NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #36

[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
Thread 35: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5377598-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-35

Trying to prove that the disclosed documents have been messed with.

She suddenly has got memory issues 🙄

Ohhhhh!

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1947661062477635746?s=46

“NC Back to p1253. We see at the top of this email it's the originating email
KS I agree it doesnt say Re
NC Do u recall its a response?
KS I dont recall it.
NC [reads re needing small need to know group] It's the start of a convo?
KS Seems to be”

oh dear. Oh dear. 🫣

I just read this out to an 11yo and he's imagining the toilet scenes now. Dying.

Ooh, I wondered about the significance of the 're:' in the subject line when NC was questioning IB. We are getting to it.

I'm assuming NC knows something is missing from KS's disclosure, otherwise she wouldn't be pursuing this line of Qs.

I wonder if NC took JR to task for her appalling push for detail around the tittle tattle accusations which resulted in the ‘P’ word use.

Surely it isn't that difficult to search emails for a key word like 'Beth'?

Trying to prove that the disclosed documents have been messed with

I agree. I wonder if there's another smoking gun email that they know about but has not been disclosed to them.

I think she's trying to show either that

1. e-mails have been changed/amended
2. they still haven't disclosed the complete chain

She understands just fine, she's baiting the trap.

As soon as one person's thrown under the bus, NHS Fife's case will fall apart. They're all acting based on mutually assured destruction at this stage 😅

I’m escorting DD to the dentist.
you utter b*stard @BezMills - I’ve had to fake a coughing fit because of the 3 Pringle comment.
Id like to say stop it - but I like it too much ❤️

From what I remember, when a previous employer had a GDPR request both the IT department/auditors and ourselves looked through emails for relevant discussions.

In today's day and age relying on individual employees to do these kind of searches is risky.

I just heard an outwith

From TT

NC So u are confident y've disclosed e'thing in that order?
KS Yes
NC Email for MC to DU's LM, you, ED, LH and LC who were potential witnesses as well as you. So obvs an important doc isnt it?
KS It refers to the Ix process so I havent read the order again
KS So it's relevant to the...
NC So, given the importance of that, very important, as goes between many witnesses can u explain why it wasnt produced for Feb? It wasnt available until April
KS No. We were asked to go throug (missed)

At the word 'No' a single green light on NC's ring flickers on and holds steady. ONE LIGHT

NC [New doc] This email itself doesnt matter but point relates to how email chains work. Subject line and upthread the subject line has Re:... That's standard isnt it to show is a reply?

Fifer : ahm nae maun tae blaw, but did ah no jist beat the big NC tae it by 3 minutes or whit. Victory triple sip, new bevvie cracked.

KS Usually yes altho you can adjust if you wanted to

At the usually yes, second green light. TWO LIGHTS. NC doesn't register, she knows the lights went on without glancing down.

NC Back to p1253. We see at the top of this email it's the originating email
KS I agree it doesnt say Re
NC Do u recall its a response?
KS I dont recall it.
NC [reads re needing small need to know group] It's the start of a convo?
KS Seems to be [regards an email discussion group seemingly]

"Seems to be" triggers a third light, dull yellow. Target acquired but not locked in. The machinations of the ring are completely invisible to those except who have eyes to see.

NC [new doc] U notice the subject line is PC incident. An email from you of 12 Jan is a re email. Curren's email was on 5 Jan. So yrs is a reply to MC?
KS I dont agree

The third light holds yellow. "I don't agree" hasn't gone in the favour of past witnesses. There's little hope that KS is going to fare better.

NC The way this is presented with nothing but yr signature and nothing below, gives the impression yr email of 12 Jan was the start of an email chain?
KS Yes
NC Do you normally write Re: in a subject line?
KS No
NC Do u ever?
KS I dont know

Third light flickering between yellow and green. The colour of red bull, or predator blood.

NC How do u explain?
KS The subject PC Incident was used a lot of times
NC [discussing various email headings] That whole chain has the title "Re PC" and covers a lot of pages. I think JR will correct me if I'm wrong, but the only emails w that title are this chain plus

Fifer : ahm no haudin ma breath for JR's correction, neether should yous. Deh be a hero!

I think at least some of it relates to the statement on Friday.

Definitely a trap.

From TT -

NC The way this is presented with nothing but yr signature and nothing below, gives the impression yr email of 12 Jan was the start of an email chain?
KS Yes
NC Do you normally write Re: in a subject line?
No
NC Do u ever?
I dont know

Valiant attempt by JR to invalidate NC's argument about emails, some of which are replies (Re:) by mentioning those which are forwarded (Fwd:), but I don't think it flies - hard to be sure without the bundle.

From TT

NC [discussing various email headings] That whole chain has the title "Re PC" and covers a lot of pages. I think JR will correct me if I'm wrong, but the only emails w that title are this chain plus MCs email of 5 Jan JR It is used in other emails, eg in a reply from the BMA [and gave another example]

[long pause]

NC Apology for the pause but I was confused about the 2 chains. Look at the chain from p730 upwards, that's this chain "re PC Incident" in the subject line.

Fifer : mebbe she was confused, mebbe she's just ampin up the tension. Ah deh ken, hoo wid ah ken, ken?

Let’s remember that they initially denied there was an investigation started by ED and that was the excuse they gave for not disclosing documents because the disclosure request had been worded as documents relating to the I/x.

NC cottoned on and established in early questions that there had been an investigation started by ED and demanded J insist on full disclosure then, of course, needed time to assess them.

I'm finding this hard to follow... is NC suggesting that the emails were edited before being submitted to the court?

@ThatCyanCat Missing replies etc

Yes. Either edited or only select email chains were submitted

I think she's hinting at non-disclosure, you know, like at the first half of the ET.