Page 22 | NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #32

nauticant · 2025-07-18T20:09:59+00:00

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 EmploymentTribunalEnquiriesScotland@justice.gov.uk by 5pm on Wednesday 9 July. Detailed instructions were provided here: [[https://www.drive.google.com/file/d/16-9POEZ7yHWUr6EmbfquJZO18Gv78bSm/view drive.google.com/file/d/16-9POEZ7yHWUr6EmbfquJZO18Gv78bSm/view]] The hearing is being live tweeted by [[https://x.com/tribunaltweets x.com/tribunaltweets]] and there's additional information here: [[https://www.tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 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: [[https://www.archive.ph/WSSjg archive.ph/WSSjg]]. An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: [[https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets nitter.net/tribunaltweets]] or [[https://www.nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets]] Links to previous threads #1 to #29 can be found in the header of thread #30. Thread 30: [[https://www.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 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: [[https://www.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 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]]

nebulousMoose · 19/07/2025 12:51

NebulousDog · 19/07/2025 12:00

I think the rot set in once people were encouraged to take their whole authentic selves to work, instead of changing into their "work persona" when they walk into the building.

I've seen this mentioned before, the idea that "taking your whole self to work" is a stupid idea.

Thing is, why would anybody pay any attention to the saying?

If you have worked hard to achieve the professional and skilled status that you have in your work, why would you suddenly undermine that by allowing all your insecurities, family arguments, wicked uncles etc into your work life?

I prefer the phrase used in professional theatre - "Doctor Theatre". It means that when you enter the rehearsal room, you leave all your troubles outside the door. You give your whole attention to your work, and are completely cured of everything while you are working. it particularly applies to people working in theatre because of the concentration needed to respond to the immediate situation, using your whole body and mind that need to be free of any nonsense you might have outside that space, and to work as part of an ensemble.

Also applies in many other areas of work. A bit more awkward to apply the heading "doctor theatre" in the NHS, but the principal remains the same.

Jaws2025 · 19/07/2025 12:51

Cailin66 · 19/07/2025 12:13

Is there anywhere with an actual time line of everything. I'd like to know when Upton added in the clinic complaints against her versus when she was suspended etc.

Show quote history

You and the court too.

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 19/07/2025 12:52

Needspaceforlego · 19/07/2025 12:48

The Midwife who caught my baby in a WTF moment as soon as things calmed down and baby was safely in my arms, announced "I'm going to get changed, I've not even got gloves on"

That sort of thing must happen all the time in A&E.

Show quote history

Especially at midnight on Christmas Eve. I imagine that type of shift is bodily fluids agogo.

prh47bridge · 19/07/2025 12:53

KnottyAuty · 19/07/2025 12:24

I think colleagues reported she admired Trump?
Also her family confirmed this on social media.
But it’s hardly damning evidence of anything is it? She could be the biggest MAGA fan ever and it’s totally irrelevant

Show quote history

Agree it isn't relevant. Even introducing it shows that Fife wants to punish her for wrongthink.

Needspaceforlego · 19/07/2025 12:59

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 19/07/2025 12:52

Especially at midnight on Christmas Eve. I imagine that type of shift is bodily fluids agogo.

Show quote history

Yes exactly.
It just adds to how me, me, me he is not to think there could be other reasons for people to get changed mid shift.

Haulage · 19/07/2025 13:01

GenderlessVoid · 19/07/2025 11:55

@SionnachRuadh Many years ago I was involved in a long and frustrating correspondence with the Guardian, who were being dishonest about an area I had specialist knowledge of, and that whole thing soured me on trusting journos with credentials. Journos without credentials can be valuable even if they're rough around the edges.

Realizing that a story is inaccurate when it deals with an area that we know well is common. There is a related cognitive bias that I think is interesting (and I still do it even though I know about it). I.e., when I read a story that deals with something I know a lot about, I'll recognize that it's bollocks. But I still give at least some credibility to stories that deal with other subjects.

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case [Murray Gell-Manna Nobel Prize-winning physicist], physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
— Michael Crichton, "Why Speculate?" (2002)

Edited

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all

Indeed.

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

RedToothBrush · 19/07/2025 13:01

Currently second story on the Daily Mail.

Vegemiteandhoneyontoast · 19/07/2025 13:02

nebulousMoose · 19/07/2025 12:51

I've seen this mentioned before, the idea that "taking your whole self to work" is a stupid idea.

Thing is, why would anybody pay any attention to the saying?

If you have worked hard to achieve the professional and skilled status that you have in your work, why would you suddenly undermine that by allowing all your insecurities, family arguments, wicked uncles etc into your work life?

