NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #40

[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
Thread 37: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5378200-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-37
Thread 38: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5378463-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-38
Thread 39: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5378747-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-39

ChatGPT summarises it well:

✅ Do Scottish Employment Tribunals use written witness statements?

• No, not usually.
• Witnesses give their evidence-in-chief orally at the hearing.
• This differs from England & Wales, where pre-prepared written statements are standard.

✅ Do witnesses see the bundle before the hearing?

• Yes, they are given access to the bundle in advance to prepare.
• The bundle contains all the documents that may be referred to during the hearing (e.g. contracts, emails, letters).
• Witnesses are expected to review the bundle beforehand, so they know what documents may come up in questions.

✅ So how does it work in practice?

1. Before the hearing:
2. The parties (or their reps) agree a joint bundle of relevant documents and submit it to the tribunal.
3. Witnesses are provided with this bundle in advance to review and prepare.
5. At the hearing:
6. Each witness gives oral evidence-in-chief (i.e. tells their side of events live).
7. They may be shown documents from the bundle to comment on or confirm details.
8. Then they are cross-examined by the opposing side, again possibly referring to bundle documents.
9. The tribunal may also ask questions and refer to the bundle during this.

1.

I’m looking forward to the data witness.

I hope NC is going to be able to establish if emails have been deleted from a thread before being disclosed.

The Jan 23 emails with the big gap. I expect the second one with the RE heading was a long thread starting with the original email. KC thought she was clever by forwarding it but deleting everything above her email.

I am no data expert but if the meta data shows e.g. 1000 characters erased, that supports NC’s position.

I suggest great caution with relying on AI for any kind of fact checking. If there's one thing ChatGPT is good at, it's presenting inaccuracies with great confidence that makes them seem very plausible.

That’s interesting. A micro aggression is removing yourself from a space where you consider there to be a macro aggression taking place (a male disrobing). I feel the micro aggression definition needs context as it’s possibly correct in some instances but imo not in this one!?

I think JR is making the case that witnesses are finding themselves deviating from using preferred pronouns, which is what they choose to use, due to NC not using them. I think this is a fair point in that giving evidence is stressful and when conversing with someone it’s quite natural to align your vocabulary with theirs.

I guess JR’s objection is that using sex based pronouns will concern the witnesses due to knowing the impact this will have on the subject of the pronouns.

However, NC won the argument for using sex based pronouns so the objection should be dismissed. Support should be provided to the witnesses in response to any distress arising from having used pronouns they didn’t want to use.

I am confident that ‘the man in the Clapham omnibus’ would not consider upset arising from having used pronouns one didn’t intend to use, whilst on the stand, an undue burden to bear.

The exception being expert witnesses who write statements IB advance which both parties agree on and so there is no need for cross examination in most instances.

The Remedy ( Mcloud) is applied to anyone who was in a scheme 95/2008 before 31/03/2012 so SP will be part of that cohort. However, if she was in 2008 she would not qualify for pension until 65, 95 age is 60 unless you have SCS then it is 55 for full pension. In all cases you can’t access you pension until 55 ( some exceptions depending on status). At 55 on normal 95 pension it will be reduced depending on how early you take it.
It is very complicated and for some of us who have taken our 95 pension prior to roll back we are all patiently waiting for the Remedy. Fortunately they are paying interest on the unpaid pension we are waiting for. But we will be taxed on the back pay and interest ( quite rightly). Fortunately I still work part time so will be offsetting by paying more into my private pension.
It’s becoming a bit of a joke.

Page 221 and on from the Equal Treatment Bench Book dated July 2024 (i.e. pre-SC Judgment), gives judges considerable latitude and also mentions earlier on p67 that the use of pronouns should generally be avoided (and that’s not in reference to trans people).

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book.pdf

Daughter born at home, independent midwives.
Midwife sent something to hospital, they didn't do the thing they were supposed to with it. There was some question over whether her birth could be registered within the legal time limit. It seemed to be something around not having an NHS number. They thought registering her with GP might initiate it, but that was a dead end too. Registrar was lovely but computer systems were limiting.

Anyone free birthing and I'm not sure how the systems would have worked it out.

That is one example of when it is now accepted to use original pronouns; but another point made somewhere - sorry I don't have the ref

placing additional or artificial barriers on a witness is likely to detract from their ability to give best evidence. Accordingly, witnesses giving evidence in trials should not be required to call an accused “she”, particularly if they knew the accused as a male.

So it's not just where somebody is accused of a sexual crime, it's also for clarity and spontaneity in giving evidence.

But wasn't this all sorted out by the judge at the beginning of the trial, that it was OK to refer to DrU as 'he'? Or perhaps he 'doesn't recall'..

