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

I'm sure you're right. As pointed out upthread, we've already had the Bates v the Post Office case, which they wilfully delayed. Now this. Is it too much to hope that a least a cap should be put on how much public bodies spend defending cases like this?

Today I've spent time thinking about the incredible irony of NHS Fife being so incredibly nasty to Sandie throughout the tribunal but their defence is that she wasn't nice enough when she expressed her view (correctly) that they were breaking the law.

Does anyone at NHS Fife have any self-awareness?

I mean, is NHS Fife in any position to be an arbiter of who is being nice and who is being nasty?

I was only ever involved in one case a microbiology one. A smallish farmer had his whole herd wiped out by salmonella in feed supplied by large company. Expert witness testified that the strain came from that feed. Large company kept bringing in expert witness after expert witness and timed them out and smallish farmer was bankrupt with court costs. Quite sad really. That’s how British courts work.

No matter what the evidence. The richer guy wins. Except in exceptional cases like the post office where it catches the publics imagination and is of such merit. Although they’ve still not got their compensation and so many died of suicide. And NHS fife where that particular organisation is digging in its heels no matter what is discovered. I am still hopeful that nhs fife gets its arse handed to him but jury is out!!

Reminds me of Charles Dickens' Bleak House: Jarndyce v Jarndyce. It was written 170 years ago.

Hopefully @nauticant is having a great holiday so I'll post the link to the next thread.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-54

I keep hearing good things about bleak house. I’m off on holiday tomorrow. I will download that! Thank you :-)

I’ve only read dickens way years ago. When I was quite young. I loved those books back then. I never ever liked Harry Potter or any of the films. My kids loved them and queued up to buy the books as they were released. They adored them. I don’t like the books at all but i absolutely love and respect Jo Rowling for everything that she has done. I’m known to be massively randomly fussy in what i read. Sorry this is so self indulgent. I will read bleak house while i am away. Sorry - l know no one cares :-)….

@Namechangedagain999 I care! I loved Bleak House when I read it 20 years ago but I have to be in the right mood for Dickens and my life is too busy at the moment. I also loved the BBC adaptation of Bleak House.

I love the HP books but struggle with JKR's novels for adults. I think I can't pick up any of her books without wishing it was more HP content!

Dickens tells a good story, but I can't stand his writing. The names, the accents, the paid-by-the-word drawing out of things that should have taken quarter of the page space.

Adaptations only, for me.

Not necessarily, certain government departments and NHS trusts get taken to tribunals the most out of every employer; and therefore lose the most claims compared to every other employer. That’s a damning statistic.

The issue is, they become more astute at defending claims, as opposed to not treating people in a manner where claims arise. Hence why they tend to be extremely adversarial. There is a naturally public interest so media may report on issues with public sector employers, so it’s extra embarrassing for claimants and employers are more determined to fight liability to keep up public appearances (as opposed to not carrying out the illegal acts in the first place). Ultimately it’s why you can get an uplift for claims against these sorts of employers, they should do better.

Regardless, it’s not impossible to win, they can’t defend the indefensible. They just are reluctant to offer settlements due to treasury approval and the scrutiny that comes with that. Whereas rich private sector employers, might be more inclined to settle in the first instance to immediately protect their reputation and shut down any claims.

Did you know he was his own editor and paid by the word? I ended up in front of the head teacher when I gave that answer when I was asked about his writing style. My Dad killed himself laughing and refused to let me do detention because it was true. Then we had one of 'those' conversations about school not being forever and picking my battles. Sorry, I haven't improved in the last 45 years...

I forgot that the t-word not terf, the other one, is not acceptable. That old fashioned word that was used to describe men in dresses. In fact, I was using it to illustrate objectionable manifestation of gender critical beliefs.

I also forgot that some people have no sense of humour and lack the ability to understand context.

Apropos of nothing - has anyone ever noticed how many gifs are men or cartoon characters only?

I forgot that the t-word not terf, the other one, is not acceptable. That old fashioned word that was used to describe men in dresses. In fact, I was using it to illustrate objectionable manifestation of gender critical beliefs.

I also forgot that some people have no sense of humour and lack the ability to understand context.

Apropos of nothing - has anyone ever noticed how many gifs are men or cartoon characters only?

I feel like it's just one of the traliban using what little waning and remaining power they have to interdickt posters here.

I've noticed that gifs are mainly male , I love it when people use female gifs

I just typed the word female in to the gif thing.

This was one of its top gifs for me!

That is definitely not true. The employer is always the richer guy in any employment tribunal case, but employees win around 50% of the cases that are decided by the tribunal.

It is true that richer people can sometimes win by running a poorer person out of money, but there are steps the courts can take to prevent that. It is also true that richer people can afford more experienced, higher priced legal teams. But in the vast majority of cases there are no legal loopholes they can exploit and, no matter how skilled an advocate, they can't win if the evidence is against them. The idea that the richer guy always wins is a myth perpetuated by the media.

From a Scottish legal newsletter this morning ............

"Councils face £90m bill to comply with equality guidance
Scottish councils could face costs of up to £90m to bring public buildings into line with new guidance following the Supreme Court ruling that defined women under equality law by biological sex. East Lothian Council has estimated a £1.8m bill to adapt its buildings, including expanding gender-neutral toilets and changing areas, and similar adjustments across other local authorities could push the national total close to £90m. More than 100 NHS boards and government agencies are also expected to overhaul facilities and policies to ensure single-sex spaces are based on biological criteria. The Times note that a group of SNP councillors in East Lothian has written to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson urging the Treasury to meet the costs, while issuing the same request to Scotland’s equalities minister, Kaukab Stewart"

So, I suspect many MPs / MSPs may dial back on the TWAW rhetoric when it would (1) cost ££££ to implement it in practice and (2) be hugely unpopular with the general public who know the money would be so much better spent on other things

Surely the bill is nothing to do with the guidance - the bill is a direct result of failing to follow the law for 10 or 15 years and building illegal facilities?

Yes they made the big error so they can pay for it out of their own budget and explain themselves to the Scottish taxpayer.

they do not need loads of gender toilets anyway, according to the trans cohort data

The new guidance says that they need mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities where possible in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities. Since most public buildings only have single-sex facilities regardless of when they were built, I don't think this can be blamed on them building illegal facilities in the last 10-15 years. They simply thought they could continue providing ladies and gents as they have always done, without any need for mixed-sex facilities.

From Sandie Peggie to a nice insight into Dickens, parenting and Life. Good ol' Mumsnet.

That's easy - "we have not got the space or money so it is not possible, our priority is and always has to be ensuring all men and women - irrespective of how they identify - have single sex spaces. Besides it is clear that women are less safe in mixed sex spaces and as a result we would clearly be at increased risk of being sued if we allow naive women to share with potentially dangerous men".

"Where possible" is a hypothetical time and place where money and space is almost unlimited and men are not a threat to women.