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

At various points through the tribunal I got the impression that Fife and JR were not taking the process seriously at all. They seemed to be treating the panel with contempt

Asked to provide a forensic examination of DU's phone - extremely important evidence as contemporaneous notes carry much greater weight than events remembered in oral evidence - Fife chose to ask 'Andy from IT' to remotely walk DU through the process of recalling edits.

The IT specialist went about his work over a Teams video conference ? He never actually saw the phone? The connection dropped at various points during the call? The resulting documentation appeared to have been doctored.

Seriously?

Fife are spending upwards of £500,000 on their own legal costs and can't be bothered to shell out £5,000 for an actual forensic specialist?

I would have to look back at the transcripts but my memory is that JR had the audacity to repeatedly refer to their phone evidence as a 'forensic examination'

JR, when faced with an actual forensic expert, decided that the best approach was to ignore the evidence presented and claim that counsel had paid the expert to tell lies?

Really?

Is it possible that the judge will take such a poor view of this evidence that he will simply ignore it?

It's fascinating how incapable UK TRAs are of clocking that our GC movement in the UK is so successful because it's multipolar. That the presence of terfs from left, right and centre is a strength. I get the impression most of them genuinely do believe the right wing stuff when they say it, as opposed to simply finding it convenient to ignore the Communists, Theresa May etc.

Goes to show the strength of US cultural imperialism on the matter, I suppose. But glad it's a lesson they've not really learned.

I was a bit shocked at the implication that Jim Borwick was being paid to say whatever the claimant wanted.

Surely expert witnesses are usually paid? It's not an unusual thing. JB was hired for his expertise in the job at hand. Very unfair to impugn his integrity and professionalism.

This!

Which is what I thought JR was doing in the tribunal - accusing SP of bigotry and alluding to her backers being rich/powerful/ideologically motivated to undermine SP’s case/credibility.

sad times

If JR's clients told her to try and elicit privileged information by asking SP to identify her backers or asking her about her instructions to her legal team, she should have told them that such questions are not allowed and refused to ask them.

If JR's clients told her to accuse SP of racism, homophobia, etc., she should have told them that she would not do so unless they had some evidence beyond workplace gossip. The Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct says that a barrister cannot make a serious allegation against anyone unless it is relevant to the case and you have reasonable grounds for making the allegation.

A barrister who has breached the conduct rules cannot hide behind their client. If your client instructs you to breach the rules, you must refuse.

Note that I am not saying conclusively that JR's behaviour in this case was a breach. That is for the Bar Standards Board to decide. But she certainly sailed very close to the wind.

Thank you @prh47bridge I hoped you'd respond.

JR did this at least twice. The 'Who is funding your case' question to SP, and asking Jim Borwick who he would be sending his invoice to.

The question to SP - possible that JR might have hoped she would slip up and say something useful.

To Jim Borwick, though - don't see how that would have helped her id any backer, as he's unlikely to be sending an invoice personally addressed to anyone outwith [thank you, Scotland] the legal team. That question seemed to just be a signal that Person Or Persons Unknown is backing all this.

Expert witnesses are almost always paid. They are required to give their professional opinion regardless of who is paying them. There is a tendency for some experts to try and come up with points to support whichever side is paying them (see, for example, the expert called by the Post Office in Bates vs Post Office), but inventing evidence or giving opinions contrary to the evidence is extremely rare. JR's attempt to besmirch Borwick was a mark of desperation in my view.

Can I just say.

Even right wing Christians are entitled to single sex protections under the Equality Act

This is just like Sandie having views and making comments that aren't particularly great.

A woman who is a Christian seeking support from a Christian group because her union has failed her is a less than perfect victim but she's still got a point.

The dynamic of the left wing unions abandoning women is the fault of the left wing unions. It leaves thing wide open for right wingers to move in. It's an open goal.

So rather than condemning the Right Wing as Evil can we firmly remember that the unions dereliction of duty and expecting women to just suck up abusive males is to blame.

This woman is unlikely to have turned to this group if she had found support where she should have found it.

This is very firmly where we should be focusing our concerns, disgust and anger. The Right Wing Christian group is almost a straw man distraction from one of the key issues of all these NHS nurse cases.

The one feature all the women have in common is how they have been failed by the left wing unions.

Yep, The Fifer was particularly unimpressed by the attempt to paint Thon Speccie Loddie in a bad light.

