NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #54

[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
Thread 53: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5404208-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-53 from 3 September

In my work place trans identified men have been very clear they will never use the gender neutral facilities as this 'outs' them as trans. In every case it is obvious that they are male but they insist everyone believes them to be women.

They simply will fight this every step of the way and women across my organisation will need to put in complaints. That can't happen until the organisation puts out a statement on facilities but they are still apparently trying to work out how what toilets etc we have

That's a complete nonsense of an argument. If a gender neutral loo can be used by anyone, then using it reveals no information whatsoever about the users' natal sex, gender identity, shoe size, or favourite Thunderbird.

And there's no 'right to recognition'.

See my last post!

I have done a lot of research on school toilets. Gender neutral options or single sex cubicles that lead directly out onto a mixed space are more dangerous because the cubicle or room is completely private. Some schools only have private options because they only offer unisex toilets.

Of the recent deaths publicised that have happened in school toilets, the design has been private.

The ones labelled ‘gender neutral’ are best summed up by this phrase from a girl who wants to use them:
‘I consider everything in the third floor bathroom a biohazard. Almost every time I make the mistake of going in, I leave trying to purge my mind of the horrors I just witnessed. Whether it is people having sex, poop smeared on the walls, or the toilet being clogged with an entire roll of toilet paper, horrible things have happened in that bathroom.
The first-floor bathroom is better, but it is inconvenient to get to and it is often full of people vaping.’

It says ‘bathroom’ as it’s an American article about having one ‘gender-neutral’ toilet on each school floor. Incidentally, the same design our (England) Department of Education have brought in in their latest guidance (not statutory) for secondary schools gender neutral private toilets. Wonder how that’s going to go?

Of course all the DfE designs are for ‘privacy’ and when I asked the Department of Education about risk assessments and equality impact assessments for private toilets, they ‘do not hold’ them in the Department and couldn’t show me any. No one has realised the importance of design details on health and safety. The people that will suffer the most are those at their most vulnerable having medical emergencies and being assaulted. Girls overwhelmingly make up that last group.

Privacy ‘rights’ are not greater that the rights to safety. Article 2 is absolute and overrides article 8 in that respect. Article 2 imposes positive obligations on the state to take reasonable measures to protect lives. This can include investigating suspicious deaths and preventing accidental deaths, such as in care or detention.

I think a single sex public toilet design (the only design allowed with door gaps) is a reasonable measure to protect lives and prevent accidental deaths. These should be the standard default design.

I think you misunderstood my question, @Keeptoiletssafe.

Thanks to your stirling work I'm well aware of the dangers. I was asking what difficulties they present to trans people being given them as an additional option that might lead to them complaining to HR.

And I got exactly the answer I expected. Outing. To which I say 'bollocks'.

Virgil. No question about it.

The right to privacy in Article 8 is qualified and it can be lawfully limited by public authorities. The limitations are permissible if they are in accordance with the law, serve a legitimate aim, and are necessary and proportionate to the objective.

Maintaining single sex service is in accordance with the law and serves a legitimate aim so I don't believe men can claim a right to privacy under Article 8 when they are told they cannot use female single sex spaces.

Thanks everyone for your support and warm words. DH comes in every day with treats and brings omelettes to be reheated for breakfast. They only offer cereal or toast and I'm lactose intolerant.

Amazon delivered new ear plugs today and DH will bring them this afternoon. I'm going to store them in my glasses case at all times to avoid losing them again.

I hope to be out of here in about 10 days as, pending discovering a nastier infection in the cultures which will report at the weekend, it's staphylococcus aureus which is easily treated.

The operation is to clean the wound again and close it. I'm hopeful the delay will mean the wound is more likely to close as I'll need a skin graft otherwise and that will mean another 2-3 weeks here.

Once home I'll be on antibiotics for 12 weeks but can restart my life!

With respect to gender neutral loos at work, a company I worked at refurbished their building and installed gender neutral loos as well as women's, men's and disabled.

The neutral ones were completely self-contained and loads of people used them to have a private poo. Not outing at all. All of them also opened outwards with the equivalent of a coin slot on the outside of the lock. This doesn't rule out not seeing someone who has collapsed, but does offer emergency access.

I'm only 30 pages into the 204 page submission, but it appears to boil down to:

• TWAW,
• Sandie is a meany
• DU needs more protection because s/he's speshul and
• if you consider other protected characteristics that's all women which is just wrong.

But IANAL so I might have got it wrong.

Virgil. No question about it.

Undoubtedly. Best vehicle too. Plenty of storage space.

Thank you. I am trying to get safe options for everyone and explaining that factually RMW is much safer in men’s toilets for health and safety. Hence why men need to step up their behaviour in toilets and look out for everyone. I know (however much I emphasise the problems that do go wrong) that most men are not bad ‘uns.

