NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #51

[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 resumed 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 #50 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 50: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5387893-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-50 7 August 2025 to 1 September 2025

It's almost like when you're set a 10,000 word count for a Uni assignment on a subject you know little about and suddenly need to pad every sentence.

She loves you 😍😍😍😍

You know at uni when you've got a 2,000 word limit and you just know that instead of being praised for your succinctness (succinctity?!) and clarity of argument you will be marked down significantly for submitting 500 words? Well JR has two or possibly three hours to fill.

[Edit for typos]

from Herald
2:22pm
Responding to Naomi Cunningham's closing submission, Jane Russell KC, the lawyer for NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton says there is a lack of a "smoking gun" from the claimant's legal team.
She adds: "The fact is that trans people from a small group population, less than slightly half a percent have rights.
"These have been established internationally and domestically, and they have given the trans people legal recognition.
"And as I said before, rights is that the UK's equality body's statutory code of practice has reflected those rights."
She adds that there is a "lack of any reliable evidence which could justify taking those rights away."
"Namely, there's no reliable evidence that trans women pose any threat to women. The idea that they do rests on two unevidenced and in my submission, harmful propositions.
"First is that trans women are simply men and follow male patterns of violence in the Valentine's evidence, which is unchallenged, demonstrates how there is no proper evidence.
"Second, is the idea that all men are potentially violent. They're not."

I posted original submissions here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5387893-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-50?reply=146833197&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Well quite.

It's an odd phrase anyway, depends where you are - more likely to be zebras if you are on safari in Africa.

The emphasis on certain words is bizarre. NC uses it sparingly and with great effect. JR makes it sound like she's constantly confused.

I am now blaspheming at the computer.

Surely everyone is potentially violent, why do men get a free pass?

Thanks - I meant the material that they were squabbling about releasing this morning.

just putting this here:

😱

What relevance is this? Upton does not have a DSD.

'When you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras' is saying - if you see someone with a rash that looks like a drug reaction (common) but might be lupus (rare) - it's much more likely to be the common thing.

Another way of saying common things are common, and it's more likely to be an atypical presentation of a common condition than a common presentation of a rare condition.

In this scenario- someone in the women's changing room who looks, talks & walks like man is probably a man (common) not a female who really looks, talks & walks like a man (rare).

Not sure if it will upload so here's another try:
https://x.com/TheAttagirls/status/1659257544609607688

Of course she's confused. She's standing there in court as a QC trying to convince us that a hulking 6 foot dude is a lady because he put on a dress. No wonder she's slowing down, her batteries are kaput and she's suffering from parity error.

There are times when JR's exposition reminds me of something, but I can't think what

‘You have to admire the simplicity of design.’ 🤣 #comedy #shorts

Incidentally, isn't it weird that (almost?) all the commenters on the Herald livestream are men? Maybe it's because they're enforcing verified real names?

Nice one, Jane!

Place marking!

from TT

explained by a gender identity delusion. Zebras not horses, none of it evidenced and not very realistic.

Start by outlining parameters of this case, then address you on the law including Strasbourg and Luxembourg, then permission to use the CR and then the interactions between C & DU, and then the ancillary issues. The process of suspension, i/x, d/x.

I'm going to deal with inferences you have been asked to draw. i will address you on these tomorrow.

First, what this case is and is not about. The difficulty that C faces, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It is clear that the thrust of her case is what can only be described as a gc campaigning position, seeking to exclude DU and TW in general from the CR. That is the indirect CR. The problem she has - there is no authority that says an employer must do this.

FWS says service providers may but does not require SSS. The 1992 regs do provide for separate provision for men and women but do not delineate who falls into those categories.

And they provide an exception; provide single lockable cubicles in any event.

J - for toilets that is

JR - yes for toilets rather than a changing room. A further hurdle C has set herself, focus is on the reason for the treatment, C's case demands an analysis that adds a

What's the betting JR is going to mention the incidence of red hair in a minute?

from herald
2:25pm
Ms Russell is outlining what she says are the parameters of the case, "what it is and is not about".
"The difficulty that the claimant faces is that she is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
"It is clear that the thrust of her case is what can really only be described as a gender critical campaigning position, namely, attempting to secure the outcome of excluding trans women in general and Dr Upton in particular, from female changing rooms."

Yes!

I'm also swearing like a trooper at my screen reading all this pish JR is coming out with, utter claptrap!

from herald
2:30pm
Ms Russell says in a conventional discrimination analysis, focus is on the reason for the treatment. However, she says Ms Peggie's case demands an analysis that adds a further step.
"She wants you also to make findings, not just that certain things happened because of her belief, but also that her belief is true.
Ms Russell says the panel does not need to do this any more than they would need to determine whether the earth was made in seven days in a case about Christian belief.
"You do not need to determine whether there are only two biological sexes, although we have heard from Dr Currer, that there are chromosomal variations beyond XX and XY."