NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #35

[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 and tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6. 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
Thread 32: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5376072-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-32
Thread 33: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5376608-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-33
Thread 34: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5377387-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-34

Yes, from
https://archive.is/jezh3#selection-1829.3-1849.138

"Dr Upton ultimately made four complaints about Ms Peggie.
The first was that Ms Peggie was carrying out observations on a patient in the resuscitation area when Dr Upton entered the cubicle. Rather than continue, Ms Peggie allegedly "stopped, exited the cubicle and told Beth Upton to complete the observations herself."
The second concerned an incident on December 18, when a child left the department without being seen. Dr Upton said they asked Ms Peggie for her "advice and assessment from a triage perspective," but the nurse refused to answer and "chose to speak through a colleague."
The third allegation was of misconduct: that Ms Peggie told Dr Upton they "did not have the correct chromosomes to be within a female changing room," and referred to "a recent news story that involved a transgender woman in a female Scottish prison."
The fourth was that she misgendered her colleague by referring to Dr Upton as "he/him, including in discussions with colleagues."
However, the minutes of the investigation suggest that the potentially career-ending patient safety allegations were quickly dismissed.

Dr Upton told investigators their "concerns were more in relation to potential issues that could happen in the future" and that they "did not feel patient safety was compromised for this patient at this time."
Ms Peggie’s managers also said they had no concerns about her practice."

Journals use plagiarism detection software on papers submitted to them. It's common practice to embargo your thesis if you're going to publish based on it, so you don't get a headache from your paper having similarities to your thesis.
Embargoed until 2100 is essentially beyond living memory, so it's either because it names and identifies someone, or it's very recent and connected to the recent interest in her offspring.

It still doesn't make sense that she would be talking about trans identified females though. Given that this was in response to the subject of women having to change in front of men.

My elderly mother is currently in hospital with severe back pain. She has twice told me she doesn't really like having her bottom wiped by a male nurse. I've encouraged her to ask for a female nurse. She seems to feel that it's no longer permitted. That makes me a bit sad.

I am going to post in Tribunal Tweets document storage as pdfs. I will drop a link here.

Also from
archive.is/jezh3#selection-2005.3-2041.3

'Dr Upton kept notes of their interactions with Ms Peggie on their phone. In one entry dated August 2023, they wrote that Ms Peggie had walked into the changing room while they were there and "abruptly walked out" and waited outside.

"Can’t help but feel slightly off, upset, put off by this. Disappointed it appears that she chose not to enter because of me and didn’t think I belonged there. Sad times."

A second note, from October 2023, said Ms Peggie again left the changing room when Dr Upton arrived.

They also confirmed they "had previous difficulties with a colleague during her FY1 placement, and had kept a log of that." '

What I mean is she was asked what she would say about having to change in front of a man. And replied that she couldn't comment because she changes with trans players...

Which would make any listener think she was saying ' I change in front of trans identified males anyway when I'm playing rugby'

It sort of does if you buy that she sees TiFs as men, and is happy to change in front of them. So if she as a woman is, so should others be.

Of course they are women, sonshes not changing in front of men at all, but if that's not her view, I can see why she said that, even if it's ocean going copper bottomed bollocks.

Let's see what Mr forensic phone person has to say about Upton's phone notes. Is he on Wednesday?

What’s the order of play for the rest of Fife’s defence? will ED be invited back into the hot seat?

Perhaps. But I think she knows that they are really women, so is in no way the same as changing in front of an actual man. I don't believe she's being completely genuine. As good as her testimony (and attitude) was.compared to the others, I do think it was carefully rehearsed and a lot of arse-saving, look how reasonable I am, going on there.

She is a believer - to her transmen (biological women) are men - so she would be changing in front of 'men'

Hopefully a real lawyer will correct/clarify, but ETs have a principle of "Polkey deductions" - applicable where a claimant wins on procedural grounds but their behaviour sorta deserved what they got. Possible that JR knows defeat is inevitable now, and is working on smearing SP as undeserving of substantial damages. It's really not going to work though, no matter how often you repeat third-hand gossip it doesn't become evidence of poor character.

Again I'm not.convinced. I could buy that she accepts they identify as men..but actually believe they are men and see them in the same way as actual men? I don't know...

I'm so sorry to hear that. Are you in a position to help her advocate for herself?

It is always my oldest and sickest patients who say "well, I know how busy you all are, didn't want to be a bother, didn't want to bother the ambulance service..." aghhh

Back to work tomorrow, just when KS is due to give evidence. Don't think I can trust myself not to swear loudly in response ( that's if she doesn't manage to swerve it of course) Late night catch up afterwards beckons!

Scanning through the FWS judgement, I just spotted this paragraph (265(xiv)):

• (xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others (paras 210-228).

Anyone who still claims that FWS didn't mention changing rooms isn't correct. Single sex changing rooms "require a biological interpretation of 'sex'" for their "proper functioning".

Didn't she actually say this with reference to DU being a woman as part of her testimony? She said something like 'DU is a woman because he says he is, I don't understand why SP would object to her being in the women's changing room'

I thought her response was disingenuous. The question was about men, but she answered it as though the question was about transgender people (of either sex) in general. So rather than acknowledging SP's need for single sex changing areas, she made it sound like SP just wanted to avoid transgender people altogether.

@DeanElderberry I can't go into details, but absolutely other public sector organisations have equivalent document archiving and management systems as to when in was all paper based.

In some ways it goes further. For example a log automatically records who has viewed, edited or printed a file.

Please be reassure not every public sector organisation is as incompetent as NHS Fife!

You've just given me a jolt of reminder - that was actually their defence!

Not sure - I would have to find the reference in the TT and re-read to try to understand your interpretation. The general problem with reading rather than hearing these things is the inflection is lost.

No she didn't say anything about believing Upton is a woman. I was responding to another poster claiming that she will see transmen as actual men..

I'm not a mind reader but, when she first introduced this, she tried to suggest that if SP was racist and/or homophobic, that would suggest she was also transphobic. My personal view is that this could help Fife a little in justifying some of their actions, but it doesn't take away the basic point that Upton should never have been in the female changing room.

Can SP sue any of these horrid women for defamation?