NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #53

[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].

The hearing was 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: 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
Thread 52: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5403218-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-52 2 September 2025 to 4 September 2025

She's on point, as ever.

<Looks at certain political parties on both sides of the Atlantic.>

<Raises sceptical eyebrow.>

And yet the Green Party are still getting votes...

I hate that it's called 'left-wing', because it's surely anything but that, if the phrase has any meaning at all, but I couldn't agree more with the quote. Sadly, that's where most of the Left are, in a misogynist cul-de-sac. For those of us who have spent most of a life-time hoping the Left would point us in a better direction, that's deeply disappointing.

Hadnt heard of Charlie Kirk until yesterday but if, as that article suggests, he's been touring British universities then it explains why so many younger people are said to know about him. How does he get invited to British universities when women get cancelled?

The greens still get votes from those who want a party that pretends to care about the environment, from those who want to make a protest vote knowing that it doesnt affect the outcome and from those who have fled from reality.

Many young people, though inclined to silliness and radicalism of one sort or another, really crave rationality and common sense, especially towards the end of puberty, as they begin to grow up. Others were always sensible and realistic.
After teenage years in which their teachers, significant adults and major institutions endlessly promoted ideas that any half way sensible person can see are utterly ridiculous and which directly contradict factual information delivered elsewhere, no wonder that when a reasonable sounding and personable person who is apparently willing to engage in genuine debate, and who presents good arguments (in the logical sense) comes along, they take notice.
Charlie Kirk’s success was inevitable. His huge advantage was that he was a man.

And that truly is sad times.

Cost of Sandie Peggie trans row tribunal soars by £60k in a month

https://www.thetimes.com/article/f80113bf-6ec8-4f71-8d3d-696d7b1f646e?shareToken=32975fbd325b8d555809be62f8bb8e89

Presumably it's 25k each for Searle and the others as they're 3 separate defendants. Oh dear, what a waste of NHS money. If only they'd done the right thing in the first place.

Another £60k I'm surprised its not more.

Whats next step for the ET?

Hope Sandie is doing ok and not too stressed out with the ET

The obvious thing is sixty grand could have purchased a gold plated bog with affirming images of AI women to assuage uppity’s need for affirmation, without bothering any one else.

but of course a cost benefit analysis of this situation would be beyond the scope of those in charge of our healthcare, since it is not their money they are expending

And of course health care requires that we are educated in a certain way of thinking

But that still wouldn't have satisfied him. As he needs real women to validate his delusion. And apparently his wife isn't enough, it must be all of them.

Sorry didn't think this had posted

All this while the rest of the NHS watches and says "we have an inclusive policy just like NHS Fife's and we think it's great" - or at least my Trust does.

It still amazes me that an organisation with a majority female workforce (although not at management level, of course) can treat its female staff and patients with such contempt. It's really drained away any goodwill I had for my employer.

It specifically has to be unwilling women.

Laurie Penny is always saying she's happy to get her kit off in a trans-inclusive space. The Timothys don't seem to be interested.

I was amazed by that other thread (that is now deleted), with a company wanting a newly-transitioned transwoman to use the women's facilities. The management in that company obviously don't read the news.

She can do it all she likes. What she doesn't have the right to do is tell anyone else to do it too. Or if she has got that right, then surely we can also tell her what to do, although I'm sure we're all too ladylike to admit what we're thinking.

While it's a lot of money, is it really wasted as advertising always costs money?
The longer it goes on the better the outcome in terms of the message getting out that men cannot use women's spaces due to "be kind" without issues being raised.

The case doesn't change Upton's sex. A certificate (if he gets one) and a fan-club etc. doesn't change that either. Even his supporters on occassion correctly used his pronouns in court.

I just hope Sandie holds her nerve and takes this as far as is possible as she is right that single-sex spaces are needed and are for single-sexes.

I was amazed by that other thread (that is now deleted), with a company wanting a newly-transitioned transwoman to use the women's facilities. The management in that company obviously don't read the news.

I was going to comment on that thread and found that it had been deleted.
What I was going to say is that thanks to Sandie Peggie and FWS/Supreme Court ruling we can quote both the Equality Act and the Health and Safety Regs, to say that no, no man is allowed in a female changing room/ toilet, however much he doesn't want to use the men's facilities.

I wouldn't have known that a year ago - and I bet that some of those women who were going to have a TiM imposed on them were the same as me, but now have the strength to say No, sort this out between the men.

No, I don’t fancy LP either - she squicks me big time. I do not know why but I think I would leave a space to not have to encounter her. She seems to insert herself into things and I find her whole routine of ‘I am important’ tiresome.

The other person I haven’t met that I have had such a strong reaction to is Peter Mandelson. I find him creepy. I have a bad radar so I am quite surprised to find out this week that it looks like my gut was right.

Another question I would have asked on the other thread but fits here also:

A poster said that it's not against the law for someone of the opposite sex to use a dedicated single sex toilet. It was pointed out that the duty was on the Employer to provide them, but would there not be a duty on the employer to ensure that the staff obeyed the rule also? Otherwise men could go happily barging into the women's saying that the law says that SS loos have to be provided; there is nothing to say that we must use them.

IANAL and this may sound like hair splitting. Is it something which needs a test case to fully clarify the position?

It's not against the law on toilet provision. But depending on their reason for being there and behavior while there it is likely to be a public order offence and/or harrasment.

Employers have a duty to prevent harassment by or of their employees.

And part of SP's claim is that Upton's presence was harassment, so this is the test case for that question.

I’ve said along that I don’t think he’ll rule that Upton sexually harassed Sandie simply by using the women’s changing room. That will need to go to a higher authority I think, this judge will fudge it IMO.

But IANAL and it wouldn’t be binding either way at this stage.