Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #46

1000 replies

nauticant · 28/07/2025 16:04

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 had been intended to be 28 July with 2 days of submissions from counsel meaning that the hearing was to have ended on 30 July. However, it became apparent as the hearing progressed that this schedule wouldn't be followed. (Considerable understatement.)

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: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 41: 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
Thread 42: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379820-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-42 25 July 2025 to 25 July 2025
Thread 43: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379979-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-43 25 July 2025 to 27 July 2025
Thread 44: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5380196-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-44 25 July 2025 to 28 July 2025
Thread 45: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5381518-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-45 28 July 2025 to 28 July 2025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
Binglebong · 29/07/2025 00:00

Snoopy1612 · 28/07/2025 22:55

Public health Scotland A & E data to May with interactive charts

Well done! I couldn't lay my hands on it.

KnottyAuty · 29/07/2025 00:00

moto748e · 28/07/2025 23:15

Fife spent a day on mudslinging rather than address the issue at hand. What a waste of time.

But aimed more at the court of public opinion, maybe.

No JR will be trying to show that SP is an intolerant bigot and that’s why she didn’t want to share a CR with DU. As opposed to what SP claims which is that she wanted a SSS free from males

Kucinghitam · 29/07/2025 00:01

Just caught up on today’s wild ride.

My tuppence-worth is that the shared conversation is racist. Weirdly though, I can’t say I’m disappointed or surprised because NHSF has been hinting darkly since the start of this tribunal that Sandie was a Trumpian bigot and I recall feeling rather puzzled back then, that they were relying on oblique references, waiting for the smoking gun.

My further take is that everybody in that conversation is racist; nobody complained and LN at least laughed (it’s not clear whether anybody else did). I’m on numerous group chats with different groups friends, have been for years - if any such things had ever been shared on those, they’d have been called out.

Right now as a reality-based, sex-recognising, immigrant, person-of-colour, I’d not feel confident in anybody at NHSF treating me. Not the high-on-their-own-righteous-farts medics who can’t recognise sex and have a mission to evangelise against wrong-thinkers. Not the toxic fake-friend nurses who dimly thought they could chuck one person under the bus.

Bottom line for me is that even bigoted people deserve privacy, dignity, due process and yes, single-sex spaces.

cascade31 · 29/07/2025 00:04

This has probably been said. But after listening to Michael Foren's take from today. It's so obvious now that Lindsay is ground zero for all those rumours, that all the witnesses have been saying that they heard.

moto748e · 29/07/2025 00:08

KnottyAuty · 29/07/2025 00:00

No JR will be trying to show that SP is an intolerant bigot and that’s why she didn’t want to share a CR with DU. As opposed to what SP claims which is that she wanted a SSS free from males

We'll have to agree to differ, Knotty. Surely the legal case is lost for Fife, the judgement will be decided on the law, and SP's motive and opinions won't come into it. Although it might on considerations of compensation, but IANAL.

Binglebong · 29/07/2025 00:08

JR did well today. She changed the conversation.

Yes, it's largely irrelevant, if anything it shows SP in a good light as she didn't let it affect her job. But right now it is all anyone is talking about.

Binglebong · 29/07/2025 00:09

I mean a bad light for thinking and saying those things but LEGALLY in a good light as it didn't affect patient care (at least to the extent of affecting her record).

Largesso · 29/07/2025 00:10

Just finished listening to the estimable Foran and of course I can’t do it justice but he takes us through NC cross and demonstrates its brilliance. Effectively NC destroyed the credibility of both witnesses today.

The first was easy relatively speaking cos she couldn’t remember anything and what she’d heard was 2nd and 3rd hand.

The second because she is on a crusade to bring SP down and her report is extremely biased by that animus which has been clearly expressed.

My take is she wants to appear in public to get some of the attention SP has been getting which she doesn’t believe she deserves and thinks she herself deserves attention for being all that herself but as the evidence shows she has done much worse professionally speaking by talking about a patient, using there name and talking about their complaints. Those who throw stones etc

Foran thinks there was something worse that NC elected not to use in the moment because he thinks she decided that she wasn’t there to destroy this woman’s career but to point out that she herself would not like her whole character to be based on a wrong thing on a private chat.

It has always been the case that there was a likelihood SP holds racist views, at least to the point where she doesn’t stop herself sharing racist jokes. There is no evidence that she is homophobic or transphobic. In fact the opposite.

As Foran says there is no connection between the sharing of racist jokes and whether it was reasonable for her to want to not have a man in the f cr.

They would have to show that she was an out and out bigot and her bigotry was the motivation.

NC also established that when challenged SP was apologetic and conciliatory and establishes that if LN was as shocked by the racist jokes as she claimed that instead of posting a laughing emoji of shes pointed out to SP that what she was sharing was unacceptable then SO would have likely apologised.

