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 #30

1000 replies

nauticant · 17/07/2025 15:39

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
Thread 28: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5374630-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-28
Thread 29: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5374921-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-29

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
prh47bridge · 17/07/2025 18:24

Chrysanthemum5 · 17/07/2025 17:38

I thought Upton had agreed to his phone being checked so there was no need for the tribunal to order it

That is correct. If we don't hear anything about it, that is likely to be because it has been examined and didn't add anything to what we already know.

FayeRC · 17/07/2025 18:25

I have a similar court case in England's side which aims to protect single-sex facilities for women. It is in need of support to cover legal fees and can be found by searching for Faye Russell-Caldicott on crowdjustice.com

anyolddinosaur · 17/07/2025 18:25

So Dr Pitt's husband is Timothy Pitt, session clerk at St Stephen’s Comely Bank Church in Edinburgh. One of Dr Upton's parents holds some sort of church position? Chances that they know each other?

ThatCyanCat · 17/07/2025 18:25

prh47bridge · 17/07/2025 18:24

That is correct. If we don't hear anything about it, that is likely to be because it has been examined and didn't add anything to what we already know.

Is it not necessary to declare that in proceedings? Does neither side want to use it as evidence for something? Surely they both have a right to see all evidence and be able to respond to it?

BeLemonNow · 17/07/2025 18:34

@MyAmpleSheep The flaw in the gotcha, which I know you don't agree with but this might be helpful sometime, is you don't have to know if something meets the scientific definition of that concept to be in that concept.

For example, I know that I have a glass of water on my table because it's clear, transparent and I got it out the tap. I know that water isn't defined like that scientifically, it's H20. But I don't have to run it through a mass spectrometer to know it's water.

In most contexts, I also don't have to rule out that my liquid isn't actually vodka despite not being able to tell the difference on sight. Unless there's some reason to think it might be, for example I pick it up off a random bar table or my friend enjoys practical jokes.

So no I don't have to to have my DNA tested to know if I'm a woman or not. From that approach you end up with a lot of ludicrous issues.

gruebleen · 17/07/2025 18:34

ThatCyanCat · 17/07/2025 18:25

Is it not necessary to declare that in proceedings? Does neither side want to use it as evidence for something? Surely they both have a right to see all evidence and be able to respond to it?

There will have been plenty of emails and documents which the legal teams have looked at but which don't make it into evidence because they're not relevant or useful. Evidence from his phone is just the same.

MyAmpleSheep · 17/07/2025 18:37

@BeLemonNow That's right. My feelings about my sex have a rational basis and are correct. DU's feelings about his have no rational basis and are incorrect in law.

The position in law as I understand it is that sex is determined by a combination of three things: chromosomes, the presence or absence of testicles or ovaries, and external genitalia as seen at birth. If there isn't congruence between those three things as they exist at birth and later there is doubt a correct decision was made then a court can hear evidence and determine. Social factors or state of mind are not to be taken into account.

Unless IB has a genuine reason to suspect that her chromosomes or internal organs don't match her external genitalia she has no reasonable excuse to say she isn't sure what sex she is.

I actually think it's a mistake to try to look for a single determining factor about a person's sex. The courts said there were three; we should accept that. There actually isn't one determining factor, and the more insistent we are that there is, the easier it becomes for others to point out a miniscule number of cases where that one single factor is confounded, as some kind of gotcha.

prh47bridge · 17/07/2025 18:38

Justabaker · 17/07/2025 18:14

I'm not sure that's accurate but I can't say more than that.

From the case management order of 18th March:

"The respondents replied to the same on 21 February 2025, consenting to the inspection in general terms and proposing amendments to the arrangements. Further commentary was provided by the respondents on 28 February 2025."

and

"The respondents appear content to agree to co-operate with the request made, and in those circumstances, and having regard to the terms of the overriding objective in relation to the duty of co-operation with which the two sets of agents will be very familiar, the parties should simply agree matters between them and have the instructions confirmed to the skilled witness proposed. Any report produced can then be tendered in evidence..."

The decision was that the tribunal did not believe it had the powers to order the forensic inspection of Upton's phone but, even if it did, it would not make such an order because there was no need - the respondents had agreed to the inspection. It may be that things have changed since then, but that is very clearly what the order says.

