Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 #31

1000 replies

nauticant · 18/07/2025 12:49

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

Links to previous threads #1 to #29 can be found in the header of thread #30, found here: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5375337-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-30

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
ickky · 18/07/2025 16:29

This is all of their own making, Obviously threats should be dealt with, but privately. Don't make a public comment, it will just inflame the situation.

BezMills · 18/07/2025 16:29

NC continues, as her ring does its work

From TT

(NC) Para 4 seems to conclude that in the context of this debate that this has evolved into more worrying behaviour that has required the involvement of police Scotland. This statement on day 3 of resumed procedings...It is a matter of some concern that a party to these procedings.....with SP has been linked to behaviours of members of the public. There are factual inaccuracies that will be dealt with on Monday. The short point is that this is unusual conduct. It is irresponsible in the context of what we already know. It is for this reason we bring this to the Tribunals notice and any other steps to be taken?

J - Miss Russell?

(Big Sond looks like someone has shat in his favourite chair and he's just come home to find his office reeking ae shite)

JR - I would also like time to think about it I am still unclear what order is being sought. On this statement - nothing said that isn't true. I don't think there is any defamation. In any event none of it isnt true. A stretch to say that Para 3 is leading to Para 4. That the roles of the people in para 3 are associated to the worrying treatment in para 4. I don't make that connection .because this has taken place in public, I am afraid that threats have been made to them as have been made to me. I don't have the details of what CE is referring to, I had not understood threats made to legal team, there may be things I was not told about. Yes...yes.

Chariothorses · 18/07/2025 16:29

.because this has taken place in public, I am afraid that threats have been made to them as have been made to me. I don't have the details of what CE is referring to, I had not understood threats made to legal team, there may be things I was not told about. Yes...yes..

NebulousSupportPostcard · 18/07/2025 16:30

Noone should be threatened and the police should absolutely be involved as necessary. but this drama all seems to mirror the drama Kate Searle whipped up by acting on impulse - and this is on a massively wider scale.

GCITC · 18/07/2025 16:30

If I were JR I don't think I'd be blaming the Judge for not making the hearing private as a defence.

PestoHoliday · 18/07/2025 16:31

GCITC · 18/07/2025 16:30

If I were JR I don't think I'd be blaming the Judge for not making the hearing private as a defence.

If I were JR I'd be drinking the hemlock by now.

MarieDeGournay · 18/07/2025 16:32

JR I find it ironic is seeking to restrict Fife's speech
😂

Chariothorses · 18/07/2025 16:32

JR:
..there's a referral to a citizen's arrest. But that does not entail a different view. It is important that everyone taking part feels safe. There is nothing in this statement that strikes me. There is nothing that the Tribunal needs to make an order. Doesn't Fife have article 10 rights. I find it ironic is seeking to restrict Fife's speech. In reality there is no basis for that feeling (of feeling unsafe) but I would like to take instructions and think further on it.
J - it will be necessary for us to have a think before making any public comment

rebmacesrevda · 18/07/2025 16:33

NebulousSupportPostcard · 18/07/2025 16:30

Noone should be threatened and the police should absolutely be involved as necessary. but this drama all seems to mirror the drama Kate Searle whipped up by acting on impulse - and this is on a massively wider scale.

There seems to be a theme in NHS Fife of whipping up a frenzy and telling as many folk as possible. They want to get their story in first so everybody takes their side.

BettyBooper · 18/07/2025 16:33

Given KS advised DU to report SP to the police as a hate crime incident, one does have to wonder about NHS Fife's threshold for an issue needing police involvement... 🤔

BeLemonNow · 18/07/2025 16:33

Can't stand the NHS statement. Debate doesn't "evolve" into violence. However many threads we get to, no, violence is abhorrent.

myplace · 18/07/2025 16:33

katmarie · 18/07/2025 15:59

Full Statement

With the employment tribunal now having recommenced, NHS Fife would like to clarify its position on a number of related matters. This is intended to answer some of the questions posed to the health board by members of the press, elected representatives and the public, and provide clarity around some of the misinformation circulating on social media and being reported in the wider media relating to the tribunal case that NHS Fife is having to defend.

NHS Fife has obligations, both as a public sector organisation and as an employer, to maintain the confidentiality of members of its staff, including those directly and indirectly involved in the tribunal. This, coupled with the requirement not to take any actions which could be seen to prejudice the legal proceedings, means that NHS Fife is restricted in what it can and cannot say publicly. NHS Fife remains committed to transparency, however, and will always aim to be open in the information provided directly to the public and to the media and will continue to act in accordance with its legal obligations and public duties.
The legal case brought against NHS Fife began after it commenced an internal investigation following allegations made by a member of its staff. The claimant’s case is being supported by Sex Matters, whose chief executive officer and co-founder was called as a witness by the claimant in the earlier hearing. The claimant’s barrister is also chair of Sex Matters. Other members of the organisation’s ‘advisory group’ have provided commentary to the media on a number of occasions where no reference is made to their direct involvement in the organisation. Sex Matters have been very active, making numerous statements which it would appear are aimed at steering public opinion in a way that NHS Fife as a public body clearly cannot.

