NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #37

[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
Thread 36 mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5378031-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-36

I’m sure they do but you’re kinda missing the point — they really didn’t want such an intervention because, as has been proved already, they were trying to avoid full disclosure.

Thank you . But I’d like to point out there was indeed some seriously vicious mud slinging on one side- being called sick, nauseating, hateful and “level of evil never seen before” 😆 stood out in particular .

All because I shared some scientific information about the complex realities of sex development , including its relationship to psychosexual development.

What can you do as an intellectually honest scientist other than continuing to share the scientific realities even if you get metaphorically burned at the stake.

🤷🏼‍♀️

The repetitional damage is so bad though if they avoid full disclosure, it doesn't seem worth the risk.
I can't imagine I would ever not disclose something because I'd be so shit scared of being found out!
Maybe it's back down to arrogance again.

Thanks, interesting. I did miss a lot of the real time discussions due to the TT c+p (and formatting). Not helped my my own efforts making off-brand additions to the discussion!

made me lol 😂

https://x.com/JournalistJill/status/1947717788011008360

Brian blessed is spot on 😁

That's not strictly true, I'm pretty sure you were opining on the prospects for Vileda shares earlier on 😆. Should be good, as I reckon today was at least a three mop job.

Six addressees on an email, none disclosed in response to a broadly worded 'send us any emails about this particular matter'.

Yeah, that's a big deal.

It's hard to see that in a positive light.

Please raise your hand if you have felt personally victimised by the removal of the laughing reaction while reading these threads. 🙋

Does anyone know why it was removed by Mumsnet?

Sharing the BBC Scotland News teatime news coverage today https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcscotland?rewindTo=current I didn't see anything on the main BBC 6pm news. It starts at 1841.

The proceedings so far make her sound like the offspring of an unholy alliance between Regina George and Matthew Hopkins.

Maybe they thought they had more protection than they did and it would never get this far 🤷‍♀️

try a different browser, or incognito mode, should help if its a cache issue

I have enjoyed your off brand additions very much - I laughed at all of them but didn't feel I could put a laughing post for each one so hearted them instead.

The Fifer is a law untae himsel! There's nae telling him!

Was being used unpleasantly by people who were reacting to other people's posts in spite or to be mean, without having the courage to do so in a public post.

I actually agree with MNHQ removing it. I just use the heart reaction instead.

some of them

as are some straight men

It's down to you to do it.
I've had several big cases where I've had to submit to a SAR and it does rely on your own integrity BUT it's easy to spot missing links and broken trails so you don't do that.

In one case I was questioned about an email from a senior person as to where my reply was.
I hadn't replied and I could explain why and my explanation was in the judgment.

Fife have obviously tried to game the tribunal over and over.

If you are dumb enough to write the incriminating emails in the first place you are obviously dumb enough to try to game the system.

It's worrying though, how much of this goes on that the victims never get to the bottom of?
It's enormous.

The dishonesty from Fife is seriously undermining.

I don't think we are the problem. I think its the dipsticks who can't tell that 'timeywhimey' stuff is fantasy not reality.

Its like talking to Father Dougle trying to explain 'Near / Faraway and Small / Big'. It doesn't matter how many times you explain it, you still get "Yeah I don't get it" from the Numpties who insist that trans identity is just a bunch of people who believe in dated gender stereotypes and think it changes their biology.

@TheHereticalOne I reported a particularly funny post and requested the return of the laugh reaction. No can do, apparently, because people laughed at ridiculousness, some of which was unintentional ridiculousness.

I didn't Google it, just followed the link to it that someone posted on here a few pages back. It took me to a LGBTQ+ page with a link on it to the page about Intersex - which had all the stuff about organs but the first line about being a gender identity wasn't there.

I think they are very used to controlling the flow of information. And usually, I imagine, it would not get to the point of ET. I imagine their usual experience is settlement.

They also genuinely thought they could ensure DU was not a respondent, that he could be anonymous, that the hearing could discuss him as a man and that TT could be kept out.

It was only NC and CEs eagle eyed interrogations of the material followed by some illuminating questioning that have J grounds to demand further actual compliance. Less seasoned or agile counsel might have taken NHS Fife at their word.

They are using Exchange, so competent & authorized admins could do a trawl, alongside 'what have you got, kiddies?'

My favourite Fiferism of the day was the microwaved lasagna seque - and the final line of his rant was a thing of Fifer beauty!

I've never understood why they couldn't have just replaced the emoticon chosen for laughter with one that just couldn't be used as a scathing 'laughing at' instead of an appreciative 'laughing with'.

What about this one -->😊. It is unequivocally friendly. You'd just look like an incomprehensible twit if you used it to attack.

I'm not sure if this was brought out today but there was something in the Herald about DU being informed about gender neutral facilities (I think by KS) as well as the female ones, but said he was happy to use the female ones.