Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #52

1000 replies

nauticant · 02/09/2025 11:26

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 51: 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 1 September 2025 to 2 September 2025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
36
ThatDaringMintCritic · 02/09/2025 16:13

May be misplaced but I felt slightly more optimistic after hearing the J's questioning. JR would have been wiser to have taken instructions.

janeszebra · 02/09/2025 16:16

I'd have instructed her to get her bat and ball and go home.

ThreeWordHarpy · 02/09/2025 16:19

betterBeElwinNextIGuess · 02/09/2025 15:38

I think not. I think nobody will want to do that. I think :

  • the Judge will give permission for the amendments to be made
  • but refuse to hear any more evidence
  • which will be unfair to the Claimant, giving rise to an appeal claim potentially
  • but it won't matter, because the Judge will decide for the Claimant anyway.

I'll be extremely interested to hear what people who actually know anything about law think, though - I'm just doing psychology here...

I think (hope?) this is the most likely outcome of this particular episode - by allowing it he’d close off a ground for appeal, but it has no material impact on the end result.

It sounds like the judge has a big job on his hands writing the judgement. The SC judgement in FWS was so well written that even a non-lawyer like me could understand 90% of it (although my eyes did slide over a lot of the technical discussion in references to various codes and case law). I’m going to guess that no judge likes to have their judgement appealed, so unless they feel the case needs to be heard by a higher court they will do their best to write a sound rationale.

And as we know, one side in this case has facts and law in their side and the other … doesn’t.

oldwomanwhoruns · 02/09/2025 16:19

Hmm, the judge seemed to spend a lot of time agreeing with JR about 'balancing rights' and being 'proportionate'. And his comments about DU 'completing his transition' made me despair.

SqueakyDinosaur · 02/09/2025 16:20

To the posters who were worried that Big Sond didn't seem to be on top of the facts - he has already presided over at least one other GC/GI tribunal - Gillian Philp's. He didn't find for her, but AIUI that's because the relationship between her and her publishers was not that of employer and employee.

Re JR's constant get-back-to-you-on-thattery, Big Sond did at one point say something that I certainly read as him expecting her to be more on top of her brief than she was.

Justabaker · 02/09/2025 16:24

Boiledbeetle · 02/09/2025 15:16

The judge’s new holiday t shirt

I do need to observe that possibly you should age Big Sond in that photo by about 15 years.

Boiledbeetle · 02/09/2025 16:24

Boiledbeetle · 02/09/2025 16:12

I'm glad this is done for now.

I've got a thumping headache, bet the judge has too.

I think I'm going to get my tea and have an early night.

But before that, I've read NCs submission does anyone have a link to SRs?

Bugger! JRs

murasaki · 02/09/2025 16:25

Justabaker · 02/09/2025 16:24

I do need to observe that possibly you should age Big Sond in that photo by about 15 years.

Probably 30 after he's had to sit through JR'S obfuscatory tripe.

Boiledbeetle · 02/09/2025 16:27

Justabaker · 02/09/2025 16:24

I do need to observe that possibly you should age Big Sond in that photo by about 15 years.

I know, but there was very few reference photos online to feed the AI!

Maybe that's what he'll look like after a good holiday!

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:29

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 12:02

I’m going out for my anniversary dinner at 6pm, though. I’ll have to catch up tomorrow.

I think Michael Foran took pity on me as there’s no update tonight.

murasaki · 02/09/2025 16:31

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:29

I think Michael Foran took pity on me as there’s no update tonight.

Thank you for all the TT posting, much appreciated.

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:31

Boiledbeetle · 02/09/2025 16:24

Bugger! JRs

You’ve read all 167 pages???!!

I haven’t started. There’s an obscure book out today about a Hallmarked Man, by some bloke. Thought I’d read listen to that first.

Boiledbeetle · 02/09/2025 16:33

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:31

You’ve read all 167 pages???!!

I haven’t started. There’s an obscure book out today about a Hallmarked Man, by some bloke. Thought I’d read listen to that first.

That's why I have a headache today I think. I read it all last night!

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:34

Boiledbeetle · 02/09/2025 16:33

That's why I have a headache today I think. I read it all last night!

I am more than extremely impressed!

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:45

@Londonmummy66

I found the post from prh47bridge

If you click on quote history you’ll see the whole thing

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5387893-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-50?reply=146775169

original post:
I don't think that is what they are saying. If they were, it would be a pointless argument to make to the tribunal. The tribunal cannot decide the SC is wrong. I think they are arguing that the 1992 Regulations are governed by EU law notwithstanding Brexit. That argument should fail. The EU (Withdrawal) Act as modified by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act made it clear that the principle of the supremacy of EU law has been abolished and that any retained legislation must, as far as possible, be read in a way that is compatible with UK law. So, even if they are right about EU case law (and I'm not convinced they are), my view is that their arguments fail.

myplace · 02/09/2025 16:46

I’m at a loss. I was relying on Boswell to summarise events. I can’t manage TT for various reasons (can’t log in to twitter and have elderly mother in residence and she does.not.stop.talking.ever.chokes and splutters because she can’t breathe and talk at the same time).

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:51

myplace · 02/09/2025 16:46

I’m at a loss. I was relying on Boswell to summarise events. I can’t manage TT for various reasons (can’t log in to twitter and have elderly mother in residence and she does.not.stop.talking.ever.chokes and splutters because she can’t breathe and talk at the same time).

Here is his summary from JR yesterday.

His feed is hard to read because he reposts a lot of other stuff, and I can’t always find his summaries.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1962827145517912295

Jane Russell’s Closing: A Masterclass in Wishful Thinking

Jane Russell KC’s closing argument for NHS Fife and Dr. Upton was a performance in the art of inversion - turning reality inside out and expecting the tribunal to applaud. She spoke with elegance, but what she asked the panel to believe was preposterous: that a nurse of thirty years’ service was a bully, that a man in a women’s changing room was harmless, and that the law demands women silence their instincts to preserve a colleague’s feelings.

She began with her little parable about hoofbeats - “think horses, not zebras.” According to Russell, Peggie had conjured up a fantasy of danger. Yet the “horse” standing there was obvious: a male body in a female space. Only a lawyer desperate to deflect would try to convince a roomful of adults that it was the zebra.

Her biblical comparison was worse. The tribunal, she claimed, need not decide whether sex is immutable, any more than it must decide if Noah built an Ark in seven days. This was sophistry dressed as wit. Everyone knows that sex matters in law - in medicine, crime, safeguarding, and equality. It is written into the very statutes she pretended to interpret. To wave it away as mere belief was not clever - it was insulting.

Russell then invoked Goodwin and Article 8 as though they were magic words. She insisted that Dr. Upton’s “right to live as a woman” was inviolable. What she omitted was the parallel right of women not to be forced into states of undress with men. Balance, in her telling, meant women bend - always bend - so that one man may feel affirmed.

On the Christmas Eve incident, she painted Peggie as a seething aggressor, her voice full of anger rather than fear. The “prison rape” comment was held up as a cardinal sin. But what Russell ignored was the obvious truth: fear and anger often walk hand in hand. A woman alone, cornered by a man where she should have been safe, is entitled to feel both. Peggie named what was in front of her. That is not harassment. It is honesty.

The evidential gymnastics were almost comic. No “smoking gun” was found, so Peggie must be imagining things. No other women complained, so there must be no problem. In reality, every woman watching this case unfold knows exactly why others stayed silent. Peggie was dragged through suspension, investigation, and character assassination for daring to say what many quietly think. Silence in that climate is not proof of contentment - it is proof of fear.

Russell’s low blow came at the end: the attempt to smear Peggie’s character. Out came the old Facebook scraps, the half-heard rumours of intolerance, the lazy attempt to tar her as racist and homophobic. Thirty years of spotless service, gone in a puff of innuendo. Meanwhile, Upton was burnished as the picture of gentleness, compassion, and saintliness. A fairy tale ending, if one ignored the facts.

And then, the final irony - a hymn to NHS values: kindness, respect, inclusion. Yet there was no kindness in forcing a woman to undress beside a man, no respect in silencing her, and no inclusion in hounding her out of her post.

Russell’s speech was polished but hollow - a plea for the tribunal to forget common sense, biology, and fairness. She dressed fantasy as law and asked the panel to call it justice. The truth is simpler: Peggie asked for a women’s space. Russell told the tribunal that was chasing zebras. In reality, it is Russell who is running after unicorns.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1962827145517912295

Largesso · 02/09/2025 16:51

Justnot · 02/09/2025 15:49

Re: VV - I think it means that at the end of his evidence, where you need to swear to the truth of it he has altered the bit that says ‘ these facts are within my knowledge’

I think he meant on Twitter? I think/ hope he is going to go live at 5 on Substack

Madcats · 02/09/2025 16:53

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:31

You’ve read all 167 pages???!!

I haven’t started. There’s an obscure book out today about a Hallmarked Man, by some bloke. Thought I’d read listen to that first.

Hurrah! I was confusing this with the new Harry Potter audiobooks and imagining it wouldn’t be out for another month or two (that’s 31 hours of my multi-tasking life sorted this month!).

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:54

MyrtleLion · 02/09/2025 16:51

Here is his summary from JR yesterday.

His feed is hard to read because he reposts a lot of other stuff, and I can’t always find his summaries.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1962827145517912295

Jane Russell’s Closing: A Masterclass in Wishful Thinking

Jane Russell KC’s closing argument for NHS Fife and Dr. Upton was a performance in the art of inversion - turning reality inside out and expecting the tribunal to applaud. She spoke with elegance, but what she asked the panel to believe was preposterous: that a nurse of thirty years’ service was a bully, that a man in a women’s changing room was harmless, and that the law demands women silence their instincts to preserve a colleague’s feelings.

She began with her little parable about hoofbeats - “think horses, not zebras.” According to Russell, Peggie had conjured up a fantasy of danger. Yet the “horse” standing there was obvious: a male body in a female space. Only a lawyer desperate to deflect would try to convince a roomful of adults that it was the zebra.

Her biblical comparison was worse. The tribunal, she claimed, need not decide whether sex is immutable, any more than it must decide if Noah built an Ark in seven days. This was sophistry dressed as wit. Everyone knows that sex matters in law - in medicine, crime, safeguarding, and equality. It is written into the very statutes she pretended to interpret. To wave it away as mere belief was not clever - it was insulting.

Russell then invoked Goodwin and Article 8 as though they were magic words. She insisted that Dr. Upton’s “right to live as a woman” was inviolable. What she omitted was the parallel right of women not to be forced into states of undress with men. Balance, in her telling, meant women bend - always bend - so that one man may feel affirmed.

On the Christmas Eve incident, she painted Peggie as a seething aggressor, her voice full of anger rather than fear. The “prison rape” comment was held up as a cardinal sin. But what Russell ignored was the obvious truth: fear and anger often walk hand in hand. A woman alone, cornered by a man where she should have been safe, is entitled to feel both. Peggie named what was in front of her. That is not harassment. It is honesty.

The evidential gymnastics were almost comic. No “smoking gun” was found, so Peggie must be imagining things. No other women complained, so there must be no problem. In reality, every woman watching this case unfold knows exactly why others stayed silent. Peggie was dragged through suspension, investigation, and character assassination for daring to say what many quietly think. Silence in that climate is not proof of contentment - it is proof of fear.

Russell’s low blow came at the end: the attempt to smear Peggie’s character. Out came the old Facebook scraps, the half-heard rumours of intolerance, the lazy attempt to tar her as racist and homophobic. Thirty years of spotless service, gone in a puff of innuendo. Meanwhile, Upton was burnished as the picture of gentleness, compassion, and saintliness. A fairy tale ending, if one ignored the facts.

And then, the final irony - a hymn to NHS values: kindness, respect, inclusion. Yet there was no kindness in forcing a woman to undress beside a man, no respect in silencing her, and no inclusion in hounding her out of her post.

Russell’s speech was polished but hollow - a plea for the tribunal to forget common sense, biology, and fairness. She dressed fantasy as law and asked the panel to call it justice. The truth is simpler: Peggie asked for a women’s space. Russell told the tribunal that was chasing zebras. In reality, it is Russell who is running after unicorns.

Edited

A follow up post, and I think something else will follow later.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1962848120686928116

POST CLOSING ARGUMENT

Once Jane Russell KC finished her closing submissions, the courtroom did not move smoothly into deliberation. Instead, the respondents suddenly sought to amend their pleadings to introduce a new defence: that even if Peggie’s actions were linked to her gender-critical belief, they were objectionable in the manner of their expression. It was a late pivot to a Higgs-style “objectionable manifestation” argument.

Russell downplayed the gravity of the change. She insisted it had been clear since January that the respondents’ case was about Peggie’s “manner” on Christmas Eve, and that the tribunal could fold this into its analysis without difficulty. But if the panel demanded formality, she asked for the amendment to be granted, arguing it was essential for justice that the defence be properly addressed.

Naomi Cunningham bristled at the timing. This was the “eleventh hour,” she told the judge, and a move of “great substance.” The respondents had been represented throughout by experienced lawyers; they had ample opportunities to plead this case properly. Dropping it now would prejudice Peggie badly: witnesses had not been cross-examined on that basis, evidence had not been led with this defence in mind, and to allow it would mean recalling witnesses, re-running cross-examinations, and adding three or four more days of hearings. For a claimant already suspended and under stress, Cunningham said, the delay would be intolerable.

Judge Kemp and the panel retired, noting they needed time to weigh law and fairness. The decision was reserved, leaving the case hanging on whether this last-minute amendment would be allowed.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1962848120686928116

CinnamonCinnabar · 02/09/2025 16:55

ThreeWordHarpy · 02/09/2025 16:19

I think (hope?) this is the most likely outcome of this particular episode - by allowing it he’d close off a ground for appeal, but it has no material impact on the end result.

It sounds like the judge has a big job on his hands writing the judgement. The SC judgement in FWS was so well written that even a non-lawyer like me could understand 90% of it (although my eyes did slide over a lot of the technical discussion in references to various codes and case law). I’m going to guess that no judge likes to have their judgement appealed, so unless they feel the case needs to be heard by a higher court they will do their best to write a sound rationale.

And as we know, one side in this case has facts and law in their side and the other … doesn’t.

Big jobs for big Sond!

UpDo · 02/09/2025 16:55

Ooh can anyone link to NCs submissions please?

nauticant · 02/09/2025 16:55

myplace · 02/09/2025 16:46

I’m at a loss. I was relying on Boswell to summarise events. I can’t manage TT for various reasons (can’t log in to twitter and have elderly mother in residence and she does.not.stop.talking.ever.chokes and splutters because she can’t breathe and talk at the same time).

Altenatively, what about the Live Tweet Threads (scroll down) here?

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6

OP posts:
SinnerBoy · 02/09/2025 16:55

InvisibleDragon · Today 12:42

I don't understand why JR/Fife haven't had this baked in from the start - they could easily have argued that SP's behaviour was discrimination/harassment and that alternatively if that defence failed that it was the manner in which she expressed her objection that was the problem.
Why on earth didn't they?

I think it never occurred to them and it's a last ditch, Führerbunker option, concocted at the last minute. After Upton O'Goode's,

"It's doesn't matter what she could have said or done, I would still have been offended," speech, I'm not sure how well it's going to play.

Largesso · 02/09/2025 16:55

Largesso · 02/09/2025 16:51

I think he meant on Twitter? I think/ hope he is going to go live at 5 on Substack

Sorry! Thought I was replying to the Foran post

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread