NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #32

[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 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.

Thread 30: 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
Thread 31: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5375819-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-31

I’ve reported your post and begged for the return of the laugh reaction. Awesome. 🙌🏻

Hod the bus!

Surely thats tieing him in a knot.
He claims something happened (that has no evidence)
Reports it ages later. (Cause its made up shite)

So hes in the shit for reporting it late.
How's he going to talk his way out of it?
Because its clear that he made it up maliciously.

I doubt it. They may have allowed him to use the female changing room, but they certainly didn't force him to do so.

And it’s this that blames Peggie and team for the threats, imo. It’s your Fault everyone is watching. It’s your fault ignorant people who just don’t understand this sensitive and complicated area are getting opinions about it. It’s your fault they hate us!

Thats exactly where the evidence seemed to be going in Part 1 and why NC requested the phone. Different erosions of DU’s witness statement were obtained via meta-data. The timings don’t look good. Of course malicious intent not yet proved but there’s certainly enough smoke for NC to be on the case with that

I think this is shaping up into a Mr Bates Against the Post Office situation. I see a TV drama-doc on the horizon, plus a book.

And if the details circulating on X are true, it looks as though he went out of his way to use a much less convenient changing space, albeit one used by nurses, designated for female staff and with very little by way of individual privacy (a locker room with just one cubicle for the toilet, apparently).

iirc, there are 3 interesting emails from KS in the updated bundle. One to the consultants, one to Upton expressing LC’s support for him (denied by LC), and one to Upton and Pitt.

The issues shouldn't keep arising, but they may well do so. The effect of the SC judgement is to clarify, for example, that the workplace regulations mean what they say. If an employer fails to comply with those regulations, they can be sued by employees and/or the local council's Health & Safety department. The penalty will be exactly the same as if the SC ruling did not exist. However, the employer will not be able to argue that the law means they must allow trans women to use the women's facilities - the SC ruling takes that defence away.

They’re in a twisted spot the pair of them. Uptons losses and costs are being funded by NHS Fife I imagine and anyone with sense would have a funding agreement between parties not to sue.

Also the fact he lied 🤥 - as the misconduct all fell away even after 18 months….. he’d be stupid to try it.

But you’ve seen him believing he’s a biological woman and what Fife can do with a 1800 word press release. So who knows!

Am I the only one now imagining SPs legal team dressed as cardinals ?

( Not the birds. That would bring to mind a dead parrot, and it would be unkind to refer to the Fife witnesses as dead parrots while some of them are still squawking. )

Okay, I've caught up. I need to go to the toilet now, I will be at most 2 minutes.

I do not want to come back and see that I have to read another 300 posts!!!!!

😂

DH and I made a point of watching this clip from The Holy Grail last night. The Black Knight reminds me of NHS Fife (hope I can paste it)

It's definitely got potential.

If you were one of the participants you'd be on the phone to itv trying to line up someone cool to play you...

But you’ve seen him believing he’s a biological woman

I went back to read this and it’s even more nonsensical the second time around (also features Pete in his debut outing)

https://archive.ph/wqNHw

No, but it seems JR is going to try the argument that the SC ruling was just about representation on public bodies and is not applicable to other matters such as single sex changing rooms. I understand that is the line currently being pushed by TRAs, notwithstanding the fact that it is, in my view, clearly contrary to what the Supreme Court said in its judgement. However, it is not impossible that JR could persuade the tribunal that the SC judgement doesn't affect this case.

AI has redone their Outer Temple Cambers photos

Another tell mentioned earlier is 'locker room', rather than 'changing room'. No one has called them changing rooms in the proceedings, and it's slightly awkward - implying a slightly different space than a changing room.

@KnottyAuty - supported some of Trump’s policies

Apologies, I can't remember. Did they actually have evidence that she supported some of Trump's policies? I thought their evidence that she was a Trump supporter was simply that she had stayed at a Trump hotel, taking advantage of a discount offered to NHS staff and promoted by the NHS.

Fantastic news that SP is now also suing the RCN, it is no more than they deserve. It is also hugely important in terms of helping the wider union movement recognise their role in all of this and that they absolutely do have a responsibility to support ALL their members. I've known a few people quite involved in unions and the absolute shite they have defended people for, quite rightly because it is their job, to think that they wouldn't offer support SP on this is just absurd.

No idea what RCN are like now but the time was when they were very regularly recruiting, particularly for policy type roles, which suggested to me that they couldn't keep people.

Who do we think will be hoping for Kristen Scott Thomas ? Tall, willowy, elegant….

In your dreams mate, in your dreams.

That pretty much sums it up.
And there is another 5 days to go, how many more blunders?

At no point did any of them consider Sandies side. Or the fact they could be answering all of this in a court. With 100s watching and thousands more reading the reports.

What is the extent of the BMA's involvement?

My memory is that they provided advice over the Christmas period but this was over the phone so no record exists of what was said.

How does the BMA's involvement align with the developing complaint?

@LarkLaneAgain I used google image search to find a vendor. There may be other vendors. Having had a quick look I didnt find the one you mentioned.

Hmmm, could the pending EHRC guidelines have a role here I wonder? Its interpretation of the SC ruling will be very interesting to see. Although I don't think it will diverge too much from the interim stuff already issued.

I'm also not sure what weight the EHRC guidelines actually have in law. Presumably not much! So challenges could happen I suppose.