NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #42

[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 #40 can be found in this thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 41: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379334-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-41 24 July 2025 to 25 July 2025

Love this witness, he is certain that the time stamp anomaly cannot be recreated. That's it, and that’s all.

She's trying to put words in his mouth now...."Lying". He has not once suggested 'lies'.

Is he not entitled to express shock as an expert witness? It seems to me that he is using the exclamation mark to demonstrate his shock with the clear manipulations of the material. That seems fair to me?

It's going to be a hard sell to persuade the panel that the reversioning is, in fact, any sort of 'conundrum'

Couldn’t agree with you more plus if its your job of course you should be paid what kind of maniac works for free?!

Idk, if I find something that’s technically inexplicable, I might use one or even two.

As a techy person, I would absolutely use an exclamation mark to indicate something surprising or important in notes. It is a common professional, technical shorthand.

Much like a ? or ! in a chess report.

(And I would absolutely go to three quite readily. Four would be silly, and is right out)

Are exclamation marks a transphobic microaggression? Like leaving a changing room that a man wants you to be in?

Hoist on his own petard.

I posted earlier that, given the time allowed, I didn't think there would be any bombshells. I wasn't expecting JB to turn up with a tactical nuclear device with Upton's name on it.

It did arrive but she decided to flog it until dead instead.

Wow.

“JR - your comments stray, because it's the trib to determine whats fair correct?

JB - I say it because professional and do wonder why she would be made to prepare her own evidence. I think that’s fair comment”

Experienced independent expert remarking on fact DU was allowed to concoct prepare their own evidence! 😳

Garden path was used twice - shame on him for not using "leading us around the paddock on a pony"

Jim is back from his wobble and standing his grounds.

JR suggests there is no reason that Dr U would have edited unrelated shopping list. (Of course he would not have edited other notes to cover his trail).

Jim is being frank and his tone sounds credible. He just cant replicate Dr U's version and that's that. He is following notes, considering JR's questions and answering calmly and thoughtfully. "I get the logic but I don't accept it".

From TT

JR - 1669 - para 3.2 firm in your conclusion, despite being dated 26th Aug, wasn't created till 3:10 26th Oct. Very certain
JB - yes
JR - scsh2 version hist at 3:10am 26th oct creation date isn't it
JB - y
JR - 1657 - scsh18 terrain shopping list, similar date and time

Fifer : ahv got this, eh pal. He's a Speccie Loddie tae. Been at the Software Engineerin 25 year. Being sure of what he kens, what he can prove, what he disnae ken, whit he cannae prove (aw different hings, he tried tae explain it tae me but ah wis pished). Onyhoo, if thon JR wis at him aboot his work product, she'd be as weel running intae a dry stane wa. She'd get jist as faur. Ma money is still on the Mexican Boxer ah mean Speccie Loddie.

JB - yes
JR - scsh 1659 - 2 scsh all 26th oct around 3am. Possible something happened at that date/time to impact all 5
JB - no, can't have a version hist with prior edit date
JR - scsh18 edit date 2nd may, sc sh 20 see edit dates all earlier than 26th oct. connundrum
JR -edit preceeds creation
JB - yes
JR - you don't believe the sync explanation
JB - no
JR - must be something else not only explanation
JB - PD and I tried to recreate, it just can't happen
JR - is it the only explanation or you don't know

Fifer : she wants him tae say what we aw are thinking. Once you've eliminated the impossible, what remains is the fuckin trooth. Thae files are as bogey as a six poond note.

JB - can't explain, only thing is someone has put a screen shot over it, there's no recording of it, DU has filed, would expect to see in file names
JR - did you see files
JB - never produced
JR - so if you've not seen the file can you say the lying explanation is the only one?
JB - it's just not possible

JR - look at terrain scsh one of the problem ones, an odd note to manipulate, aluminium mesh from halfords, unless hobby is a secret, odd to lie about this notes creation
JB - go to scsh19 at bottom of weird incident note, gives you part of note, theres 3 dots, those don't appea

Fifer : so we're in the desperation lap here.

JB - elsewhere
J - ask re dots
JB - I can't recreate what's shown might be correct but the version history to the right, i just can't repeat what is on the screen
JR - google gives notes in create order?
JB - yes
JR - framework for Ucat aip note if that was created, the thin above was created first
JB - not necessarily, theres a tick top left, shows a facility to pin a note to the top, so the logic doesn't work, it's put at top as priority
JR - comment is this one was below something else
JB - the scsh to the left appears to say the framework appear

Fifer : ah huv actually pished masel laughin (only a wee bit). Excuse us a meenit.

Is there any chance that this will all be disregarded because DU voluntarily provided phone evidence and it was not court ordered?

Or is that irrelevant, since the court agreed to hear the evidence and it seems that DU far from being cooperative beyond what was required may actually have been attempting to mislead?

JR saying she has ten minutes left.

<Sets timer>

I want JB to say by the way I have found the missing risk assessment, title only and not filled in

Yes, it is. An expert witness is required to give their honest opinion regardless of whether it helps or hinders the side that called them. However, there is a tendency with many experts to try and help the side that is paying them if they can.

Heck, even if NC had put up a Google tech bro JR would still resort to this barrel scrapping.

Her fishing point about patient care issues was interesting.

Hmmm… I suspect it wasn’t something as neutral as ‘nurse’….

Punctuation is now transphobic. 😂

JR trying to sound like she knows what she is talking about now lol

From TT

JR - 10 more mins?

I'd walk away now love.

That is where Fife is now

.... and JR who thought she had clients with aligning interests but has now realized that DU fabricated evidence to suit his agenda

I want JB to say by the way I have found the missing risk assessment, title only and not filled in

I agree. However, I think some people who are experts get quite animated when they do find something unusual in evidence which means they need to work harder to test the veracity. That level of keen interest can sometimes spill over, and those experts who are especially good at what they do love the challenge when that happens. I’ve worked with experts in a number of areas and it’s the thing that gets us all ‘animated’ when we have a hunch pan out into solid evidence.

He might well have got a bit carried away. But he’s a tech experts finding evidence in digital documents that suggest all is not as it seems. If he can provide proof that’s the case, that’s what makes the job worthwhile.

Perhaps if NHSF’s own employed IT expert could have come up with something more solid in terms of an alternative explanation, JR might not be overly concerned with the odd ‘!’. When that’s all you have, it’s a bit desperate IMO.

Expert witness:

“This is just not possible.”

Over and again.