NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #48

[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 was 29 July 2025. It will resume again on 1 to 2 September for closing submissions.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February 2025. Sandie Peggie returned to give evidence on 29 July 2025.

Access to view the second part of 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
Thread 46: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5381640-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-46 28 July 2025 to 29 July 2025
Thread 47: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5382102-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-47 29 July 2025 to 29 July 2025

Well, I was responding to your comment, I just don’t believe rolling back trans women’s rights makes anyone safer

• *If I misunderstood what you meant, then fair enough. But can you say what you feel the difference to be between 'trans safety and protections' and 'trans women’s rights'? And, may I ask again, what rights/safety/protections (whichever terms you prefer) have been rolled back?

You know, sometimes this discussion gets really polarised and a bit nasty. We start parading the worst TIMs we know about- Tiffany and Isla, and Barbie- to illustrate our points.

I get that’s unpleasant. I get that DU doesn’t like the discussion about him to refer to Isla and the like.

Do you know why it does? Because people wilfully and blindly refuse to consider the implications of their ‘kindness’ to everyone else.

If you listen to women when they speak, they won’t need resort to the worst examples of why we don’t want men in women’s spaces.

I meant that if a man has nefarious intentions- he’s not going to go into a toilet to fulfil them in the vast majority of cases.

Although you may not read it, let me be the first of a chorus of people to point out that a man entering a female changing room has already by that very act fulfilled a nefarious intention against women. You don't need to put your hand on someone to do them harm: that's why we have offences like voyeurism, exhibitionism and many others which require only the presence of the victim and offender in the same space.

Just putting these links here for those concerned for other women/ children affected by trans issues. There are different links I haven't added from parents of children who say they are trans, as the list would be too long! Nearly all the women/ children affected - whether abuse victims , family members or women self excluding from abuse support/ public toilets/ leisure centres as they have no SS options- keep their experiences private, never speaking up (eg in work for their own privacy) and will be in school/ workplaces with you and your children. There will be few mumsnet readers who don't know anyone negatively affected (you may not know anyone who trusts you enough to talk about it, but that's a different issue!)

The only ones I know who have spoken up have ALL got rape/ death threats or abuse for the crime of speaking up (as a couple of them detail in the links). Sandie is very brave, especially given the ongoing public threats to women seen on signs at TRA marches etc in recent months.

https://transcrimeuk.com/
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/gra-inquiry-submission/
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/the-abusive-autogynephile/
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/not-shutting-up/
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/precious-messages-and-a-little-bit-of-hate-mail/
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/how-to-help-children-of-transitioners/
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/stop-using-us-as-props/

Due to work and holidays, I’m several million threads behind with little hope of catching up but I can’t tell you how happy I am that yesterday, after 5pm a FWR thread returned to the subject of wheatabix. If anyone wishes to discuss hot milk with it, I still think you are wrong, but I forgive you.

I'm quite disappointed; I would've liked an open and sensible discussion about this, because, you're right, we are always in danger of all bouncing the same ideas around in an echo chamber.
I do hope you come back and address my questions and some of the others'.

I think I understand what you are saying but I struggle to see how this could be shown by JR. I mean, if a female-only changing room is not supplied, how is that not indirect discrimination? If you complain about a man being in the space, or that he wouldn't leave when you asked him to, how can it be in bad faith? You genuinely don't want a man to be there and everyone agrees he didn't leave at SP's request.. JR simply cannot prove that SP wasn't having a flooding incident and being a middle-aged woman it's more likely than not to be true. If she changed in a cubicle because BU was there...
Also JR's argument about the scope of the SC judgement flies in the face of reason but why would she say she's going to make that argument if the right of BU to be in the female cr wasn't at issue?

Anyway, you get my drift as well, I'm sure. I will listen in to the oral submissions if I can get access - perhaps all will become clear then.

I think you’ve misunderstood. I meant that if a man has nefarious intentions- he’s not going to go into a toilet to fulfil them in the vast majority of cases. Protecting the loo is not going to protect you.

I don't think I did misunderstand. I think you have pivoted, but to your point: toilets are places where women and girls are vulnerable to male violence. So it is worth making it acceptable again to challenge any man who tries to enter women's facilities - with or without an identity.

I'm not disappointed or indeed surprised by your refusal/inability to engage honestly or in good faith. It's utterly predictable and I've stopped hoping for something different.
Enjoy your yoga.

Fabulous. If you could share your foolproof way of knowing in advance which male people pose a threat to women that would be helpful

There are quite a few women who airily dismiss other women’s rights to privacy and dignity because they “don’t care or see the need” themselves (so?) while falling over themselves to coddle weepy, manipulative men like Upton, and they all seem to me to rather relish displaying their complete lack of empathy for us lesser beings. Suffice to say we’ve seen enough of that in this tribunal with Kate Searle, Elsbeth whatsername etc.

At least SP never tried to falsify evidence, which is more than can be said for the other side, what with the manipulated phone notes and missing emails.

What you said.

Fair enough, I have not read the Handsard. Do you have a link or can you direct me to where I can find it? This is not my area of policy analysis. I do not have time to read now, I want to read it though so I can judge for myself. Been so busy following the tribunal that I am behind on my research.

In the past I was very much supportive of those who have what I believe to be severe body dysmorphia. I never objected to sharing the toilets with men in Canal Street. I had autonomy of choice in that situation and actually most likely naively felt safe it was Gay Men I was sharing with they are not interested in my female body.

With risk of outing myself I know how these predators exploit loop holes and access children and other vulnerable individuals. I unfortunately was one of these children. Supported by professionals who told me to be kind literally. Then experienced a male nurse while I was the most poorly I have ever been. Which has left me terrified of hospitals, not helpful when you have chronic condition.

I have personally and professionally found the privileged middle class snowflakes with the EDI teams the worst for virtue signalling. I have the evidence of the handmaiden’s vitriol for my standing up for women. I pointed out that when I was being bullied during our school years she stood by and did nothing. She was a lovely middle class girl and I was a worthless foster child. Yet thinks she is paragon of virtue when threatening me with her EDI friends.

It is still horrible for those new to our careers even in academia. One of supervisors referred to women as CIS womenI did not feel I could object and say I do not like that term. I am guilty of keeping my opinions to myself and just finding ways to avoid the topic.

Seven years of group chats and one racist comment - which is deplorable and inexcusable but in no way relevant to men in changing rooms.

But not a single transphobic remark in the group chat. For someone who seemingly casually uses P and C words, no use of the T**y term so beloved by Frankie Doyle and others. No other discussion? Now that's weird for someone who is supposed to be a raging transpobe.

Especially as others were talking about both transpeople in general and Upton in particular.

How about hot milk and… a banana? 🍌

@Tangfastic71the whole point is that all women-saintly, average or downright wicked, are entitled to single sex spaces for safety, privacy and dignity. The men involved don’t need to have nefarious intent, indeed if no other spaces are available they might also be embarrassed and unwilling to share. They just need to be men. That’s it. No intention involved at all. The fact that many trans identifying men refuse to use a separate space as this is “othering” and they are “entitled” to use the womens spaces just add to the injustice. Women are entitled to privacy and dignity to get changed/have a hospital ward or prison cell in peace with other women. It’s not entirely about protection.

If you complain about a man being in the space, or that he wouldn't leave when you asked him to, how can it be in bad faith? You genuinely don't want ...

Genuinely is the word to lean on.

Suppose SP had recorded in writing something along the lines of "I don't give a fig who's in the changing room but I hate Beth Upton, I'm going to skewer her for something sooner or later, hope she doesn't make any medical mistakes or fiddle her taxes, because I'll dob her in as soon as look at her" (choice of pronouns deliberate, btw) - and then comes up with a complaint about DU using the women's changing room - it would most likely to be "in bad faith" - In that case it could easily be held that SP was only pretending that her dignity was violated, and that she was motivated not from a genuine desire to reserve a single sex changing room but as pretext to try to punish someone she doesn't like. That would be bad faith.

I agree it looks like discrimination is the hardest skittle to knock down; but JR is the highly paid KC, and constructing legal arguments for her clients is her day job.

@EreshkigalangclegHow very dare you?

Men comporting themselves in women’s changing rooms whilst wearing women’s underwear are committing sexual crimes. What is astonishing is the number of women falling over themselves to enable them.

That is simply untrue.

If someone took part in an otherwise peaceful march where they were filmed saluting in a manner that pays homage to Mr Musk (a lawful activity in the UK), you can be sure their employment would end the day (after) their employer saw the footage.

(I don't believe any march with such behaviour is completely peaceful because of the associations it has.)

Sandie Peggie did not necessarily object to the man in her changing room because she thought he would sexually assault her. She objected because being expected to undress with a man present, or seeing a man undress in a female space, is an attack on her privacy and dignity and harassing to her at a vulnerable time, when she is entitled to a women only space for these things.

😂 🥣 🍌

Is it lawful though? What about the “Nazi pug” Count Dankula case? Also in Scotland I believe.

Looks like it's a case of there is to be 'no debate' yet again.