From Boswelltoday on X
Consultant Walks “Sobbing” Upton to Car—But Nurses Were Never Told He’d Be in the Women’s Changing Room On Day 3 of Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr B Upton, the tribunal heard from Dr Elspeth Pitt, a senior consultant who encountered Dr Upton in visible emotional distress on Christmas Eve 2023. What unfolded was a revealing portrait of a system primed to cushion one staff member’s emotional response—so long as that staff member identified as trans. Pitt testified that she found Upton “very shaken,” “pale,” and “sobbing” after a confrontation with nurse Sandy Peggie (SP) in the female changing room. The details were vague—Pitt could not recall the exact words—but Upton felt “cornered” and likened the encounter to hearing something as hurtful as a comparison to a rapist. Pitt moved the conversation to a wellbeing room and let him talk, then advised him to go home and rest. She also walked him to his car, explaining that although any threat was “unlikely,” it felt like the right thing to do. When pressed later about whether this meant she believed Upton was at risk, Pitt said no—it was simply kindness. Still, the decision to chaperone a grown doctor to his vehicle made its own symbolic statement: Upton was treated as someone in need of immediate, personal safeguarding. But when it came to next steps, urgency evaporated. Pitt sent a short “catch up” email to senior colleagues, proposing a meeting “in the next week.” She didn’t check rotas, didn’t consult senior nurses, and didn’t alert anyone to prevent SP and DU from overlapping shifts. Why? “It was late, and I was tired,” she told the tribunal. “I genuinely didn’t know the right thing to do.” What she did know, however, was that Dr Upton’s right to use the women’s changing room had already been affirmed by senior staff months earlier. Consultants had been told in autumn 2023 that DU—biologically male, in his 20s—was entitled to use the female CR. Yet no similar communication was ever issued to nurses, many of whom used the same space. Pitt admitted as much: “I don’t recall,” she said, when asked if anyone told them. The policy was clear, the institution said. But it remained a private understanding among senior medics—leaving women to discover its implications only when emotionally overwhelmed men arrived in their changing room. When barrister Charlotte Elves asked if Searle’s internal message to consultants—expressing support for Upton and condemning SP’s behaviour—was appropriate, Pitt hedged. The email wasn’t “specific,” she conceded, and “could be read” as taking sides. But her broader defence was that senior staff were simply trying to make Upton feel safe. Elves pressed harder. Given Upton’s height (over six feet), age, and physical stature compared to the much smaller SP, was it credible to suggest he’d been under threat? Pitt resisted the framing. Upton hadn’t claimed physical danger, she said—just that he was deeply upset. “It was serious,” Pitt insisted, “but not something to handle on shift.” Serious enough to walk him to his car. Not serious enough to take immediate institutional steps. Pitt also confirmed she’d never experienced a staff conflict like this—yet still defaulted to an ad hoc response, rather than seeking guidance or escalating through HR. Instead, she waited for the “cold light of day,” trusting the system would eventually catch up. It did—partially, and privately. DU’s rota was altered to avoid further overlap with SP, but no explanation was given to the nurses whose space had sparked the entire clash. The priority was clear: cushion DU’s experience, manage the optics, and let others adapt as best they could. What the tribunal heard was not a story of safety protocols or consistent policy. It was a lesson in which emotions get urgency, which bodies get accommodation, and whose discomfort is quietly absorbed without question.