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

I think asking SP who her backer was is a strong contender for the most outrageous comment/question from JR. There's pretty strong competition, though!

Unfortunately those pointed questions would lead to you being branded a bigot (maybe a white supremisist homophobe like Alison Bailey?) and if you were a patient your treatment would be withdrawn and if you were staff you’d be on for gross misconduct. The NHS is riddled with this ideology and has been since at least 2009. Intelligent questions are no protection even now I fear…

I suppose they’re playing into the old right wing Christian groups from the US narrative like they did with FWS… I assumed it was about alluding to bigotry? Except it sounded like class snobbery so didnt land the way she wanted? JR is too posh to pull off that question possibly?

Obviously I don't know who is funding Sandie's case. None of us do.

That said, I've noticed Christian Legal Centre has been funding a few similar cases. I've just been looking into them, you might also be interested.

They are a fundamentalist Christian organisation (not a charity) and so it's not clear where they do get money from. Homophobic etc.

There's been concern and criticism even from judges about their activities. - i.e. at one point SRA tried investigating them around pro-life strategies targeting very unwell children.

I couldn't accept money from them, but I appreciate what a difficult position i.e. the Darlington Nurses are in. They should be supported by their union.

JR was breathtakingly rude when she asked SP about her mystery backer. She could have asked for same question in a civil manner but it seemed that she couldn't help herself. At several points during the tribunal she looked exasperated. No excuse though.

I wouldn't count it as the most outrageous, there's been a lot of speculation and a chance she might have answered before NC objected.

Surely that's exactly what makes it outrageous?

They certainly get money from individual donors, just as you or I may donate to charities or crowdfunders. As for the cases they take on, I wouldn't want a bakery to have no recourse to the law when it is being coerced into writing a message on a cake which goes against their values. There is something to be said for such a case being pursued through the courts and the law clarified in a controversial area.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic I was responding to @KnottyAuty's comment about

"playing into the old right wing Christian groups from the US narrative".

CLC is definitely a right wing Christian group and has been funding these types of cases. Very likely linked to USA evangelical groups as that's where the money is:

Here's an article:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/27/critically-ill-infants-christian-legal-centre-court-cases

No problem with the cake case as that's compelled thought. But there's a lot more troubling stuff in there.

Doesn't compete with Dr. Upton claiming to be a biological women because he's not a robot imho.

Many on the breaking thread were quite upset by the revelation of Peggie's inappropriate language (please read as 'racist', 'bigoted', 'abhorrent' if you feel 'inappropriate' gives her too much credit which is not my point), and commented that she had no excuse because, being on NHS staff, she would have sat through cumulative hours of sensitivity training.

But of course we all know that sensitivity training has been swallowed whole by TRAs. By bowing to the gender cult, HR has abdicated its responsibility for creating a uniform, professional, productive, work-culture that integrates people from diverse backgrounds and cultures and shield's the company from legal liabilities and risks to its reputation. And by becoming activist oriented, HR diversity functions actually work against professionalism and creating an environment where people of all backgrounds can interact smoothly, i.e. the HR function has gone from being part of the solution to being part of the problem - and at very great cost!

Not sure if this has been shared yet.
I thought he declared that he'd use the female facilities when he started there. What difference would guidlines have made unless he thinks the guidlines should have been that anyone can self-ID into the CRs of their choice and women have to just accept that.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/b12dcfb3-9479-480a-a876-0c7f94065564?shareToken=e5798c607bd332b6a1830c30b5552eb3

Well this is certainly a complicated area - not least because our GC opinions are considered (unfairly imo) to be “far right”. So I’m not keen on throwing that label around at others any more - having been shocked to have it thrown at me! It is a shame the unions have abandoned women because I’d rather have all these cases argued from the basis of secular GC beliefs for everyone

Thanks for sharing.
A really good sign that The Times are continuing to report on this tribunal - public interest must be stron if they’re prepared to publish a story on this relatively small item?!

I'm wondering about some of JR's questioning.

Can she be instructed by her client / solicitors to ask specific questions even if she thinks them unhelpful to the case? ie. Could DrU have insisted she ask about SP's backers or whatever?

Ditto the racism?

The tribunal was not going JR's way in the press/ court of public opinion. So she was trying any form of distraction from the main issue that she could.

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."

Naomi has the facts and the law, JR only has distraction and attempts at damage limitation.

The notes continue: “Beth Upton advised that she understands the legal side of things, but also feels a lot of this would have been easier if there had been a policy document that would have confirmed what to do in this situation.”

This bit is disingenuous - it reads like DU is completely reasonable and would have abided by any policy. In reality I think that if the policy required him to use the gents or a third space, all hell would have broken loose.

That’s a good question. I’ve been thinking the same thing.

JR knows full well that it’s not cricket to ask that question, and what NC and the Judge’s response would be.

And…yet, JR made herself look like a complete tit and asked the question (more than once!) anyway.

I’m not sure why we’re talking about CLC. Haven’t they always been public about the cases they support?

I’m a card carrying Christian but I’m very concerned about them. However when no one else will support cases that need to be supported, people have no choice. I wouldn’t want to take money from them, but I might if I were desperate (and right!).

Agreed.

But remember this report is from IX notes and at that point DU was maintaining an image as the model of decorum and reasonableness to make SP look like the aggressive baddie and explain again why he was in the CR…

I suspect that the IX might have taken a different turn if DU had spouted the stuff about robots and nebulous dog whistles etc as he did on the stand. That was probably the first time that most regular NHSF staff would understand the depths of the ideology beyond just “BeKind”.

DU couldnt say all that in the internal IX and risk peaking his colleagues could he? Referring to lack of policy possibly reminds NHSF that they're in the wrong alongside SP and how they need to fall into line. Another example of clever manipulation imo

I have certainly not agreed with everything that CLC have supported, but you are implying that they are funded by nasty USA evangelical groups as if that invalidates everything they do. They may receive US funding, or they may not. Stonewall received USAID funding, didn't it?

At the moment, I want Jennifer Melle to be effectively defended, as it is clear she is under attack. The attack may be ideologically motivated; that the defence is also ideological is hardly surprising. My impression is that she has been a bit foolish in some of what she has said since, but on the other hand she was racially abused by a patient and is being blamed by Trust and RCN. It's not long ago that the racial abuse would have been enough in itself for wholehearted support from her Union, whatever the other facts of the case, but now it seems that racial abuse can be swept aside because it is trumped by "transphobia" consisting of "misgendering". The poor paedophile man is getting a lot of sympathy for being referred to as "he"! My heart bleeds.

Apologies for derailing onto Jennifer Melle! While I'm here, I object to the simplistic labelling of CLC as "right wing", just as I object to the simplistic labelling of "gender critical" as right wing. These (women's rights to their own spaces, end of life care / euthanasia, sexuality issues) are politically charged issues, but should never have become a matter of left wing versus right wing. That split makes it very difficult to reach sensible solutions.

I was not able to observe the tribunal but, from JR's line of questioning on the last day, I formed a mental image of the Spanish Inquisition at work.

Lots of JR shouting sinner, sssssinner, blaspheeeemer

Which was odd, because I thought that the tribunal was about a woman's right to have single sex spaces rather than religious fervor.

Towards the end of JR's questioning I did wonder if she was going to call for SP to be examined for the stigma diabolicum

I see right wing thrown about in the same way as bigot, transphobe and all the other words that are meant to shame us into stopping being concerned for people's dignity, wellbeing and safety.

Many thanks for sharing The Times article. How does it work with written evidence produced for the tribunal? The article says these notes are part of previously unpublished evidence. Does the press have access to all the documents and they have been gradually going through it all or would someone else have released them to the press?