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

[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 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

@nauticant can put a warning at the start of each thread it is guaranteed a) many posters won’t read it b) many will
dip in and out and miss it c) there will be multiple reminders that posters still miss.

I did wonder if in part it related to Michael Foran taking over from TT when the live feed was terminated.

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

You know how the trans activists here will plaster some threads wall-to-wall with their interesting takes and will avoid others? This is one of the threads they avoid because they know it will make them look bad. But they'll be watching, and they'll be reporting to MNHQ to get the thread taken down and, best of all, a complete ban on commenting. It is our responsibility to limit the chances of this happening.

Why is the NHS spending hundreds of thousands of pounds attacking women?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/2288b0667b5cc781

Suzanne Moore

It's not just Mnet of course. In the past lots of people have posted tribunal proceedings on TwiX in real time - just individuals commentating, not journalists.

What would happen if every person who had applied for online access, even if they didn't yet know if they were going to get it - which is likely to be hundreds of people in this case - wrote and asked for permission to use live, text-based communications during the hearing?

The guidance doesn't say people can't use this. It just says they have to ask first.

I imagine that given the extremely high public interest and media coverage, permission would be denied to anyone without press credentials, as the widespread discussion could influence witnesses who are yet to give evidence. It must be difficult enough for them avoiding reporting the case as it is.

Corrrection: the journalist says an SNP politician has spoken out saying heads should roll, and refers to her as Carol Potter.
Carol actually heads up the NHS Fife board.
The SNP MSP who spoke out is in fact Michelle Thomson (and she's right).

Also the start of para 47 immediately after the one quoted already is:

The Tribunal may impose conditions on live text-based communications that are permitted under paragraphs 45 or 46 such as:
(i)
where evidence is quoted or summarised, that must be done fairly and accurately.

Not that our discussions aim to be unfair, let alone inaccurate, but... impartial we are not. I think if we asked permission to have the kind of "omg did he really say that?!" discussion that is normal here, it would be refused, and if we got permission to just do the same kind of thing TT does, it's not clear it would be worthwhile.

My concern is that while Sandie's supporters may be more likely to engage in reasoned discussion, TRAs seem (to me) to have ramped up their protests including threats of aggression (verbal and/or otherwise) etc since the SC decision.

After a quick skim read of the document, nothing suggests measures to manage aggressive protests are being considered.

I hope I'm too wary / suspicious of what might happen.

I think they know how very bad this case makes them all look, and will keep their heads well down. But I never cease to be amazed by how wrong I can get things, and how far behaviour that you would think was an obvious red flag is tolerated by the great and the good, so who knows?!

Sadly, I think this is on the money.

I am also grateful for the shared guidance. I haven’t applied to watch due to work commitments, but had been planning to keep up here and TT as much as possible.

Choosing not to apply means I hadn’t seen the guidance and I’m unlikely to be alone in this.

I think it's not as bad as all that. The guidance specifically applies only to those who are observing. So those are the only people who need to know the rule - and I expect the judge will read it out at the start of the hearing on Wednesday. Anyone not observing can say what they want and doesn't need to know. So the only issue is whether someone with a link isn't there or isn't attending at the start of the hearing when (I assume) this will be made clear. That's hopefully rather unlikely, especially as failing to turn up at the start may well mean one's link gets inactivated.

I'll try to remember to add something like this to the header of the next thread:

According to PRESIDENTIAL GUIDANCE ON OPEN JUSTICE IN EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS IN SCOTLAND dated 14 July 2025:

... members of the public who are observing a hearing ... remotely, and who wish to use live, text based communications during the hearing, must apply to the Tribunal for permission.

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

This means that while you are watching the hearing, you "might not be" (and I'm going to assume this is "are not") permitted to comment here on what you're seeing and hearing unless you've received permission from the Tribunal to do so. Ironically, if you're following the hearing via Tribunal Tweets, the restriction doesn't seem to apply to you and you can discuss it here. Once a hearing session is finished then remote viewers can discuss it here, the important thing to note is the during the hearing aspect.

Many posters will skip reading that instruction but the point of having it in the header will be that people can cut and paste it into the thread if they're looking to police posters to operate within the rules.

I think if I were you, nauticant, I'd just paste the text and keep it simple. I agree with your interpretation, but I think it's not the only one possible. If, for example, the Judge gives a different interpretation in explaining the rule on Wednesday, we don't want an incompatible interpretation stuck at the start of the thread!

(Eg, I would be disappointed but not astonished if the judge's interpretation of "live" was that people observing couldn't say anything until the whole hearing is over.)

That's fine. All I need to do is to instruct posters not to run away with posting on this thread meaning that we're on to thread #28 before 10am on Wednesday.

I agree that it would be best to just paste the text and not interpret.

@nauticant Thank you so much for all your hard work on these threads and for sticking with them. I doubt any of us realised quite how huge (in all kinds of ways) this case was going to be.

Good luck with that 😂

Thanks for the input @alsoFanOfNaomi and @Mmmnotsure. Instead of including the interpretation above, I'll restrict my interpretation to pointing out that live, text based communications could include Mumsnet and if it does then we need to heed the Presidential Guidance.

i think the logic we can use is that we should treat online observing as if we were there in the court room. Watch in silence and make commentary during the breaks.

Anna those of us not watching online will get the privilege of discussing TT as it happens!

Is this discussion a prime example of CLAW?

I find lots of things that CLAW stands for online, but none that make sense... Pretty please expand it?

CLAW: https://x.com/suladoyle/status/1900203798292820249

@prh47bridge Hi regarding the discussion above what is your advice please

We or someone on here could apply to the clerk to discuss this case live as the caveat is as long as it does not interfere with the administration of justice.

The trouble I fear is that, even if we seek and gain permission, TRAs will be reporting the thread to the tribunal at every possible opportunity on the grounds that comments 'may interfere with the administration of justice' (my bold). And the tribunal may very quickly lose patience with having to determine these vexatious complaints and withdraw permission wholesale so it can crack on and spend its valuable time on the substantive case.