NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #41

[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: 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
Thread 40: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5378996-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-40

Actually 2 people were asked about Pete and only one said Pete wouldnt be believed if he just said he was a woman, the other one said he would. The one who said no to just saying he was a woman said he'd be Ok if he put on a dress (my paraphrase, I think it was something more about living as a woman).

If you are impartial and asked if something was a lie you'd say something like there was insufficient evidence, you wouldnt say no it wasnt lies.

So, the cabal of 6: MC, KS, ED, and who else?

Oh of course, in theory 😉

Unsurprisingly they didn’t call the HR person who thought the suspension ludicrous. They called AG because the inference they could apply to her not being called was significant but they called the least involved other HR person as a sop to the process.

However, it comes as no surprise that when asked ‘do you agree that the whole process was built around validating DU and punishing SP’ the witness answers no.

It is only to be expected they will deny things but the documents are more reliable evidence.

I wonder if the IT person has found the first unaltered draft of the interview notes? I wish I wish I wish.

There is no doubt in my mind that DU was encouraged by KS to include patient safety instances. DU knows he made them up (as safety issues) and he was worried that he was opening that up for discovery. AG helped protect him and KS from that discovery.

KS went to speak to RA when she shouldn’t because she knows she is responsible for these falsifications to be included.

Cor.

😂😂

But the burden of proof in civil law is balance of probabilities so presumably if you have one person saying X happened, one person saying it didn’t and a witness saying they saw nothing untoward you’d have to say, on balance of probability, that it didn’t happen. Or at least not in the way it was described in the complaint.

I thought it'd be more like:

Now children, is lovely Beth a lady?

NC: OH NO HE ISN'T
JR: OH YES SHE IS

Am I right in thinking Sandie wanted to bring her MP/MSP with her to the investigation (because her own union were identifying as chocolate fireguard) and was told it wasn't allowed?

The problem with Pete the Plumber is that he will be considered to be working class by KS & DU. Pete is like SP. Not posh enough for the doctors.

I think normally you cam only bring a colleague or a union member so that seems ok to me.

I apologise for those TMS English cricket fans on here as I have just started listening 🎧

.

I'll blame the incoming collapse on you.

In the events that caused Allison Bailey to sue her chambers, Garden Court, there had been a critical phonecall received by Michelle Brewer, a committed gender zealot and now a judge, and in the course of receiving that phonecall, she drove her car, with her children in it, into a bin.

A better, less partisan. Response might have been: there is a difference between the accounts of what happens and no evidence to further support either account, I’m not sure that in itself is evidence of lying.

Maggie Currar, Kate Searle, Esther Davidson, Lauren Harris, Elspeth Pitt and someone else?

Defo included the 2 nurse managers that SP reported to - and who didn't tell her how she could take her complaint further - even though that is what they all have been keen to tell the tribunal that SP should have done...

https://x.com/claire88424030/status/1948075110172328116?t=ou_F3KhG1G5qGizByKzNaA&s=19

IIRC the missing patient one was placed at October 31st because it concerned a child who was given a Snickers bar for Halloween & was allergic to peanuts.

Other than that, I'm completely lost as to what went on when - apart from Xmas Eve, obvs.

If I can ask a Q again, what is the status of the patient incidents, following the internal investigation?

Normal you can A) expect your union rep to actually represent you B) not have a supposed witness with you and have secret squirrel meetings to alter testimony. So it seems that they are stickers for the rules and able to consult the policy when Sandie wants a bit of leeway but go all its not ideal but when the good Dr wants everyone to bend over backwards. Either policy is policy or it's more of a guideline but it should be applied evenly to both parties.

Well yes, that is of course true.

Except which colleague do you bring?
Presumably like Rehanna noone particularly wants to get involved or be seen to agree in case they also get suspended?
It seems bad that if the union won't represent you and your colleagues pull back, then having your MP isn't unreasonable

For anyone new to this board, the employment tribunal which this was referenced was the subject of another mega thread, though not as long as this one (I can't remember what number we got to in the end).

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

From The Times article linked at 15:27 above:
Rowling added: “In Bumba and Searle’s world, a belief that gender identity trumps biological sex is proof you’re intellectually and morally superior to women like Sandie Peggie, so I’d imagine it’s come as a shock to discover, in a blaze of public and press scrutiny, just how idiotic and cruel they appear to people outside their dinner party circle.”

Do you think that's linked to the section about Dr Upton's stepfather, the Bishop of St Andrew's, where he says one of the things he and his wife like is hospitality around the dinner table?

(When I first read it I thought that sounded a bit out-of-touch for a Bishop, especially when added to liking art and poetry. But perhaps that's me being classist. I have an in-law who's a Bishop's son, and he wouldn't have just those three things as the one things he enjoys, he'd have something down-to-earth instead or as well.)

Refers to an earlier GC discrimination case - Allison Bailey's? - where a manager was too upset to follow the process correctly after reversing her car into a bin. The history is fuzzy now but the bin was very memorable.

Someone else may remember better.

"Email from MC to DU's LM, you (KS), ED, LH & LC"

(with thanks to Ickky, thread 37, page 3)

Thread by @tribunaltweets on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App