Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 08/12/2025 13:52

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 17:54

ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 08/12/2025 17:44

Here's the quote I was responding to:

'generally regarded as feminine' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, isn't it?

All that may be true, but it is also true that colleagues - possibly all of them, that seems quite likely - also knew that this would-be feminine person was actually a man. I think he even stated in his own evidence that colleagues knew about him being trans.

So he was probably 'generally regarded' as a biological male.

Tootsweets23 · 08/12/2025 17:54

I know this isn’t really how this works but if I was an ET judge I’d want to avoid looking like I hadn’t really understood a totally mad social phenomena as it presented itself to me. Appreciate that for the Maya F initial case, the judge could be (slightly) forgiven as he’d been stonewalled and there hadn’t been a case like it before. The ones that have followed don’t have that excuse.

thelongestwayhome · 08/12/2025 17:55

😳😂😭 bonkers

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56
FannyCann · 08/12/2025 17:57

Jim Borwick should sue the judge for slander and reputational damage.

Borwick's evidence (IT analyst for Sandie) considered to have some unreliability due to not being impartial (para 659)

We had NHS Fife computer guy who chose the 6th best option, versus Jim who has an incredibly impressive CV and is the go to guy in this specialised area.

KJB Computer Forensics Consultancy was born as a direct result of a realisation that there was a need to provide a Computer Forensics Solution to Business Communities and Legal Professionals, throughout Scotland. We will take instructions on behalf of Defence or Prosecution in Civil or Criminal investigations where digital evidence is present.
KJB Computer Forensics’ examiners are expert in securing digital evidence and the investigation of all manners of digital crime. We are educated to degree level and have worked within law enforcement. Our evidence is produced to a high standard and has been presented in Scottish and English Courts.
Owner - Jim Borwick MSc,LL.B
Jim served in Her Majesty's Forces (ARMY) for 24 years; 12 years in the Royal Military Police where he was a Sergeant, specialising in General Police Duties within the Military Community throughout Scotland. As a result of service with the Royal Military Police Jim gained a wealth of investigational experience working within jurisdictions across the world. Throughout his career Jim was held a number of positions which included detachment commander and IT Systems Administrator responsible for managing the IT Network across Military Police locations in Scotland.
Upon retirement from HM Forces in 2004, Jim worked as a Computer and Mobile Telephone Forensic Analyst with Law Enforcement Scotland (Scottish Crime & Drugs Enforcement Agency). As part of this role he worked on all manner of criminal investigations including protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults, drugs, fraud, abuse of privilege, murder and other Criminal activity.
Jim holds a Master’s Degree in Forensic Computing from Cranfield University (Royal Military College of Science), completed in 2009, and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from the Robert Gordon University, which was earned in 2025. In addition, he has completed the CISCO Certified Network Associate (CCNA) and has specialized training in the forensic recovery of digital evidence from computers, mobile devices, and various forms of storage media. Jim has completed ENCASE and FTK training to an advanced level, is trained and experienced in live forensics - including RAM analysis of Windows/MAC based operating systems; analysis of Apple MAC Computers; completed Wireless Forensics training and Ethical Hacking training at a World Leading University.
Jim is a very experienced Mobile Telephone Forensic Analyst particular areas of expertise are the examination of Apple and Android devices including techniques to circumvent security of these devices and examination of Apps installed on these devices. Jim has completed Advanced Mobile Telephone Forensic training courses and is experienced in the use of industry standard Mobile Telephone Forensic Software.

Jim is a vetted member of the UK National Expert Witness register. He regularly gives evidence in High Court (Scotland) for Criminal Cases and has produced Expert Witness Reports for Civil and Criminal Investigations throughout the UK, which have included investigations into theft of IP, Brand Protection, Offences Contrary to Copyright Legislation and investigations relating to the comprising of Corporate Network through unauthorised access from and external source, among others.

Specific areas of expertise include:

  • Wireless Network Forensics,
  • Wireless Forensics Surveys,
  • RAM Analysis - Windows OS and Apple Mac
  • Windows and Mac 'Live' Forensics,
  • IOS Forensics - IPhone IPad etc,
  • Investigations regarding the Theft of Intellectual Property (IP),
  • Internet Investigation and Open Source Intelligence gathering.
  • Social Network Forensics - Facebook, Twitter,Snapchat, Kik, Instagram, Whatsapp etc
  • Crypto Currency Investigations
  • Drone Forensics
KJB Computer Forensics Consultancy use standard Computer Forensic tools such as ACCESSDATA's Forensic Toolkit and Guidance Software ENCASE. We aim to do more than merely produce a standard forensic report - we aim to work as part of your investigation team, providing regular input and conducting investigations in accordance with your requirements.
puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 17:58

SquirrelosaurusSoShiny · 08/12/2025 17:11

I'm honestly in shock at this, even in LaLaLand I mean Scotland. I really hope Sandie Peggie can dig deep and appeal this. In the end he's a male doctor and she a mere female nurse, so the same old hierarchy as ever. Calling the doc in lipstick a reliable witness would make me chortle if it wasn't so outrageous.

To be honest the good people of Scotland need to demanding answers from Fife Trust, since they're happy to spend thousands of public money defending the indefensible.

a mere female nurse

a mere female?

AMillionMugsNoTeabags · 08/12/2025 17:59

So if a transwoman - let’s call him Petra - appears in the women’s changing room at my work, if I complain (in the correct way, to the correct person) they have to provide me with a separate space but Petra stays put. Next week, Jane finds herself in the changing room with Petra, she complains (correct way, correct person natch) and is told to use the same broom cupboard I was directed to. Next week, Naomi finds herself in the same changing room as Petra…. Etc.

Next month, due to the vagaries of shift work; Jane, Naomi and I find ourselves squished in a single person cupboard whilst Petra luxuriates on his own.

Really? That’s the judicially approved solution here?

spannasaurus · 08/12/2025 17:59

thelongestwayhome · 08/12/2025 17:55

😳😂😭 bonkers

Is the judge really using the what about male cleaners gotcha

MrsOvertonsWindow · 08/12/2025 18:00

thelongestwayhome · 08/12/2025 17:55

😳😂😭 bonkers

Wasn't that the transavtivist claim? Women take their male toddlers into women's changing rooms so 60 year old men in dresses must be allowed in? Male cleaners with signs so ...
Rinse and repeat.

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 18:00

AMillionMugsNoTeabags · 08/12/2025 17:59

So if a transwoman - let’s call him Petra - appears in the women’s changing room at my work, if I complain (in the correct way, to the correct person) they have to provide me with a separate space but Petra stays put. Next week, Jane finds herself in the changing room with Petra, she complains (correct way, correct person natch) and is told to use the same broom cupboard I was directed to. Next week, Naomi finds herself in the same changing room as Petra…. Etc.

Next month, due to the vagaries of shift work; Jane, Naomi and I find ourselves squished in a single person cupboard whilst Petra luxuriates on his own.

Really? That’s the judicially approved solution here?

But it's fine for trans people to be directed to a "broom cupboard" right? Then it's just a "third space"..

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 18:00

CraftyRedBird

  • tribunal oddly agreed it was inappropriate for Sandie to have discussed it with Dr. Upton personally - but that was in the NHS Harassment Policy!
Not only that it was inappropriate, but they used it as a reason to disbelieve SP's evidence that she had discussed it in Oct 23 with Davidson, as Davidson would not have encouraged her to speak directly to DrU as it would be a 'regulatory breach' by SP if she did so.

Can anyone cite the relevant bit in the NHS Harassment Policy, please?
It would be useful to have it alongside what the judge said.

643. Other parts of the claimant’s evidence were also in dispute and involved other witnesses. One was that she had spoken to Ms Davidson on about 25 October 2023 to say something to the effect that if it happened again that the second respondent was in the changing room she would have to say something. Ms Davidson did not have any recollection of that comment being made, and would not have reacted as the claimant suggested of not replying, and in our view it is more likely that it was not made. If it had been, we consider that Ms Davidson would have said something about it to her, and remembered it, which is also what she told Ms Glancey. She would not have encouraged the claimant to raise it directly with the second respondent given the risk of regulatory breach by the claimant.
[my emphasis]

AMillionMugsNoTeabags · 08/12/2025 18:03

I was using “broom cupboard” as a descriptor of the size of the space.
replace “broom cupboard” with “single lockable cubicle”. It still makes no practical sense to move multiple women one-by-one into a smaller space to accommodate a single (much more statistically likely) trans woman.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 08/12/2025 18:04

RNApolymerase · 08/12/2025 16:31

I'd also like to ask - what is the acceptable number of women to make a complaint about men in the changing room / toilets? Seems from recent cases that one is not enough but I'm sure the Darlington nurses were told there were too many of them.

I've started drafting an explainer (image pending review) for my forthcoming book:

How to (Know Your Place and) Win Your Case

I'm hoping it will encourage women everywhere to behave more credibly and acceptably in the workplace, for the benefit of employers, and the Judiciary, and men everywhere.

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56
EdithStourton · 08/12/2025 18:05

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 14:48

My final comment before I do all the things I should have been doing since 1pm:

The judge thinks that DrU who is [a] a medical doctor and [b] believes he is a biological woman is a 'credible and reliable witness'.
Confused

Well, yeah.
Blows one's brains, no?