I prefer the phrase used in professional theatre - "Doctor Theatre". It means that when you enter the rehearsal room, you leave all your troubles outside the door. You give your whole attention to your work, and are completely cured of everything while you are working. it particularly applies to people working in theatre because of the concentration needed to respond to the immediate situation, using your whole body and mind that need to be free of any nonsense you might have outside that space, and to work as part of an ensemble.

Also applies in many other areas of work. A bit more awkward to apply the heading "doctor theatre" in the NHS, but the principal remains the same.

Show quote history

I've always known it as 'Doctor Footlights'. Same thing, though. When I was in teaching, however I felt, I as I walked into the classroom I'd put on my 'teaching hat' and turn into someone else.

ThatCyanCat · 19/07/2025 13:02

prh47bridge · 19/07/2025 12:53

Agree it isn't relevant. Even introducing it shows that Fife wants to punish her for wrongthink.

Show quote history

I thought it was interesting that not only did that appear to imply that they thought she didn't have normal workplace rights because of her political views but they also seemed to think it would influence the tribunal to think the same way.

yourhairiswinterfire · 19/07/2025 13:04

prh47bridge · 19/07/2025 12:53

Agree it isn't relevant. Even introducing it shows that Fife wants to punish her for wrongthink.

Show quote history

Is it possible the judge might take a dim view of the irrelevant mud-slinging in the judgment? Along with the racism accusations there was also the insinuation that she's a homophobe with no evidence offered to justify that line of questioning.

Or would he have intervened at the time if he had a problem with it?

RedToothBrush · 19/07/2025 13:07

yourhairiswinterfire · 19/07/2025 13:04

Is it possible the judge might take a dim view of the irrelevant mud-slinging in the judgment? Along with the racism accusations there was also the insinuation that she's a homophobe with no evidence offered to justify that line of questioning.

Or would he have intervened at the time if he had a problem with it?

Show quote history

But they are giving themselves enough rope to prove the case that Peggie is bringing.

I would have thought since it's crucial to the case the judge can't actually intervene whilst they are showing how they thought about or treated her.

Lins77 · 19/07/2025 13:08

yourhairiswinterfire · 19/07/2025 13:04

Is it possible the judge might take a dim view of the irrelevant mud-slinging in the judgment? Along with the racism accusations there was also the insinuation that she's a homophobe with no evidence offered to justify that line of questioning.

Or would he have intervened at the time if he had a problem with it?

Show quote history

I suppose they think if she can be shown to be racist, homophobic, etc it is easier to suggest her attitude to Dr U is driven by transphobia rather than valid concerns.

As SP's daughter, who she's very close to, is a lesbian, the homophobia at least would seem to be a non-starter.

BezMills · 19/07/2025 13:08

Fife has a lot of great spots. Nice to have a car as the buses/trains aren't great unless you're going to or from the big towns, or nearby the E coast mainline

Butchyrestingface · 19/07/2025 13:11

Am I right in thinking that when Dr Kate Searle fired off her CC missive, nobody had actually yet spoken to CP to get her version of events?

So KS had no idea whether SP was going to confirm/dispute BU's version of events, or even deny wholesale that the exchange had ever taken place?

Needspaceforlego · 19/07/2025 13:13

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 19/07/2025 12:31

I thought it was very telling that Sandie's witnesses were not colleagues, they were family. Sandie appears to have maintained a detached professionalism at work and turned to those outside of her work environment to disclose her upset/distress.

While I don't doubt that her suspension, orders not to speak to anyone, other people's fear of also being branded witch impacted on her within work support to me it also reflects someone who has developed a healthy separation between work and self, her distress isn't her patience problem, a bad shift on which shitty things have happened need to be parked and emotionally dealt with later as the next patient needs your A game.

Dr U seems to be the complete opposite, work is about meeee, it's about how I feel, what I want. I can't help but feel patient number 2 will get care slightly tainted by patient number 1's accidental misgendering because of an inability to set aside an emotional reaction to events. Transness aside anyone without the ability to stop their personal life leaking into their professional one is going to find A&E an impossible place to work. Parents with sick children don't need a Dr who isn't on the ball because their hamster has just died.

Show quote history

Remember she was told to maintain confidentiality at work. So couldn't tell her colleagues.
(Secretly I think the bosses were shitting it that they'd end up with all the nurses backing Sandie, giving them a bit of a headache)

RedToothBrush · 19/07/2025 13:13

Butchyrestingface · 19/07/2025 13:11

Am I right in thinking that when Dr Kate Searle fired off her CC missive, nobody had actually yet spoken to CP to get her version of events?

So KS had no idea whether SP was going to confirm/dispute BU's version of events, or even deny wholesale that the exchange had ever taken place?

It seems so from the text of the email yes.

BettyBooper · 19/07/2025 13:14

From Lucy Hunter Blackman on X

Just to remind everyone, Janey Sutherley was in court in Scotland this year accused of a hate crime (ie aggravated offending) due to her refusal to pretend a man she was imprisoned with was a woman. The SPS were willing to report her. The police were willing to charge and COPFS to prosecute. Like Sandy, she was given no chance to tell her side before the full weight of the process descended. Though found not proven, she lost a chance of earlier release while waiting for trial.

https://x.com/LucyHunterB/status/1946379848357728297

DuchessofReality · 19/07/2025 13:15

GenderlessVoid · 19/07/2025 11:55

@SionnachRuadh Many years ago I was involved in a long and frustrating correspondence with the Guardian, who were being dishonest about an area I had specialist knowledge of, and that whole thing soured me on trusting journos with credentials. Journos without credentials can be valuable even if they're rough around the edges.

Realizing that a story is inaccurate when it deals with an area that we know well is common. There is a related cognitive bias that I think is interesting (and I still do it even though I know about it). I.e., when I read a story that deals with something I know a lot about, I'll recognize that it's bollocks. But I still give at least some credibility to stories that deal with other subjects.

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case [Murray Gell-Manna Nobel Prize-winning physicist], physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
— Michael Crichton, "Why Speculate?" (2002)

Edited

So this is very interesting because (rather proving the point) the legal doctrine quoted by Michael Crichton is very much NOT one that UK courts would follow. UK judges would be much more familiar with the opposite doctrine, often expressed in the form of a 'Lucas direction' which is used to remind juries (and judges) that lying may be done for a number of different reasons, and if someone has lied about one thing it doesn't follow that they lie about everything.

RedToothBrush · 19/07/2025 13:16

Needspaceforlego · 19/07/2025 13:13

Remember she was told to maintain confidentiality at work. So couldn't tell her colleagues.
(Secretly I think the bosses were shitting it that they'd end up with all the nurses backing Sandie, giving them a bit of a headache)

Show quote history

Meanwhile Kate had told 20 people in the department before even speaking to Peggie.

yourhairiswinterfire · 19/07/2025 13:17

RedToothBrush · 19/07/2025 13:07

But they are giving themselves enough rope to prove the case that Peggie is bringing.

I would have thought since it's crucial to the case the judge can't actually intervene whilst they are showing how they thought about or treated her.

Show quote history

That makes sense, thank you!

AlexandraLeaving · 19/07/2025 13:18

BezMills · 19/07/2025 12:11

In my dreams I'd be played by John Hannah like when he did Rebus.

In reality probably Ken Stott, like when he did Rebus.

Show quote history

Ahhh John Hannah <<<sigh>>>
He def needs to be in the TV drama. And why should he NOT play you @BezMills ?

Delphigirl · 19/07/2025 13:19

Llamasarellovely · 19/07/2025 07:07

Fife could offer no more evidence and simply submit to judgment. Happens all the time.

Show quote history

But Fife would need sep representation as that would undoubtedly cause a conflict between them and Upton such that their legal team could not continue acting for both.
But I agree that is certainly an option available to it. However if Upton is going to continue and cause a judgment to be given Fife probably want their opportunity to make closing subs to try and limit the damage.

RedToothBrush · 19/07/2025 13:20

Delphigirl · 19/07/2025 13:19

But Fife would need sep representation as that would undoubtedly cause a conflict between them and Upton such that their legal team could not continue acting for both.
But I agree that is certainly an option available to it. However if Upton is going to continue and cause a judgment to be given Fife probably want their opportunity to make closing subs to try and limit the damage.

Show quote history

If Fife were remotely serious about damage limitation they wouldn't have issued a bonkers statement yesterday...

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 19/07/2025 13:22

RedToothBrush · 19/07/2025 13:16

Meanwhile Kate had told 20 people in the department before even speaking to Peggie.

Show quote history

Dr U had finished for the night but still managed to sob conspicuously to a supervisor. SP got on with the next 8 or so hours working and we have seen no suggestion that it in anyway affected her performance that night. She didn't dash off to find a senior nursing colleague, she cracked on. The insistence on her silence came later but even without it Sandie seems to have put her work ahead of her feelings.

Butchyrestingface · 19/07/2025 13:23

RedToothBrush · 19/07/2025 13:13

It seems so from the text of the email yes.

Show quote history

So conceivably SP could not just have denied it, but even responded with

"No, that didn't happen at all. What actually happened is that BU assaulted me in the changing rooms and I'm about to report it to Police Scotland. They're clearly concocting a story to cover their tracks."

Obviously that DIDN'T happen and SP didn't claim that it did. But it was one possible outcome from any conversation, had it taken place before KS got busy. The fallout from a round-robin email to consultants in such circumstances would have been 🤯

To me, IB sounds mostly incompetent and over-promoted. But KS sounds actively terrible and should be sacked.