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

It does however suggest at the moment - while this stands - that if a group of women (if you do not formally complain then apparently you're fine and there's no detriment) explain they do not wish to share facilities with a biological male, something has to be done about it.

It's grudging, but even he has had to take some steps towards it. Sex is real, he'd like to think 'most women' won't mind and be fine and to argue there's times and circumstances in which men can, but if women object - nicely and properly - SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.

That's a big win by itself. The days of 'get over it' and self exclusion are over.

Yep.

I do not know what is next for women if the law holds us in such contempt.

No woman should have to complain.

It should not happen.

It's grudging, but even he has had to take some steps towards it. Sex is real, he'd like to think 'most women' won't mind and be fine and to argue there's times and circumstances in which men can, but if women object - nicely and properly - SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.

Yes, this is something.

Edit - from my following on here it seems like some judgments acknowledge the limitations of their own case and suggest where complaint might be taken up.

So here is a handy guide:

men can’t join WI
males can’t join Scouts
men can use a woman’s changing room if they’re a special kind of man with make up and long hair

I would like to meet this judge and tell him a few things. I'd like him to understand what 'living as a woman' actually means.

You're right, Alpaca, but I think you mean the Girl Guides. I think it would be a bit draconian not to let boys join the Boy Scouts. 😉

Actually a further thought, reading the bit about how trivially unimportant Fife's mild misbehaviour was and seeing as Big Sond was so utterly convinced by Russell, Searle, Bumba and Upton, and by the reality-altering power of a bit of lippy - I wonder if he was utterly heartbroken at even finding for Sandie with respect to Fife. That was why the judgement took so long - he was trying to find a way of exonerating Fife too?

Haha! Well spotted! Yes I mean guides!

as you were

It's a huge something.

No matter what else in that judgment, he could not move away from the reality of biology and that if a woman chooses to invoke her rights employers cannot ignore it or expect the situation to continue without being liable - as Fife are. It's the one thing that stuck.

I suggest we all now request a nice form that women can fill in that helps them politely complain and request their article 8 rights. Quick and easy.

Which would lead to designated different facilities for people choosing to identify other than their sex along with those happy to use mixed sex facilities, and those wishing sex based facilities. So all needs are met and respected.

Which would in effect be exactly what the SCJ says, but whatever.

His point is that he believes until women invoke their article 8 rights they have no disadvantage or issue to mixed sex changing and that biological males who have reached a certain point of transition are different to other biological males, and so there is no right to single sex spaces. Until you kick off. Then there is. Or something.

<Looks at the EHRC>

Has Tandora changed names?

Anyway, surely there has to be appeals, and the Judge exposed for his failings? Admittedly I’ve only had a quick glance but a lot of it is nonsensical.

Fucking hell - so a witness who was shown in court to have been very likely to have falsified evidence was deemed by this judge to be "credible"?

Credibility here is clearly correlated with the possession (current or historic) of a cock.

I hope to god Sandie Peggie appeals if only on that basis.

I think there is a lesson here, which is whoever creates a written record and preferably first, will have a much stronger position in a later dispute. A lot of the exchanges were he said she said. But the 'he said' bits were given much higher weight because they were crystallised in note and email form very quickly after the event. In a lot of ways I think Upton was much more "on it" (your mileage might vary on the whys and wherefores of that) than Peggie, who was in a reactive mode, playing catch up, and in many ways never did catch up.

(well yeah sometimes amended according to Erudite Speccie Loddie Jim Borthwick but the point remains)

It appeared to us that the most reliable evidence of the exchange is partly from the notes made at around 12.45am, less than an hour after the exchange, although with some detailed amendments set out in the Borwick report, and then more particularly the email sent by the second respondent to Dr Searle a little over three hours after the incident ended. It states that it seeks to give the best recollection. It was broadly consistent with the phone notes.

yes

and yes I agree but honestly this is sooo bloody wearying

The judge says that if a woman has a history of rape or sexual assault, they should tell their employer, and explain ever so nicely while being careful not to be nasty and upset anyone, why this may mean that a lovely, sweet, kind and clever transwoman might possibly upset them if they are forced to strip in the presence of this lovely man.

But they'd best be careful, because refusing to undress might actually be harassing the man.

Naughty women! They should do as they're told! Sandy thinks lovely Upton in his Big Girl Pants is Very Clever and very sad. And we all know old women are just bitter and nasty and probably just pretending to be upset anyway.

To be fair, there's no shortage of Righteous Folx around, polishing their "haloes."

this bit is very interesting (in my non-legal opinion):

"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.'"

Aha!! So simply saying you're trans / a woman does NOT make it so. Therefore we need some criteria to establish 'disingenuous' people doing it for 'a ruse' and with no 'genuine' intention.

This absolutely needs picking up on. It is explicitly called a 'material distinction' - yet how would anyone know?

Wondered if the judge thinks at all of any of the ordinary women - not rich powerful men like him- affected by this lot of charming men (who he calls transwomen) who will be reflected in workplaces across the country

https://transcrimeuk.com/

It's really hard to read the contempt for women's reality, privacy and consent- and Sandie herself- in the judgement that demonstrates so clearly the judge doesn't understand what it's like being a woman at all, let alone one without power. He appears to have decided to follow 'Trust me I'm a doctor' from Upton despite him lying about the most basic stuff ever re the sexes a 5 year old could explain. I'm actually a bit shocked that our human rights and welfare as women don't seem to have registered at all with the panel as judges are supposed to be trustworthy.

And I think it's significant he didn't think it worth sticking to his word about giving the legal teams and victim advance notice of his judgement as he promised, so they had time to digest it before the press coverage starts.

Yes. Contempraneous notes are contempraneous.

The lack of minuting or records however is just waved aside with the rest of the 'bit incompetent' mild tut.

The appeal will tear whole chunks of this apart on multiple grounds.

"
1049. In our view, having read all of the documents, 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
"

Surely this is very easy to show?

How can a male doctor who says he is a biological female and a scientifically trained woman who says she can't be certain as to her own sex, be considered credible witnesses?

Perhaps women and girls should all just start listing all their past history of assaults, abuse, harassment, dv, coercion, voyeurism, flashing, etc.

Perhaps we won't fucking stop, Sandy.

Perhaps we should all get certificates.

Not sure why my post has been hidden! Expect mumsnet will post it shortly. It had a link to a well known website/ list of men who ID as women who you wouldn't want in your workplace changing room!

As PPs said, it was interesting to see the different approach of the barrister in the Darlington case. And he did bring in the marvellous Jo Phoenix to be the expert witness to show that men are more of a violent threat to women - although I seem to recall that the judge did press her on how far that cld be read across that TW are just as much a danger to women, and she had to say that basically no one’s done the research …..

Also it’s worth noting that the judge says there shld be a test for how to balance competing rights. Presumably the EHRC guidance gives exactly this. But the govt doesn’t want to publish it.