Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 19/11/2025 22:05

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
49
DonicaLewinsky · 08/12/2025 14:22

TheUnusuallyQuerulentMxLauraBrown · 08/12/2025 14:17

I’m cautiously declaring this a ‘for the best’ outcome - appeals court was necessary for Forstater.

Of course, this only works if SP has access to the funds to appeal, so if a crowdfunder is necessary, I’m in.

Show quote history

Agreed.

Sandie has won enough to have won, notwithstanding that Fife fucked up the procedure so appallingly she was always likely to succeed there. And while I understand people's irritation, the potential benefits to getting something binding are obvious.

mateysmum · 08/12/2025 14:22

After the Kelly and Sandie judgements, seems to me that all the niceties aside, they essentially say that women are not entitled to single sex toilets and changing rooms. That is what it comes down to.

How did we get here? (I know the answer)

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 14:22

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 08/12/2025 14:10

It struck me as very similar to the Kelly v Leonardo case where she was the only person who complained which meant she was the only person who was affected

Show quote history

What about the law? what about principle? Why does it matter that only one or two or whatever people complain, it is still the law!

'Well yes, there is a 50 MPH speed limit, and you were clocked doing 60, but nobody minds if you drive at 60, everybody does it and nobody has complained.. and you seem like such a credible and reliable young lady...'

‘All causes should be measured by the golden and straight metwand of the law, and not by the incertain and crooked cord of Discretion.’ Lord Coke

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 14:22

The only answer is to remove the PC of gender reassignment in law. Sadly won’t happen.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/12/2025 14:22

It’s such complete bullshit @ProfessorBettyBooper

SirChenjins · 08/12/2025 14:22

I would say it's unvbelievable but it's not - too many lower level judges appear to be unwilling to take the lead in applying the SC judgement appropriately. The law is an ass, and there's a reason that saying came into being.

So, onwards and upwards to the appeal courts. Rome wasn't built in a day - women's rights have been attacked and trampled on by men in power over rhe centuries but we've always won in increments - this will be no different.

On the plus side, Upton's face is now well known and women who object to being treated by deceiving men will be able to send him packing.

FirstRobinoftheYear · 08/12/2025 14:23

Coffeeandcataddict · 08/12/2025 14:17

If he looked like a woman how come an old lady with dementia kept calling him son?

Show quote history

Quite.

ItsCoolForCats · 08/12/2025 14:23

So we've had the Maria Kelly tribunal and now this one, where the judge has ruled that it is not inherently unlawful to allow tw to use female single sex facilities. Do we expect that the judge in the Darlington nurses case will follow the same line? 😕

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 14:24

I also think EJ is wrong on the comparator. Pete is the ideal comparator being as he is a male the same in all respects to DU aside from the PC of GR

whatwouldafeministdo · 08/12/2025 14:24

mateysmum · 08/12/2025 14:22

After the Kelly and Sandie judgements, seems to me that all the niceties aside, they essentially say that women are not entitled to single sex toilets and changing rooms. That is what it comes down to.

How did we get here? (I know the answer)

And this will exclude some women from being able to access employment now they know they can be forced by their employer to have to change in front of men. Good luck filling the nursing shortage now.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 08/12/2025 14:25

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 14:15

To the contrary the Judge is very brave for withstanding the force of the mob. I commend them.

Edited
Show quote history

Bollocks. He has made himself look like an idiot in public by using activist language.

Majorconcern · 08/12/2025 14:26

This certainly explains why Fife wouldn't concede the case ages ago. Why would they when there is a general conspiracy to ignore whatever law doesn't suit the regime?

BettyFilous · 08/12/2025 14:27

WallaceinAnderland · 08/12/2025 13:23

So admitting Dr Upton made the changing rooms mixed sex but as far as they know only one women objected to mixed sex changing rooms. Pffft

Next case is really, really going to have to spell it out for them. Women do not want to undress in front of men.

Show quote history

Does the evidence in these cases not give the tribunal panel pause to think why other women in this workplace have opted not to complain, even though they are unhappy? It’s hard to think what more Fife could have done to punish and discourage Sandy after she put her head above the parapet. 🙄

SirChenjins · 08/12/2025 14:27

whatwouldafeministdo · 08/12/2025 14:24

And this will exclude some women from being able to access employment now they know they can be forced by their employer to have to change in front of men. Good luck filling the nursing shortage now.

Show quote history

Isn't it that employers will have to ensure that women don't come across men in the changing rooms - so Fife should have been responsible for doing that?

EdithStourton · 08/12/2025 14:27

MyrtleLion · 08/12/2025 13:18

Paragraph 61 immediately contradicted by paragraph 62:

61 The second respondent is not a person who is obviously male from
external appearance. Some people meeting the second respondent in a
work or social setting unaware of the sex assigned at birth for the second
respondent are likely to consider the second respondent to be of the
female sex. Other people meeting the second respondent in such
circumstances, or after more detailed interactions with the second
respondent, are likely to consider the second respondent as someone
assigned male by sex at birth.

62 The second respondent is about six feet tall. The claimant is about five
feet four inches tall.

Para 61?
LOL really?
He's not even convincing in a bloody photo!
Someone needs to give their specs a good clean.
(And before anyone has a go at me for picking on the shortsighted, I have needed specs since I was about 13.)

MyrtleLion · 08/12/2025 14:28

I can't bear to read any more past p236 where allegedly SP asked DU about his chromosomes (as if!) and I must compose myself before this meeting at 4pm.

Such a male way of viewing Sandie's testimony. I really feel for her.

whatwouldafeministdo · 08/12/2025 14:29

Only a man could possibly think Upton looks in any way feminine. It's making me wonder about the judge in many ways......

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 08/12/2025 14:29

I think my Brain has exploded!

Just a skim read for now, but I find myself happy for Sandie and frustrated with the judge, both at the same time.

I do think we need to remember though that, at this level, the judgement was not going to form any precedents and in the long term, it does need to be scrutinised at the higher level.

Edited for typo

Cosyfriendship · 08/12/2025 14:29

Was this Tribunal confused because it started before the Supreme Court Decision and Certificates of Gender existed but Beth did not have one and would have qualified.
I know SC was not new Law but it drew attention to existing law.

NebulousProfessorSupportPostcard · 08/12/2025 14:29

I wonder how Fife officials are really feeling about a judgement that upholds harassment on their part, but dismisses all claims and finds credible the man who started and continued the whole charade by means of obvious deception. They are stuck with a monster now, unless Sandie appeals and achieves a better outcome at a higher court.

Searle, Currer and Davidson, Potter and Miller must feel as sick as pigs that this could run on for years longer for them but, as of now, Upton is exonerated.

MyrtleLion · 08/12/2025 14:29

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 13:51

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!

But they found that she had changed in the toilet before so she wasn't credible.

OP posts:
SternJoyousBeev2 · 08/12/2025 14:30

Coffeeandcataddict · 08/12/2025 14:17

If he looked like a woman how come an old lady with dementia kept calling him son?

Show quote history

He is clearly a bloke. And remember by the time of the hearing he was further into his mythical transformation so at the time of both the dementia patient and CR incident it was even more obvious he was a bloke.

Interesting that Big Sond used hair, clothes and make-up and used the word ‘feminine’ to affirm Upton’s but all those things would not apply in A&E with scrubs on. He also used Upton’s voice to support his claim that he wasn’t obviously male. It seems that Big Sond is letting his own biases show.

FallenSloppyDead2 · 08/12/2025 14:30

BezMills · 08/12/2025 14:10

There was a lot in there about the expert evidence by Speccie Loddie (Jim Borwick/Borthwick) and the contrasting evidence from NHS Fife and their "IT" "Expert". The Fifer and I both have strong opinions on that, which I'll come back to in the future.

For now I think the following paras really capture the essence of the judgement. That Big Sond is not at all convinced that Single Sex changing rooms are legally required. He's shilly shallying about that, very much not prepared to make the call himself. "potentially but not necessarily lawful under the Act to permit a trans woman to use a female only space"

I mean could be, mebbe, might no, might be aye, ahm no sure, who's tae say likes ken?

We concluded that it is potentially but not necessarily lawful under the Act to permit a trans woman to use a female only space, such as the changing room, in the context of work. We considered that the construction of the Act in light of the Supreme Court decision relevant to this case was that the claimant can argue both before an employer and at the Tribunal the claims of direct and indirect discrimination and of harassment as she has made in this claim if a trans woman is granted permission to use the female changing room, but also that the second respondent can make arguments both before an employer and at the Tribunal of indirect discrimination and harassment if excluded from that same changing room. How an employer may attempt to resolve these competing arguments and the protected characteristics on which they are based we address below.

In our view the claimant’s attempts to persuade us that the Regulations required a single sex space from which all biological males required to be excluded because the definitions in FWS should be read across to the 1992 Regulations went beyond an issue we are able to determine, as it is a matter arising only under the criminal law.
859.
The 1992 Regulations do not have a definition of men or women. FWS does not determine the meaning of words in the 1992 Regulations. As stated above its analysis of the meaning of words such as “woman” was specifically confined to the 2010 Act itself. The terms of that decision therefore contradict the claimant’s argument.
860.
There are arguments both for and against the claimant’s position that the same approach should be followed, and for and against the respondents’ position that a definition of women which is inclusive of those who are trans women is appropriate in order to construe the 1992 Regulations consistently with Article 8. In our view these arguments are not ones that we can competently address.

In our view these arguments are not ones that we can competently address.

Seems this is key to me. Onwards and upwards, if Sandie will go for it

Majorconcern · 08/12/2025 14:31

I'm hoping Sandie will agree to an appeal. After all, she's got to go through the stress of the other legal actions, so she's presumably up for a fight, and this decision really must be appealed. Otherwise all those casting doubt on FWS will sezie on all the nonsense spouted in this decision

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread