NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #50

[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
Thread 49: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5383443-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-49 31 July 2025 to 8 August 2025

'self-assured, tending to smug' 😂

NC addressing the SP + racist jokes issue - even if she is racist, she shouldn't be forced to undress in front of a man/ it was only one joke in 7 years
[I'm not sure about that, weren't there more than one??]
but anyway, she's addressing it head on.

In a tough field.

TendingToSmug.

My new username sorted.

that was impressive, hopefully that means you are on the mend (or you're posting from the loo!)

Well quite. Even if one is unpleasant, one still doesn't have to put up with that.

On Upton's threats and claims of harm and distress at being heard in public vs his demeanour in court: "self-assured tending to smug"

JR is objecting to something about language...

scratch that, it was the start of a sentence by NC, trigger-happy typing!

From TT

NC Rest of note sections Given that they were dropped they were plainly disproportionate. In relation to issue 5H Ms Miles evidence - which was novel - suggesting need for supervision was to protect C from allegations but was spun to C by R re whether she could be trusted without supervision in light of patient care allegations.

NC By way of conclusion. To talk more c importance of Pete. His point is that he is indistinguishable from DU. DU's gender reassignment is not relevant to proceedings- this is C complaint. Therefore Pete is legally and practically indistinguishable from DU>

Some of R witnesses had to agree that if Pete - with no changes of name/hair/clothes - he was as much a woman as DU. An inevitable conclusion . Subscribers to GI belief ..

J. TW doesn't appear in Act. No definition.

NC No.

NC No legal definition;. GI people say if only a man who says he's a woman. A circular definition.

NC R has put at heart of case in a way not wholly clear is that no one else other than SP had raised disquiet with DU presence in w CR. Suggest abundantly clear to Tribunal why that is. What happened to SP when raised: first time and second time nothing, then all hell broke loose and she treated as aggressor. Even if Sp a racist. Even racist women shouldn't be forced to undress in front of someone she sees as a man. One joke in 7 years not a racist

R efforts to find evidence of people agreeing with SP. SP named 4 and 13 people in her evidence with great reluctance (to her credit) not wanting to get colleagues in trouble. Did R try to find those people and bring them to tribunal? No. People brought last minutes to give evidence were Fiona Wishart and {?]

NC Conclusion. Many weird things about this case. Nurses and doctors who don't know what sex is, or tell what sex someone is, and an NHS employee with immunology qualification. JR constant intervention re my language despite your

Have I missed link to new thread? @Nauticant are you here?

One cause that explains all the bizarre shit (I'm paraphrasing) an organisation in the grip of a delusion.

.

InTheGripOfDelusion.

This is also going on my list.

#51 is already there, thanks Nauticant

from herald
1:55pm
Ms Cunningham is starting her conclusion.
"In my submission, there are many, many, and I'm sure what I give you now won't be a complete list, but there are many profoundly peculiar and weird things about the case that this Tribunal has heard over four weeks.
"You've heard about nurses and doctors who say that they don't know what sex is."
She says there have been breaches of natural justice and procedure by both experienced managers and human resources professionals.
Ms Cunningham also criticised Jane Russell KC. She says the lawyer constantly intervened to attack the language that she had been using on Ms Peggie's behalf, despite not having either appealed or sought revocation of a ruling by the Employment Judge about the language to be used during the tribunal.
She also dismisses the threats or evidence "about a risk of self harm and the extreme distress that Dr Upton was said to be going to suffer at being misgendered" and how that "contrasted with his demeanour as a witness when giving evidence."
Ms Cunningham says Dr Upton's evidence was "self assured tending to smug."

The loo is an en-suite on the same level as my living room, across a small hallway via my bedroom. I am quite speedy on crutches now.

If I’d had to do stairs a lot of bum-shuffling would have been involved.

Naomi is sat with her arms crossed leaning on the desk talking to the judge

NC is finished

Break now short one

from herald
1:57pm
Naomi Cunningham also criticises the health board's bid to have the tribunal heard in private.
"I'm not sure whether an Employment Tribunal has ever been heard in private, but it was, it was certainly quite an extraordinary application."
She also questions the complete absence of any documented decision, let alone any consultation of female staff, to let men self identify into women's facilities in the hospital.
Ms Cunningham says the respondents took a "really shockingly cavalier attitude to compliance" with the tribunal rulings on the production of documents.

Yes I had this experience recently with a public toilet in the south of France. Horrible

From TT

ruling. Comments c great distress of DU contrasted with his demeanour when giving evidence - which was self assured, tending to smug. His own interventions and unruly behaviour c lang. Booards attempt to have whole case heard in private - extraordinary application.

Absence of documentation, no consultation of female staff or their union to let men self id into female spaces in hospital. Not following JTinnion c providing documentation. All of those, and more, are peculiarities of case and manner litigated. Related or not?.

I suggest obvious explanation for bizarre behaviour or R and representatives - organisation in the grip of a delusion. Sexed bodies matter when m and w are undressing in spaces for single sex. Board have taken up GI. Not just board.

I Bumba taken to NHS policies - not a rare delusion. One deliberately fostered - as seen in M Forstater evidence. A number of policies in private and public sector - assumptions that Self id is the law. That was wrong and delusional in all those different places.

from herald
2:02pm
Ms Cunningham has finished her submission. There will now be a short break.
2:01pm
What explains what Ms Cunningham describes as the "bizarre bits of behaviour on the part of the respondent and their representatives" is the health board has "taken up gender identity belief as its institution's position."
She says this "is not a rare delusion" but a "delusion that has been deliberately and elaborately bolstered".
"It can only be maintained and enforced with bullying. Reason doesn't work. You can't support a delusional belief with reasoned argument, and that in my submission is the simple, economic, elegant explanation for why you've seen that the claimant was subjected to the vicious heresy hunt that was the result of her refusal to undress in a room with a man."

From TT

Because it is delusional it can only be enforced by bullying. That is why C was put to vicious heresy hunt - cos of her refusal to undress in a room with a man. And it explains all the other mysteries too.

Continuation thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5402652-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-51