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

Yes his psychotherapist and GP both submitted statements to the court which were made public during the early case management decisions. I'll see if I happened to book mark them.

Here's what the judge has to say about the therapists letter:

.Fourth, a letter dated 14 October 2024 from Ms. K. Pollock [91-92], a psychotherapist. The Tribunal was not provided with Dr. Upton’s request for this letter, but infers that like her request to her GP practice, one was made which likely requested a letter in support of the application for anonymity.

Ms. Pollock’s letter describes Dr. Upton twice as having experienced a ‘hate crime’ (elsewhere she describes Dr. Upton as a victim of hate crime). After describing Dr. Upton’s mental state after the third incident (exceptionally anxious, fearful, suffering from elevated stress, fearful of “another attack”), the letter described Dr. Upton’s absence from work then phased return, during which her levels of fear and anxiety increased, peaking again at the return to work of the other party (ie, the Claimant).The letter concluded: “[Dr. Upton] is acutely aware of the wider public discourse around the rights of transgender individuals to use single sex spaces in the UK, and has, in my professional opinion, a genuine and grounded fear in reality that were her name to be made public she would be a target for those who oppose trans women using single sex spaces. As a quite private individual who has no desire for a public profile the idea of being ‘public property’ is very distressing to [Dr. Upton] … As someone who has not only experienced a hate crime but is faced with microaggressions [Dr. Upton is already under a great deal of daily stress and anxiety. Adding to this would, in my opinion, run the risk of pushing [Dr. Upton] into crisis and have a severe and negative impact on her mental health and wellbeing.”...

...However, the Tribunal had significant reservations about relying on Ms. Pollock’s
letter as evidence, first and foremost because in her letter Ms. Pollock made no clear attempt to maintain an appropriate professional distance between what Dr. Upton told her and the facts regarding the underlying events (in marked contrast, for example, to Nurse Young’s 23 January 2024 OH report: “I understand Dr. Upton recently reported an incident in the workplace which she perceived as discriminatory”). Ms. Pollock was not present during the Christmas Eve incident,
could not possibly know for a fact what happened then, and was not told the Claimant’s version of events (if she was, there is no evidence of that).

Reading her letter, however, it is clearly Ms. Pollock’s firm view that Dr. Upton’s account of that event was true and Dr. Upton was subject to a hate crime by the Claimant. With respect, Ms. Pollock cannot state that as a fact or state (even if it is just an opinion) that Dr. Upton was the victim of a hate crime (the truth of which depends on what happened during the incident). The Tribunal appreciates that when treating patients, it would probably not be appropriate for a psychotherapist to challenge a patient’s account of events (doing so might be counterproductive, and reduce trust and confidence).

However, when writing a letter which might be put before a court or tribunal, the Tribunal would have expected Ms. Pollock to adopt a more cautious approach, and limit her findings and opinions to those she was properly and professionally in a position to make (in fairness to Ms. Pollock, it is not clear that the intended audience for her letter was explained to her). The Tribunal also noted that Ms. Pollock had found that Dr. Upton was under a great deal of stress not just because of the hate crime but also because of ‘microaggressions”. That finding was inconsistent with Dr. Upton’s witness evidence, which was (in terms) that she generally felt well supported at work notwithstanding occasional micro-aggressions and was not under a great deal of stress and anxiety because of them. In the Tribunal’s judgment, Ms. Pollock’s letter ‘crossed the line’ from permissible expert opinion to unhelpful advocacy. While it is admissible evidence, the Tribunal attached little weight to it

That's from the case management hearing 28-29th November under judge Tinnion, I've got a Pdf so it must be/have been publicly available

Could the truth be asked of Upton?
Could Upton in court be asked why he thinks he is a woman?
I mean everyone knows he's not gay (he's married to a woman), which is fine, but why does he say he is a woman?
Is it dysphoria or something else and as a doctor he could explain what went wrong during conception/development.

He says he's biological not a robot and identifies as a woman so therefore is a woman. He said it under oath.

And he does think he's gay - he thinks he's in a same sex marriage, he said that under oath too.

He's a TRA, you can't expect him to use words in the way the rest of us understand them. He says he's a woman so he's a biological woman and he says he's a woman so he's a lesbian.

Apparently he & his wife have suffered from homophobia too what with them being a pair of lesbians.

Could he be asked, as a doctor, to explain how other men aren't women and how he is different to other men then?
I don't understand why a court doesn't seek full transparency.
After all, when Sandie saw him in the women's facilities she knew he was a man.
It's gone to court, rather than Sandie be sacked for harassing a women, as everyone in court knows he's a man.

"in fairness to Ms. Pollock, it is not clear that the intended audience for her letter was explained to her"

Shall we add another name to the list of people it would be quite unkind to call "Upton's Useful Idiots"

Was he asked to explain why identifying as a woman means he is a woman?

Yes. How is he a woman?
After all, if he identified as a child there would be no factual basis (even though he has previously been one).

Didn't Dr Upton also say something about suffering issues due to being a woman working in the, presumably, blokey field of medicine?

I'll give him some credit for sheer chutzpah.

He didn't really answer questions about what differentiates him from other men just waffled in about not assuming other people's gender identity so he couldn't say that a big burly man with a beard was not actually a woman

And yes that he is a woman and he is a biological being not a robot so he is a biological woman. And if you ask for a female doctor he will attend because he is biologically female.

I genuinely think that last bit makes him a candidate for investigation by the BMA - he is clearly prioritising himself above the needs of his patients

The editor of the SDE was reported to police Scotland for a hate crime for referring to Dr Upton as he/him.
Turns out it didn't have the effect that the TRAs expected infact it had the opposite effect 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

No imo - the questions in the tribunal should be relevant to the case and not stray too widely from establishing what happened in relation to the claimant's case or the respondent's defence. Whys about DU's belief would probably fall outside the tribunal's scope or interest.

I genuinely think that last bit makes him a candidate for investigation by the BMA - he is clearly prioritising himself above the needs of his patients.

It would be the GMC who would investigate fitness to practise. Though I wouldn't bet on them investigating this case

The BMA is a doctors" union, basically, run by a cabal of "progressives" and therefore up to its oxters in gender woo

Oh dear it looks like NHS Fife has been caught lying again

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/nhs-fifes-culture-secrecy-blasted-35313717?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

I wonder what the 'hate crime' was supposed to be.

I refer to posts passim where I fully predicted the "Dug ate ma homework" strategem would be deployed

Vindicated

Many of us have previously reported him to the GMC but they refused to investigate him for his comments in an ongoing trial

You're assuming that what you mean by the word 'woman' is what he means by the word 'woman'.

When I say 'woman' I mean an adult human female. The type of human whose body developed to produce eggs not sperm.

When TRAs say 'woman' they mean a personality type.

So to Upton if he says he is a woman, if he feels something which he decides is feeling like a woman, then he's a woman.

Its a basic redefinition of what words mean.

ha! Like bollocks there weren’t notes. I work with the NHS - there are always notes of meetings. What they mean is, there were notes but we deleted them once we realised how much trouble we were in

It would be the GMC who deal with ethics and fitness to practice. And they don't care - they state that their members don't have to reveal any private information about protected characteristics to their patients. And when asked about intimate examinations they point towards current guidelines which don't deal at all with the issue of single sex care provision by trans doctors. They seem intransigent - so really GC people need to write to the regulator of the regulator to try to get this sorted out. Funnily enough I was looking at this this morning.

Professional Standards Authority
https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/news-and-updates/news/authority-statement-concerns-expressed-about-regulators-stance-transgender

It is interesting how the language about this has changed. We can infer that Upton told colleagues it was a "hate crime" at the time because of what the counsellor's letter said and maybe also the reaction of Kate Searle (we have yet to hear exactly what she put in her email to all the department colleagues).

However by the time of the tribunal itself, Upton was referring to an alleged "hate incident". Upton had decided not to get the police involved at the time. The incident was when Sandy Peggie said something like "you shouldn't be in here" referring to the female changing room and then "you're a man". This was reported as a statement made by Sandie without any aggression. Hearing Upton's evidence on this in February it sounded like a total nothingburger. The only thing he has is if calling a transwoman "a man" is transphobic. While that was possibly up for discussion in February, post 16th April that argument seems dead in the water.

While that was possibly up for discussion in February, post 16th April that argument seems dead in the water.

And as the SC ruling didn’t change the law but confirmed the law as it always was, Sandie was correct and well within her rights. The focus of the Tribunal is surely on the mess that NHS Fife made of the whole thing, and not whether Sandie was wrong.

Does the strength of someone's incorrect belief (in this case that they are a woman) have a bearing on whether someone else's conduct towards them counts as harassment?

Playing devil's advocate here:

Assume the court finds as a fact that Upton genuinely (but obviously, in law, wrongly) believes that his protected characteristic of sex is 'female'. The way the Equality Act is worded there's no automatic get-out on the basis of truth. If I deny your own "lived reality" about a protected characteristic in a way that "reasonably" creates a hostile environment then I have harassed you. I suppose the question is from whose point of view is the word "reasonably" to be interpreted?

I'm thinking perhaps the outcome could be that:

1. The trust, and Upton both harassed Peggie - by permitting the use of and by using the female facilities respectively
2. Peggie also harassed Upton by her words and/or conduct, validating at least some of the Trust's actions against her

Again, playing devil's advoate, per my post immediately after yours, where in law is it established that Sandie was "well within her rights" to say directly to someone who believes they're a woman that they're actually a man?