It is going to be a very difficult genie to put back into the bottle for multiple reasons, not least the absolute gaping chasm where any empathy or care for women would be in such men. If necessary though it's going to have to mean much tougher penalties to enforce women's equality and access.

You couldn't for example take racist assault off the statute books on the grounds that too many people were doing it, had support and it was easier just to let them get on with it because too hard to make them stop.

The argument that using gender neutral facilities is “outing” is just utter nonsense. Lots of people will use gender neutral facilities for many different reasons. I could quite honestly not tell you which toilets any of my colleagues use unless I bump into them beside the sinks. And if I saw one of them using a gender neutral or disabled toilet I wouldn’t bat an eye or even speculate why.

Why don’t all the “you can pee beside me” allies run cover for trans people by using the gender neutral facilities?

It's only "outing" if everyone can tell you're a man anyway and using the women's room won't change that. THAT just outs you as a creep who doesn't care about consent and is completely deluded about how you look.

Using the gender neutral toilets couldn't out me as anything because I'm clearly a woman and won't be mistaken for a man. If all the people who want to show solidarity with trans people use the unisex space, they'll prove that anyone can use it and it doesn't mean anything.

@MyrtleLion it may be worth asking if the hospital has a vegan menu. That ought to have lactose-free options. For some reason they often seem to keep these 'secret', even from many of the catering staff.

It's funny you should say that as there were no dairy free options for a main course one day. There was a vegan salad, but it was marked as having milk. I ordered it and it was a vegan meal.

They're very good here m All the meals have allergen information and there are usually one or two that are suitable for me.

I can't be exclusively vegan because I don't want to be vegan and managing nutrients is very hard on a vegan diet. I also have low level anaemia that had become a bit worse because of the infection. They're encouraging me to eat a lot of iron rich foods including beef.

The ‘disabled’ toilet was renamed ‘accessible’ for this reason. If there are not ambulant toilets, people may need extra space/shelf/handrails for all sorts of needs.

Likewise, a pull cord is only of use if it works, someone will respond to it, is able to be used (many are tied up) and the ill person is not too ill to be able to use it. Euan’s Guide is a good charity that deals with highlighting these issues.

Some people will disabilities ironically are safer in non ‘disabled’ toilets (one disabled child I taught was not allowed to use the ‘disabled’ toilets because she collapsed without warning and at our secondary school the single sex were open at the bottom of the door so she could be seen).

Health and Safety first.

Of course all the DfE designs are for ‘privacy’ and when I asked the Department of Education about risk assessments and equality impact assessments for private toilets, they ‘do not hold’ them in the Department and couldn’t show me any. No one has realised the importance of design details on health and safety.

I've read so many of your posts, @Keeptoiletssafe where you've made clear what the safety issues are. And yet the DoE don't even seem to be aware of it? And nothing changes. And nothing will change, in schools or the NHS or anywhere else it seems, without one hell of a fight, and continuous long-term pressure.

They are aware of it now! I have been in communication with HSE and DfE with my report.

I listed much of my research to EHRC on their consultation too. I hope it was different enough to be separated out by AI. I did an analysis of the published analysis of Document T because my research and concerns (and that of a charity) was not counted. This is how my campaign started.

Your posts are so useful. I would like to add another possible danger that needs thinking about. One of my young relatives was born unexpectedly and unexpectedly fast, head first down the loo. The mother thought her pain was a stomach upset. Thank goodness this didn't happen in a public toilet behind a full length door. Both mother and baby ended up in an ambulance and it turned out OK.

Thank you. I get told so many stories of what happens in toilet rooms! Paramedics have told me it’s where they head when they enter a property as it’s where people go when they feel ill.

I remember that heart-breaking story you found about the guy who texted his wife, saying he felt ill, and was later found in a toilet, too late.

I am not sure that was me but there are so many like that. No one is keeping tabs on what happens in toilets (I have asked RSPoA, police and HSE etc). I am building up information from a variety of sources including local newspapers, FOIs, government reports, police records, WRN reports, Hansard, Stonewall, Translucent, academic journals, medical reports, Ofsted, Everyone’s Invited, DfE design documents, books on architecture, toilet books, coroner reports, manufacturer sources. I follow it up and verify it looking at photos to check the design and court documents. People send me reports now!

I have stopped collating as much as there’s an obvious pattern and it’s more of the same. It’s also a bit soul destroying, knowing similar new incidents are going to happen again and again and there’s a design feature that helps prevent it. This talk of all toilets being enclosed feels like waiting for the crash sound after hearing brakes squeal.

@Keeptoiletssafe are you receiving any funding for your work ?

I agree with what's been said about the safety aspect of floor to ceiling doors.

My aunt died of a brain aneurysm at work. They had to break down the door to get to her.

I'm hoping it won't be that difficult.

In theory, this case and a few more should get most employers and public bodies to define single sex toilet provisions.

After that (or simultaneously), a few prosecutions for indecent exposure should significantly reduce the incentive for individuals to break the law.