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

Well said! Appeal please 🙏 if you can bear it Sandie.

If this goes to appeal does the remedy hearing get put on hold or will that still go ahead?

Interesting that a poster thinks that commenting about undressing in front of men is unwanted and unconsensual sexual comments …..the fucking irony! But Sandie objecting to the presence of a man in her changing room was unreasonable and how dare anyone think that poor delicate Upton’s presence was unwanted sexual harassment

She’s literally describing the status quo you are trying to create when you prefer Upton’s feelings over Sandie’s. It’s not personal. I can’t see why it bothers you. You are the one who wants mixed sex changing rooms. Literally, that’s exactly what you are arguing for. You want Beth Upton in the women’s changing rooms. Why are you arguing about that?

That doesn’t answer the question - what evidence was there that Dr Upton in particular caused any kind of reasonable threat to other women? There isn’t any, is there?

And you don't have the power to control our observations and our voicing of what we see!

Dr Upton looks like a man because he is a man, and, as a PP commented, he's actually quite handsome when he's not wearing womanface. Someone linked to his wedding photos on a previous thread, so I have a basis for that opinion.

Every new page of posts reinforces the need to extend the SC's confirmation that 'sex' means 'biological sex' in EA2010 to all legislation and regulations.

And the need to simplify matters for employers by clarifying that they must provide separate women's, men's, and accessible toilets, and if they have the extra space, budget and inclination, a 'universal' toilet[s] which conforms to the correct specification.

They also have to state that the toilets are segregated by biological sex, not by personal preference, and that employees must respect that policy.

Wouldn't life be simpler for all concerned? Even for men who want to use the women's toilets for whatever reason - no confusion about which toilet they should be using, and no confusion about the fact that they are wrong to use the women's toilet.

If Dr Upton walked up to SP and said "I get it. You enjoy getting dressed in front of trans women" I would be 100% on your side of this harassment claim.

Thats not what happened.

How the hell have we gone back two years the primary consideration being 'threat'?

That’s not what I’m saying. Expressing a belief is one thing, doing it in a disrespecting and quite frankly, disgusting manner that shows no regard whatsoever for Dr Upton’s feelings, is not the same. You can hold that view without it being weaponised to hurt a tiny minority of persecuted people.

Persecuted people? Men?

He is a man and we exclude men for several reasons, one being the disproportionate number of violent crime carried out by men on women. The tribunal suggested this isnt the case, that it's simply a point of view, which is pretty astonishing imo.

Then stop going on about how you think it is absolutely wonderful that men like Dr Upton can go in women's changing rooms. Because you are basically celebrating the fact that a fully intact male can strip naked and wander around swinging their dick about in a women's changing room.

You are the one having a go at everyone because we don't want men seeing us in a state of undress. We can only surmise from that that you personally would be perfectly happy to be stood in your birthday suit in a women's changing room whilst 10 men who claim to be women change in there with you.

And you don't have the power to control our observations and our voicing of what we see!

Absolutely, I don't. But I do have the power to say I think that picking apart DU's appearance is unecessary, shameful and cruel. And to ask you if it's necessary, particularly as she has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

Nah. I'm allowed to express my opinion on this case without being subject to unwanted sexual comments about my person.

Give it a rest, no one cares about posters like you telling us off any more than we care about the feelings of Dr Upton.

Eh? Saying some words = harrassment, but actually expecting Sandie to change and to stay while he changed is not harrassment? Really, you want to argue that?

So if I go in a shop and say ‘I will rob you’, that’s worse than actually robbing them?

None

My suspicion is that we'll be waiting to leave the ECtHR before that happens, so probably a matter for the next government.

What? Other than the fact he's a fully intact male so has the same chance as any other man in the world of sexually assaulting the women. That's part of the reason we have women only spaces. We don't let all men in, so why does this man think he gets special dispensation just because he said "I am a woman"?

Why are you describing them as sexual comments about your person?
You are talking about mixed sex changing rooms, where women get undressed in front of men. Pointing out that that is what you are promoting is not a sexual comment about you.

The basis of safeguarding is that you don't need evidence for or against individuals qua individuals to assess the risk of admitting them to a position, area, space, etc.

You could pick any man at random from the street - any one at all - in fact, the more random the better - and say, correctly "there's no risk that this individual is any threat to women". That's not a convincing argument as to why they should not be restricted from entering a women's changing area.

The same applies to threats to men, children, whatever. The point here isn't about the nature of the threat.

The point is that you don't need evidence against individuals for it to be proportionate to have class based policies about who is admitted and who isn't.

Yes if DU had gone up to SP and said "I get it you like to get undressed in front of trans women" that would have 100% been sexual harassment and she would not have won her case.

Its completely different to her simply using the changing room as she was allowed to do by her employer: hence she was cleared of harassment.

Saying he’s a man is not picking apart his appearance. He’s a man and he looks like a man. We have seen him. It just isn’t a personal criticism. It’s a statement of fact.

So undressing in front of a member of the opposite sex IS sexual. We better get on the phone to Big Sond and let him know.