JamesWebbSpaceTelescope · 17/07/2025 18:38

When did Sandi get to put her point of view across - was she able to say anything before the suspension at all?

SternJoyousBee · 17/07/2025 18:41

gruebleen · 17/07/2025 18:34

There will have been plenty of emails and documents which the legal teams have looked at but which don't make it into evidence because they're not relevant or useful. Evidence from his phone is just the same.

I think in this case, the lack of a document existing may be seen as relevant. Fife and Upton’s have both failed to comply with disclosure obligations and the paperwork that has been disclosed appears to have missing pieces. I think the hope is that the phone will show if docs have been deleted or in some cases just not disclosed (such as advice from BMA).

prh47bridge · 17/07/2025 18:42

ThatCyanCat · 17/07/2025 18:25

Is it not necessary to declare that in proceedings? Does neither side want to use it as evidence for something? Surely they both have a right to see all evidence and be able to respond to it?

Assuming the inspection took place, both sides will have seen the report. If either side wants to use it, they can. If neither side brings up the finding of the inspection, either it didn't take place for some reason or neither side saw anything they wanted to introduce as evidence.

rebmacesrevda · 17/07/2025 18:45

SternJoyousBee · 17/07/2025 18:41

I think in this case, the lack of a document existing may be seen as relevant. Fife and Upton’s have both failed to comply with disclosure obligations and the paperwork that has been disclosed appears to have missing pieces. I think the hope is that the phone will show if docs have been deleted or in some cases just not disclosed (such as advice from BMA).

I get the impression they think the lack of a paper trail works in their favour, and they can just give their word as evidence instead. But the lack of paperwork is actually really damning, even if they had done the process properly.

KTheGrey · 17/07/2025 18:48

Datun · 17/07/2025 16:23

To me, Upton asking if he should change his statement to people who would have no idea whether it was accurate or not, was tactical.

He was lording it, making out that all these people were either in a position to corroborate what he said, or blindly agree with his version.

Him asking shall I change it, and not getting the response how the hell should we know, we weren't there, was them being complicit. At least in his eyes. And mine too, to be honest.

He's just trying to lock them in.

Meanwhile, Sandie is told to shut the fuck up or else.

To me, the imbalance is so wrong, so bloody Medieval, I can't understand why it's not criminal.

Edited

I think it should undermine his credibility, if he was asking whether he should change it. A report of an incident is not supposed to be team written by a bunch of people who were not there. It is not supposed to be made up.

RedNine · 17/07/2025 18:48

Thank you for the new thread. Much appreciated, as always.

DeanElderberry · 17/07/2025 18:53

anyolddinosaur · 17/07/2025 18:25

So Dr Pitt's husband is Timothy Pitt, session clerk at St Stephen’s Comely Bank Church in Edinburgh. One of Dr Upton's parents holds some sort of church position? Chances that they know each other?

Different denominations. They might know each other through some inter-faith activity but it isn't a given.

GrooveArmada · 17/07/2025 18:54

Is there nobody within NHS Fife able to take a step back and settle this case? It should not have continued after the SC judgement. It should have never come to this in the first place.

I read yesterday they spent over £220k in legal costs, and that's without an inevitable financial award to SP. How are public funds being spent on a public healthboard fighting a hopeless ET case against their excellent employee, a case in which they are on the wrong side of the law and will never succeed?

Are they are out of their minds? Out of control? How is this appropriate use of public funds? They should be audited, pronto.

MyAmpleSheep · 17/07/2025 18:57

GrooveArmada · 17/07/2025 18:54

Is there nobody within NHS Fife able to take a step back and settle this case? It should not have continued after the SC judgement. It should have never come to this in the first place.

I read yesterday they spent over £220k in legal costs, and that's without an inevitable financial award to SP. How are public funds being spent on a public healthboard fighting a hopeless ET case against their excellent employee, a case in which they are on the wrong side of the law and will never succeed?

Are they are out of their minds? Out of control? How is this appropriate use of public funds? They should be audited, pronto.

Edited

Do you mean settle? Or concede? To settle, both Fife and DU would have to offer, and SP would have to accept an outcome less than she is claiming.

Which leads me to ask - do we know what the value of the actual claim is?

Catiette · 17/07/2025 18:57

I'm posting from page 1, so know this'll disrupt the discussion - sorry - but needed to get this off my chest ever since seeing that BBC article (pasted again below). It's extraordinary how overt their bias is.

I remember another report on a tribunal (ERCC?) in which they did similar - selected a single quotation from a brief and unconvincing attack on the complainant (convincingly demolished seconds later in any case) from hour upon hour of damning evidence in their favour.

Besides the bias, it also, frankly, misrepresents the entire day's events. Sandie's manner in the changing room hasn't been the focus - it's simply not the accurate, good faith summary they owe their readers. I'd say today was about institutional incompetence, or bias. And given thyt they could communicate the incompetence perfectly well without even getting into the sex/gender debate, how telling it is that they still choose to go with the Peggie-as-villain line.

Last year, I had a small victory with the BBC - emailed them about an article misrepresenting trans-related issues, and received a partial concession in the form of a change to the original. But even the nature of that concession belied their bias.

And I know that sounds vague, but it's deliberately so, because I submit complaints / write emails etc. under my own name, and such is their capture of that it takes some courage to do that, and I take steps to avoid being tracked or targeted in other fora as a result.

How can we have reached this point?

And why? Whywhywhywhywhy do these people indulge such absurd bias when it's becoming increasingly obvious that their approach is decreasing support for the community they profess to protect, and damaging trust in our national institutions (NHS, BBC, government...)?

Sorry again for the interruption. I'll never be able to join in the live discussion on these threads - they just move too quickly for me.

(Also - to save too many more rude interruptions, I'll just put here: thank you to all the tweet-pasters, but especially Bev for the commentary! don't know if I loved the Fife translations or the glimmering anvils more...)

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xz2wwwwo

A woman with blond hair and wearing a blue suit, walking outside. Other people - out of focus - are in the background

Nurse confronted trans doctor in 'unacceptable' manner, tribunal hears

An NHS manager has said said Sandie Peggie should have raised concerns about sharing facilities in a different way.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xz2wwwwo

Watchingfromadistance · 17/07/2025 18:59

GreenFriedTomato · 17/07/2025 16:22

Tomorrow's witnesses are Dr. Pitt and Louise Curran

I'm a few hours / pages behind, so it might have been covered... I thought it was Dr Kate Searle mentioned as a witness for tomorrow.

Bannedontherun · 17/07/2025 19:00

NebulousSupportPostcard · 17/07/2025 17:31

Was she one of the people involved when Dr U put his big girl pants on but ran around the department in distress again on the next day back after the Christmas BHs?

Here she is on Twitter, that must have put a downer on reading her husband's new book on Christianity. https://x.com/elspeth_pitt/status/1740331399599530289

So Elspeth is a bloke, explains the judges faltering over pronouns. LOL

Interesting that DU hunted him down to sob and cry to in a girly sort of way.

As regards the good doctors phone data i have a sneaky feeling that the claimants team were after this for two possibly three purposes,

One as a defence to the kangaroo disciplinary investigation

Two as evidence to the tribunal of the good doctors pants being on fire, in submissions

Three to pursue a complaint to the GMC after the hearing.

i mean why not, i would be very very vengeful if i were Sandie or as a matter of fact someone who saw her through this.

I amazed how she has stayed upright.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/07/2025 19:04

Bannedontherun · 17/07/2025 19:00

So Elspeth is a bloke, explains the judges faltering over pronouns. LOL

Interesting that DU hunted him down to sob and cry to in a girly sort of way.

As regards the good doctors phone data i have a sneaky feeling that the claimants team were after this for two possibly three purposes,

One as a defence to the kangaroo disciplinary investigation

Two as evidence to the tribunal of the good doctors pants being on fire, in submissions

Three to pursue a complaint to the GMC after the hearing.

i mean why not, i would be very very vengeful if i were Sandie or as a matter of fact someone who saw her through this.

I amazed how she has stayed upright.

No - that photo is her husband. You might want to get that post withdrawn as she's about to be a witness in the case?

