic or family planning service where that is the whole job. But it is specifically permitted for GPs and pharmacists to refuse to supply or advise on contraception, morning after pills, abortion pills etc on the grounds of belief.

JanesLittleGirl · 09/07/2025 19:33

May I just thank @prh47bridgefor their calm and detailed efforts in responding to the various questions around the law that have been raised?

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 09/07/2025 19:34

JanesLittleGirl · 09/07/2025 19:33

May I just thank @prh47bridgefor their calm and detailed efforts in responding to the various questions around the law that have been raised?

I second that sentiment!

FatCyclist · 09/07/2025 20:42

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

I know quite a few Muslim doctors, some very devout, and the suggestion that any Muslim doctor would refuse to treat a Jewish patient is quite staggeringly offensive.

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.