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

She said there were others who agreed with her but nobody - understandably, given what happens - wanted to stick their head above the parapet.

@Lins77 I think it's very instructive the way that senior staff (consultants) behaved around DU and his "trauma", in a way that you can guarantee they wouldn't if a woman had been equivalently traumatised. Hospital medicine is pretty brutalising stuff, and if he'd been a woman I think that that treatment would have been regarded as pandering to emotion.

Also, we keep saying witnesses are either Claimant or Respondent witnesses - but there are two respondents. So I wonder whether some of the respondent ones were picked by DU rather than NHSFife, and if so, which ones. Elspeth Pitt seems like quite a likely candidate as her evidence was almost exclusively about his trauma.

That is not true.

"Do I need a TV Licence to watch Youtube?
If you are watching a TV programme live on YouTube, you need to be covered by a TV Licence.

A licence is not required to view user generated content, clips and videos on YouTube. This includes live streamed content that is not part of a television broadcast. Or being broadcast at the same time by other means."

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

@TotallyGripped - isn't that matching bra & pants comment from a TW so typical and telling. I don't even own matching bras & pants.

Why do these speakers always make it about their underwear?

And why mention it in a meeting? 🙄

Very late to the party - there is no way that I can keep up with these threads - but that is so interesting, @GenderlessVoid

And as PP have said, Sandie Peggie clearly has a core of steel - but she should ntot have to be going through this.

@Rightsraptor Is that a genuine question? If so, I'll give you a clue, it starts with F and ends with etish.

Re Examining phones.
I worked for a while for a company that made automatic info extraction from phones for police forces that meant a 'normal' PC (who had been trained) could extract info without the costly forensic labs being involved. Useful for low level issues.
It was pretty clever but they had to test everything on a ridiculous number of phones, plus for some reason they let every police force have their own bespoke version which I thought was crazy).

It's his being afraid that gets me. A 6 foot odd person with male physical advantage (whether he likes to admit that or not) in his 20s is afraid because of the words of a woman 10 inches shorter and twice his age. A woman who is no doubt expected to treat gobby drunk blokes without her fear getting in the way of her job. Actual woman with actual grounds to be afraid have to suck it up. I bet noone holds their hands and walks them to the car if the are threatened by a patient let alone if the patient calls them hurty names.

Yes

I should imagine McLeod is a common name in Scotland but didn't someone say upthread that McLeod was a family name of Isla's?

Is it likely BU has agreed for a general fishing expedition on his phone? I am inclined to guess that it's more like "those specific notes in evidence, what are the last modification dates on them?" and not be too excited about it.

SP has said she didn't recall Bryson's name or know what he was in prison for - she just knew there was a recent case about men in women's prisons. I think DU has now agreed she didn't mention Bryson or rape.

You've got an Isla McLeod and an Iain MacLeod there.... They are not the same name.
Please don't go mixing up your Mcs and Macs, whatever you do! 😅

Interesting. I could imagine a likeness between the photos above..

edited to say, posted too soon and mixed up MCs and Macs. Sorry!

@BeLemonNow
I don't have sufficient evidence from what I've seen and read that complaint was vindictive or made up.
Do read his evidence on TT if you get the chance - his actual complaint doesn't actually amount to anything most people would regard as clinical negligence.

It may not be made up, but it does seem very little for the PTB to pin a disciplinary on. That may not be his fault, of course.

From the testimony I remember reading it was a general mailing list for consultants and which most likely numbered 26 but nobody was sure…natch

I don't think there's much point speculating about hypothetical nepotism, when there's no evidence other than two similar (common) surnames.

"could not recall"

Like everything else!

Which part of the legislation backs up your assertion? You're not saying more because you know you're wrong but don't want to admit it.

It doesn't say "any live content", it says "television programme service", which does not mean Youtube (unless it's e.g. a news channel's Youtube account broadcasting live).

"(1) Subject to paragraph (2), in Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise)—
(a) any television programme service, or
(b) an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC"

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/part/3

One thing's for sure, you wouldn't bother bringing in a techie expert in phones if there wasn't a good reason.

If the only texts were 'I'm on the train'.

Yes, there's a fair amount of nepotism in the NHS, but unless someone knows something definite, it seems a bit of a pointless rabbit hole.

For these vibey DEI jobs, it's not uncommon to see them go to inexperienced youngsters who can talk a good game in interviews. Nepotism isn't a necessary explanation.

I think also more was said about other people earlier in the first hearing.

There was some suggestion that other people had been noted by DU to be avoiding being alone with them. He noted another person AND SP to wait outside until he's finished using it for eg.

So I think was some valid interest in his may other people he was keeping notes on and what the difference between them and sp might have been for him taking it forward with her and not the others.

He definitely talked about his phone notes as if jotting down your thoughts on others' behaviour at work was a normal, run of the mill, sort of thing to do and keeping a record of those notes on your phone was entirely mainstream. So it would be interesting to know if these notes did feature a wide cast of colleagues (weird for all sorts of reasons but at least fair to all) or just SP (weird and verging on obsessional or looking for trouble half way at all times). Either way, weird.

In the spirit of fairness (although I can't be persuaded he's not weird) it is not beyond the bounds of possibilities that if you had concerns re a colleagues behaviour towards you you may be encouraged to document that. I would strongly suggest that documentation should be recorded in some structured work capacity and not on a personal phone.