NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #55

[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 3 September to 1 October 2025
Thread 54: 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 from 28 September 2025

The Judge did not like Pete. This ideology melts brains:

'In evidence and submission the claimant spent much time raising the circumstances of a fictitious person given the name “Pete”, discussed above. In very brief summary, Pete had all the appearance of a male, described as a manly man, who entered the female changing room and refused to leave. It was suggested that such a person would rightly be told
to leave by a female member of staff there, and the person’s presence objected to.

1168. We did not consider that such a hypothetical person was a comparator for the purposes of the Act. If that person was a man by sex at birth, and had no genuine intention of undergoing gender reassignment but disingenuously said that he was as a ruse to enter the space for sexual or other gratification, that person is not within the definition in section 7 for reasons addressed above. That is a material distinction to the circumstances of the present case.'

His calm demeanour in giving evidence is noted...

Psychopaths are often calm in their demeanour. They are particularly good at being calm when lying, because they don't care that they're lying. Sociopaths are less calm in general but are similarly unflustered by lying.

A judge should therefore know that calmness is no proof of reliability.

They all are

It looks like no judge has spine enough really, and would rather push it back and hope they either go away, or appeal (like Maria Kelly) but at least they won't get the grief of it all off the TRAs.

Also laughable they found Upton a more reliable witness?!? He outright was LYING about his sex ffs, nowt reliable about the kind of person that does that!

Still at least they found against NHS Fife which must be a massive relief for Sandie.

I think it's doctorism

This is ridiculous, but IANAL. Can it be appealed?

Did they take a nap on the day Mr Borthwick came to town?

Apparently if DU was punishing SP.he would have complained about patient safety. That he didn't do so makes him not a punisher.

We have a longer road to.go.than expected with this and Kelly.

Infuriating that female staff were intimidated into staying silent, on pain of being called a bigot, ostracised and whatever negative consequences right up to dismissal. Yet once again, we have a judge, of all people, making a decision on the law based on nobody complaining.

So ladies, we'll intimidate you on pain of losing your livelihood and home into silence. But then we'll use that silence as evidence you don't mind undressing in front of a bloke

It's enraging. And surely cannot be allowed to stand. I'm interested to see what Sex Matters and FWS have to say about it.

This in the "Facts" section indicates the judges bias IMO

"The second respondent is not a person who is obviously male from
external appearance".

Upton does not even remotely pass. And I'm not saying that to be mean, some TW do pass quite well, especially in a still photograph. Upton does not.

Haven't read the whole thing, but enough at the moment to have my blood pressure raised....sorry, but Upton credible? I hope every point that was not found in Sandie's favour and hasn't fallen away gets appealled!

wtf is this nonsense. The second respondent doesn’t believe he has the sex of a female. He’s a fucking doctor for Christ sake!

He's got the comparator wrong. The same as the Kelly judgement.

@ProfessorBettyBooper agreed- women have no idea which blokes are dodgy- trans or not -wanting to access female changing rooms. And it matters not in the sense of they are all a breach of female privacy, dignity and safety. Apart from partners, many women don't consent to getting undressed in front of any men - stranger, work colleague, friend, son- whether or not we trust them. It's why we have single sex changing rooms/ spaces.

Unbelievable

I'm so so glad that access to the public was granted, TT were live tweeting and everything was recorded by stenographers. We all got to see NHSF staff squirming with their lies. Imagine if this been heard behind closed doors.

We did not consider that such a hypothetical person was a comparator for the purposes of the Act.

Quoting myself, but I thought that the SC found exactly the opposite? That the comparator for a male with a GRC had to be male without one?

One small detail I noticed while 'skimming' - one of the examples of SP's lack of credibility is that she said she did not use the toilet to change in, whereas two witnesses said they had seen her doing so - the implication being that she could have changed away from DrU's gaze.

But a medical professional changing into their clean work clothes in a toilet is unhygienic and completely unacceptable, so the fact that a female nurse was driven to such lengths by the presence of a male in the changing room is a point against DrU being there at all!

What does he think the appropriate comparator would be?

Is he actually saying the protected CR or GR trumps Women’s rights to single sex spaces?

Right, I must stop trying to speed read it, go back to what I was doing before the judgement, and read it properly this evening.

Absolutely bloody disgraceful. And still no one is coming out and saying it's not about anyone's identity, it's about adult male anatomy in the ladies' room.

@WallaceinAnderland · Today 13:51
He's got the comparator wrong. The same as the Kelly judgement.

Think you're right.

This pathway has been predictable for a long time. Everytime on here if I challenge why someone won't speak up or out on this matter I receive long lists of why they are the special one who couldn't possibly. So I am going to say it again, people need to speak up and challenge. I haven't read the decision, but it doesn't look on the surface that great.

I think [this is all from speed-reading, so could be wrong] Mr B's evidence was rejected as not being a proper expert witness, didn't meet the criteria.

Big Sond seems to still believe that Dr U is not just a man but a special kind of man

Totally missed the point that from a woman's perspective when stuck in the changing room Upton IS Pete.