Thanks @BugsyMaroon I was wondering what photo I'd been looking at and wondering if I'd imagined it.
Compared to Sandie I feel like a complete slob when I get dressed for work. Must Do Better!

from Herald
1:22pm
Earlier Ms Russell raised concerns about "consistent misgendering of Dr Upton".
She said the equal treatment benchmark agreed on May 2025 said individual's preferred pronouns should be used, or an alternative gender neutral should be used to help "minimise offence".
She had said: "You should use the pronouns that are preferred - there is an exception if it is a biological male attack but that is not the case here. No one has physically attacked anyone, especially Dr Upton attacking Ms Peggie.
"I am concerned about the fairness of the proceedings with Ms Cunningham's misgendering which is creating a hostile environment for the witness and is confusing them.
"They are not used to hearing Dr Upton being referred to with the pronouns he/him and it is clearly discombobulating this witness and affecting her ability to give her best evidence."
Ms Cunningham continues to use he/him pronouns in court.
1:17pm
Here's the full exchange of this row between Cunningham and Russell.
Ms Cunningham asks whether the attempts to "punish Ms Peggie was "essentially because Sandie Peggie was guilty of the same heresy that has so exercised Ms Russell in being prepared that Dr Upton is a man".
Ms Russell KC said: "I object to that question. It is not heresy. It is equal treatment. There is a line of jurisprudence regarding article eight where it is offensive to do what Ms Cunningham is doing, which is to refer to Dr Upton in these terms, and in particular to call Dr Upton a man.
"Dr Upton is not a man. For Women Scotland doesn't say so. I am very concerned about the latitude being given to Ms Cunningham to be so offensive in court."
Ms Cunningham replied: "I am not sure I understand the basis of this objection except that Ms Russell doesn't like the language I am using."
Ms Russell interjected to say she objected to being called a heretic.
Ms Cunningham said: "I used the word heresy. I did not suggest that Ms Russell was a heretic."
The judge interjects to point out that Ms Cunningham said the "claimant was different of the same heretic that so exercised Ms Russell".
He said: "That is suggesting that Ms Russell was involved in that heresy. It may not have been intended to but it seems to be listening that it did suggest that."

Anya Palmer pointed out on X, that JR was looking at the England and Wales book, not the one for Scotland.
https://x.com/anyabike/status/1948352824867217476/photo/1

Agree

It's got superior class snobbery running through it like a stick of rock. You will note that none of these upper echelon women are vounteering to strip off in front of males to validate said male's feelings, oh dear me no, only the plebs must do that.

Sounds like my husband.

(It's OK, it's been a joke between us for decades. He genuinely used to think that if I asked him a question, it was more helpful of him to give me an answer - any answer - than to say he didn't know. Didn't matter if he made it up on the spot. I still love him.)

He said: "That is suggesting that Ms Russell was involved in that heresy. It may not have been intended to but it seems to be listening that it did suggest that."

For the duration of the proceedings, JR is involved in that 'heresy', she is defending it to the hilt - that's her job.
Next week she might be defending someone for something else, and her opposite number might make a similar remark. I really can't understand the fuss, and the judge joining in!

But I'm going to follow NC's example and not keep re-making my point several times after I first made it
Besides - lunch!

All these letters to SP should've been sent recorded delivery. I hope they weren't chucking them in the 2nd class post like they do with patient letters!

Ah yes, this reminds me of the time my husband received four letters from the hospital on the same day - two offering appointments for different days and two cancelling the appointments - the dates of which had already passed. He had to phone to make another appointment.

Other than being on the Fife board, does he have any other connections to this case?

Further to @NebulousDog post, Anya P on x goes on to say :
'So where the sex of a Respondent who is accused of sexually harassing the Claimant is in dispute, and that Respondent, arguably the judge himself should be dealing with matters on the basis of sex. He should NOT be allowing repeated interruptions challenging his earlier decision'.

re Judge's bench Book- preferred pronouns.
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/the-judges-bench-book/

The England Judge's Bench book has been changed since this article was published - but it gives you some idea of the background to this row.
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/the-judges-bench-book/

This^^

It’s a double bind.

NC asked GM questions about establishing the reliability of SP and DU based on their track record at work. GM didnt like those questions. And I thought this part of her evidence was weak (good and convincing elsewhere).

However JR is pulling out all the unsubstantiated stuff she can get to undermine SP’s reliability as a claimant. So track record is therefore important to an investigation/hearing?!? Duh.

NC is seen as mean for misgendering and speaking facts. JR seems to be all about the feelings. It’s a weird thing to watch

Oh I had some of this from an Amish bakery in USA last night. So good!

The row about misgendering at this point in proceedings, strikes me as desperate.

There's been plenty of ample opportunities to do this - why does JR now suddenly feel the need to intervene for this witness when she hasn't on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of this week when it was going on?

It suggests it's HER who doesn't like this witnesses evidence rather than trying to make it easier for her client. It's almost a reminder to the witness about whose side she's supposed to be on.

The double think and getting confused about it all, actually highlights a pretty good point though. The cognitive dissonance of having to put aside what you know to be true and all those learned experiences and tow the line affects how people treat a situation or what they say. You aren't treating someone 'exactly the same as anyone else'. The idea that when someone transitions 'they are still the same person' is a myth because the act of transition is a request for you to treat them differently on the basis that they aren't the same person as before.

This is why pronouns matter - it makes to Sandie's case as to question her barrister is allowed to 'misgender' or not because the sex of the defendant is essential to the case. It wakes people up when you start going 'he went into the women's changing room'. Or you start using preferred pronouns in contexts which make the contradiction glaring - like "her penis".

The judge intervening could be for a number of reasons. He may see it as a deliberate football to try and influence and intimidate the witness - by JR not NC. He's not had a problem up til now. The request to make NC comply and her refusal might urk the judge but he may also reflect on why it's so important too.

I think it is fascinating. No one can say that pronouns are neutral and don't harm anyone when we see this literally being argued out in court in this way.

I don't know - when my mum (working class) started nurse training in her 20s, my nan was disappointed as she thought working in an office, which she previously did, was more high class 😄

That was back in the 70s mind.

To state the obvious, nobody is suggesting a witness is to use compelled pronouns; they're asking for counsel to use compelled pronouns.