Page 3 | NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #38

KnottyAuty · 23/07/2025 07:57

YouCantProveIt · 23/07/2025 06:42

Just to say it’s worth keeping on at BBC to esclate that initial response to compliant. They said

‘Our coverage of the resumption of the tribunal, which started in February, has been fair, accurate and duly impartial, reflecting the associated issues and arguments put forward by both sides. This piece forms part of our ongoing coverage.

Headlines by their nature can only be a summary of an article and have limited space. We provide further details in the following paragraphs and when read in conjunction with the headline they provide an accurate report. While noting that you take a different view of our coverage, we do not propose making any changes to the article.‘

I’ve asked them via FOI to provide a list of all the headlines in relation to the tribunal - which may give them pause as to their impartiality. I’ve also asked who made the editorial decision not to name their reporters in the coverage and why.

Any journo types know how we could recommend / put forward for an award the Courier and the Herald for their work on this?

Show quote history

Also Simon Johnson at The Telegraph

HappierTimesAhead · 23/07/2025 08:01

That BBC article! It barely covers the deleting of emails and doesn't quote Kate Searle saying, "You can't prove that" which in itself was damning.

Boiledbeetle · 23/07/2025 08:03

blibblibs · 23/07/2025 06:44

Lurker, delurking just to give thanks to most for these fantastic informative threads, but especially @nauticant.
For the first time in all 38 threads I skipped the last 8 pages of 37 since it wasn't anything we haven't heard before and is still a pile of shite no matter how my times it's repeated.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll stick the end of that thread on my ever increasing things to read at some point! But just not now.

I'm glad we've got a later start today, I might actually get something done this morning.

I wonder what joys Naomi is going to pull from her bag of "stupid things Kate Searle did in her quest to squash Sandie like a bug".

And for the first time ever I'm dying to hear what the IT guy comes out with after KS has finished digging that hole of hers deeper.

Justabaker · 23/07/2025 08:04

Private session until 11:30 am.

RedToothBrush · 23/07/2025 08:05

How shit does Kate Searle look if NC CAN prove it?!

Original poster

nauticant · 23/07/2025 08:05

If there's not enough time to go through all of the witnesses, one possibility is something we've seen before, to put the overrunning witnesses into the closing arguments slot, and then deferring closing arguments to a future date. The advantage of this is that the hearing ends, at least for the moment, at a natural break point. The disadvantage is closing arguments taking place a few months down the line from now.

OP posts:

SqueakyDinosaur · 23/07/2025 08:05

nauticant · 23/07/2025 07:55

Does anyone have an insight into starting time today? The judge said a starting time of 11.30 but that was specifically for KS, while the discussion up to that suggested that he might put another witness into the 10-11.30 (sic) slot.

My impression was definitely that the court session would start at 11.30. There's certainly plenty for all the legal bods to be getting on with behind the scenes!

Nachoinseachthu · 23/07/2025 08:06

I think KS’s answers yesterday made it quite clear that she and her colleagues bent over backwards to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of one woman (as self-ID’d); and it did not even occur to them, not for a second, to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of the other,

Both women held equally valid beliefs.

One woman was only asking for the law of the land to be observed. (Though I can see how TRAs might still think that was DU.)

KS and others seem to have been guilty of staggering unconscious bias, and, in their eagerness to virtue-signal, have actually, arguably, colluded against SP.
.
It’s been very interesting to follow this, thanks @nauticant And this is going to be a very useful test tribunal, surely, for ever other future case.

I wonder - this is perhaps obvious but early morning thinking - if there is going to be a slew of lawsuits from other women similarly discriminated against when the judge finds in SPs favour? And not a single employer will want to risk the adverse publicity this case is attracting. Just lots of out-of-court settlements, payouts and possibly NDAs.

Jitrenka · 23/07/2025 08:06

nauticant · 23/07/2025 07:55

Does anyone have an insight into starting time today? The judge said a starting time of 11.30 but that was specifically for KS, while the discussion up to that suggested that he might put another witness into the 10-11.30 (sic) slot.

If i had to guess i would say it will start with KS at 11.30 i think they will have legal stuff to deal with before then, thats just based off watching other trials they usually get the legal stuff out the way before they start with witnesses and i cant see them starting another witness till KS is finished with but thats just my opinion 🙂

anyolddinosaur · 23/07/2025 08:08

NDAs are going to be banned in the uk.

Nachoinseachthu · 23/07/2025 08:09

I didn’t know that. Probably a good thing!

StanfreyPock · 23/07/2025 08:10

The STV online coverage is also very one-sided and fails to include the risible sex confusion and the very serious issue of collusion and failure to disclose evidence.
Supplied by something called PA Media, who seem to have hone home early yesterday

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/consultant-believed-dispute-over-female-changing-rooms-was-hate-incident

Consultant believed dispute over female changing rooms ‘was hate incident’

Nurse Sandie Peggie has lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/consultant-believed-dispute-over-female-changing-rooms-was-hate-incident

Largesso · 23/07/2025 08:10

Nachoinseachthu · 23/07/2025 08:06

I think KS’s answers yesterday made it quite clear that she and her colleagues bent over backwards to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of one woman (as self-ID’d); and it did not even occur to them, not for a second, to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of the other,

Both women held equally valid beliefs.

One woman was only asking for the law of the land to be observed. (Though I can see how TRAs might still think that was DU.)

KS and others seem to have been guilty of staggering unconscious bias, and, in their eagerness to virtue-signal, have actually, arguably, colluded against SP.
.
It’s been very interesting to follow this, thanks @nauticant And this is going to be a very useful test tribunal, surely, for ever other future case.

I wonder - this is perhaps obvious but early morning thinking - if there is going to be a slew of lawsuits from other women similarly discriminated against when the judge finds in SPs favour? And not a single employer will want to risk the adverse publicity this case is attracting. Just lots of out-of-court settlements, payouts and possibly NDAs.

Edited

Not only women. Maya has posted this fascinating judgement re the treatment of a GC male in the civil service. It’s a long judgement but panel make absolutely clear their disdain for how the Respondent favoured gender ideology and creates a hostile environment for GC staff to the point of constructive dismissal.

I so love reading the results of acutely intelligent legal minds!

https://x.com/mforstater/status/1947768285698695610?s=46&t=OcVj6Ek4vpx69DdiZCpI2g

Boiledbeetle · 23/07/2025 08:12

Jitrenka · 23/07/2025 08:06

If i had to guess i would say it will start with KS at 11.30 i think they will have legal stuff to deal with before then, thats just based off watching other trials they usually get the legal stuff out the way before they start with witnesses and i cant see them starting another witness till KS is finished with but thats just my opinion 🙂

Show quote history

The judge was eager to push KS from 11 am start to 11.30 am and it did seem to revolve purely round something the judge needed to get sorted. So I doubt there would be anyone before her.

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 23/07/2025 08:13

Nachoinseachthu · 23/07/2025 08:06

I think KS’s answers yesterday made it quite clear that she and her colleagues bent over backwards to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of one woman (as self-ID’d); and it did not even occur to them, not for a second, to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of the other,

Both women held equally valid beliefs.

One woman was only asking for the law of the land to be observed. (Though I can see how TRAs might still think that was DU.)

KS and others seem to have been guilty of staggering unconscious bias, and, in their eagerness to virtue-signal, have actually, arguably, colluded against SP.
.
It’s been very interesting to follow this, thanks @nauticant And this is going to be a very useful test tribunal, surely, for ever other future case.

I wonder - this is perhaps obvious but early morning thinking - if there is going to be a slew of lawsuits from other women similarly discriminated against when the judge finds in SPs favour? And not a single employer will want to risk the adverse publicity this case is attracting. Just lots of out-of-court settlements, payouts and possibly NDAs.

Edited

I hope there aren’t lots of out of court settlements and NDA’s, we need this ideology subjected to the light, in full view of the public, especially when it’s public bodies carrying out the discrimination. We will only eradicate this insidious capture of the NHS and education if people can equate it to their own lives, and how it could affect them or their loved ones. I believe that’s what JKR’s Women’s Fund is for, to help shoulder the financial burden of women who can’t afford to bring an action.

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 23/07/2025 08:14

anyolddinosaur · 23/07/2025 08:08

NDAs are going to be banned in the uk.

Bloody good idea.

KnottyAuty · 23/07/2025 08:15

nauticant · 23/07/2025 08:05

If there's not enough time to go through all of the witnesses, one possibility is something we've seen before, to put the overrunning witnesses into the closing arguments slot, and then deferring closing arguments to a future date. The advantage of this is that the hearing ends, at least for the moment, at a natural break point. The disadvantage is closing arguments taking place a few months down the line from now.

Usually that wouldn’t apply but with this & yesterday’s closed sessions, they’ve almost lost an entire day of witness testimony. So maybe they could defer again?

I bristled a bit yesterday when the Judge talked about timings and NC’s 1 hour for cross (what was she thinking?!) when JR had taken 2.

For “mass peaking” purposes a delay/deferment would be good but I’m hoping that they don’t do that. We need a Judgement now to get employers back to applying the law as it’s written rather than how Stonewall wanted it to be.

On the basis that another delay is unlikely to be good for NHSF’s reputation, will JR drop a witness? We’ve already lost 2 witnesses this session. Is there anyone else who doesn’t need to add to their witness statements?

RedToothBrush · 23/07/2025 08:15

Nachoinseachthu · 23/07/2025 08:06

I think KS’s answers yesterday made it quite clear that she and her colleagues bent over backwards to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of one woman (as self-ID’d); and it did not even occur to them, not for a second, to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of the other,

Both women held equally valid beliefs.

One woman was only asking for the law of the land to be observed. (Though I can see how TRAs might still think that was DU.)

KS and others seem to have been guilty of staggering unconscious bias, and, in their eagerness to virtue-signal, have actually, arguably, colluded against SP.
.
It’s been very interesting to follow this, thanks @nauticant And this is going to be a very useful test tribunal, surely, for ever other future case.

I wonder - this is perhaps obvious but early morning thinking - if there is going to be a slew of lawsuits from other women similarly discriminated against when the judge finds in SPs favour? And not a single employer will want to risk the adverse publicity this case is attracting. Just lots of out-of-court settlements, payouts and possibly NDAs.

Edited

I don't think it was unconscious bias. She knew she was being biased if she was having email conversations saying "don't tell anyone".

viques · 23/07/2025 08:16

Thank you @nauticant for all your sterling work, it is much appreciated. I am out all day so will have to have a mammoth catch up tonight. Looking forward to it already. Have fun today everyone.

Delphigirl · 23/07/2025 08:18

RedToothBrush · 23/07/2025 08:15

I don't think it was unconscious bias. She knew she was being biased if she was having email conversations saying "don't tell anyone".

Show quote history

Spot on

FeedbackProvider · 23/07/2025 08:19

Questions I’d enjoy hearing today:

”Could you explain to the tribunal what is meant by the phrase ‘Dr. Google’?”

”And are you familiar with the phrase ‘Bob Google, Attorney at Law’? What do you think that means?”

”Um, you’ll agree with me I think that ‘ChatGPT, KC’ is another way of saying the same thing?”

viques · 23/07/2025 08:19

Nachoinseachthu · 23/07/2025 08:06

I think KS’s answers yesterday made it quite clear that she and her colleagues bent over backwards to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of one woman (as self-ID’d); and it did not even occur to them, not for a second, to uphold the safety, comfort and dignity of the other,

Both women held equally valid beliefs.

One woman was only asking for the law of the land to be observed. (Though I can see how TRAs might still think that was DU.)

KS and others seem to have been guilty of staggering unconscious bias, and, in their eagerness to virtue-signal, have actually, arguably, colluded against SP.
.
It’s been very interesting to follow this, thanks @nauticant And this is going to be a very useful test tribunal, surely, for ever other future case.

I wonder - this is perhaps obvious but early morning thinking - if there is going to be a slew of lawsuits from other women similarly discriminated against when the judge finds in SPs favour? And not a single employer will want to risk the adverse publicity this case is attracting. Just lots of out-of-court settlements, payouts and possibly NDAs.

Edited

Interesting post, but only one woman at the centre of this shit show. The other person is a genetic man who thinks knowing and caring about the difference is distracting from their hurty feelings.

RedToothBrush · 23/07/2025 08:19

anyolddinosaur · 23/07/2025 08:08

NDAs are going to be banned in the uk.

Well that's the plan.

How many will be dished out by the public sector between now and when the government push it through parliament.

That's a nice little FOI right there for when the legislation has gone through...

SternlyMatthews · 23/07/2025 08:20

me>
**
The defensive phrasing amounts to an error under pressure as she tried to tiptoe between the Scylla of non disclosure & the Charybdis of collusion.

pollyglot · Today 00:47>>
This is hands-down the best sentence I have ever read on MN - and possibly ever ever.

May I borrow it, Sternley? Please?

>What a lovely post to start the day, thank you so much @pollyglot please feel free.

( spammed to overflowing thread 'filled thread' reply)

Jitrenka · 23/07/2025 08:21

KnottyAuty · 23/07/2025 08:15

Usually that wouldn’t apply but with this & yesterday’s closed sessions, they’ve almost lost an entire day of witness testimony. So maybe they could defer again?

I bristled a bit yesterday when the Judge talked about timings and NC’s 1 hour for cross (what was she thinking?!) when JR had taken 2.

For “mass peaking” purposes a delay/deferment would be good but I’m hoping that they don’t do that. We need a Judgement now to get employers back to applying the law as it’s written rather than how Stonewall wanted it to be.

On the basis that another delay is unlikely to be good for NHSF’s reputation, will JR drop a witness? We’ve already lost 2 witnesses this session. Is there anyone else who doesn’t need to add to their witness statements?

Show quote history

at this point im just worried NC might be forced into rushing and miss things that need to be pointed out.. my personal opinion is this case is going to be won by SP but the more absurdities that get pointed out along the way the better it is for the future.. if only the news would report on these things 🙄