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

https://knowingius.org/

But you'll need a subscription.

This is an interesting link in the Guardian about the difference between being nice and being kind.

Being nice to Upton, is saying "yes, you are a lady and do come into our changing room", being kind would be to say, "no you are not and will never be a woman, and you have as many obligations as others to respect women's rights to have single sex changing rooms."

I realise this isn't strictly on topic but there's an AIBU thread that's been started about the phrase putting on "big girl pants".

Made me think of the delightful Beth Upton.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5415167-big-girl-pants-op?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

😅

Also, looking forward to the restart of this, if it happens, next month.

Enjoyed MF's analysis of the last day because I was just too agog to take it all in at the time.

I do suspect that NHS Fife might consider an appeal just because they worship of the tower of dogmatism so strongly.

It would take an alien invasion for them to notice that the world isn't quite as trans-worldy as they fervently believe it is.

Upton was correct in a way. Men do need bigger pants, particularly if they're trying to start a family and keen to maximise sperm health.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Sonia Sodha in the Times. Talking about the assisted suicide bill and the importance of accurate language, refers to the Sandie Peggie case:

“This is why in the recent legal case about whether it is discriminatory to expect a female nurse to share workplace changing facilities with a male doctor, NHS Fife’s legal team unsuccessfully tried to force the lawyers on the other side to refer to the male doctor as though he were female.”

Beware the euphemisms over assisted suicide.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b233d4ca-76ce-4250-90fd-a7c4bef797fb?shareToken=9c1ae796e51a63e2f1abd764fbb1ccbd

Sorry, I have missed it somewhere I think but was there a rough steer from the Judge when the verdict would come in? I know it takes a while and i imagine he wants no holes anywhere in his reasonings.

I'd add to that 'and I will campaign alongside you for you to have a safe space to change, because both of us deserve that.'

Sadly, when people say 'be nice' or 'be kind' it usually means 'back off and give me what I want or I'll call you a Karen even though I loudly claim I'm not any sort of 'ist'. Apparently, it's fine to be ageist and sexist or any other sort of ist if an older woman inconveniently stands up for themselves.

Would the aliens like to kidnap them? On second thoughts, no, because I don't want an intergalactic war and they're bound to be ideologically impure by their standards. They might be prejudiced against humans because they only have one head.

After the 'Friday press release' over the summer, NHS Fife signaled that the case was now not just a legal one, but a political one; so it will up to Scottish government to put a stop to the legal maneuvering, as NHS Fife feel it's its moral imperative to fight, obstruct, and pay whatever the fines and legal costs might be incurred along the way. And if one were to read the signals, the government of Scotland seems to be indicating that they're in agreement.

Why is it the case that even as voter sentiment continues to sour on trans issues, institutions and politicians are to doubling down on them? If it were a normal issue we should see politicians, a bell weather for public sentiment, running away from it. But look at the Greens, Lib Dems, enactment of EHRC guidance, the Scottish government's own enforcement of the SC ruling, Sultana. Something weird is going on beyond institutional capture, stupidity and cravenness.

My theory is that reform and immigration are causing a seismic realignment. In the last year, Starmer has made a Herculean effort at great political cost to move Labour's center of gravity rightward in a bid to head off reform and seize the center, this is ordinarily the correct thing to do, but in a polarized world where bifurcation has set opinions far apart, it's wrong - you shouldn't go after the sensible center, but instead pander to boutique political clientele e.g. trans rights, Palestine, religious identitarianism, etc. I hope this is not the case because it bodes ill not just for GCs but for the governability of the UK, but what we're seeing seems abnormal.

The Scottish government is filled with batshit believers in gender ideology. That's ultimately the issue. Unfortunately.

Edited to say; sorry that was meant to be in response to the previous post.

Question for anyone who knows about the medical insurance scheme that NHSFife relies upon to claim they only have to pay £25,000 a pop (regardless of the eye-watering amounts it actually costs, which is met by the public purse).

1. If I were to claim on my insurance for things that were my fault (or at least avoidable or minimizeable) my premiums would go through the roof. Is that the case for this scheme? Are the true costs more than £25,000 for future cases?

2. Is NHSFife protected by this scheme if it continues to break the law and defend this? I know the cases SP is bringing relate to historic events, but can NHSFife continue to allow TW in female changing rooms now its clearly not legal to do that and still be protected by this insurer? If so why - when we know regular insurers would not allow this.

3. If the answers above are No and Yes (still protected by this insurance scheme) then is this scheme acting politically to bolster organisations which are flouting the law and allow them to face down litigants who are not covered by such a generous umbrella?

I presume it makes a difference that NHS Fife is defending itself though? Maybe the insurer can't say no to funding that? A bit like in criminal cases, the accused has to be entitled to a defence lawyer.

Another question about the insurance scheme

My understanding is that each hospital in Scotland pays into the fund (Fife pay 25K an incident?, a year?).

• Are the funds paid into the scheme sufficient to cover the costs for all claims at all hospitals or does the Scottish government (i.e. tax payers) end up footing the cost of any shortfall?

1. This isn't an insurance scheme. CNORIS (Clinical Negligence & Other Risks Indemnity Scheme) is a fund that all NHS trusts in Scotland pay into. In 2023/24, this fund paid out £47M to its members to cover claims. In the last 10 years, the total paid out has ranged from £34M to £109M, with the vast majority of payouts being for clinical negligence claims. The contribution rate is calculated by a complex formula which does take claim history into account. The cost of this case may push NHS Fife's contribution rate up. However, only 9% of a trust's contribution is calculated based on the risk of non-clinical cases, so it is unlikely to make much difference.
2. I don't see anything in the way CNORIS operates that would allow them to withdraw cover if NHS Fife decides to ignore the law, but ultimately they will have to fall in line or senior executives could face jail time.
3. No, this scheme is not acting politically. If it picked and chose which claims to cover based on political considerations it would be. It doesn't. It covers all claims made against NHS Trusts in Scotland.

NHS Fife have to cover the first £25k of any claim. They don't pay that into the fund. The amount paid into the scheme by NHS Fife is in the millions. The funds paid by the NHS Trusts into the scheme are sufficient to cover the scheme's liabilities. Of course, all that money ultimately comes from the taxpayer.

The panel is meeting for deliberations in October.

Those deliberations will include whether to accept Fife's change of grounds, and timing of the judgement will very much depend on that decision; it could send us right back the beginning! (Probably won't, but it's a possibility.)

If they decide they don't need to recall anyone as a result of the change, and they come to an agreement on the decision, we could potentially have a judgement by November. But it usually takes several months for everything to be written up, so I'm not expecting it this year.

My understanding is that NHSFife pay up to £25k per case (but I don't know and hope others will) and that the Scottish government pays the rest. Another 15 * £25k top up for this particular case and growing? That has been stated here but assume its the case. I assume the premium is some other amount. @KnottyAuty and the rest of the audit team should be able to tell us how many trusts could end up fighting the same case if staff decide to take it to a tribunal. I think its <insert number of every Scottish Health Trust>.

@NImumconfused Yes they are defending. But if the law said I cannot operate my business without XXX (which is a clarification of existing legal position, but something that has been allowed to pass before, or been widely misinterpreted), then am I insured if I ignore this and don't get XXX sorted? (Think of sprinkler system, liability insurance for volunteers etc.) I would expect not.

This is a 'Lest we forget' musing. If Judge Kemp had allowed it the case could have been

a) Argued with SP and her legal team having to use female pronouns for BU
b) BU would have been not named, or seen.
c) There would be no public viewing of the trial and no tribunal tweets

Now different would that have been? That these decisions were made not in favour of the NHSFife/BU team is hopefully showing greater awareness across the legislature.

Thank you @prh47bridge for your answers - my musings above are redundant now (being far less expert and accurate!).

The insurance is a red herring because most of the public sector effectively self-insures. The taxpayer simply foots the bill. It doesn’t even come out of dept budgets so there’s no management accountability. In the context of the NHS where medical negligence claims run into £millions, defending this case is a drop in the ocean. Anyway a lot of the work is being done for “free” by all the staff at NHS Fife who are being paid their normal salaries to work on this instead of actually treating patients.

Eventually, if attitudes don’t change, there will need to be a civil case for malfeasance in a public office. This would hold individuals accountable but the bar is very very high. (I suspect whoever signed off at board level on the Friday night press release would be a target.) That really would be a piece of strategic litigation.

I’m not certain - perhaps others know - but Bridget Phillipson seems to be dawdling on placing the new EHRC guidance before Parliament and I do wonder whether that is linked to her running for Deputy Leader. Having been very clear that she accepted the SC ruling at the time, following through might be a bit risky for her personally with the Labour membership vote….

There’s a very long way to go yet.

And is this the judge who uses unusual terms from Roman mythology (or similar)?

The new guidance was not submitted for ministerial approval until 5th September. I don't think Phillipson can reasonably be accused of dawdling yet. The delays were with EHRC. They had intended to provide the updated guidance to the government by the summer but failed to achieve that. I don't know, but I presume the delay was due to legal challenges and the extended consultation period.

A Google search brought up November as the likely date for the ruling, but I'm not sure what that's based on.