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

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #28

1000 replies

nauticant · 16/07/2025 12:09

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 resumed 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 were 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.net/tribunaltweets or 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
Thread 27: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5372582-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-27

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
GCITC · 16/07/2025 12:58

When does lunch finish?

OhBuggerandArse · 16/07/2025 12:59

GCITC · 16/07/2025 12:58

When does lunch finish?

1.20

lechiffre55 · 16/07/2025 13:00

Merrymouse · 16/07/2025 12:45

But as a grade 7 DEI professional, is it enough to say 'I was waiting to see what everyone else was doing' when the law was clear?

(Genuine question - am wondering whether the general chaos in Scotland is a mitigating circumstance for the board?)

IMO yes because it's all logically inconsistent bollocks from the start.
It's like the politbureau votes in the ridiculously funny Iannucci movie The Death of Stalin. Each time they take a vote arms start to go up very hesitantly as they try and see how the others are voting before making their own vote clear. The problem is they are all being hesitant and it very difficult to make sure you vote with the herd when the rest of the herd is also trying to do the same.
No matter what grade or colour belt DEI they are, it's all about following the herd, and when you're out in front leading in uncharted territory that makes it even more diffcult to follow.

SirChenjins · 16/07/2025 13:00

IslandsAround · 16/07/2025 12:53

There is a whole missing governance piece here - as @GargoylesofBeelzebub says - why is this person writing a policy that has HR and legal ramifications. Where was their input or advice or check? How did this fit in their job description? Why was this legal task assigned to someone without appropriate skills or training? Why send a draft policy about patients when it was a situation presented as a conflict between employees?

Very much agree lack of record keeping is dodgy. Someone comes to DEI lead about discriminatory/ abusive situation - advice should have been in writing and notes taken.

But also nothing to do with a DEI lead - it was a HR / legal issue. The Dr went to her for a sympathetic ear rather than the correct answer.

Her role will include writing this type of policy - but policies don't exist in isolation, so absolutely there are typically authors, lead execs, endorsing bodies and governance or assurance committees attached to each policy. Even a draft policy will (or should) have a clear reporting structure - NHS staff don't just decide they're going to write a policy and then launch it without it going through several stages of approval. I'd love to know what governance group IB reported into in her role.

SionnachRuadh · 16/07/2025 13:00

OhBuggerandArse · 16/07/2025 12:49

cogged? (great word, just haven't heard it before)

Takes me back to when you'd get in trouble if the teacher suspected you'd been cogging your homework 😃

InvisibleDragon · 16/07/2025 13:01

Merrymouse · 16/07/2025 12:45

But as a grade 7 DEI professional, is it enough to say 'I was waiting to see what everyone else was doing' when the law was clear?

(Genuine question - am wondering whether the general chaos in Scotland is a mitigating circumstance for the board?)

I'm not sure the law was clear at that point? This was before FWS winning the appeal in the UK wide courts but (I think?) after they lost the case in the lower Scottish courts regarding whether trans women with a GRC counted as female in representation on boards etc.

So in Scotland at that point the law was at best ambiguous and at worst that trans women with a GRC were to be treated as female for all purposes (but you couldn't ask to see the GRC).

BettyBooper · 16/07/2025 13:02

ThreeWordHarpy · 16/07/2025 12:42

From TT:

JR - any risk assessments undertaken on this policy
IB - we didn't have a policy, so not way to do a risk assessment

Surely this is completely arse about face? You do a risk assessment and one of the first things you identify is that there is no policy so you need one pronto?

Edited

Wel, yes, that would make sense.

Also, Michael Foran pointed out that just because there isn't a written policy, doesn't mean there isn't a policy in a practical sense.

Merrymouse · 16/07/2025 13:05

rebmacesrevda · 16/07/2025 12:57

A band 7 clinician would be held to a higher standard because they are professionally registered, and they have to be able to answer for their actions. Without a professional registration to protect, IB can basically do what she likes and avoid accountability.

Yes, from a professional point of view, but from a tribunal's point of view, can a hospital create a role that implies a high level of knowledge and responsibility, (evidenced by band) and then claim that they don't have any responsibility for decisions made by the person in that role, because they didn't really know what they were doing?

myplace · 16/07/2025 13:06

This is, once again nail biting. And I don’t have any nails left to bite not time to nibble.

I think I’m going to have to skim through and pick out articles that get published, and read your comments around them. If anyone else has any awesome ideas of how to stay in the loop without doing nothing else all day, do please let me know.

RedToothBrush · 16/07/2025 13:06

Cailleach1 · 16/07/2025 12:48

Just commenting on something IB said from TT.

They didn’t have an official policy, but nevertheless (and unofficially) used cobbled bit of other policies they found online, and in their ‘trans deifying’ (my take) fortnightly meetings. To me, IB seemed to be saying they were having their cake and also eating it. They didn’t have to carry out an equality impact assessment because they didn’t have an official policy, yet they were happily using cogged policies from other places.

That can’t be a get out of jail free card. They were using policies from other places on which they had no idea as to their legality. And happily not carrying out any equality impact statement as to these cogged policies they were using.

If you don't have a policy, why don't you have a policy.

If you take action in the absence of a policy you aren't doing your job properly and you are leaving yourself open to a car crash.

Merrymouse · 16/07/2025 13:07

InvisibleDragon · 16/07/2025 13:01

I'm not sure the law was clear at that point? This was before FWS winning the appeal in the UK wide courts but (I think?) after they lost the case in the lower Scottish courts regarding whether trans women with a GRC counted as female in representation on boards etc.

So in Scotland at that point the law was at best ambiguous and at worst that trans women with a GRC were to be treated as female for all purposes (but you couldn't ask to see the GRC).

I thought the law was clear on people without a GRC.

But I wonder if NHS Fife will claim that they had no way of establishing whether Dr Upton had a GRC?

13planets · 16/07/2025 13:07

@IslandsAround and in some ways, nothing wrong with having a kindly face in the organisation who can be approached if you need a shoulder to cry on. But, when that person is also tasked with providing policy advice formally to management, a conflict of interest arises. Since Isla Bumba’s job requires insight, objectivity, appropriate behaviour and good judgement, her own conduct reflects very badly on her. Her manager should at the very least have her on a PIP for that I expect.

But agree that the problem lies with a hiring process that thought this person could manage a job like this. Ludicrous.

nauticant · 16/07/2025 13:08

SionnachRuadh · 16/07/2025 13:00

Takes me back to when you'd get in trouble if the teacher suspected you'd been cogging your homework 😃

Or getting a coggie.

OP posts:
GreenFriedTomato · 16/07/2025 13:08

@ickky there wasn't a video box to tick/untick.
I checked the settings and there was only mic and audio, and I joined as an observed so mic and audio were turned off anyway.

As soon as they broke for lunch I logged out thinking I might not be able to get back in again (unsure whether the hosts hang around to let everyone back in again after break - or how it works) but thinking if that happens, I'll just try again tomorrow.

On logging back in, I got the warning screen and WFTHTJ message and then a few minutes later, Welcome to the conference' and hey presto video of the room.

So it looks.like the advice to 'turn it off and on again' does actually work 😀

(I find it difficult to follow audio alone and it's much easier for me if I can actually see the people speaking)

MyAmpleSheep · 16/07/2025 13:08

ThatPithySheep · 16/07/2025 12:58

@PinkDD It will cost them £25,000 this year, but their contributions to that central fund will go up to cover the costs. It's not an insurance scheme, it is just to allow NHS trusts to cover legal costs without needing to hold lots of funds themselves. It all comes out of the NHS Scotland / Fife budget at some point

I suspect the costs for all NHS Scotland contributors will be raised equally to make up for the outflow, so in effect it is an insurance scheme: higher “premiums” next year for everyone to recoup this year’s payouts.

AAT65 · 16/07/2025 13:08

ThatPithySheep · 16/07/2025 12:38

That is the cost of their external legal advice only, and only to date. Not the cost of the internal lawyers, or the staff who have been involved, or the ridiculous disciplinary panel etc.

I'd be very surprised if it didn't include the cost of the "internal lawyers". I doubt NHS Fife have any themselves. They will be using NHS Scotland's Central Legal Office (Adam Watson and employment team) who act as in house lawyers for the NHS across Scotland. He/they will have been billing NHS Fife on a regular basis. Their hourly rates are significantly below the rates of a major Scottish law firm but NHS boards are often reluctant to seek advice and/or instruct them until too late. (That was probably an issue here as they are seen as a barrier/additional cost).
On occasion NHS boards (via CLO) will instruct external legal firms if CLO lack the internal expertise. CLO, once they were eventually involved, will have instructed Jane Russell. Using an English KC may indicate a concern about their case from the outset. If it had been a straightforward ET a Scottish advocate might have been cheaper. I wonder if there was some pressure from higher up the food chain recognising this had the potential to be a test case?

NeedToChangeName · 16/07/2025 13:09

ThatPithySheep · 16/07/2025 12:38

That is the cost of their external legal advice only, and only to date. Not the cost of the internal lawyers, or the staff who have been involved, or the ridiculous disciplinary panel etc.

https://www.nhsfife.org/news-updates/latest-news/2025/07/statement-employment-tribunal-legal-costs/

"NHS Fife can confirm that, as of 31 May 2025, a total of £220,465.93 has been incurred in legal costs relating to an ongoing Employment Tribunal case brought against the board. This figure includes Counsel fees and services provided by NHS Scotland’s Central Legal Office" Central Legal Office = internal lawyers

But yes, good point. This doesn't include cost of non legal staff spending time on this case

Statement - Employment Tribunal Legal Costs | NHS Fife

NHS Fife

https://www.nhsfife.org/news-updates/latest-news/2025/07/statement-employment-tribunal-legal-costs/

RedToothBrush · 16/07/2025 13:09

BettyBooper · 16/07/2025 13:02

Wel, yes, that would make sense.

Also, Michael Foran pointed out that just because there isn't a written policy, doesn't mean there isn't a policy in a practical sense.

Still leaves yourself open it issues - you cant prove you have acted consistently and fairly and that you have properly risk assessed.

It's a potential open goal if you fuck up.

In the context of what's happened id argue there's potential exposure for FIfe here.

OhBuggerandArse · 16/07/2025 13:09

nauticant · 16/07/2025 13:08

Or getting a coggie.

Loving it - what dialect is it from?

Petesplumbing · 16/07/2025 13:09

If it’s in previous posts I’ve missed it, has Upton attended today’s tribunal? I know Sandie Peggie has, but I’ve not caught anything about Upton.

Thanks also for relaying Tribunal Tweets, I find it very helpful.

BettyBooper · 16/07/2025 13:10

This is a great summary of the morning

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1945453376491110451

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1945453376491110451

OhBuggerandArse · 16/07/2025 13:10

No Upton. Or parents of Upton.

InvisibleDragon · 16/07/2025 13:11

Merrymouse · 16/07/2025 13:07

I thought the law was clear on people without a GRC.

But I wonder if NHS Fife will claim that they had no way of establishing whether Dr Upton had a GRC?

In theory yes, but in practice it was unworkably awkward because you can't ask if someone has a GRC/disclose GRC status, which was being used to push Self Identifying as the only requirement.

BettyBooper · 16/07/2025 13:11

BettyBooper · 16/07/2025 13:10

This is a great summary of the morning

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1945453376491110451

For those not on X

The first morning of resumed testimony in Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr B Upton opened not with legal precision but with delay and disarray. Observers were left waiting outside the hearing room for over an hour past the scheduled start, as court staff grappled with new remote access arrangements. The tribunal finally got underway at - a fitting prelude to what followed: a portrait of institutional looseness, from the court’s admin to NHS Fife’s own handling of equality law.

Called by NHS Fife and cross-examined by their own barrister Jane Russell KC, Equality and Diversity Lead Isla Bumba conceded that the health board had no policy governing trans staff use of changing rooms when she advised that it “might be discriminatory” to restrict access based on gender identity. That advice, she said, stemmed from her understanding of the Equality Act and what she believed other NHS boards were doing. But when pressed, she could not say what those boards’ policies actually stated - or whether she had even read them at the time.

Russell walked her through several NHS policies from elsewhere - Brighton, Lanarkshire, Durham, Highland. Again and again, Bumba responded with equivocation: “I might have,” “it aligns,” “I can’t recall.” Her advice had real institutional weight, yet it rested on a hazy blend of hearsay and assumption, unsupported by any internal NHS Fife documentation.

When the incident between Nurse Peggie and Dr Upton was reported via a Datix flagged as a hate incident, Bumba agreed it was “unpleasant” and “suggestive of discrimination.” But she issued no written advice, undertook no assessment, and followed up with little more than a vague suggestion to “have a chat.” She couldn’t recall if she’d spoken to key staff or simply shared a draft policy link. Even that policy - the Once for Scotland trans guidance - had never been formally adopted, and was later withdrawn under the weight of this very tribunal.

Administratively and substantively, the morning’s evidence revealed a system in which equality advice operated without records, without policies, and without accountability. NHS Fife projected the image of a rights-conscious employer, but behind that façade was procedural drift and institutional neglect. As the delays in the courtroom mirrored the inertia inside the boardroom, one truth became clear: when belief rights clashed with workplace inclusion, NHS Fife had left its staff to improvise - and take the consequences alone.

Greyskybluesky · 16/07/2025 13:11

OhBuggerandArse · 16/07/2025 13:10

No Upton. Or parents of Upton.

No big coat to hide in in this weather

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