SternJoyousBee · 17/07/2025 19:04

rebmacesrevda · 17/07/2025 18:45

I get the impression they think the lack of a paper trail works in their favour, and they can just give their word as evidence instead. But the lack of paperwork is actually really damning, even if they had done the process properly.

I think that the lack of paperwork, lack of recall and lack of any balancing of rights could very well be painting an accurate picture of the situation to the panel.

BettyBooper · 17/07/2025 19:05

Bannedontherun · 17/07/2025 19:00

So Elspeth is a bloke, explains the judges faltering over pronouns. LOL

Interesting that DU hunted him down to sob and cry to in a girly sort of way.

As regards the good doctors phone data i have a sneaky feeling that the claimants team were after this for two possibly three purposes,

One as a defence to the kangaroo disciplinary investigation

Two as evidence to the tribunal of the good doctors pants being on fire, in submissions

Three to pursue a complaint to the GMC after the hearing.

i mean why not, i would be very very vengeful if i were Sandie or as a matter of fact someone who saw her through this.

I amazed how she has stayed upright.

I think the pic is of her husband?

Bannedontherun · 17/07/2025 19:05

Oops my mistake

AtoC · 17/07/2025 19:06

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but there is a person who goes by the handle of boswelltoday on Twitter (now X).

He has done absolutely fantastic summaries of each morning and afternoon. If you don't have the time to read the entirety of Tribunal Tweets then this is a good alternative.

This is from this morning:

Day 2 | AM Session | Peggie Sandie v NHS Fife & Dr Upton

“I Don’t Recall”: Nursing Director’s Forgetfulness Undermines NHS Fife’s Case

By the end of the morning, one thing was clear: Gillian Malone, Director of Nursing at NHS Fife, is paid to manage a system she barely understands—and is seemingly unwilling to defend.

Malone testified today in the Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr Upton tribunal, and what emerged was not leadership but evasion. Asked basic questions about her oversight responsibilities during a high-stakes disciplinary process, Malone repeatedly floundered. “I can’t recall,” she said. “That’s not my recollection.” “It was ED’s decision.”

Time and again, she passed the buck to Esther Davidson—a subordinate who had only just started in her managerial role at the time of the events in question. Asked whether Davidson had completed a proper risk assessment before suspending a long-serving nurse, Malone admitted she didn’t know. Asked whether she had read the incident report—the Datix—that triggered the investigation, Malone shrugged: she’d been “off duty” over the holidays.

That incident, occurring on Christmas Eve, was the alleged confrontation between Sandy Peggie and Dr Beth Upton in a female changing room. It was the foundation for Peggie’s suspension. And yet Malone, the senior nurse with theoretical oversight of the process, appeared stunningly detached from the facts. She hadn’t reviewed the underlying risk assessments. She couldn’t say whether Davidson had sufficient experience. She couldn’t remember whether other incidents had even occurred.

The contradictions were glaring. Under questioning by Naomi Cunningham KC, Malone insisted that Peggie’s suspension was not based on a single interaction. But when pressed, she conceded that the entire episode circled around “the allegation”—singular—referring to the Christmas Eve changing room event. No corroborating evidence of patient harm. No pattern of misconduct. Just one incident, vague and unproven, inflated into a justification for disciplinary action.

More disturbing still were Malone’s views on what constitutes “discrimination.” Asked if it would be discriminatory for a nurse to question a male colleague’s use of the female changing room—even without aggression—Malone answered, unequivocally, “Yes.” It had been “addressed,” she said. The man—Dr Upton—had declared himself a woman. That, in Malone’s view, ended the discussion. Any woman who raised a concern was the problem.

Malone acknowledged that she had recommended “trans awareness training,” and admitted that NHS Fife had taken advice affirming that Upton was entitled to use the women’s facilities. Yet nowhere in her testimony did she address what rights Peggie might have had—or how her privacy, safety, or beliefs were factored into the decision.

Under cross-examination, Malone appeared not just evasive but deeply unprepared. She relied on vague claims of “risk” without ever pointing to documented assessments. She misremembered timelines, conflated incident types, and ultimately revealed a culture where managerial decisions were made by assumption, not evidence.

