Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 22/07/2025 15:39

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
29
ArealAdultHumanFemale · 22/07/2025 22:17

Tandora · 22/07/2025 18:55

We were discussing the biological complexity of sex development (in the context of the Doctor's testimony at the tribunal) - nothing to do with gender stereotypes.

Why don't you bore off, stop hijacking this thread, and start your own thread?

nauticant · 22/07/2025 22:17

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:15

Listening to Michael Foran who goes over this in some detail he makes it much clearer than TT.

There was an original email set up for the 6 by ED who had been appointed to lead the investigation at that time.

The email group also included witness alongside the ED as I/x lead.

In the email ED instructs them, basically, to keep schtumm about what they discuss ie don’t mention what goes on in the email thread to anyone outwith the group. The first rule of Fight Club etc.

When the purportedly full email chain was submitted with the updated disclosure this email, the first of the chain, was cut off. Ie someone had deleted it.

NC puts it to KS that the reason for this is that it’s highly embarrassing and they didn’t want it to come to light.

KS says you can’t prove that email was part of that chain or that it was deleted.

Great. That's what I assumed had happened with the cabal of 6 and the email chain.

OP posts:
rebmacesrevda · 22/07/2025 22:17

Namechangedagain999 · 22/07/2025 22:07

Imagine if wee IT guy (on skateboard and backward baseball cap) has gotten NC the entire contents of this trail. That would be interesting. Especially if they’d tried to hide it. Wouldn’t want to speculate though.

I'm imagining Moss from IT Crowd, who is incapable of lying, and would throw everyone under the bus just by being completely straightforward with his answers.

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:18

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:15

Listening to Michael Foran who goes over this in some detail he makes it much clearer than TT.

There was an original email set up for the 6 by ED who had been appointed to lead the investigation at that time.

The email group also included witness alongside the ED as I/x lead.

In the email ED instructs them, basically, to keep schtumm about what they discuss ie don’t mention what goes on in the email thread to anyone outwith the group. The first rule of Fight Club etc.

When the purportedly full email chain was submitted with the updated disclosure this email, the first of the chain, was cut off. Ie someone had deleted it.

NC puts it to KS that the reason for this is that it’s highly embarrassing and they didn’t want it to come to light.

KS says you can’t prove that email was part of that chain or that it was deleted.

And also re the Re: questioning — my read of KS response is that she knows they can prove, if they want, whether she uses it often or not and do she fumbled her way through the lie that it is not with regard to the first submitted email in the chain actually being the second not the first.

GailBlancheViola · 22/07/2025 22:19

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:15

Listening to Michael Foran who goes over this in some detail he makes it much clearer than TT.

There was an original email set up for the 6 by ED who had been appointed to lead the investigation at that time.

The email group also included witness alongside the ED as I/x lead.

In the email ED instructs them, basically, to keep schtumm about what they discuss ie don’t mention what goes on in the email thread to anyone outwith the group. The first rule of Fight Club etc.

When the purportedly full email chain was submitted with the updated disclosure this email, the first of the chain, was cut off. Ie someone had deleted it.

NC puts it to KS that the reason for this is that it’s highly embarrassing and they didn’t want it to come to light.

KS says you can’t prove that email was part of that chain or that it was deleted.

So NC/Sandie's Team have seen this email written by ED?:

In the email ED instructs them, basically, to keep schtumm about what they discuss ie don’t mention what goes on in the email thread to anyone outwith the group. The first rule of Fight Club etc.

FleurFloor · 22/07/2025 22:21

MyrtleLion · 22/07/2025 22:11

The court can make an order for greater compensation because they haven’t revealed everything they should have done.

They can bring a contempt of court action where another court can look at it and fine NHS Fife if found guilty.

I’m not sure if they can involve the Information Commissioner, but he’s already pissed off with them, so they better hope he has no jurisdiction.

1,000 additional documents - WTAF?!

Edited

And I think the NC might be implying that there are still emails missing from this chain?

OnlyAWomansHeart · 22/07/2025 22:21

It does seem like KS held true to the advice from the Court to avoid coverage of the case and hasn’t read Upton’s testimony. She didn’t like that he said things contrary to her.

When she finishes up tomorrow I hope she has a good read through Tribunal Tweets and she realises what she’s done - and who she’s done it for.

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:22

GailBlancheViola · 22/07/2025 22:19

So NC/Sandie's Team have seen this email written by ED?:

In the email ED instructs them, basically, to keep schtumm about what they discuss ie don’t mention what goes on in the email thread to anyone outwith the group. The first rule of Fight Club etc.

It would appear so. As to how I’ve no idea. I will re listen to that bit of Foran and come back to you.

Merrymouse · 22/07/2025 22:24

ArabellaScott · 22/07/2025 21:58

Thank you. I cannot imagine what it must be like to watch colleagues come out with some of the disingenuous pish they've been trying to claim in this tribunal.

Strong agree. I am also spotting a pattern.

Serious patient safety concerns exist in isolation - relevant to a complaint months later about a nurse, but not so relevant to the wider hospital or patients that they need to be reported contemporaneously.

Sex is unknowable unless you have a chromosome test, but the absence of periods in a post pubescent female requires no investigation, and sustained bleeding could be internal haemorrhaging or menstruation - not important which.

Reality itself is flexible and subjective.

NotAtMyAge · 22/07/2025 22:25

Tandora · 22/07/2025 21:39

Not sure what you mean by “falls at the first hurdle”?

Our sense of/ awareness of being male or female is what is referred to as our gender identity. It’s got nothing to do with stereotypes. You say you have no gender identity, but if you are aware/ know your sex to be female , then you do.

Thats why DU says she is female. You all keep mocking her/ being incredulous about that, but that is exactly what it is to be a transwoman. It’s to be aware / have a sense of self as female, despite being registered male at birth.

Gender is not sex. It is a restrictive and damaging social construct of stereotypes of behaviour and presentation - masculine or feminine - and varies between cultures. Reproductive sex is binary, dimorphic and immutable - male and female. It is impossible for someone born male to know what it is like to live in a female body, with all that implies, just as it is impossible for someone born female to know what it is like to inhabit a male body.

I am a gender-nonconforming woman with a husband, children and grandchildren, who has worn her hair short almost all her life, doesn't even possess any dresses, skirts, high heels or make-up, yet who is unchangeably a woman because she was conceived female and survived to adulthood. That is the only way to be a woman.

KnottyAuty · 22/07/2025 22:25

moto748e · 22/07/2025 19:57

Surely some of the behaviour (KS?) is bordering on the criminal?

The reference KS made about the potential witness who was concerned about racism - could be considered very dimly by the Tribunal apparently. KS should not be investigating or talking to witnesses - might be considered “witness tampering”.

KS if you’re reading - stop digging!

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 22/07/2025 22:26

OnlyAWomansHeart · 22/07/2025 22:21

It does seem like KS held true to the advice from the Court to avoid coverage of the case and hasn’t read Upton’s testimony. She didn’t like that he said things contrary to her.

When she finishes up tomorrow I hope she has a good read through Tribunal Tweets and she realises what she’s done - and who she’s done it for.

I actually think NC saying nebulous dog whistle was a litmus test to see if KS had been speaking to DU or reading about the tribunal so far.

Binglebong · 22/07/2025 22:26

Notfinanciallyresponsibleforyou · 22/07/2025 22:04

So my account id is filthy rich and I am off on a spending spree tomorrow. I expect all the stores to recognise that and to ignore any card declined messages. If my bank say my account is overdrawn I will notify the police.

I would be delighted to invest, although I will have to open my account first in order to do so.

Peregrina · 22/07/2025 22:27

There was an original email set up for the 6 by ED who had been appointed to lead the investigation at that time.

Is this the original investigation which apparently wasn't?

