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

Also @Totallygripped i answered your question about GRC in good faith. I was trying to be helpful.

And yet that's your response to me. Ffs 🙄

Some people must have very limited life experiences. If you go to any football match in the UK fans are segregated home/away. High schools segregate different year groups. I could go on but it feels like I'm stating the obvious.

It's just so bloody tiresome

Like it's impossible to have an actual conversation with anyone. When all they want to do is police your (perfectly normal) language.

Except when 'behave how you want' is interpreted as 'play out your sexual fantasies involving non-consenting women (or men, or children) in public, and make sure any of the non-consenters who complain get maximum abuse and opprobrium'.

That was Sandy's sticking point. It would be mine. People don't get to play out their sex-games whenever and wherever they want just because they've adopted a gender identity.

That was Sandy's sticking point. It would be mine. People don't get to play out their sex-games whenever and wherever they want just

Or they can play them out in the men's and see where that gets them

If you're just looking for someone to argue with I'm sure a TRA plopper will be along shortly.

But they can't, if the game involves forcing non-consenting women to make eye contact with them, as it did in Dr Beth Upton's case.

I'm going to disagree with this. Aggravated damages can be awarded where the employer has behaved in a “high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive manner”. That can relate to the way the employer defends their case at the Employment Tribunal. Absolute privilege means SP cannot sue JR, Fife or any of the witnesses for defamation, but it does not prevent the tribunal increasing the damages award if they think the approach taken by Fife and JR justifies it.

Kindly, you are being ridiculous.

@TheKeatingFive's use of the word was clearly meaning sex segregation, which as you have been told is a neutral and common term meaning to keep males and females separate.

There is nothing racist about this, and you will look very silly if you keep implying that anyone here is racist for using segregation which is non-offensive and in context.

Women have spent a very long time trying to fight against the MRA's assertion that women wanting to keep men out of their spaces etc are also racist.

Have you spent any time at all reading this board, or reading the Sandie Peggie threads, or have you just come to imply racism where there is none?

You can't possibly know who you are talking to on the other side of these screens, did you think about that before you posted?

@prh47bridge

Does the approach taken by counsel for the respondent get summed into the employer’s behaviour pre-tribunal that is the subject of the action? It would have to be a very high bar indeed not seriously to limit the respondent’s ability to put their case freely. Trashing the reputation of the other side and their witnesses is meat and potatoes for a barrister, to diminish their credibility, is it not? Is that not what NC sought to do, at every turn? With a fair amount of success, I’d say.

I keep my female rats segregated from my male rats. That is the exact word that I use because it is the correct word to use.

What is the relevance of blue?

Unfortunately you are in the wrong here. Just because it has been used in relation to apartheid it does not mean that that is its only usage. It is a common term, used for lots of different things.

It was “V” versus Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

A lot of latitude is given to counsel in the hearing. However, to give an example, aggravated damages have been awarded in cases where the tribunal has concluded that the employer's witnesses have been dishonest in their evidence, or where they sought to rely on facts which they knew to be untrue. In this case, the repeated accusations of racism may have triggered aggravated damages if they had remained unevidenced apart from some third- or fourth-hand gossip. No evidence has been produced to support the repeated accusations of homophobia so that could lead to aggravated damages, although I won't be holding my breath for that.

Whilst counsel is given a lot of latitude, if their approach is to sling as much mud as possible in the hope that some sticks, that can backfire on the employer and lead to aggravated damages, the assumption being that the employer has instructed counsel to take this approach.

Fair; but on the other hand it is a barristers job to make the other side look like a bunch of lying liars who lie, and the tribunals job to (dis)believe them. What the public thinks isn’t in consideration.

NRTFT but what do we reckon are the chances of apology from these slipper fuckers?
www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/sandie-peggie-wants-payout-nhs-35649939.amp

I'm caught up! Only a few days late.

Can I please add methinks to all the wise and wonderful people on here who have shared their wisdom. Too many to name, but thank you all.

I know the wording is wrong but...

Since there are multiple charges could we have a situation where each side wins some and we have appeals from both?

Crumpet.segregation may be one of those words which has moved from neutral to loaded. We could discuss ad nauseum. .ls DU male or Female?

Upton isn’t capable of straight forward speaking so she won’t get it from him

Reading the Hansard extract that was posted (I think by RedToothbrush) on a previous thread, where JR’s husband talked about a daughter who needed residential care for mental health problems and linking that to the suggestion that they have a trans identified daughter, I feel a bit sad for JR. I know she has behaved terribly but if her child is anything like the kids of people I know who walk on eggshells around their trans teens, in fear of losing the child either through being cut off or suicide, she will be under severe pressure to be the perfect trans champion. She didn’t have to take this case, though, and my sympathy is pretty limited by her antics.

Thread 49. Blimey.

I saw mention that aggravated damages isn’t treated as a separate thing in Scotland, but presumably similar factors still apply to the consideration of damages awards?

Your mention of “high handed” triggered a memory of NC’s question to Kate Searle about what consideration she showed for SP’s feelings. I think the case for aggravated damages or Scottish equivalent is strong.

No it hasn't. It is still a neutral term and was used in this context completely correctly. You are now officially being silly and I won't be replying to you any more.

Dr Upton is male.