What emerged was not just a lack of rigour but a disregard for fairness. NHS Fife appeared to operate a one-way system: gender identity claims were accepted at face value, without scrutiny, while any objections—no matter how respectfully stated—were treated as disciplinary offenses.

Gillian Malone didn’t just fail to lead. She failed to explain, failed to remember, and failed to justify an institutional response that left a woman suspended, unsupported, and accused - without clear cause.

This wasn’t due diligence. It was bureaucratic abdication, wrapped in DEI language and executed by managers too uncertain to question policy - or even read their own reports. The tribunal continues. But after this testimony, the rot inside NHS Fife’s leadership is no longer in doubt.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1945823218956140578
.

And this was his tweet about the afternoon session today:

Day 2 | PM Session | Peggie Sandie v NHS Fife & Dr Upton* *

Confidentiality Collapsed, Safeguarding Side-Stepped: NHS Fife’s Leadership in Disarray

By the end of the afternoon, the tribunal had laid bare a pattern of procedural collapse, managerial confusion, and ideological rigidity. Gillian Malone, Director of Nursing at NHS Fife, returned to the stand- but this time, the focus was sharper. Under questioning from Naomi Cunningham KC and the tribunal panel itself, Malone’s role in the suspension of Sandy Peggie became both clearer and more troubling.

Confidentiality, supposedly a pillar of the disciplinary process, had not just eroded - it was weaponised. Documents showed that SP was not explicitly warned to keep quiet until months after her suspension. Meanwhile, senior NHS staff - including investigators and potential witnesses - were openly emailing one another, sharing statements, and circulating details about the case. Consultants were briefed on SP’s version of events before an investigation had even begun.

Malone could not explain it. She agreed that this was not how it should have been handled. But once again, she claimed detachment from responsibility: the decisions weren’t hers. She hadn’t seen key documents until the tribunal bundle. She didn’t recall appointing investigators. She didn’t know why months passed between telling AG to investigate and the process actually starting.

Yet the fallout from these decisions was undeniable. SP had told managers she felt isolated - colleagues had been told not to speak to her. The environment had become, in her words, humiliating and intimidating. But Malone, when pressed, downgraded the situation to merely “awkward.”

It wasn’t just the process that had failed. It was the principle. SP had raised a concern about a male colleague - Dr Beth Upton - using the female-only changing room. Rather than accommodate her rights, NHS Fife tried to silence her. An internal email from Lottie Miles showed that managers sought to prevent SP from referring to Upton as “he” or “man”—language entirely in line with her protected belief that sex is real and relevant. Malone insisted this wasn’t an attempt to suppress GC views, but the effect was unmistakable: SP was gagged, while Upton was shielded.

The panel drilled down into the authority structure. If Malone wasn’t responsible, who was? She admitted her job included governance, complaints, and adverse events - yet she’d left the core of the investigation to a junior colleague, Esther Davidson, who had only just taken on her post. Even then, there was no documentation, no clarity on timelines, no evidence of proper risk assessments before the decision to suspend.

In a moment of rhetorical clarity, Cunningham posed a hypothetical: if a male employee walked in on a woman changing, that would be sexual harassment. If he installed a camera, unquestionably so. But what if he said, “I’m a woman now” - would that change the reality of the intrusion? Even Malone agreed: it shouldn’t. And yet that is precisely what NHS Fife allowed. Because DU said he was a woman, female staff were told to accommodate him - or face sanction.

Asked whether DU’s behaviour on Christmas Eve constituted sexual harassment, Malone’s answer was damning: “No. It was SP who behaved unprofessionally.”

It was a chilling inversion. The woman who raised a safeguarding concern became the problem. The man whose presence triggered discomfort became the protected party. The institution wrapped it all in DEI compliance and left fairness behind.

Today’s testimony didn’t just expose administrative error. It revealed an NHS leadership culture where policy replaces judgment, where belief in biological sex is suspect, and where women who speak up face censure - not support.

The tribunal continues. But after this, the question is not whether NHS Fife followed process. It’s whether the process itself is fit for women at all.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1945871814737191176
.

His summaries of Day One, with Isla Bumba, are also on Twitter.

I've found his summaries very useful indeed.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1945823218956140578

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.