While NHS Fife recognises the clear public interest in the tribunal, and of scrutinising NHS Fife’s actions as a public body, it remains important to be mindful of the privacy of all those giving evidence in the case. There has been significant and very polarised debate on social media regarding the case and associated issues, throughout. In some cases, however, what began as debate has evolved into much more worrying behaviour, including a threat of physical harm and sexual violence, which has required the involvement of Police Scotland.

We value the contribution of every member of staff and the diversity that strengthens our teams, services, and care. Our staff are committed professionals, and we are proud of the work delivered across NHS Fife every day. At this critical time, it is essential they remain focused on providing high-quality care and services without being subjected to unacceptable personal attacks and trolling on social media.

Why is NHS Fife continuing the tribunal case? Why not simply drop the action?
NHS Fife did not initiate the ongoing tribunal proceedings and is instead one of two ‘respondents’ being sued. NHS Fife cannot unilaterally stop proceedings - only the claimant can choose to withdraw the case. The claimant has said in a recent statement from her legal representatives that she is determined to continue with her legal claim, as she is entitled to do. NHS Fife respects and recognises the right of employees to pursue legal recourse if they believe wrongdoing has occurred.
The health board is not pursuing any legal action against the claimant - it is instead defending itself, as it is required to do. The legal case concerns a range of different claims and allegations, against NHS Fife and its staff, including in relation to the claimant’s suspension, the investigation, and other matters allegedly said or done.

Is this case not just about a staff member raising concerns about a trans woman using a female changing room?
While the claimant raised concerns about a trans woman’s use of a locker room, this was not the reason that NHS Fife’s internal investigation was initiated. As made clear during tribunal proceedings, the disciplinary process was initiated due to concerns raised about interactions with a colleague and patient care.
The Health Board has a responsibility to fully investigate where concerns are raised about the conduct of any of its employees, in accordance with established policies and procedures. The act of investigating a concern does not assume any wrongdoing.

An internal disciplinary investigation is not of itself punitive in nature and exists to fairly assess concerns raised by establishing facts. At the stage legal action via an employment tribunal was taken by the claimant in this case, NHS Fife had not reached any final conclusions on its internal investigation although, as widely reported, this has since been completed. NHS Fife believes its internal disciplinary process in this matter has been fair and impartial.
A statement regarding the conclusion of the internal investigation and the internal conduct hearing is available on the NHS Fife website here:- Media Statement – NHS Fife Outcome of Internal Conduct Hearing | NHS Fife.
To be clear, the NHS Fife internal disciplinary process (now concluded) is separate and distinct from the ongoing Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal hearing will conclude on 30 July, and the Judgment is expected in the months following that.

How much has defending the employment tribunal case cost NHS Fife?
The cost to NHS Fife of defending the tribunal case is capped at £25,000. NHS Fife participates in the Clinical Negligence and Other Risks Indemnity Scheme (CNORIS), which works in a similar way to an insurance policy by protecting members against financial losses and legal costs pertaining to both clinical and non-clinical claims and settlements.

As of 30 June 2025, £258,831.31 in legal costs have been recorded as expenditure related to the legal services associated with this case. NHS Fife is liable for the first £25,000 of costs associated with defending the case.

Why did NHS Fife not provide the costs of the legal defence sooner?
Earlier this year, NHS Fife was asked to confirm the legal costs associated with the employment tribunal under FOI legislation. At the time these requests were made, NHS Fife believed that it did not hold the figures requested, as the legal fees were managed through the Central Legal Office (CLO) and National Services Scotland (NSS) who administer the CNORIS Indemnity scheme.
The Scottish Information Commissioner was critical of the thoroughness of the search carried out by NHS Fife and instructed the Health Board to “carry out adequate, proportionate searches for the information requested, reach a decision on the basis of those searches” (Decision 133/2025 | Scottish Information Commissioner).
Separately, NHS Fife sought and obtained information from its legal representatives, Central Legal Office, on the cost of legal services.
In the interests of transparency, and on the basis that similar information was being actively sought, NHS Fife made the decision to publish this information on its website with costs up until 31st May 2025, which at the time amounted to £220,465.93.

While it has been widely reported that NHS Fife was told to provide this information by the Scottish Information Commissioner, this is inaccurate. The information commissioner stated in his decision cited above that: “the withheld information the Authority provided to the Commissioner was obtained from CLO after the date it received the Applicants’ requests. This means the Commissioner cannot make a finding on, or require disclosure of, this information in his decision notice.” NHS Fife subsequently made the decision to publish the figures on its website up until 31 May 2025 in the interests of transparency, and on the basis that similar information was being actively sought.

Why did NHS Fife seek a Rule 50 (Privacy) Order at the start of the tribunal proceedings?
NHS Fife has a duty of care to all its staff. For those staff members involved in the tribunal, particular consideration was given to protect their safety, security and wellbeing. We believed that having the tribunal heard in private would mitigate the risks to the safety and wellbeing of all staff members attending or identified during the tribunal proceedings.

Why did NHS Fife seek to restrict Tribunal Tweets, and public access to live proceedings from the tribunal?
Following the end of the earlier tribunal hearings in February 2025, NHS Fife’s legal representatives were contacted by the Employment Tribunal and asked to provide comment on tweets by the Tribunal Tweets account on the X platform after a complaint by a member of the public. The account had originally been granted permission to live-tweet proceedings on the basis their reporting would be ‘fair and accurate’. The Health Board’s legal representatives analysed the tweets and highlighted several inaccuracies to the tribunal.

The tribunal subsequently ruled that Tribunal Tweets would be allowed to continue live reporting of the case; however, did state “It is a matter of concern nevertheless that mistakes were made, including writing a comment not by a witness or participant, but another observer, for example. The Tribunal reserves its position should further matters be brought to its attention, and the conditions for live tweeting provided previously are further breached”.
During the initial phase of proceedings there were also issues and disruption with the livestream due to the significant number of people granted access. To assist the smooth running of proceedings, our legal representatives sought to limit the stream to media as a means of reducing the opportunity for further disruption and interruptions. The livestream was disabled by the tribunal administrators for a time during the February hearing, because of these issues. The tribunal has since confirmed that it will continue to open the livestream to all that can be accommodated, for the July hearing dates, having implemented certain measures in this regard.

The Health Board appreciates that there are deeply entrenched views on both sides of the debate around single-sex spaces and has never sought to stifle fair and reasoned debate on the topic, asking only that any media coverage is respectful, fair, balanced, accurate, and distinguishes fact from opinion.

What changes have NHS Fife made in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman?

NHS Fife acknowledges the Supreme Court’s ruling and other developments in this area. Work is underway across the entirety of the health board's estate (including toilets, changing and locker rooms) to identify areas where any adaptions may be required and schedule any work that may be necessary to improve facilities. We are committed to delivering appropriate and respectful workplace arrangements.
[ENDS]

Sharing for latecomers like me!

ThatCyanCat · 18/07/2025 16:33

J - it will be necessary for us to have a think before making any public comment

Don't tell us, Jane!!

BezMills · 18/07/2025 16:33

From TT

JR's still on it.

JR (continues) ..there's a referral to a citizen's arrest. But that does not entail a different view. It is important that everyone taking part feels safe. There is nothing in this statement that strikes me. There is nothing that the Tribunal needs to make an order. Doesn't Fife have article 10 rights. I find it ironic is seeking to restrict Fife's speech. In reality there is no basis for that feeling (of feeling unsafe) but I would like to take instructions and think further on it.

J - it will be necessary for us to have a think before making any public comment

There's an implicit threat that if anyone puts a foot wrong between now and Monday, he's coming to work in his guid German hiking boots. The ones with all metal segs on the outsole. Arses will be getting kicked.

Harassedevictee · 18/07/2025 16:33

So JR and NC have both received threats. No KC/Barrister should receive threats for doing their job.

I do wonder if Kate Searle has also received threats or if it’s SP.

cigarsmokingwoman · 18/07/2025 16:34

can someone explain what the order is they refer to?

moto748e · 18/07/2025 16:34

prh47bridge · 18/07/2025 16:27

I haven't read it in full. I got a few paragraphs in and was too annoyed to go any further. However, there is no general ban on litigants talking to the press, but this could have consequences for the amount of compensation awarded or possibly costs. And, from the bit I've read, I think there is a possibility that they've left themselves open to being sued for libel.

I thought the same.

DeanElderberry · 18/07/2025 16:34

The Fife Press Release says the hearings are going on until July 30th. I didn't think it was that long.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 18/07/2025 16:34

Could this statement be considered contempt of court?!

BeLemonNow · 18/07/2025 16:35

It's like those blaming JK Rowling for violence against transgender because she speaks up for women. It's completely unreasonable.

And possibly a very good PR move. Will see how the newspapers report it over the weekend.

SternJoyousBee · 18/07/2025 16:35

MarieDeGournay · 18/07/2025 16:20

I did wonder about posting those emails, but posting them didn't involve any threats of violence, which is what NHSF are complaining about.

I am sure those emails (at the very least the first one) were posted on X back in February. I am positive I had read in before this morning. So if the letter is the issue it’s because of the level of engagement it’s got rather than the mere fact that it was posted.

Rightsraptor · 18/07/2025 16:35

Scheduled to end by 26th.

BezMills · 18/07/2025 16:36

From TT

J(Big Sond continues) .

the claimants have the time to articulate an order. We can then consider it. I can say at this stage that nobody should feel intimidated, that is the matter for the criminal court, and Police Scotland. Obviously matters of defamation are not in our jurisdiction after making these general comments we will leave this until Monday. [some discussion about people's availability] Anything else? [nothing]

J we will convene on Monday

The threat of Big Sond's hiking boots was never said, but I think all concerned read his expression well enough.

MarieDeGournay · 18/07/2025 16:36

Judge wraps it up till Monday.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.