Her attempt could potentially affect any case he has previously given evidence in, if she had successfully destroyed his credibility.

It is a move that's deeply troubling.

If he's a computer and phone expert, you can quite quickly work out the type of cases he's likely been involved with.

Mmm, I think the question of Borwick had to be for the media and internet gallery rather than anything else. JR will know fine well how the invoicing works.

Agree 100%.

I am a lefty atheist. But I don’t care if you disagree with me on every other issue, if you are a woman, I will fight for your right to have single sex provisions.

Does anyone have the Dworkin quote? The one about women’s rights being for all women, even those you hate? Even those who hate you?

I just to repeat this gem from NHS Fife:

A spokeswoman for NHS Fife previously said: “Throughout the course of the employment tribunal, NHS Fife has been clear that it will not comment on individuals or evidence while legal proceedings are ongoing.

So was that Friday afternoon binfire of a press release just imaginary then???!

As far as I could tell, JR's questioning was without any evidential basis

(I don't like what you have found) .. you've obviously been paid by counsel to lie

How are the two connected?

It just struck me as playing to the gallery as IMO she’s done many times.

Calling GC views extreme right wing is an example of Godwin's Law in action. Labelling something as extreme right or extreme left is usually just a way of trying to shut down debate. I've said this in the education forums a few times, but it applies here as well. I don't care if an idea is left wing or right wing. What matters is what works. And allowing trans women into women's spaces doesn't.

JR seems to be trying to build a story that shadowy gender critical forces are combining to deny her client justice

Back in the real world, JR's complaints appear to be

• it's unfair that SP has enough funds to put up a strong case
• when tested, much of Fife's evidence does not hold up
• once you step out of the GI echo chamber the law is not written the way that you hoped

What press release/s

Yes, and to particular audiences too, I suspect. Her piece at the end to SP about how you would love your child if they were trans, struck me as possibly being...let's say a very personal message.

From Tribunal Tweets Substack:
JR You became less upset as time went on. Because your love was more important
SP Y
JR Gay people okay because expressing their selves
SP yes
...
JR What if you are wrong. T person not pretending but being natural selves
SP T person still a man and shouldn't be in F CR
JR If someone feels born into wrong body. Natural
SP Y. but still men re CR
JR Don't they deserve love as well You would love a child who came out as t
SP Y

If he's a computer and phone expert, you can quite quickly work out the type of cases he's likely been involved with.

I saw a comment somewhere that JR as an English barrister seemed unaware that Jim Borthwick is the go to guy for forensic phone examination in Scotland & regularly appears in big trials involving organised crime gang members etc

Yes it's a shaming and guilt tripping tactic. Designed to shut down debate and to make people think twice about joining the 'wrong' side.

We saw the same with immigration concerns where for a long long time anyone who pointed out the potential pitfalls was shut down and labelled as racist and bigoted. That left a large number of society who were seeing with their own eyes and living with the downsides of immigration feeling silenced. It's only really been quite recently that the problems with immigration have been discussed in a more balanced and honest way.

Whereas, when this particular Fifer read some of the "evidence" coming from Upton NHS Fife, I recalled a response that I learned at my mother's knee. My mother would have been 100 this year, so it's rather an old expression.

Please bear in my mind that my mother was particularly mild-mannered and that this response is only to be used when faced with someone who is being completely and utterly ridiculous and nothing else is getting through.

cough

Would have been an appropriate response to the "biological woman" answer.

cough

"Awa'n'shiteabrick'n'printyernameoanit!"

I thought JR's evidence that SP was homophobic towards her daughter particularly vile.

It seemed like the evidence was a reported conversation where SP confided in a friend that she was shocked and unsure about her daughter coming out as a lesbian.

If you grew up in the 80's or 90's then your initial response to such news might well be shocked and unsure but SP obviously came to terms with the news (possible as a result of discussions like the reported conversation) and had became fully supportive of her daughter and partner.

People's opinions are not fixed. Faced with better understanding, opinions do change. Thoughtful people are able to evolve.

Faced with this, JR's approach is to present SP's understanding of her daughter's sexuality as fixed at her first reaction, unchanging homophobia.

SP confides her concerns in a work colleague, talks out her feelings and evolves to be a better person. JR takes this conversation and uses it to dive a spiteful wedge between SP and her daughter - what a shitty thing to do.

In that Times article, I note the Scottish Government has declined to comment. Is this a first? No standing by NHSF any more?