And also, never mind having to disclose my trauma to my employer as a reason for not wanting a man in the women's changing area - why do I even HAVE to hvave any trauma NOT to want a man to see me half-undressed, or with menstrual overflow?

That being said, there are very few women who have not been cat-called, groped and worse, so virtually all of us have some level of suspicion, even active dislike, towards ANY man who wishes to insert himself, uninvited, into areas where we are taking our clothes off.

It's utterly enraging. And it comes back down to, women are to a degree invisible, middle-aged women especially. I used to think, when I was young, that this was hyperbole, but the more I see of the world and experience not just of men but of younger women, the more I think this is true. What WE want, what WE feel, what WE think, is either beneath notice, or nothing like as important as want some bloody man wants.

Even one delusional enough to think he's a woman.

I daren't read the judgment itself, I will spend the evening in a stew of rage...

Edited to correct rage-induced SPAG errors.

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 18:06

AMillionMugsNoTeabags · 08/12/2025 18:03

I was using “broom cupboard” as a descriptor of the size of the space.
replace “broom cupboard” with “single lockable cubicle”. It still makes no practical sense to move multiple women one-by-one into a smaller space to accommodate a single (much more statistically likely) trans woman.

Well I'm guessing thats why the judge drew attention to the fact that only one person complained

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 18:07

FannyCann · Today 17:57
Jim Borwick should sue the judge for slander and reputational damage.

His evidence was rejected for lack of impartiality, not lack of expertise.

659. Mr Borwick we considered did meet the Kennedy criteria for a skilled witness as a person able to assist the Tribunal in its task; he had the necessary knowledge and experience; and we considered that there is a reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin the evidence given.

The respondents challenged the reliability of his evidence and argued that it was not impartial, the final part of the Kennedy criteria. [my emphasis]
. He accepted in hindsight that his comment that the second respondent was silent on the fact that the notes could be rearranged suggested that the second respondent was trying to mislead the Tribunal was irresponsible as it did not have a factual basis. We were concerned that that remark indicated that his impartiality was compromised, as it appeared to us that he was essentially advocating matters for the claimant.

AMillionMugsNoTeabags · 08/12/2025 18:08

Do you think it’s possible more might have complained if SP had been directed to a third space rather than being ignored and then suspended.
wasn’t it in evidence that SP wasn’t the only one to wait outside?

Kucinghitam · 08/12/2025 18:08

NebulousSupportPostcard · 08/12/2025 18:04

I've started drafting an explainer (image pending review) for my forthcoming book:

How to (Know Your Place and) Win Your Case

I'm hoping it will encourage women everywhere to behave more credibly and acceptably in the workplace, for the benefit of employers, and the Judiciary, and men everywhere.

What is an insufficient number of complainants therefore nothing to see here? N=1
What is too many complainants therefore bullying? N>1

Righteous mathematics.

Butchyrestingface · 08/12/2025 18:09

I'm bitterly disappointed in the verdict, particularly about the panel's comments regarding the risk of biological males in women's changing facilities. Sad

ThreeWordHarpy · 08/12/2025 18:09

I’ve been reading the judgement on and off all afternoon around work as I wanted to read it and form my own opinions before then reading the media’s reporting.

my initial response to winning against R1 but not R2 was - well it’s the big win and we rarely get everything in an ET judgement. Then I started reading the facts and raised an eyebrow at the repeated “assigned at birth”s. Thought the timeline/facts was broadly ok. Skimmed over the middle section of case laws. Got to para 629 and then my other eyebrow started ascending and hasn’t come down yet.

Broadly the same reactions to everyone else here on the key points and share the deep frustration that Pete is dismissed as being “at it”. Completely missing NC’s point that how do women know whether someone is a “genuine” TW or not (regardless of whether their intent is benign or not) - answer they don’t and that is why all men are excluded from female changing rooms. Whether lovely or not.

Para 980 says Sandie is lying and that she remained in the changing room to challenge DrU - because the two lay members of the panel would have gone to the loo to change.

Para 1005 and following see the Bananarama doctrine rolled out, criticising the way SP addressed DrU on Xmas Eve.

oh and final thought for now. DrU is praised as being credible because of the calm way DrU gave evidence, but SP was calm and not deemed credible. And by all accounts DrU was not calm but a blubbery emotional mess after the Xmas Eve incident - but because DrU then spent considerable time over Christmas making “contemporaneous” notes that makes it credible too.

The rest I can summarise as “oh and yeah NHS Fife took too long to investigate and we notice the discrepancy in support given to Sandie v DrU and we are bound by FWS (says several times), so yeah, we can’t really argue that respondent 1 wasn’t at fault because that didn’t follow the process. But Sandie is a big racist meanie anyways”

Tofufuton · 08/12/2025 18:13

NHS Fife apparently looking to making itself "inclusive" for colleagues.

Learned nothing.

EdithStourton · 08/12/2025 18:14

puppymaddness · 08/12/2025 18:06

Well I'm guessing thats why the judge drew attention to the fact that only one person complained

Only one person was brave enough to put her head on the block.

Nobody bothered to conduct an anonymous poll of the other women to find out what they thought.

See comment on invisibility of women above...

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 18:15

Isla Bumba a credible witness, giving honest evidence

LOL the woman who didn’t know her own sex as she’d never had her chromosomes checked

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 08/12/2025 18:15

EdithStourton · 08/12/2025 18:05

Well, yeah.
Blows one's brains, no?

And also, never mind having to disclose my trauma to my employer as a reason for not wanting a man in the women's changing area - why do I even HAVE to hvave any trauma NOT to want a man to see me half-undressed, or with menstrual overflow?

That being said, there are very few women who have not been cat-called, groped and worse, so virtually all of us have some level of suspicion, even active dislike, towards ANY man who wishes to insert himself, uninvited, into areas where we are taking our clothes off.

It's utterly enraging. And it comes back down to, women are to a degree invisible, middle-aged women especially. I used to think, when I was young, that this was hyperbole, but the more I see of the world and experience not just of men but of younger women, the more I think this is true. What WE want, what WE feel, what WE think, is either beneath notice, or nothing like as important as want some bloody man wants.

Even one delusional enough to think he's a woman.

I daren't read the judgment itself, I will spend the evening in a stew of rage...

Edited to correct rage-induced SPAG errors.

Edited

To save women from having to disclose their trauma/risk being traduced as transphobic harridans, may I propose that every multi-occupancy women-only space above a certain size be divided forthwith into a trans-friendly and a terf-friendly half, and see what happens. No broom cupboards required, so our furry friend should be happy.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 08/12/2025 18:16

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 18:00

CraftyRedBird

  • tribunal oddly agreed it was inappropriate for Sandie to have discussed it with Dr. Upton personally - but that was in the NHS Harassment Policy!
Not only that it was inappropriate, but they used it as a reason to disbelieve SP's evidence that she had discussed it in Oct 23 with Davidson, as Davidson would not have encouraged her to speak directly to DrU as it would be a 'regulatory breach' by SP if she did so.

Can anyone cite the relevant bit in the NHS Harassment Policy, please?
It would be useful to have it alongside what the judge said.

643. Other parts of the claimant’s evidence were also in dispute and involved other witnesses. One was that she had spoken to Ms Davidson on about 25 October 2023 to say something to the effect that if it happened again that the second respondent was in the changing room she would have to say something. Ms Davidson did not have any recollection of that comment being made, and would not have reacted as the claimant suggested of not replying, and in our view it is more likely that it was not made. If it had been, we consider that Ms Davidson would have said something about it to her, and remembered it, which is also what she told Ms Glancey. She would not have encouraged the claimant to raise it directly with the second respondent given the risk of regulatory breach by the claimant.
[my emphasis]

But Esther Davidson did acknowledge that SP was 'frustrated or angry' on the second occasion that they spoke. I wonder what the tribunal thought was said on that occasion, or what else might have been said. It makes more sense to me that if SP was angry, and ED registered the anger, that it was more likely than not that SP did say that she would 'have to do something' if it happened again.

ED - I had some holiday, and I think it was the beginning of October when I next saw Sandies
JR - when did that happen
ED - it was in the morning, Sandie was in resus, I was coming on shift,
JR - face to face? at the beginning of October? what time?
ED - It was about 7:40, we arrive on shift at 7:30 then have safety brief so about 7:40
JR - it was in resus
ED - yes
JR - anyone else around
ED - yes, but it was just a convo between us
JR - what did you say
ED - I told her that Beth had the right to use the female CR
JR - what did she say
ED - she was upset and angry, I talked about alternative provision for changing, it's custom and practice
that we use that room as changing facility, the designated CR with showers is in the basement, we have staff members that use the store cupboard to change, or only change in the cubicles, if they are less comfortable with changing in front of others
JR - you said that SP
was angry about what you told. her, how did you know
ED - I don't know if it was anger or frustration
JR - how did you assess her mood
ED - well SP always appears quite stern, so there's that, but she seemed very tense and when I mentioned the cubicles, she said she wouldn't
change in the toilets.
JR - was there any official communication from Fife about the policy for trans people
ED - no there wasn't
JR - why was there nothing from Fife management
ED - I don't know, it would have been nice if MC had had that communication that we would have been
told about it.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread