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

There might be some terrific disclosure of emails within RCN.

Ah, this is another example of a TRA using the “You may be legally allowed to think/feel x, you’re just not permitted to say anything.” As if it’s not totally normal for two women to talk to each other about being shocked that a male colleague felt entitled to use the women’s changing room!

Agree - and the texts are other team members highlighting their discomfort - otherwise why would they mention it?

She’s right - they did side with the minority - as NC said 1 man took priority over 200.

But the Supreme Court said single sex spaces would be valid when changing was required.

So we wait and just wait to have it confirmed. And those among us who think trans identifying men transsubsttaniate into biological women will just have to blame the law instead:

IANAL but my understanding is:

SP "bullied Upton", tribunal hears - not libellous although if she has been cleared then I think the report needs to mention that because it has to be fair

SP bullied Upton - potentially libellous unless it's been found to be true by the court

If a poster could be libelling someone then I'd play it safe and report it. I believe forums and platforms can also be held responsible for hosting libellous content even if they didn't produce it themselves.

I didn't claim it was 'undisputed fact'. I simply stated the argument that was being made, as people were asking how this line of questioning could possibly be relevant.

I also think it's ABSURD and a demonstration of the worst kind of hypocrisy that you would suggest that my posts are not allowed , 'libellous' , given the stuff that has been systematically posted on these threads about DU with no attempt to qualify. Shall I start copy pasting them for you?

Please just leave me alone. I am allowed to disagree with you about feminism and trans issues and still use this website which is important to me. And quite frankly if my arguments were so absurd, you wouldn't be have to worry so much about them would you?

It is disgraceful to try to silence me through these tactics.

Note this request from the post above: Please just leave me alone.

Let's comply with that

No such texts have been entered into evidence. The only incidents of previous behaviour cited by Upton or Fife prior the changing room incident that led to her suspension were two occasions when she waited outside the changing room while Upton got changed. Upton backed away from the patient safety allegations in evidence and has now abandoned them completely, saying they were things Upton thought might happen rather than things that had actually happened. Apart from the incident in the changing room, everyone is agreed that SP called Upton Beth and used female pronouns throughout.

It will be interesting to find out how KS answers when LM’a testimony about that conversation is out to her.

I’m not convinced by LM’s testimony because it would seem odd that she left something so serious hanging with no follow up and still uses it as the basis for a supervised return (discretionary not standard). The helpful reposting of earlier testimony from ED also suggests suspension was a very rare occurrence in A&E but LM’s testimony ie ‘I like to’ offer supervision to ease return (paraphrasing) suggests returning from suspension is a common experience — common enough that she has developed a habit.

I understand why folk want to take her testimony at face value, of course, and I am merely speculating because human nature is endlessly fascinating but I have, at work, encountered very clever manipulators who use an appearance of fairness to position others. On the surface they seem lovely, fair, reasonable and considered yet their actions fall very short of this.

The ending of the suspension seems important but not when you look at the context and what SP was forced to give up and the impact that has on her when LM was perfectly aware there was no substance to the claims of patient care or racism/ homophobia.

In the face of others wanting her suspension continued just because her position might seem more reasonable but that’s a very very low bar.

Thank you.

@Tandora I just want to say that I completely agree that you should be able to post on this forum. Anyone who sticks to the T&Cs should be able to do so. I do not want 'no debate' to be enacted here. I am sure that most posters agree with that, even if they don't agree with you on certain topics.

ETA _ apologies, I missed your request to be left alone. I will not tag you again as I do not want to cause any upset.

Isn’t it fair to say that LM/CM and the others had good reasons for believing that DU had the right to use women’s facilities? They were legally and ethically wrong, of course, but very many organizations were under this impression and it was pushed in huge amounts of expensive training. The Haldane judgement made it clear that they were wrong, and the Supreme Court ruling doubly so, but lots of organizations still can’t believe it even now. That’s no legal defence, but surely the opprobrium against eg LM for believing this needs moderation? They thought they were legally helpless in the face if a man who said he felt lady and adjusted their attitudes to fit what they were being told was the right and good way.

Not sure why anyone would want you banned! You're entitled to your view. I just don't think the evidence you have presented shows what you claim it shows 🤷‍♀️

Morning you swivel eyed bunch of raptors. It's KS day.

Those texts show that a colleague, not Sandie, wrote "OMG PSML"; and that Sandie's mother, not Sandie, said she would "make him into a woman" (which could be seen as crude, or as precisely what DrU most wanted, or as a joke to cheer a stressed daughter; but not as something Sandie herself wrote).

From Michael Foran

Evidence from Lottie Miles that before the suspension review meeting, Ester Davidson said that Sandie Peggie was anti-trans/transphobic. Davidson also said she was homophobic and racist. Afaik this is the first time sandies legal team have heard this. This is another detriment.

If Sandie Peggie’s legal team had known this they may have needed to consider naming Ester Davidson as another respondent. This is in addition to the potential of naming Kate Searle because of the email she sent to all ED consultants condemning Sandie.

This was posted by the article's author on Twitter.

Thank you so much, I really appreciate this xx

Just as you are allowed to use this website, we are all allowed to respond to you within guidelines.

I was watching the livestream all yesterday afternoon.
Lottie Miles' body language & demeanour put me in mind of Upton. She was expounding on her points where no explanation was needed. She was flapping her hands around in a dramatic way, just as Upton did.

None of this came out in TT

Thank you

I read that as SP agreeing that ED said that about her in her interview during the investigation. Not necessarily that SP holds those views? Unless there’s more context I am missing here. I just do not have capacity t read all the MN threads and everything else out there so accept I might be missing things!

I completely agree. The era of no debate is over.
Tandora should be able to say what she wants.
It’s a shame that her posts thus far seem to comprise of calling SP a transphobe and a bigot.

Obviously if posts are potentially libellous they need to be reported.

It's noteworthy that this thread has sudden new attention the day after JR introuduced a load of smears into the proceedings, possibly with an eye to an audience outside the hearing room, and just before what might be a highly significant witness.

Let's not be distracted. Eyes on the prize people.

No one wants them banned. The only time they've had posts deleted was for egregious breaking of talk guidelines for things like calling us fascists. No one has attempted to ban them, except maybe themselves for not following the rules of posting 🙄It's incredibly disingenuous to say any of that is our fault.

If actual discussion was possible with this poster, I'd be more inclined to try, but from previous encounters I believe that it's just bad faith posting.

On that note, if they do start up again with that ridiculous copy & paste in bold lines from previous posts thing to waste thread space, I'll happily report them for that. The only time I reported them was for doing that on someone else's thread, it was incredibly rude and IMO intentionally derailing behaviour.