NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #49

[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 over 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 more 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
Thread 48: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5382317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-48 29 July 2025 to 31 July 2025

Not to my knowledge. We use the term wally there, which is also used over here. I am now thinking it is potentially an autocorrect issue.

Had one or two to care for as orphaned joeys as I was growing up. We were probably known by the neighbours as the ones who would take the time to feed them and get them grown enough to release.

Never heard of 'completely turkey' but that general vibe. Idiot, fruit loop, nutter, nut job, headcase.

Back to the point, it crossed my mind ages ago that, her backer probably checked Sandie out including her phone and social media presence before investing so much money 💰 into the case. Don't want too many skeletons falling out the cupboard.

Keeping in mind her amazing backer isn't just backing Sandie Peggie, they are backing her to fight for all women's rights across the UK with a potential dominoe effect elsewhere in the world.

Someone suggested about 10 threads ago the team had potentially been on the lookout for a case to back and I think they were probably right. What a case to back!

Re biological sex: you also have the reasonableness test in British law. There is a concept that goes back many centuries in terms of understanding that relates to what an ordinary person would reasonably understand. Biological sex would definitely fit into this category in terms of if there wasn't a legal definition (which apparently there is). The him/her slippages definitely show it up as does the supreme courts actual ruling too.

More to the point though, what would be the point in having the SC judgement if you could come along afterwards and say 'oh well biological sex is nebulous and actually you can still have a penis and be female if you are taking fake hormones'? How would that affect lesbians? How would that affect transpeople themselves (in terms of things like pregnancy or other access to healthcare issues - I've raised this before but a doctor treating a trans patient is screwed in a fuzzy logic world. If they treat as the sex they identify with they risk malpractice and harm but if they treat as the sex they actually are and the patient doesn't like it they risk suspension etc etc).

As a legal point to argue it's a total non starter for all three of these reasons. It falls apart on contact with any of them. It's a clear undermining of the SC ruling, it is already settled law in other cases and yeah there's the ancient 'reasonableness' test which is completely applicable.

The TRAs spouting this nonsense have been egged on by the Good Laugh Project - it's a good example of their legal illiteracy and the tactic of appearing to sound professional and intelligent but actually being total shit stirring grifter who don't reflect the law at all. You can't win a case on the basis of made up shit. The fact that their case against EHRC has already hit trouble with the judge who has told them it's an incoherent mess and to go away and think about it and if they can come up with something that resembles an actual argument he will consider it says it all.

You don't turn up at court with a load of hot air unless you are an unqualified muppet determined to represent yourself against all legal advice. Yet the GLP behave in this manner.

They aren't a serious organisation. They are an organisation there simply to cause trouble and make money for themselves out of mugs. They are there in effect to harass and force various organisations to spunk cash up the wall with their vexatious claims.

I think that was eye opening for me. That they just copied from elsewhere with little thought about the adequacy of the policy for the purpose or getting it confirmed legally. Does NHS Scotland not provide template policies with the provision of providing legal advisors for them? Or do they just copy of one another thinking it others have done the work?

As in, in Australia we are highly likely to use the term ‘complete wally’, just like in the UK.

Bellinger v Bellinger 2003 House of Lords.

Thanks for that. It was interesting reading the judgment.

V was employed as a Catering Assistant in 2020, V only wanted to work for a maximum of 16 hours per week but took a full time job.

Notice was sent out to staff that a transwoman was going to start working there and that they would be using a shower cubicle in the female changing room.

The Trust also provided EDI "training" to staff. The Tribunal noted that:

"Some expressed concerns, mainly female members of staff worried about sharing the ladies changing room with a transgender woman"

(but, of course, no account was taken of those concerns)

Then, at one point, V came across a note that had been placed in V's locker in the women's changing room that said (I've redacted part of it as I don't know what MN's rules are on this)

"Get out you ty freak"

On another occasion, while V was getting changed they overheard a conversation as follows:

Voice one: I am sick to death of this bloke with a dick pretending to be a woman, who doesn’t even dress like a girl and has facial hair, that thing may rape me and we can drive it out of the department and maybe find a suitable leper colony for it.

Voice two: I agree but we need to do something but what can we do when management are sucking up to that thing.

V then took time off work due to stress and there was a whole "attendance management" process that they went through.

V returned to work and, on one occasion, while working made a comment to a line manager that V was very hot and:

"At that point the Claimant told her she was so hot she had taken her underwear off, and made a wringing motion with her hands."

V denied having said this but the Tribunal found that V did say this.

V then went off sick again and on return faced a disciplinary process.

There was then an interview and V was asked about this removing the underwear incident. There had also been a report of about V being naked from the waist down in the changing room.

However, the interviewer then went further and asked if V wore or changed underwear at work and whether V was ever inappropriately dressed at work.

The Tribunal said:

"A concern about the Claimant’s state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman. This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room."

It went on to say:

"The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mrs Hawkshaw asked the questions because of a concern that the Claimant as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room. That was because of gender reassignment. Mrs Hawkshaw would not have asked the questions of a cisgender woman"

V was awarded £7,000 for injury to feelings along with £810 interest
.

That was in 2022. Frankly, I think if that employment tribunal was taking place today then the outcome would be very different indeed.

Also re sex. Dr Upton potentially caused himself to be in some hot water by claiming to be biologically female.

This may have forced JR to HAVE to come up with babble and contention in order to protect her client from being accused of actively and knowingly lying in court (and therefore undermining his credibility). This wasn't helped by several other witnesses doing similar. Despite the fact everyone stumbled over pronouns showing they know the truth and don't treat Upton 'like a woman' at all but having his own special status above woman.

Like Upton, my impression following that case at the time was that he had maybe falsified or at least embroidered evidence because he mixed up who had supposedly said what when testifying. They threw most of the claims out.

God only knows what they were thinking other than being completely captured TWAW as spouted by SNP remember they wanted self-id and lots of Rainbow flag waving .

Nobody anywhere thought it through that women would eventually stand up. Remember First Minster, Isla Bryson isn't genuine trans, they are, well a rapist?

I remain convinced the reason Fife suspended Sandie was to keep her out the way until he finished his rotation and move the problem on. Get her back into work nothing to see here.

I wondered this too. He was very clear that he was a biological female. Using the same deconstructive method as McKinnon / Ivy and other activists.

Or it was a defensive move to pre-empt NC’s questions. Meaning NC then had to work through it with LC and take up time.

That case should be called G (for Grifter) v Sheffield Teaching Hospital Trust.

I think this issue is widespread across both public and private sector. There's a huge amount of out sourcing without checking material supplied or simply copying and pasting without verifying the accuracy or quality of information. This is no doubt a product of reductions in staffing.

This is made worse in terms of having 'a single point of failure' because the outsourcing has been done to a very small number of organisations who in turn referred to the monopoly of Stonewall. Who had their own agenda and decided to 'get ahead of the law' aka not follow the actual law.

The example I think of a lot is when Asda outsourced an LGBT promo to a third party, and didn't check the content and ended up promoting a load of unsuitable reading material to children. They had to pull it and it was an embarrassing PR disaster. Since then I've seen the private sector start to be a lot more cautious and this progressed as there started to be other issues that were apparent. Other LGBT campaigns have gone down badly with target audiences and there's been a few too many individuals put forward as 'the face' only to blow up in scandal. And of course there's been the Alison Bailey case. So there's been increasing awareness that these third parties / just copying shit are something of a liability.

This doesn't seem to have happened in the public sector. They've remained with their heads firmly jammed in the sand and about five years behind everyone else. By Christmas 2023 there simply is no reason why dedicated DEI staff should still have been copying shit off the internet with no thought to legal liability and a lack of policy in place.

Thanks - yes, that's the one.

I was thinking about the mermaids trustee issue where they just assumed Breslow had been appropriated vetted. Not even thinking about the difference between university needs vs a child centred charity.

IB did refer to an initiative called IIRC Once For Scotland, which seems to be an attempt at developing NHS policies centrally.

The Assumption Gap is a definite problem - it's a lack of due diligence and safeguarding. It leaves organisations exposed.

If Upton and Fife both lose, I would expect the tribunal to specify how damages are split between Fife and Upton. I suspect Fife have indemnified Upton against any damages awarded if he loses. The courts won't interfere with that arrangement if it exists. Upton will be able to appeal if he loses, regardless of whether Fife appeal.

She did giving her some credit but surely that's something that should have been done decades ago that all the bits in the NHS should be on the same hymn sheet with some serious thought behind it.

Thinking more widely SNP have pushed the same TWAW policies everywhere, police, schools, NHS, council care, women were just expected to get on with it.

Fife could consider themselves unfortunate that they are the NHS trust who ended up with Upton. Who was absolutely out to pick a fight with someone and unfortunately for him he picked wee Sondie

You ever heard that saying "you never know who your picking a fight with?"

The tribunal should not accept any argument that the Supreme Court did not define what they meant by biological sex. They did. They said they used the term to describe the sex of a person at birth. TRAs may try to argue about what that means, but the SC won't be at all happy if they have to issue a new judgement every time TRAs argue that their previous judgement doesn't mean what it plainly says.

When writing the judgement, the judge needs to be clear on the arguments that have been put by the losing side and why he is rejecting them. I wouldn't read anything into the amount of notes the judge was taking.

You can't argue against sex segregation if you conflate sex with gender, then claim that you are the same gender so all part of the group. To argue against sex segregation, you have to acknowledge that there are two discrete sexes and the failure to do so is what gets us into this mess in the first place.

I haven’t been able to follow the tribunal and have a lot of reading to do.
Somewhat tangential but interesting is the NMC Watch site. It is a support site (emotional and practical) and discusses how abusive and weaponised NMC referrals can be.

https://nmcwatch.org.uk

Yes, surely they were using the wrong comparator here?
i.e. for a trans-identifying man, the appropriate comparator, in law, would be a non-transgender man (a "cis" man) in their terms.

"The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mrs Hawkshaw asked the questions because of a concern that the Claimant as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room. That was because of gender reassignment. Mrs Hawkshaw would not have asked the questions of a cisgender woman"

Yes, they were using the wrong comparator and the NHS Trust didn't question it. They conducted their defence as if they didn't care if they won, just wanted it to be over.