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

Can they bring witnesses back for further questioning if needed?

@Firealarms
Whilst I agree - within your employer, are data breaches like that actually taken seriously?
Be honest, because at my government employer, such GDPR breaches are not.
Internally it is recognised are aware that if such a breach was referred to the Information Commissioner’s office, it likely would have zero to little impact if the complaint was upheld. The ICO rarely punishes employers, they only act on the most serious of cases.

I think this demonstrates the difference between civil service/government employment and private employment.

The financial institution I worked for stressed the highly expensive fines and other sanctions that could result from careless disregard for GDPR rules. The risks associated with severe financial punishment was made personal by pointing out that poor performance as a group would be reflected in annual bonuses (lack of).
The clear desk policy was strictly enforced - someone was always responsible for a last check around the open plan office area, including checking the photocopiers to make sure nothing was left out at the end of the day.

This level of care is not something I have observed within the NHS despite our annual GDPR training warning about leaving documents/patient notes etc unsecured. But then any fines etc are paid by the tax payer. It's extremely unlikely any individual will suffer as a result of leaving highly personal documents on someone's desk.

Well ultimately SP took her employer to the tribunal after CM’s stint of involvement so we can infer that SP didn’t see her grievance as resolved with CM’s “soft” approach.

She might have felt CM was biased given the information fed to her about undocumented allegations.

She might have also felt CM was trying to protect the NHS against Sandy bringing claims against them, whilst CM consciously did not admonish the NHS. This makes CM’s role seem perfunctory, just enough to make the NHS seem reasonable and look good but not enough to make the issues right.

dont know whether this has been posted or not havent noticed it but think its very sweet!

https://x.com/nicoleepeggiee/status/1947308995045212603

@Merrymouse

From Michael Foran's podcast yesterday, Beth Upton was also threatening to call the police? I looked through the TT for Upton's evidence days in Feb, but couldn't find any reference to this - does anyone remember this?

I thought this was interesting when I heard this snippet again from one of the nurses. We defo heard mention of the police in Part 1 in relation to the "hate incident" that DU told colleagues/managers about. DU suggested that he didn't think the incident was serious enough to warrant calling the police.

At the time, these threads were very cynical about this - one theory was that he decided not to call in the police and have people crawl all over him/SP looking for evidence and that he just wanted to control those in the department. In any event it did seem to impact on the other staff in terms of whipping up sympathy and support.

Obviously we had no evidence for these theories - just DU's own row-back from admitting to talking about the police (with KS?) and it being mentioned in some paperwork maybe (?) but in verbal evidence - like the other accusations - DU was doing his best to lessen the seriousness of what he was saying. Mainly because he had no evidence to back up some serious claims.

At the time I got the strong impression that DU had probably whipped up a bit of a frenzy with talk of hate incidents and police and rapists and chromosomes - but realised that the blow-back from unproven allegations on to himself at Tribunal could be very significant. It looked like damage control to me. There was a moment when NC mentioned that unfounded allegations of professional misconduct such as the patient care problems could be serious for DU. Both his mum and dad were both in camera shot behind him and although they had been very still throughout, both of them moved in a way which indicated discomfort and a realisation that DU might be seriously in the shit.

Also worth remembering that there were differences in the exact events in the CR between DU and SP's descriptions. SP claimed DU got changed in front of her during the discussion. DU claimed that he got changed in the WC cubicle and was washing his hands at the sink when SP started speaking to him. Questions by the panel led DU to make a statement something like "presumably I would have been standing there" - which undermined his credibility in my eyes very significantly. Because if he were telling the truth he would have said "I was standing there". There were other details that he couldn't provide clear descriptions of - what colour coat etc. And the reason this is important is because if he was undressing in front of SP: a) he clearly wasn't feeling cornered or unsafe and b) his undressing could be taken as a more specific act of sexual harassment than simply being in the women's CR.

It will be fascinating to see how all these strands are pulled together by NC at the end...

Just as a counterbalance, I was also watching and thought she came over quite well. She was very organised with the bundle in front of her, and she was brisk all the way through and very much a "This is how I do things" kind of person. I know I said this earlier but when the judge said she was free to leave or could come back to watch, it looked very briefly as if she was going to launch into explaining which option she would choose and pronounce it the correct thing to do!

Also, she had quite an unruffled demeanor. I clearly remember two of last week's cast members' voices fading out, and they would reach for water and swallow hard several times after a difficult question. I'd agree CM was well-prepared and glossed over things by talking for the sake of it at times, but it seemed as though she was probably genuinely/tactically in a middling position of wanting to do the job well and also wanting to maintain her social standing with friendship groups that include trans people.

If she were an Enid Blyton character, I would place her as a boarding school teacher who is very proud of being fair-minded but also inexplicably puts far too much responsibility on the school girls to sort out their own problems.

Encore!

Just the thing. Thanks very much.

The thing is, public sector legal departments actively test the law much more often than private sector employers. The NHS and DWP have the most employment tribunal claims brought against them for example (and upheld claims at that). But that doesn’t mean they’re shit at defending them, rather they have used their experience to figure out how to twist the law to their advantage. They’ll still choose to defend themselves against claims as opposed to admit wrongdoing.

Therefore civil service/government are more aware of the confines of the law and what they can get away with. For example whilst the ICO can fine, they very rarely do. The ICO in the majority of claims take no further action, or take informal action. If you search the ICO for data law decisions, you’ll find plenty for public sector whereas you might not find any for a given private employer. Hence why private employers might be more conscious of fines but public sector employers know fines aren’t coming.

But are they usually quite such flaming shitshows as this bunch of clowns? Even by losing standards this is beyond normal embarrassment levels.

After having listened to the last few days, it seems clear that there was no evidence of Sandie being bigotted and that this was "tittle tattle", but it was being passed around amongst staff as though it were gospel. And NC seems to have enough evidence to show that it was her "strong views" that got SP suspended rather than any actual misconduct (as evidenced by NHS Fife clearing her of that outside the hearing).

Presumably all this gossip happened after Sandie had been suspended. So she was told not to talk to anyone about it. KS & DU emailed practically everyone about it. Triggering a deluge of "and she said..." "I heard" etc.
What a mean, miserable bunch. I'm truly shocked at the level of spite aimed at her. From colleagues she had worked with for years, who presumably hadn't had a problem with her previously since none had been reported before. She was often the lead nurse on shift. I would expect that most of the consultants viewed her as a safe pair of hands, whilst less experienced colleagues would seek out her advice. Then they all turned on her like a pack of hyenas.

To be honest yes - going up against a public sector employer is very daunting, their tactic of victim blaming and starting contrived disciplinary action against the claimant usually works as it makes victims scared to speak out. It’s not that the wrongdoing itself is rare. Public sector employers often find themselves wanting to get rid of people but not being able to outright sack them given how heavily they are unionised.

Public sector also tends to be very hierarchical, has poor HR/management training and is full of people winging it with an aversion to performance management. Workplace mobbing like this is fairly common in public sector because it just triggers a hive mind of incompetent people covering for each other and usually the victim resigns without making claims.

My previous public sector organisation took GDPR etc. pretty seriously - someone used to go through all the papers on people's desks at night and check nothing confidential was in there!

I asked Chat GPT to write a satirical poem about the case, this Is what it came up with...😂

The Changing Room Chronicles: A Satirical Ditty
In Fife’s grand hospital, on Christmas Eve
Sandie foresaw a tale she couldn’t conceive.
She peeked at a locker, with trousers half‑dropped—
“When a man in the ladies’ room makes me feel popped?”

Beth Upton, the doctor, trans woman by name,
Walked into the drama amid claims and blame.
One called it bullying, the other a stand—
No witnesses present, just a volatile strand.

Peggie served three decades with care, calm, and grace,
Till policy whispers demanded changing in shared space.
And stripped of allegations—misgendering dismissed—
The tribunal resumed this comedic twist.

She claimed “harassment, I felt intimidated, aghast”
While counsel described her as making a “legal repast.”
Judges measured pronouns: misgender but mild—
Allowed so long as not gratuitously wild.

NHS Fife shook its head, spending over two‑hundred grand,
Defending policies they couldn’t quite understand.
Equality bosses offered advice quite vague:
“I don’t know my biological sex,” they said with a shrug.

The hearings resumed in Dundee, delayed till mid‑July,
Peggie triumphant at the verdict—alas internal suspicions went awry.
Political figures weighed in, some stirring up dust—
JK and Labour alike chimed in who to trust.

Anyone want to place bets on how long Kate Searle will be in the Hot Seat?

I predict evidence in chief will be concluded by lunchtime tomottow.

Cross-exam will be in at least 4 parts over Tues pm/Wed am, potentially including two mic drop finishes, and a tense uncovering of even more missing emails.

Panel will take at least 20 mins before a further break, and then

JR will finish at 2.45 on Wednesday afternoon with leading reminders of at least 6 things that would be jolly unkind if only there were evidence that SP had said them. Possibly including fresh allegations of Kate's cleaner having overheard from a man in the chippy that Sandie's mum is cruel to horses.

Night all, my eyes are closing. Only one sleep until Ms Searle, I’m so excited it’s like Christmas Eve as a child.

Talk about bias!! She may aswell have just said.. make up any bollocks you want to and we will all accept it as gospel and burn the witch.. im not even sure they are in Fife and not Salem tbh 😡

@GreenFriedTomato That's what I'm confused about - how long does it actually take to ask a few people to provide a statement?

There is definitely an element of group bullying called mobbing. Each of those in the mobbing group bolster each other and feel quite safe, particularly when there are high status people involved. It is more common in large organisations than people think. It is people like sandy who are often victims. She is work focused and dedicated and doesn’t take any shit. Combine that with the whole GI lunacy and it was a perfect storm. I hope she and her family have the time and resource to recover.

Sweet dreams! Someone on twitter called it Kate Searle Eve. I may open a pair of Christmas pyjamas that I found in packaging last week to help me sleep soundly!

But these guys have sent embarrassing internal documents to a woman totally unconnected to the case who just wanted her son's details, released a rambling, unprofessional and potentially illegal statement that's now been redone a zillion times, one of their leads has declared that she doesn't know if she's a woman...the list goes on. Is this common?

😂😂

Is there a sweepstake regarding what time Pete the plumber will make his next appearance? If there is put me down for 3.47pm tomorrow. Thanks.

Ed. I assume the winner gets a teacake/caramel waffle/ snowball

I'll go 2.23.

While CM thought she was being fair I suspect she will be the next they turn on. Obviously Fife were winning until she said she didn't agree with how some things were done so if they lose it's all her fault...