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

🤣

Or is the suggestion that there were earlier emails in the chain that have not been included: the subject line has changed, and effectively restarted with a new one and none of the earlier discussions?

I think Naomi is suggesting that there are still things that have not been disclosed. I'm betting that they are only disclosed as printouts, not as files with full headers. But it's infuriating because the email headers TELL YOU which messages are replies to what - if something is a reply to a mail that's not been disclosed, you can tell that from the header. Shouldn't need to waste time with a witness over this, it's mechanical.

I'm behind on the thread but want to add that Doctors swap shifts all the time! Claiming that's unusual is totally bogus. If someone asked to swap I wouldn't demand to know a reason unless it was a high demand Xmas or New Year swap or they had form for taking the mickey.

Also when I've seen difficult work scenarios the fine details have always been kept on a strict need to know basis - including when working directly with someone who clearly had mental health issues - all we were told was 'Dr X is managing Dr Y, please go straight to Dr X with any concerns'
Blanket emailing details to all consultants like KS did is not standard practice. That would only happen if instructed to by HR I imagine.

Fifer : twa bottles ay Auld Jock doon, and ahm confused. No lookin forrit tae trying tae get tae ma feet to be quite honest. Is NC lookin for new holes in the disclosures or is she jist nailin doon which parts KS is gettin hung oot fer?

Can't you just change the header?

So DU forwarded this chain to the BMA?

My understanding was that there's an email headed "re blah" which usually indicates a reply but in the bundle there's no original email that that's a reply to.

NC is saying do you using head emails with i.r. "r.e. next Tuesday meeting". And she's denied so it looks like there may be a missing original email.

That was my understanding.

Even the Judge is confused as to who submitted what email evidence and when.

NC - Email from ED to DU, you'll see that's the same email copied at the bottom of the page. DU forwards some of this chain onto the BMA. Maggie's small need-to-know group to avoid foot in mouth has the same source as the chain we're looking at from 730 up. I can repeat if too garbled

No - perhaps you're thinking of the subject, which isn't what I mean. (Email spoofing is a thing, but is not practical in modern email clients such as what's in use in the NHS, I'm sure.)

Shouldn't need to waste time with a witness over this, it's mechanical.

Maybe that's what the computer expert is coming for, not Upton's phone.

Somebody called to my house so I'm glad I've only missed detailed email stuff that seems to be confusing a lot of you!
See - that's NC for you: when you think she has the opportunity to go in full force with studs showing, she goes for minute details about email headings.
Keep the batter on the back foot never knowing what kind of delivery is coming next..

Yes, I'm thinking of the subject!

Not missing replies per se but that her email which purports to be the start of the thread is actually a reply to something not disclosed.

AG did something similar with DU’s draft of the formal complaint statement which NC caught out. She made one email look like it was the first communication, in fact, there had had an early TEAMS chat and, I think, an email. She did it to make it seem like the statement had not been redrafted according to whatever advice she gave on TEAMS. This is the statement where the patient safety concerns first made an appearance.

So they’ve got form.

It could be any or all forms of non disclosure, or deliberate non compliance with the court's repeated requests. It may be connected to the first investigation that they say never happened, but actually did. NC is on to something or she wouldn't be persuing this line of questioning.

In Outlook, for example, if you use the three dot menu at the top right corner of a mail, then go View -> View message details, you see the headers. They are very informative!

Oooh here we go.

At this point, NHS should really have asked their IT staff to do these searches using the email client to follow back and forward any threads. For a small organisation you can forgive it but NHS has it's own secure email service!!!!

From TT

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. Email from ED to DU, you'll see that's the same email copied at the bottom of the page.

( NC ) DU forwards some of this chain onto the BMA. Maggie's small need-to-know group to avoid foot in mouth has the same source as the chain we're looking at from 730 up. I can repeat if too garbled

NC I'm suggesting we dont see this subject line v often. We see catch up and HI, but isnt used commonly. we see an email chain at 729 to the same group that MC was emailing on 5 Jan that we've looked at. But not copied to MC's email at the bottom 729 was prod to the C during the Feb hearing. When produced was the email.

Big Sond perks up

J (Big Sond) Wasn't this at the 1st hearing?
(NC?) No
J SO this isnt the orig bundle that has supplemental info that added later
NC It came in during the course of the 1st hearing and added as went along

NC's ring now has two greens and a double-yellow/green.

NC when emails ending at 730 were presented to the Cs lawyers there was MCs email chopped off for some reason
KS You don't know that for sure. It cld have been deleted. These ppl are in the cc box and not the to box. I wonder if someone has relied, deleted and then cc-ed?

Fifer : noo suddenly KS goes fae 'hoo dis email work ah deh ken ehhhhh' tae 'cyber expert actually' and pushin her glesses up her nose. Curious.

😱

So a small select group agreeing what they will say?

No, it’s about lack of disclosure so v important re credibility of witness.

This is the jab. Punish a man you will with the jab, break him