Lots for the panel to infer from but really the witnesses are not credible
and this is a hatchet job at the behest of NHSF to try and resteer
public opinion, which it will to a degree of course. SP will be labelled an out and out bigot and that will be a difficult environment for her to navigate post tribunal.

It won’t necessarily impact the panel’s judgment— I think they will not factor today’s evidence in much of at all.

If Sandy does appear again JR will claim she lied in her initial testimony when she said she ‘didn’t hold those views’. Much as I have very little respect for JR I don’t think I’m alone in very much wanting to hear how SP thinks that tallies with sharing such racist jokes.

The submissions and the judgment will make fascinating reading.

Anotheremptynester · 29/07/2025 00:12

KnottyAuty · 29/07/2025 00:00

No JR will be trying to show that SP is an intolerant bigot and that’s why she didn’t want to share a CR with DU. As opposed to what SP claims which is that she wanted a SSS free from males

ah the bigot word, one of those ad hominems that is often twisted to suit, like fascist or even nazi. It deepens the “us vs. them” mentality. But the fact is plenty of women wouldnt want to share a CR with DU, some are racist, some are not, but they all want a SSS free from males.

KnottyAuty · 29/07/2025 00:12

moto748e · 29/07/2025 00:08

We'll have to agree to differ, Knotty. Surely the legal case is lost for Fife, the judgement will be decided on the law, and SP's motive and opinions won't come into it. Although it might on considerations of compensation, but IANAL.

Im not saying what I believe. I’m saying what the two opposing arguments might be regarding the SP’s claim of harassment related to sex - JR’s job is to undermine that and say SP was a general bigot instead. The harassment claim is No1 on a long list which mostly Fife have lost but JR is still fighting to win claim 1… to be clear I’m not buying it but then I’m not on the panel

Edited due to getting mixed up with discrimination and harassment - not sure I’ve got this right yet sorry!

FictionalCharacter · 29/07/2025 00:19

Binglebong · 29/07/2025 00:08

JR did well today. She changed the conversation.

Yes, it's largely irrelevant, if anything it shows SP in a good light as she didn't let it affect her job. But right now it is all anyone is talking about.

Exactly. The BBC, of course, pounced on the jokes and made them a headline.
This will be what the tribunal is remembered for. Not Upton, or LD breaching patient confidentiality in a way that could legitimately have cost her her job.

suggestionsplease1 · 29/07/2025 00:21

moto748e · 29/07/2025 00:08

We'll have to agree to differ, Knotty. Surely the legal case is lost for Fife, the judgement will be decided on the law, and SP's motive and opinions won't come into it. Although it might on considerations of compensation, but IANAL.

Why wouldn't it come into play? SP's credibility and reliability are deeply in question now. Of course that will be taken into account.

Anotheremptynester · 29/07/2025 00:23

Largesso · 29/07/2025 00:10

Just finished listening to the estimable Foran and of course I can’t do it justice but he takes us through NC cross and demonstrates its brilliance. Effectively NC destroyed the credibility of both witnesses today.

The first was easy relatively speaking cos she couldn’t remember anything and what she’d heard was 2nd and 3rd hand.

The second because she is on a crusade to bring SP down and her report is extremely biased by that animus which has been clearly expressed.

My take is she wants to appear in public to get some of the attention SP has been getting which she doesn’t believe she deserves and thinks she herself deserves attention for being all that herself but as the evidence shows she has done much worse professionally speaking by talking about a patient, using there name and talking about their complaints. Those who throw stones etc

Foran thinks there was something worse that NC elected not to use in the moment because he thinks she decided that she wasn’t there to destroy this woman’s career but to point out that she herself would not like her whole character to be based on a wrong thing on a private chat.

It has always been the case that there was a likelihood SP holds racist views, at least to the point where she doesn’t stop herself sharing racist jokes. There is no evidence that she is homophobic or transphobic. In fact the opposite.

As Foran says there is no connection between the sharing of racist jokes and whether it was reasonable for her to want to not have a man in the f cr.

They would have to show that she was an out and out bigot and her bigotry was the motivation.

NC also established that when challenged SP was apologetic and conciliatory and establishes that if LN was as shocked by the racist jokes as she claimed that instead of posting a laughing emoji of shes pointed out to SP that what she was sharing was unacceptable then SO would have likely apologised.

Lots for the panel to infer from but really the witnesses are not credible
and this is a hatchet job at the behest of NHSF to try and resteer
public opinion, which it will to a degree of course. SP will be labelled an out and out bigot and that will be a difficult environment for her to navigate post tribunal.

It won’t necessarily impact the panel’s judgment— I think they will not factor today’s evidence in much of at all.

If Sandy does appear again JR will claim she lied in her initial testimony when she said she ‘didn’t hold those views’. Much as I have very little respect for JR I don’t think I’m alone in very much wanting to hear how SP thinks that tallies with sharing such racist jokes.

The submissions and the judgment will make fascinating reading.

where is this? ichecked twitter but not there, thank you so much in advance...

KnottyAuty · 29/07/2025 00:23

Largesso · 29/07/2025 00:10

Just finished listening to the estimable Foran and of course I can’t do it justice but he takes us through NC cross and demonstrates its brilliance. Effectively NC destroyed the credibility of both witnesses today.

The first was easy relatively speaking cos she couldn’t remember anything and what she’d heard was 2nd and 3rd hand.

The second because she is on a crusade to bring SP down and her report is extremely biased by that animus which has been clearly expressed.

My take is she wants to appear in public to get some of the attention SP has been getting which she doesn’t believe she deserves and thinks she herself deserves attention for being all that herself but as the evidence shows she has done much worse professionally speaking by talking about a patient, using there name and talking about their complaints. Those who throw stones etc

Foran thinks there was something worse that NC elected not to use in the moment because he thinks she decided that she wasn’t there to destroy this woman’s career but to point out that she herself would not like her whole character to be based on a wrong thing on a private chat.

It has always been the case that there was a likelihood SP holds racist views, at least to the point where she doesn’t stop herself sharing racist jokes. There is no evidence that she is homophobic or transphobic. In fact the opposite.

As Foran says there is no connection between the sharing of racist jokes and whether it was reasonable for her to want to not have a man in the f cr.

They would have to show that she was an out and out bigot and her bigotry was the motivation.

NC also established that when challenged SP was apologetic and conciliatory and establishes that if LN was as shocked by the racist jokes as she claimed that instead of posting a laughing emoji of shes pointed out to SP that what she was sharing was unacceptable then SO would have likely apologised.

Lots for the panel to infer from but really the witnesses are not credible
and this is a hatchet job at the behest of NHSF to try and resteer
public opinion, which it will to a degree of course. SP will be labelled an out and out bigot and that will be a difficult environment for her to navigate post tribunal.

It won’t necessarily impact the panel’s judgment— I think they will not factor today’s evidence in much of at all.

If Sandy does appear again JR will claim she lied in her initial testimony when she said she ‘didn’t hold those views’. Much as I have very little respect for JR I don’t think I’m alone in very much wanting to hear how SP thinks that tallies with sharing such racist jokes.

The submissions and the judgment will make fascinating reading.

Also to flag up that today’s 2 witnesses spoke to each other in the lunch break. It seems that Margaret Gribbon saw them. FW was under oath at the time and shouldn’t have spoken to anyone, never mind the next witness (worst person to speak to!). So these 2 people have also managed to undermine their credibility even before their participation in unsavoury chat and regulatory failure. For them I fear today will be considered sad times.

Largesso · 29/07/2025 00:25

Needspaceforlego · 28/07/2025 23:19

I think it was a post with about 12 jokes on it that had been forwarded to Sandie that she forwarded on

If the jokes had been about some other disaster then racism wouldn't have come into it. They'd just be a bunch of sick jokes.

As part of theory that the jokes start flying 4hrs after disaster strikes. I think when they start talking about 1000s and 1000s of people being harmed people cannot comprehend the scale of it and It becomes face-less, just numbers, that nobody can comprehend.

Disasters with a few hundred killed even the 9/11 attacks names and photos are published. People can put themselves in the picture, that could be their husband, wife, etc.

There’s also the possibility that SP only read the first one before sharing. Someone else on here glanced at it and didn’t think it was more than a bad pun but when you read it in the context of the others it worsens significantly.

It is not beyond the realms that she shared the post without having read the whole thing. Or even more than the first line.

We shall find out in due course.

FuckedOffWithTheLotOfThem · 29/07/2025 00:30

Hi, lurker here who's been trying to make sense of today's testimonies whilst trying to keep up with work. Would anyone be kind enough to explain the additional evidence that was talked about this morning, please? My understanding is that:

  • JR had access to a limited number of messages from the group chat and asked to submit them as late additions to the bundle, so that she could use them while examining her two witnesses
  • NC said "ok, but if you're adding those 20 messages, I want to add these other 3,000 from the same chat"

Is that about right, or have I misunderstood? I was following the TT posts that were being added to this thread but was struggling to make sense of what was going on, and I couldn't work out who was adding what to the bundle.

Tia 🙏

Akela64 · 29/07/2025 00:30

It takes fortitude to expose your past mistakes and imperfections to public scrutiny. I know that I've not the courage which is why I'm an anon poster on mumsnet.

I'm grateful to SP for standing up to institutional misogyny. To quote Mae West, "Virtue has its own reward, but no sale at the box office."

KnottyAuty · 29/07/2025 00:31

Largesso · 29/07/2025 00:25

There’s also the possibility that SP only read the first one before sharing. Someone else on here glanced at it and didn’t think it was more than a bad pun but when you read it in the context of the others it worsens significantly.

It is not beyond the realms that she shared the post without having read the whole thing. Or even more than the first line.

We shall find out in due course.

Oh you’ve reminded me of a time I forwarded a work email from a client without reading it properly. The client had made a mild but ill judged remark (totally unnecessary and irrelevant to the task in hand) which I hadn’t spotted. We were both in trouble for that one.

Largesso · 29/07/2025 00:31

Peregrina · 28/07/2025 23:28

The witness who raised the flag on this did her own additions to the chat including was criticising a witness who complained and shared her full name and medical condition. She admitted she breached NMC rules.

The part that I don't understand here is that I thought things said in court were privileged. So can the fact that the witness breached NMC rules be used to take action against her?

I get the impression that the whole of the NHS is quite racist, which perhaps explains why such EDI policies as they had don't address them.

Not that she said it in court but the evidence exists. It is now public record so impossible to ignore.

What you say in court can’t be used in a claim of defamation so SP can’t sue her for defamation, say, but if the evidence reveals another crime or regulatory failure the evidence of that can open up distinct proceedings.

I mean what she did csn be career ending so the fact that NHSF didn’t earn her that was a risk won’t stop the regulatory body pursuing it (Nurse and Midwifery I think?)

I think.

crabbyoldbat · 29/07/2025 00:33

suggestionsplease1 · 29/07/2025 00:21

Why wouldn't it come into play? SP's credibility and reliability are deeply in question now. Of course that will be taken into account.

She's never been asked about these messages, so I'm not sure how her credibility or reliability is affected

SadSadTimes · 29/07/2025 00:36

So much rending of garments.

Women have the right to single sex spaces.

I stand with Sandie Peggie.

Largesso · 29/07/2025 00:38

FuckedOffWithTheLotOfThem · 29/07/2025 00:30

Hi, lurker here who's been trying to make sense of today's testimonies whilst trying to keep up with work. Would anyone be kind enough to explain the additional evidence that was talked about this morning, please? My understanding is that:

  • JR had access to a limited number of messages from the group chat and asked to submit them as late additions to the bundle, so that she could use them while examining her two witnesses
  • NC said "ok, but if you're adding those 20 messages, I want to add these other 3,000 from the same chat"

Is that about right, or have I misunderstood? I was following the TT posts that were being added to this thread but was struggling to make sense of what was going on, and I couldn't work out who was adding what to the bundle.

Tia 🙏

Not quite right but easy to see how you got there!

The whole chat group lasted 7 years and they were a chatty bunch so reams and reams of pages.

Originally LN only submitted screenshots in the second disclosure. Screenshots which left out her laughing emoji.

JR argued for these two witnesses on Friday. NC argued against. jR won.

SP must have given counsel the whole chat over the weekend and they’ve gone through it in detail. Having done that this morning they asked to add more pages to the bundle.

JR claimed that was ridiculous as it would be 3000 pages.

NC only the relevant pages amounts to 24.

Appalonia · 29/07/2025 00:40

Largesso · 28/07/2025 21:30

From Foran summary it is clear that JR only got these witnesses in at the last minute because they supposedly had useful info about Xmas incident. Fiona has no recollections! JR totally misled the panel to get the racist stuff in — totally trying to win public opinion. Instruction from NHSF as damage limitation.

Feels like Fife said to themselves, well, if we're going down in flames, we're taking Sandie with us...

Largesso · 29/07/2025 00:42

Anotheremptynester · 29/07/2025 00:23

where is this? ichecked twitter but not there, thank you so much in advance...

Substack. To access the podcasts you have to take out a paid subscription but at £5/ month it’s worth it! That man is working hard.

https://open.substack.com/pub/knowingius?r=pgcts&utm_medium=ios

Knowing Ius | Michael Foran | Substack

Writing and podcasting about law for a public audience. Quite a bit about discrimination law, sex, and gender identity. Sometimes about other areas of law. Click to read Knowing Ius, by Michael Foran, a Substack publication with thousands of subscriber...

https://knowingius.org

PollyNomial · 29/07/2025 00:46

HornyHornersPinkyWinky · 28/07/2025 18:59

I’m not going to try and defend what Sandie shared, I think they’re awful.

That doesn’t change the fact that she’s entitled to a single sex space in her workplace. And further entitled to proper treatment by her employer when she raises this issue.

She is not wrong about the issues pertinent to the tribunal, just because she may hold unpleasant views about other things.

She's not. Making comments like that should bar her from every staff changing room because the NHS shouldn't employ people saying racist things.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.