Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #27

1000 replies

nauticant · 13/07/2025 08:26

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 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] by 5pm on Wednesday 9 July. Detailed instructions wereFri provided here:

drive.google.com/file/d/16-9POEZ7yHWUr6EmbfquJZO18Gv78bSm/view

The hearing is being live tweeted by x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005. 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.ph/WSSjg.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse
Thread 2: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2
Thread 3: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
Thread 26: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5335861-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-26

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 16:23

NebulousSupportPostcard · 14/07/2025 16:04

This is obviously for joke purposes, as it is not the correct board - but is a genuinely compelling question:

AIBU for asking if I am the only one checking my emails frequently and wondering if anyone else who applied for online access has heard back from the ET yet please? 😁

YANBU.

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 14/07/2025 16:24

NImumconfused · 14/07/2025 16:17

It's insane, when so many people are affected by discrimination based on sex, race, disability etc, that DEI has become all about the less than 0.5% of the population who are trans.

Everything is! They make rich white men look like total amateurs when it comes to welding power.

Vulnerable my arse!

Harassedevictee · 14/07/2025 16:35

NebulousSupportPostcard · 14/07/2025 16:04

This is obviously for joke purposes, as it is not the correct board - but is a genuinely compelling question:

AIBU for asking if I am the only one checking my emails frequently and wondering if anyone else who applied for online access has heard back from the ET yet please? 😁

YABU ( in the nicest possible way 😂) I would not expect the email until tomorrow or even Wednesday AM.

Last time we had to apply no earlier than the Friday for the Monday. I applied at 07:25 and received the details at 09:30.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 14/07/2025 16:37

ThatCyanCat · 14/07/2025 16:07

Did he say at one point that if a patient responded to him as Sandie did, he would have that patient declared whatever the term is for when a doctor has the right to refuse treatment?

No. He definitely didn't say that, he said several times words to the effect that it was his job to make patients comfortable, and that they could ask for a different clinician for a number of reasons.

One difficulty was around whether he would directly declare or acknowledge that he was trans if a woman asked for a female clinician. (extract from tribunal tweets substack)

"NC Some patients will read u as F
DU Yes, they read me as a woman or F. I dont discuss my T history w them
NC Some patients may be drunk, on drugs, have an eye injury and I'm suggesting yr self evidently male. But some may not observe this
JR I object. It's irrelevant suggesting DU is sexually assaulting ppl, that's no tan issue. This isnt a roving injuiry into T drs and SS spaces
JR JT saying DU is obviously male is erroneous as y'll see in the previous documents. [reads out prev from Judge Timmiom]
J It's not reasonable or practicable that I cant ask the witness Qs that I want. The sequence may be opaque, that's how X exam works. JR objected constantly
NC yday and has done so 10 mins in today. I note you always allowed the Qs. I hope u say these interventions aren't reasonable. I didnt interupt when her X was irrelevant or even abusive. I let her do her job.
J I won't tell her to do that. And I didnt stop all her intervention
J It's not approp to stop her objecting. I may say something if approp. It isnt clear how this Q is working so will allow it at this point
NC I'm grateful but finding my task hampered by her interuptions
J It's part of litigation though as we know
NC We will go v slowly then
NC Do u agree that it's obvious yr male and some AE patients it wont be obv yr male
DU I dont beleive being drunk affects yr ability to identify a T person, state of intoxiccation. Me being T isn't obv to everybody, maybe to some
NC What if a woman asks to see a F dr
DU I dont see i have to give personal info to patients. I have no obligation to do that. There's no reason to. I dont see that.
NC What about a rape survivor wanting an actual W and not a TW?
DU I dont accept actual woman. I assume u mean c1s woman. ANyone can exp sexual violence, and it can be taken into account within limits of providing care in an emerg situation
NC It follows, that her wish for a F dr, a F patient wld be expected to reveal her sex trauma?
DU No any patient can refuse to see a dr. [gives an eg of a racial patient and staff issue] we accom as much as possible, w/out giving reasons
NC Imagine a woman in AE has unexplained heavy bleeding and says wants a F dr, is it ok for u to be asigned to see her?
DU It depends on the history. Catastriphic means resus, but otherwise short history and to O&G.
NC Imagine later and short history. Is she entitled to F for history
DU If she wanted me to leave, I would and get someone else. Consent is v important and take pat's wishes
seriously. dont want to impose suffering
NC So it's up to her to sya I dont feel comfy w you?
DU That's how it works. U dont know if she'd accept a TW. Y'd explain how exam works and stopping when patient wants to. Our job to make ppl comfy. It's approp for a dr to see this pat
DU Yes I consider myself empathic
NC But u think a woman in that sitn who has asked for a F dr, who realsies yr a male as she's distressed or only slowly realsises yr male. Using empathy, do u not see is v cruel?
DU Consulting rooms and cubicles so not necess in a separateroom
DU ANy person of any GI can experience or undertake sexual trauma. They often dont disclose this, whoever they are. Every single clinician wld have to say "this is my sex, GI, are u happy w me" I apprec they might find it hard to see me. My job is gathering info and treating
ppl
NC Long speech
JR It was a long Q
NC U said wasnt a given wld be in a room w you,
DU Not a gynae room but ent room used [listing all the rooms which NC cuts off]
J U can aske me to stop a Q but not do it yrself
NC Please do
DU there's no specific gynae room "

This is part of a line of questioning that leads into a different angle than we are discussing here, but I think this extract is the key part that relates to your question?

My impression, after following almost all of the Feb tribunal, is that both Sandie and Beth are well liked by many of their their respective colleagues. It's clear from the witness testimonies that some don't like Sandie's political views, and that some (other than Sandie) don't like Beth being allowed in the women's changing rooms. But I don't think there is evidence that either of them have or would behave unprofessionally beyond the specific complaints and issues raised at the tribunal.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 14/07/2025 16:44

Harassedevictee · 14/07/2025 16:35

YABU ( in the nicest possible way 😂) I would not expect the email until tomorrow or even Wednesday AM.

Last time we had to apply no earlier than the Friday for the Monday. I applied at 07:25 and received the details at 09:30.

Thank you! I will not instruct my lawyers to demand unreasonable adjustments from the court just yet then! 😂

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 14/07/2025 17:00

There has just been new "Presidential Guidance on Open Justice in Employment Tribunals in Scotland" released - I presume prompted by the resumption of the this tribunal, and all the issues last time. I don't know how it compares to the old guidance, but the new guidance is here (will probably trigger a download):

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Presidential-Guidance-Open-Justice-in-Employment-Tribunal-Proceedings-in-Scotland.pdf

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Presidential-Guidance-Open-Justice-in-Employment-Tribunal-Proceedings-in-Scotland.pdf

ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 17:16

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 14/07/2025 17:00

There has just been new "Presidential Guidance on Open Justice in Employment Tribunals in Scotland" released - I presume prompted by the resumption of the this tribunal, and all the issues last time. I don't know how it compares to the old guidance, but the new guidance is here (will probably trigger a download):

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Presidential-Guidance-Open-Justice-in-Employment-Tribunal-Proceedings-in-Scotland.pdf

interesting. Does paragraph 46 cover observers discussing here on MN? Maybe we’ll have to restrict ourselves to discussing what TT say while it’s “live”.

spannasaurus · 14/07/2025 17:25

ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 17:16

interesting. Does paragraph 46 cover observers discussing here on MN? Maybe we’ll have to restrict ourselves to discussing what TT say while it’s “live”.

Edited

I think it might

FarriersGirl · 14/07/2025 17:26

SqueakyDinosaur · 14/07/2025 15:53

I've done equality impact assessments before, and, done properly, they are pretty demanding and take a lot of work to get right.

Absolutely agree I have done them in the past also. Having read umpteen of them for the policy audit work in the last couple of months I have not seen one that comes close to being completed adequately. They are being treated as a tick box event.

nauticant · 14/07/2025 17:28

ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 17:16

interesting. Does paragraph 46 cover observers discussing here on MN? Maybe we’ll have to restrict ourselves to discussing what TT say while it’s “live”.

Edited

That's a highly relevant observation. Here's paragraph 46:

46 Other journalists, commentators and members of the public who are observing a hearing, whether in person or remotely, and who wish to use live, text based communications during the hearing, must apply to the Tribunal for permission. That application should be made in advance of the hearing if possible. If the application is made on the day, it should be made to the clerk and not directly to the Tribunal. The application will be considered by the Tribunal at the next appropriate point in proceedings and may be refused if the Tribunal considers that such live communication may interfere with the administration of justice. There may be a delay in permission being granted if the application is made during the hearing.

OP posts:
alsoFanOfNaomi · 14/07/2025 17:30

Yes, I think it does clearly cover us talking here, so we must consider carefully what's OK. Interestingly this seems like the updated version of the document the judge read from last time which nobody could find (people found various documents but nothing that seemed to have the content the judge had read out). This one does not define "live". I think as a matter of common sense, it should be OK to discuss what happened in a session any time after the court has next stopped for a break - if we were there in person, we could from that point on discuss it in person, after all. I think we should not discuss what's happening in a session during that session itself. Any other views?

alsoFanOfNaomi · 14/07/2025 17:34

Incidentally it clearly does not restrict what any of us who are NOT observing can say during a session on the basis of TT tweets - but I think it might not be wise for people who ARE observing to say anything at all during a session, even supported by TT tweets. Which will end up being a bit absurd (because I might say the same thing based either on my own observation, or on TT, and the former would be forbidden but the latter would be fine...but unless I tell you whether I'm observing or just reading TT, you don't know!), but oh well.

NeedToChangeName · 14/07/2025 17:47

DEI becomes more rainbows and less ramps for wheelchairs

@SidewaysOtter Totally agree. Everywhere I look, I see rainbow pride flags / pronouns on emails etc. It's a cheap way to pretend about inclusion. Actually putting in measures to support eg carers / people with disabilities is expensive, so many employers don't bother

nauticant · 14/07/2025 17:48

Does this mean that every day there's going to be a flood of posters piling into the thread at half 4 saying "you wouldn't believe what I saw!"

OP posts:
ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 17:49

I’m minded to agree. I know it’s under the heading of “live tweeting” and this isn’t X, but it is live, text based communication and is publicly available. So I think those of us following TT can discuss their reporting “live”, because TT have given their undertaking to the court under the other paragraphs.

if I am fortunate to get access to observe online myself, I plan to refrain from posting here until breaks or even the end of day. I wouldn’t want to be accused of being in contempt of court. I’d probably end up making paper notes and writing a long screed when I can!

JanesLittleGirl · 14/07/2025 17:50

nauticant · 14/07/2025 17:28

That's a highly relevant observation. Here's paragraph 46:

46 Other journalists, commentators and members of the public who are observing a hearing, whether in person or remotely, and who wish to use live, text based communications during the hearing, must apply to the Tribunal for permission. That application should be made in advance of the hearing if possible. If the application is made on the day, it should be made to the clerk and not directly to the Tribunal. The application will be considered by the Tribunal at the next appropriate point in proceedings and may be refused if the Tribunal considers that such live communication may interfere with the administration of justice. There may be a delay in permission being granted if the application is made during the hearing.

Edited

Do you want to report your post, asking Mumsnet HQ for guidance on what they think would be acceptable?

nauticant · 14/07/2025 17:55

I'd be wary of doing that because I could imagine that if someone panics the thread could be locked altogether. Or even deleted.

I think it's going to have to be up to individuals to police themselves and us, as a group, to have a word if someone appears to be live-commenting based on the stream.

OP posts:
ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 17:58

JanesLittleGirl · 14/07/2025 17:50

Do you want to report your post, asking Mumsnet HQ for guidance on what they think would be acceptable?

Why? It would be the posters in contempt of court, not MN. I think the posters here are able to understand and have self-control to post appropriately. And if anyone posts something inappropriate we can report that individual post.

<cross post with @nauticant and am in full agreement >

FlamingoLlama · 14/07/2025 17:59

So if one were to be following TT and come here to say "Wait what???" - that's ok

But following it via a court log in and then coming here to say "Bingo" - would not be ok

alsoFanOfNaomi · 14/07/2025 18:01

I mean, the whole set of rules looks like something written by someone who has never been on any form of social media, doesn't it? Good luck to them getting people to not comment on X if they're observing, and good luck getting Elon to give up people's identities to the court if they do...but it wouldn't take much for MNHQ to feel obliged to react by preventing us from discussing the hearing here at all until it was over, and that would be really sad. So yes, I think it's worth being careful even if people in other places aren't being so careful. Last time for a while I was taking notes during a session and posting them at the next break. That worked ok I think, and seems to me to be within the rules. (That said, I'm not optimistic about getting a link at all, so the whole thing is probably moot.)

ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 18:02

FlamingoLlama · 14/07/2025 17:59

So if one were to be following TT and come here to say "Wait what???" - that's ok

But following it via a court log in and then coming here to say "Bingo" - would not be ok

That’s my interpretation yes.

Which may lead to absurd situations where the live followers are sitting on their hands unable to join in the conversation, knowing more than TT followers. But I suppose that is no different to if an observer were physically in the room itself listening and unable to use phones or talk to other observers until a break.

JanesLittleGirl · 14/07/2025 18:04

ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 17:58

Why? It would be the posters in contempt of court, not MN. I think the posters here are able to understand and have self-control to post appropriately. And if anyone posts something inappropriate we can report that individual post.

<cross post with @nauticant and am in full agreement >

This is what I love about MN. Somebody who can think things through properly will give you a proper steer.

nocoolnamesleft · 14/07/2025 18:06

NImumconfused · 14/07/2025 16:13

As many people have said, pronouns and rainbow lanyards don't cost much in comparison to the sorts of interventions required to tackle inequalities based on disability, race etc

I actually said almost exactly that to the local LibDem team. The younger ones were horrified, the older ones actually thought I had a point.

ThreeWordHarpy · 14/07/2025 18:09

nauticant · 14/07/2025 17:55

I'd be wary of doing that because I could imagine that if someone panics the thread could be locked altogether. Or even deleted.

I think it's going to have to be up to individuals to police themselves and us, as a group, to have a word if someone appears to be live-commenting based on the stream.

I am loathe to add more work to your excellent thread hosting, but maybe you need to add something to your thread intros about this and say we’re self policing to avoid that scenario.

And yes @alsoFanOfNaomi , it definitely reads likes out was written by someone who doesn’t use social media, old fashioned web forums like this or even WhatsApp. All of which could fall under this paragraph.

alsoFanOfNaomi · 14/07/2025 18:15

Reading the para again, it doesn't even restrict itself to us using live text-based communication about the case. I think even for me as a pathological rule-follower, refraining from multi-tasking during the hearing so that I don't, for example, send someone a message about something unrelated, is a step too far!

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread