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

As Lottie Mills evidence pointed out.

She rightly said that there was no evidence to the allegations of poor patient care, etc; and crucially (if there were) why haven’t they been raised before?
It neatly put the onus back on the accuser, as they are obligated to report any incidents of that nature immediately.

I honestly don’t know why you’re here, @Tangfastic71.
You’re being a pest.

Actually, i know exactly why you’re here.

Not just a point of contention in this group. The SC, the highest court in the land has clarified what a woman is and what a man is. A TW is definitely not a woman.

You're far from the only one saying it was a WhatsApp group, but it was actually a Facebook Messenger chat, with seven members all of whom knew each other well and had holidayed together several times. And I have known many people use such language or share sick jokes. It doesn't reflect at all well on them. The worst I came across in my workplace, a household name global corporation, was someone showing sadistic porn to colleagues, whose reactions were mostly uncomfortable laughter. I never saw anyone do something similar again, but no-one reported him to management as far as I know.

Only the most gullible truly believe a man when he says he's a woman. This is like wallet inspector level of credulousness.

Of course NC wouldn’t represent Sex Matters; she can’t as she’s the client, she’s one of the main decision makers of SM. It’s why she didn’t represent Sex Matters in the FWS case.

And it’s why it would be an ethical issue if she was, in her role as a barrister, representing the lead party in a case SM wanted to be added to.

And there, right there…we have some middle ground. Because yes, it is not a black and white issue. And now, we will absolutely have bearded trans men with cocks in women’s spaces. And we will have butch lesbians being challenged in women’s spaces. (Fully appreciate I’m going full bingo card now). I mean, honestly I’ve been in a lot of unisex loos in my time and it bothers me not in the slightest but I see why it would bother others. You are a powerful bunch of women, and you’ve achieved so much by acting as a collective….Im just not in agreement that what you’ve achieved has made us safer. It’s just made an already marginalised group less safe.

Well you all keep asking me questions!! I’m just answering them. And honestly, I don’t think it’s healthy to just exist in an echo chamber. I like to be challenged, it helps me to solidify and question my beliefs and values. I can appreciate why it’s nice not to do that but that’s how Brexit happened

I conceded that I can see why my post was contentious to the majority view here and therefore why it was removed

You're doing it again!

Posts contentious to the majority are most welcome here. I don't know what point you think you're making by assuming they're not.

It’s just made an already marginalised group less safe.

Women quite rightly want trans people to stop using them as support animals to make those trans people feel more comfortable or safe.

"Trans rights are human rights" is a nice sounding phrase trotted out by TRAs. In one sense it is true. Trans individuals have the same rights as anyone else. The problem is that they are arguing for special rights for themselves. Rights that destroy women's rights. Rights that destroy safeguarding for children and vulnerable adults.

I have no problem with anyone wearing whatever clothes they want or calling themselves by whatever name they want. That is absolutely their right. They should not be discriminated against due to their choices. However, male bodied individuals should not be in female changing rooms, female toilets, female wards, female prisons or any other female only space, nor should they be competing in women's sports.

There should be rape services catering for trans individuals, just as there should be such services for men as some men are victims of rape. However, the overwhelming majority of rape victims are women. Understandably, many of them will want a single sex service. They are entitled to that. Male bodied individuals should not invade such single sex services no matter how they identify.

Lesbians are attracted to the female body. The insistence by some TRAs that lesbians should be willing to sleep with trans women is deeply homophobic.

Most trans women are not a danger to women or children. However, that is also true of men. We still don't admit them into women only spaces. And we know that trans women have a similar offending pattern to men with one exception - they are more likely to commit sex offences than men. Admitting trans women to women only spaces places women at greater risk than admitting men.

The current TRA agenda is a charter for misogynists, sexual predators and paedophiles. We saw the Scottish government insisting that it was ludicrous to believe that a sexual predator would identify as female simply to get access to vulnerable females. What is actually ludicrous is believing that they wouldn't.

I fully support the right of anyone to identify as trans, and I would be very much on their side if they were hounded out of their jobs or otherwise discriminated against as a result. But I do not and will not support the current TRA agenda.

Ah I see what you mean now. I fought my own sexual harassment case in the 90s and subsequently others as an advocate. Non of the perpetrators were trans women but I still would have advocated if they were….on either side of the abuse. But apologies, because I’m a bit lost as to your point or question

They’re not though are they…when anyone posts an opposing view, they’re either met with “the lads have arrived” or “the handmaidens have arrived” or “drive by roasting has arrived”. It is the opposite of welcome to opposing views

I've just twigged something, what the heck is the 'need to know' group?

Does Upton have serious dirt on Jamie Doyle?
Is that why he was so keen to shut Sandie up?
Who else does he have dirt on?
Has Sandie poked a bigger hornets nest?

I've been wondering for a bit are there images on Uptons phone that shouldn't be there. Hence he wouldn't hand it over.

If you don't want to be called a handmaiden, don't post like one. If you post like one, expect to be called out on it; welcoming your posts doesn't mean holding back on criticizing them.You're obviously not familiar with the cut and thrust of internet debate, but try posting something even slightly gender critical on any of the Trans reddits and see what sort of reception you get.

Because you disagree with Sandi Peggie and said you don't support her rights.

Do you consider trans identifying men as women in all situations?

If so, well done! You win the "#1 Terrible Ally" medal! 🏅 (sorry it's not unique and special, I've given a few of these out already because the event is not run on merit, it's all about the participation. It does come in the T flag colours for extra "shout my Virtue to the world" points though!)

If you have won this medal, it's because it's vital to give trans identifying patients correct sex medical care, or they (or any children they might unknowingly be pregnant with, in one particularly tragic case recently) may die.

If you don't consider trans identifying men as women in all situations, well then you are telling porky pies about always considering trans identifying women as women, and in fact you know they are men, and then oops! Your misogyny becomes plain for all to see.

ETA: missed the "'ve" from I've

No you don't get away with that.

People who saw the post before it was removed agreed it was abusive.

Simply "contentious" posts, or posts that don't agree with the "majority view" are not reported here.

We welcome and enjoy robust discussion, which includes a variety of viewpoints and opinions. We often see people post "we are not a hive mind".

There is a culture here of not reporting posts*, even if we feel they've broken the MN guidelines, because of what we like to call "Operation Let Them Speak", your posts do all the heavy lifting for us, why would we want them removed?

*except for eg: I reported a post with a link to someone's facebook profile in one of the other threads. The poster agreed it wasn't a good idea to have posted it and had reported themselves too. See, we here at least all can agree other's safety and privacy is important, even if we don't agree with them)

MRA posters who try to upset the women here (and fail miserably btw), post and report, not only to hide the evidence, but to make it seem like the feminists here are unreasonable, in an echo chamber, and have somehow have the power to have posts removed that we don't agree with, even if they don't break the MN guidelines.

Any one who spends any length of time here can figure that out, it's not exactly hard to see.

Shocking bigotry against the trans living community.

Abused and attacked by...men.
Which is 100% a man problem.

So focus on that, and stop eroding women's rights to solve men's problems

Yep. I’m embarrassed for these people.

There aren’t hundreds of thousands of them though, that’s a silly exaggeration by a pp.

That was unfair. I was responding to a poster claiming that 30 years of working with apparently no complaints was evidence her racist views did not impact patients.

I presume if Sandie hadn't complained about Dr. Upton you wouldn't take the absence of complaints to assume there were no issues?!

In my post I tried to explain how subtle and difficult racism is to detect and manage so even if there are were issues it likely wouldn't be picked up, especially as numbers are low in Fife.

But in aggregate this devastating consequences in terms of outcomes for ethnic minorities groups, especially in healthcare.

Thankfully the NMC takes racist attitudes even in communication more seriously than many on this forum.

And to @ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews yes as I've said NHS Fife clearly doesn't give a rats arse about racism in the workplace unless they can use it to help a white privileged man who wants to live as a woman.

PS sorry to posters who are trying to move the conversation on from this.

when anyone posts an opposing view, they’re either met with “the lads have arrived” or “the handmaidens have arrived”

I've never actually seen those phrases used, although I can admit that just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

People do come to the conclusion that some posters here who say they are women are actually men. What's the problem with that?

Yes the word handmaiden is used by some people as a descriptor for those posters they believe they are women in thrall to the men's rights aspect of this ideology. It might be rude but, tough. A previous poster covered this much better than I did already.

or “drive by roasting has arrived”.

That would be "drive by scolding", because of the misogyny shown by the poster and the link to the scold's bridle which was used to shut disagreeable women up.

By changing the word to roasting instead you have removed the link to the misogyny, which is what we are objecting to by using the phrase "drive by scolding".

IMO you have done this on purpose in order to legitimise your claim that we somehow have the power to have perfectly reasonable posts that provide a different viewpoint, or are somehow simply "contentious", and don't break the MN guidelines removed.

You also give the incorrect impression that we somehow desire these posts to be removed. As I said earlier, we really love it when those posts aren't removed, we like people to be able to see them, read them, and come to their own conclusions. Not everyone who reads these threads, posts on them, there are a lot of people lurking -Hello lurkers! it's always lovely to have you, I used to be a lurker too!

It is the opposite of welcome to opposing views

"It is the opposite of welcome to opposing views" is very different to having posts deleted for opposing views, or "contentious" views.

I'll repeat myself just in case you missed it, the culture here is not to report posts, we want them to be seen. We do not have the power to have posts deleted. Any posts that are deleted are breaking MN Guidelines.

We might not always "welcome" some of the posts, but that is usually because of 1) misogyny 2) misinformation 3) distraction. For example a few threads ago during the ongoing, at the time live tribunal.

We've gone from FWR removes posts with opposing views, to it's the opposite of welcome to opposing views, which is a bit of an obvious shift of the goalposts.

Disgusted by the NMC line. The actual patients directly in his care did not come to harm. Yet he encouraged and shared the harm of children. Was he going to continue practicing and check in years to come with the patient if they were a survivor. Sorry I may have used images of you as a child for my perversions. Not to worry though I did not touch you directly.