NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56

[nauticant]

Judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6936ce28a6fc97b81e57436a/S_Peggie_v_Fife_Health_Board__Dr_Upton.pdf

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
Thread 55: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5447019-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-55

And the evidence presented to the court by an expert witness of the very clear likelihood that said trans woman doctored evidence to make Sandie Peggie look bad has dropped out of the reporting altogether it seems.

The BBC coverage on the app is the same - 50% saying she was right and the rest saying poor trans. It's hard to garner what the actual result was from the news story, if you read it, despite the headline being clear.

I'm not a lawyer

Please tell me I'm not alone in not understanding how some of the wording in the judgement fits with the decisions made

It reads very like an HR case where they are trying to keep both parties happy and not actually make a decision, or they just decide to validate different parts of both parties complaints and hope that it will all go away!

and overall, it does not feel like a win. It actually feels a bit like kicking the ball into the long grass because nobody actually wants to deal with it

Actually, the short version is - I'm baffled.

if anyone remembers the Bill Clinton saga, where it ended up with a query like "it depends what the definition of "is" is" - I feel as if the follow on cases, if they happen, are going to be debating points in that way.

Agree
The Leonardo case in Edinburgh was another ridiculously misogynistic outcome in assuming because there were single occupancy ( not sex) toilets in the building the women could use them if they wanted

Ignoring the issue of voyeurism and women’s exclusion from their own single sex facilities

I despair how men still control are very right to safety and make judgements on whether we are in danger or not.

It should, but Bridget is a resourceful woman and can always magic up another review or consultation.

She's quite obviously been waiting out Baroness Falkner, in the hope that Mary Ann Stephenson will be more of a soft touch. Now, I think MAS is basically a good egg, but...

There's a lovely (possibly apocryphal) story about Jeremy Thorpe, after his political career had ended in disgrace. Some time in the early 1980s he went to the National Liberal Club for the unveiling of a portrait of himself as a past leader. The Liberal Party grandees in attendance didn't know what to say to him, and in search of a neutral subject, someone mentioned his successor as candidate in North Devon.

"Roger Blackmore is a splendid chap," Thorpe said, "but I fear he lacks the killer instinct."

Time will tell with Dr Stephenson.

Even though Sandie Peggie wasn't successful in all her claims, hopefully this high-profile tribunal will act as an effective deterrent to other males who think the female facilities are theirs to use.

Probably just with the BBC, hopefully other press will give us a more balanced view. Since the review, has any more come of why we have such a pro-trans BBC and when we might be getting one that reports on women again?

No, they'll decide too many of them complained equals bullying of poor Rose by the nurses.

We are going to end up with one complaint is not enough but two complaints is bullying at this rate.

Maybe there needs to be a man complaining about a transman. Wonder what the judge would do then?

It would be lovely to think so but I fear it will embolden more to use the spaces, as it seems to be giving a different message to the Supreme Court judgement

So they found Fife guilty of harassment but said there isn't a wider problem because only one woman complained?!

That's pretty much rewarding the harassment and ignoring the effect that the organisation is likely to have had on other women.

Why don't women complain?

Hmmm let me think about this for 4 seconds.

That's it. What we need is a man, or several men, taking a claim on the basis that they don't want a woman in their changing rooms.

Let the tribunals wrap their heids round that.

One man wants something
One women wants something different

= man gets what he wants

Sure but that's what I find so anxiety provoking. Professionals like me and Dr. Upton know that and working class women don't.

It’s completely plausible that someone could fire off a false written set of notes while upset, or feel dismissed because a professional wouldn’t ‘validate’ them. Whilst the other saw it as a polite, professional disagreement and doesn't. That dynamic creates huge potential for DARVO.

There's additional concerns in this case:

• where there was another witness for one of the patient incidents they didn't notice anything as off in the interactions.
• there was limited notice taken of the expert witness casting doubt on Dr. Upton
• I wasn't a TERF at this point but neutral and having watched Dr. Upton I thought they were smug and concerning - not a compelling witness
• tribunal oddly agreed it was inappropriate for Sandie to have discussed it with Dr. Upton personally - but that was in the NHS Harassment Policy!

Maybe it's because the tribunal are professionals too and don't get that Sandie wouldn't be documenting everything or she's a direct straight talking woman. But I think if it hadn't been professional tribunal judges and some working class representatives they'd be a more balanced view on the credibility of the two of them.

This is particularly concerning with news that juries will be scrapped for many trials.

Absolutely. Over the past 10 years, this has gone from a tiny niche subject that was glossed over as being “just like gay rights” so anyone who raised any queries at all was treated like a bit of a weirdo, to one where most vaguely centre-left people I meet socially have started saying things like, “Oh my child has a non-binary friend but I don’t think I can support men in women’s sports…”

It’s like turning a tanker, but we are doing it. KEEP GOING. It will probably take another 10 years before our institutions are ready to take women’s rights seriously again, but we absolutely cannot go back.

Fingers crossed this means it will be appealed

Maya Forstater
There are some extraordinary things in the Sandie Peggie judgment that ignore reality and women's rights and will surely not stand up to appeal.

I'm getting nervous about the pending judicial review decision now, because WR1992 is a live issue in that case too, and it's the High Court, which is precedent-setting.

Also my understanding is that when it comes to things like the credibility of witnesses there's a very high bar to appeal.

I was extremely surprised the tribunal wasn't neutral on the credibility of Dr. Upton versus Sandie.

But IANAL doubt they can appeal based on that.

I fear it may equally be a deterrent for females who feel like poking their heads over the barricades. Fancy being put through the mill like SP? And still not getting the results you'd hoped for?

This.

Maya's first verdict was like this, and look where it went?

This is a marathon. And even this judgment scores and holds a place for women's rights - complain and they have to provide separate access. That's huge.

And I agree with Maya: there are elements in this that look to me clearly appealable.

Here's the quote I was responding to:

Which one is that?

1049 of the judgement:
"...there is very far from sufficient reliable evidence to establish as a fact that a trans woman who is legally and biologically male is a greater risk to any person assigned female at birth within a changing room environment at a workplace than another woman assigned female at birth"

Apart from the prejudicial use of ideological language - and given that the panel doesn't seem to have seen any need for evidence that declaring oneself a woman impacts on male predatory offending patterns - this seems to assert that males aren't a risk to females in changing rooms?

So heads you lose/ tails you lose.

.