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

[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 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

It’s a deliberate and conscious language obfuscation issue not a state of mind issue. He’s stubbornly refusing to using the same language as you and I do to avoid verbalizing an uncomfortable truth. The man has passed seven or more years of rigorous medical training with some fairly stringent testing throughout. There’s no evidence that he’s incompetent at doctoring. He reminds me of a pouty child who doesn’t want to give in to the adults.

I also think that when someone is defending themselves in a legal case we have to give them a lot of leeway to say made-up shit in the witness box. We know it’s made up, they know it’s made up, but let them say whatever they feel is most likely to persuade the court. I’ll draw inferences about the strength of their case from the obvious nonsense they talk, but I’m not going to extrapolate widely from the nonsense outside of the court context.

Patients are people in their most vulnerable state who need healthcare from mentally and physically capable practitioners.
Every day he lies and every day he needs those around him validating the lie. He isn't even getting help for dysphoria. Would anyone else with a recognised and untreated mental health condition be able to continue in healthcare?
BTW I don't care if a doctor is young or old, any sex or race, likes makeup or dresses, but I do care that they're mentally balanced.

Yes, and also not an abuser. Many of the women he treats may already be victims of violence and abuse against women - they should not expect it from a doctor. The way he has sought to punish Sandie Peggie for noticing the truth about his sex, and asking that her legal rights are upheld, makes him not fit to practice.

Someone who committed physical abuse against a patient or colleague may be considered unfit to practice, just because it's coercive control I don't see that as any better. He even tried it on Naomi Cunningham in court! I'm not sure if it was implied or stated that someone who doesn't agree that people can change sex and agree to affirm him completely and put his wants before their rights might be refused medical care as it would (in coercive control upside down land) be considered 'aggressive' for a patient to notice the sex of their doctor? It's definitely a question that needs answering. Would he deny a patient care and frame them as 'aggressive' for noticing his sex - using correct sex normal English usage pronouns? Would he deny a patient care and use the policies in place to stop physical harm to doctors from violent patients, twisting the meaning of words to do so, against patients who requested same sex care? Denying them care and potentially causing harm or death because they did not participate in his fantasy about being the female sex?

I don’t mean to be funny but I think you may be widely underestimating the prevalence of mental health and other difficulties suffered by health professionals. Doctors suffer from things like addiction issues, alcoholism, depression and other mental health issues, both recognized and hidden, just like every sector of the population, and given the stresses they’re under, probably more so. We like to pretend anyone to whom we are vulnerable is stable and suffers no issues of their own. I’m confident that’s just a myth we create in our own heads to feel comfortable.

It's contempt of court to lie in court knowingly about materially relevant facts.

I'm pretty sure the courts absolutely do not give any leeway at all to witnesses "to say made-up shit in the witness box" - that is the point of the oath or affirmation every witness must make and why you can be in contempt of court for obvious lies.

Does anyone want a doctor who knowingly lies in court after giving such an oath or affirmation? No thanks. As a PP said, medicine is based on trust.

It's also why - because people know that telling the truth is a serious business in a court of law - that we have had the hilarious spectacles in previous court cases where women have had to seek legal recourse after being punished for sex realist beliefs. Where gender ideologues tie themselves into pretzels and can't answer basic questions. Because they can't answer honestly but they also don't want to lie.

The key thing is whether it affects quality of care, I think.

If a doctor had a delusion that he was practicing in medieval times and tried to use leeches, for example, then that would be cause for him to be struck off.

Or if a doctor had a delusion that the patient was suffering from appendicitis when in fact they had tonsillitis...or a delusion that he could hold his hands above the patients head and magically know by their inner essence what was wrong rather than ordering appropriate scientific testing. Not fit to practice.

If an HCP is suffering from depression, anxiety, various other conditions they may be absolutely excellent medics capable of evidence-based appropriate care and where these conditions absolutely do not affect fitness to practice.

I think coercive control of patients and the expectation they should participate in an empirically unprovable fantasy should make a doctor unfit to practice. Edited to add: especially if the doctor has form for punishing (via denial of care or other means) anyone who does not participate in fantasy which can be empirically proven as untrue.

It's contempt of court to lie in court knowingly about materially relevant facts.

As an example this lady was sentenced to six months imprisonment for lying about the extent of her child's disabilities in a medical malpractice claim. The NHS Trust hired private detectives to video the claimant going about her daily routine without any of the apparent issue. It was claimed she was wheelchair bound whereas in fact at school she was entering dance competitions, she was also snowboarding, cycling and playing hockey.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1313.html

It's contempt of court to lie in court knowingly about materially relevant facts.

I don’t think that’s correct. It’s contempt of court to refuse to answer a question. If you’re a witness in a case under oath, it’s perjury to tell the court something you don’t believe to be true. But courts are in the business of deciding who to believe and who’s lying. People don’t get punished twice, by losing in court because the judge thought they were lying and then being prosecuted for perjury because the court didn’t believe what they said.

the lady prosecuted for perjury for inflating the extent of her injuries wasn’t defending herself, she was using a false claim against someone else. When I said “
when someone is defending themselves in a legal case we have to give them a lot of leeway to say made-up shit in the witness box” I picked my words carefully. Upton is defending himself in this claim.

An element of this is how patients are allocated. In A&E patients are mostly seen in order within their triage category, but shift leaders will also allocate based on staff skills and patient needs. I don’t work in A&E but in my own field, if a patient requested same sex care I would make sure that any staff looking to validate their personal delusions were kept away.

And I think that most senior staff of mine and SP’s vintage would do likewise. But of course there is always a risk that someone captured would make a different decision. It is such a shame that the regulators and unions are completely useless on this.

The key thing is whether it affects quality of care, I think.

I agree with this. The example of Roy Meadow was cited; he was reinstated as a Doctor after being struck off because the court held that although he was blameworthy (for the evidence he gave in the relevant court case) it didn't affect the care he gave his patients.

Is there evidence that Dr. Upton's beliefs have ever affected the care he has ever given a patient? I haven't seen any. Answers to questions about what he would or wouldn't do in some hypothetical future situation don't rise to that.

I agree that nobody should be forced to collude in his "I am a woman" fantasy, but that's a matter for his colleagues and really the basis of the tribunal. It doesn't engage his hypothetical treatment of patients so "he should be struck off" is way too far for me.

The lady was sentence for contempt not perjury. She lied about her mobility. She claimed to only be able to walk twenty steps but in the video it was clear she had no mobility problems. She had claimed £4 or £5 million in compensation for a missed diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome (CES). Just look right at the top of the judgment

1. The Claim
2. This is a claim for committal for contempt.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1313.html

Following his evidence it would be appropriate for the GMC to insist that he give an undertaking not to see any female who has requested same-sex care.

I’m curious - and don’t answer if you don’t feel you can - if you steered a needing-validation-doc away from a needing-same-sex-care patient, would you not have been aware that this was against NHS policy or would you have been deliberately circumventing such policy?

What I’m trying to get at is whether the policies, as written, are widely known about or understood outside of HR depts, and also if they are known about and understood, how often staff at the sharp end of things would do their best to just avoid the policies coming in contact with reality.

WIth a bit of research, I dug up the relevant regulation which is civil procdure rule 32.14:

32.14 Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person who makes or causes to be made a false statement in a document, prepared in anticipation of or during proceedings and verified by a statement of truth, without an honest belief in its truth.

She was held in contempt for a "false statement in a document prepared in anticipation of ... proceedings". Perjury per the Perjury Act 1911 is the criminal offense of a witness giving a false statement under oath. Which applies in a given case depends I suppose on whether the false statement is made in a document verified by a statement of truth, or under oath to tell the truth the whole truth etc, and who's making it. It's an interesting distinction. In Upton's case, he was under oath giving oral evidence, so that would be perjury if it applied - but he's a defendant and not a witness, so I don't think the act applies.

Either way - if you're defending yourself in court against a claim, you don't get punished for saying things to defend yourself. I wasn't there - I didn't do it - I really am a woman - the earth really is flat. It's all good.

Employment tribunals do not have powers regarding contempt last i looked.

@TwoLoonsAndASprout It’s tricky, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a policy specifically dealing with this, other than more general EDI policies, which as we know, include TW as women when considering single sex spaces. (I’m fortunate that I no longer work for the NHS and write my own organisations policies - so have no issues).

I think if I were still in the NHS, my argument would be based on patient choice and dignity, both of which are important to CQC. It’s not a solid sheild, as CQC are as captured as all the other bodies, but it is mostly easy to allocate female staff to female patients given that female healthcare staff are in the majority. If a Dr U type did try to challenge my decision, I would frame it in terms of patient rights. Outside of an emergency, or an actual shortage of women Drs, there is no reason for an uppity Dr to deny the patient that choice.

Knowingly making false statements in a witness statement is potentially contempt of court. Knowingly making false statements in court, when you will be under oath, is perjury. In either case, for conviction you have to show that the individual knew that the statement they were making was false and that it was on a matter important to the case. To give an example, I was not born on a Sunday. If I said I was, either in a witness statement or under oath, I would be knowingly making a false statement. However, as the day of the week on which I was born is highly unlikely to be relevant to a case, I won't face any action for this falsehood.

Correct. If you knowingly give a false witness statement to an ET the contempt hearing would be in the High Court.

As Upton isn't a Dr who is also a hidden alcohol issue and is instead a Dr with dysphoria, who displays this for everyone to see, isn't he clearly mentally unable to care for others?
He's not resolved his disorder or even started to address it.

On the mental health aspect - providers have a responsibility under the health & social care act to assess the fitness to practice of their staff. Some excerpts below.

https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-regulation/providers/regulations-service-providers-and-managers/health-social-care-act/regulation-19

When appointing an employee, providers must have processes for considering their physical and mental health in line with the requirements of the role.

Providers must regularly review the fitness of employees.

Providers must follow robust systems to respond to concerns about a person's fitness after they are appointed to a role. This applies whether the concerns are raised by the provider or others.

Providers should respond without delay to concerns about a person's fitness or ability to carry out their duties. This includes responding immediately if there is an imminent risk to people working in and using the service.

I don't think he's mentally unable to care for others. There's no reason to think he isn't doing at least as well in all his assessments for each rotation he undertakes as any other member of his cohort. You could easily argue that as a closely supervised junior doctor he's continually proving that whatever mental issues he does or doesn't have they have no effect on the level of care he provides.

I doubt that Dr Upton could be struck off unless there’s a breach of the GMC’s Fitness to Practice rules. And at present I think you could ride a horse through those regarding trans doctors’ treatment of patients. Apparently they don’t have to give details of their protected characteristics to patients…. Which is a bit odd as most are observable …. But that’s the line that the GMC are currently clinging to….

He seemed to be more interested in SP's wrongthink and his hurt feelings than the alleged risk to a patient he claimed SP had caused. If true, he didn't act immediately about it and only cared about the impact on him not on the patient, potentially putting other patients at risk; if a lie, he was pretending about a patient's care in order to try and get a good nurse sacked because of his personal opinions therefore depriving all the patients of an experienced and good nurse - who are in short supply. This allegation I believe could be a cause of being struck off - either way.

IIRC one of the HR people at Fife was revealed in the court case so far to have said something along the lines of 'are we really going to deprive patients of a really experienced nurse when we're short staffed, potentially putting patients at risk, over this?'. Fife's record on patient care and avoidable harm to patients from what I've read isn't good.

Article in the Times Scotland section today:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/ec4c2760-8e94-426b-8bdf-0c2f6ff897d6?shareToken=06522de62b735a79cee5b47bd615c20c

Was just coming to post this. Comments from Michael Foran are interesting.

'Michael Foran, who will become in September associate professor at the University of Oxford’s Faculty of Law, said the decision to run both cases in parallel appeared to have been a big “blunder” because evidence heard in the tribunal could be seen to prejudice the outcome of the disciplinary case.'