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

Surely you can note anything that concerns you, no matter how trivial it seems to others? When it builds into a pattern we can jump straight from "a bit odd, I felt uncomfortable with this string of small individual incidents" to "I now have evidence of stalking"?

But for most purposes the distinction between 2 and 3 is irrelevant.

Involving unconsenting others in their fetish is what matters, not the specific details of whether they are turned on by appropriating women's stuff or womanhood itself.

What was the bit about consternation on the call?

Yep real tech types normally have a low tolerance threshold for people who try to pretend they know what they are talking about but actually don’t. (That includes my brothers, my son etc) They (JR) need to be careful otherwise the Tech guys will be doing eye swivels.

I think the best Mr Donaldson has been able to say is "We had no reason to believe Dr Upton was leading us up the garden path"

Why would you ever allow yourself to view HTML provided by an untrusted source? You have no idea what kind of scripts are buried in it!

Utterly baffled. Hope it will all become clear.

Useful person to know, that Jitrenka😁

I have no idea what's going on. The assumption is that dates have been edited. But I'm struggling to see the significance. Before, after,...??

From TT

JR - JB says not downloaded during Teams meeting
PD - DU moved the files to
JR - slow
PD - up to screen 5 into auto folder downloads
JR - from 6 what happened
PD - she wanted to put them somewhere easily accessible for her
JR - where PD - her work area docs/med/workarea

Fifer : osha beastie min. Here's the hing. If JR hinks it's mair important tae shite in IT #2's cornflakes than tae get ahead of the story ae why the disclosure procedure looked like a dropped kebab... then ah huv tae suspect that their ane witness had done them mair damage then shittin the bed instead ae doing proper disclosure.

JR - can you help with whether these we were looking at were accessed during your meeting
PD - after they were created, they were pulled at the time of the call
JR - sc sh 4 - dates rh column what are they
PD - creation of downloads
JR - date
PD - 16th may on the call 11:24-11:40

JR - comment on sc sh not taken during call?
PD - they were taken during call
CE - hello, I'm asking qu for SP, pick up first on quandry version hist dates showing creation 26th Oct. you say no tech explanation
PD -not that I'm aware of

Fifer : careful answer duly noted (peers ower glesses at screen)

CE - 1645 - sc sh of file location
PD - yes
CE - these html are useful at face value
PD - yes
CE - last portion of html gives creation date
PD - yes
CE so we look at this, subject toit bein editable, face value, that's the date
PD - yes

NC has deployed the Young Team. I think it's always good to give them a run oot, and it's quite possible CE has slightly better Tech Chops here.

CE - 1659 - these shots they purport to demo other similar errors going on
PD - yes, they highlight creation on 26th Oct in google, but genuine belief they were earlier, it's context.
CE - sync base explanation thats DU's explaination
PD - yes, in a forensic capacity i could

Fifer : (sarcastic posh voice) oooooh in a forensic capacity. Sorry mlaird, canny help masel sometimes ken?

You and me both. It's currently a pile of nonsense speak.

CE being way more on top of this than JR. No criticism intended, some people just have more aptitude for tech stuff.

maybe date when alleged other incidents were really recorded?

"We had no reason to believe Dr Upton was leading us up the garden path"

Interesting choice of phrase.

I'm perhaps being a little slow this morning, but why are they questioning PD about DUs phone notes? I thought PD would be the witness they questioned about whether due process had been followed in regards to the order to submit emails and JB the guy that should be questioned over phones?

From TT

CE you were just downloading, not asked to figure out how occured
PD - yes, but consternation on call, so included others at the time
CE - other instances of creation dates
PD - 3am that day issue yes

Fifer : The 3am issue. We'll be seein that again, like a bad side ae pakora

CE - there's other data thoug
PD - what
CE - html data
PD - will give same

Fifer : will it, aye?

I heard in a podcast that Nick Wallis made (it’s still available on BBC sounds), where he speaks to the new CEO of POL.
His name is Nick, something or other.

Which is an achievement in itself, cos Vennell’s categorically wouldn’t speak to the press.

Anyway! NW raises the issue that many (all?) of the PO members of staff called to give evidence at the enquiry actually received a bonus.

His own was £15k, which he ‘gave back’ apparently.

Scandalous.

Dr U could have edited them to look like they were made earlier? Is that the inference here?

She hasn’t a clue.

Judge telling JR it's not her turn

"We had no reason to believe Dr Upton was leading us up the garden path" - is this Fifespeak for - there's something very hinky about the dates but hey we trust Beth coz she's a doctor?

So Upton created the document IT are giving evidence on?

Have I understood that right?

Really poor prep by Fife. Evidence is completely discardable. Fife’s tech witness didn’t produce the report. Upton did. Shocking!

Reminds me of "I don't think you can prove it"

It's all about that Upton's notes that he says were created on a certain date in their metadata seem to have dates that could be said to be creation dates that don't match. But in an operating system in which the notes can be interacted with in different ways via different functions/apps it's possible that dates can be modified so without a much deeper knowledge of what went on it's all rather inconclusive. At least so far.