Sausagenbacon · 22/07/2025 22:27

I came on to recommend Michael Foran's forensic coverage of this case, to see that another poster has got in before me!

Waitwhat23 · 22/07/2025 22:28

rebmacesrevda · 22/07/2025 22:17

I'm imagining Moss from IT Crowd, who is incapable of lying, and would throw everyone under the bus just by being completely straightforward with his answers.

Going off his CV, he's a very serious dude. I'm picturing a peeved Jason Statham.

I'll probably be proven wrong though and he'll be a cheery, amiable man!

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:29

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:22

It would appear so. As to how I’ve no idea. I will re listen to that bit of Foran and come back to you.

I now have that knowledge thanks to Foran.

The chain was submitted in the first iteration of disclosure.

This email was submitted later on April 5 and, I’m assuming, as a stand alone — or seemingly stand alone.

NC is asking KS why it wasn’t originally submitted and KS claims that she didn’t have time shes a busy doctor hadn’t been told etc.

So it is therefore bizarre to try and claim NC can’t prove it was part of the original chain. Proof seems unnecessary since the point of the questioning was why wasn’t it submitted and the content of the email makes it quite clear it was the beginning of a group chain. Odd.

nauticant · 22/07/2025 22:29

I thought at worse KS would be an unhinged zealot but I hadn't expected that she would have engaged in this kind of behaviour. Putting aside the anti-science stuff that's alarming in a senior medic, being this untrustworthy is a very bad look.

OP posts:
rebmacesrevda · 22/07/2025 22:29

Waitwhat23 · 22/07/2025 22:28

Going off his CV, he's a very serious dude. I'm picturing a peeved Jason Statham.

I'll probably be proven wrong though and he'll be a cheery, amiable man!

Do you mean the forensic phone guy? I'm talking about Fife's IT guy. Not sure who's in the hot seat first...

Tandora · 22/07/2025 22:30

nauticant · 22/07/2025 22:02

In an attempt to sidestep the derailing and to talk about the substance of this thread, going back to the 6 senior people and the secret email group, wasn't the point NC was making was that there was an email chain with Re: in the title but there wasn't one email without it, meaning that the originating email wasn't present? Wasn't that the cause of NC asking KS whether she ever deliberately titled her (non-reply) emails with Re: and KS hesitating and trying to reply in a way to suggest that sometimes she might do this when obviously it was something she'd never done?

Yes that is what was implied but also that’s so easy to do.

Tandora · 22/07/2025 22:30

Tandora · 22/07/2025 22:30

Yes that is what was implied but also that’s so easy to do.

I’m sure I have email chains like this

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:30

nauticant · 22/07/2025 22:29

I thought at worse KS would be an unhinged zealot but I hadn't expected that she would have engaged in this kind of behaviour. Putting aside the anti-science stuff that's alarming in a senior medic, being this untrustworthy is a very bad look.

The dissembling around lack of disclosure and the lies about the email to consultants being necessary as they have a duty of care to DU is, frankly, scandalous.

GailBlancheViola · 22/07/2025 22:31

Largesso · 22/07/2025 22:29

I now have that knowledge thanks to Foran.

The chain was submitted in the first iteration of disclosure.

This email was submitted later on April 5 and, I’m assuming, as a stand alone — or seemingly stand alone.

NC is asking KS why it wasn’t originally submitted and KS claims that she didn’t have time shes a busy doctor hadn’t been told etc.

So it is therefore bizarre to try and claim NC can’t prove it was part of the original chain. Proof seems unnecessary since the point of the questioning was why wasn’t it submitted and the content of the email makes it quite clear it was the beginning of a group chain. Odd.

Thank you.

littlbrowndog · 22/07/2025 22:31

Penalty yay

Waitwhat23 · 22/07/2025 22:31

rebmacesrevda · 22/07/2025 22:29

Do you mean the forensic phone guy? I'm talking about Fife's IT guy. Not sure who's in the hot seat first...

Ah, yes - sorry to confuse. Yes, I'm talking about the Forensic guy.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.