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

This is copied from the BBC synopsis. My emphasis. Edit to add link but copied text in case they change their minds (BBC and all that y'know),

'We now know that, in this tribunal's finding, Ms Peggie was entitled to complain in a reasonable way when she found herself sharing a changing room with a transgender colleague.

It was not necessarily instantly bigoted, or illegal, or a sacking offence, to speak out, as some senior colleagues at NHS Fife seemed to think.
Instead, she was entitled to complain to her manager - and at that point action should have been taken to reflect her concerns.'

You appear to be taking the same view as those who allied themselves with BU (flawed according to the Judge's take on things). Yes balance, yes listening to complaints. If a lot of women complained as SP did about BU being in the changing rooms then the judge seems to say that BU would need to be accommodated differently. That is not a TWAW argument.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mp41jlre7o

Oh "I don't get to"?

I shall be adding you to my list of posters I don't reply to .

Take care of you.

You are on ze list @lifeturnsonadime

I didn't misrepresent what you said at all.

How can we discuss the case without discussing its inevitable outcomes.

I’m curious as to why this is equivalent to sexual harassment when you’re supportive of Dr Upton sexually harassing Sandie Peggie by making notes about her and exposing himself in front of her

Can we all get on the list?

But we already do that. That's why we have men's facilities and women's. Very few people are saying we should have unisex facilities throughout, and those that aren't are de-facto banning people on the basis of personal preference. Just different preferences.

The judge said that the SC ruling didn't necessarily make it unlawful to allow a trans woman to use the female facilities at work.

Only took one attempt too!

A woman wouldn't ever need to go to court over the issue of whether she can use women's spaces. At every turn, all it ever proves, even among the most stubborn liars, is that everyone knows men aren't women.

I didn't understand this?

"I hear the full force of your hatred"

Were the words you used towards MyAmpleSheep because she said she was indifferent to his feelings on the matter.

So what's "I hear the full force of your hatred" if not you calling My AmpleSheep hateful?

Yet, with document T in England, all the toilets will have to change to enclosed designs with sinks, hand dryers etc in if single sex isn’t single sex. There’s no way Document T wasn’t based on sex.

That will cost the country and businesses a fortune.

Of course you do. But since you insist some men are women, the only way to maintain this falsehood is to pretend the absurdity lies elsewhere. Because you know men aren't women and only men need to go to court to claim they can use women's spaces.

You said "Yes. I hear the full force of your hatred."

I don't need to quibble about whether that's demeaning; it's pretty personal. I'm not bothered by it, but I don't think you're the saint you think you are.

Still waiting to hear if you are content to undress in front of trans-identifying men or not. Also curious if you are prepared to give other women the option to avoid having to do so.

I still didn't understand this

The judge seems to be very happy to be categorical about things like the credibility of certain witnesses, but freely admits that the tribunal can't decide between the possibility that transwomen are, or are not, 'women' as far as the 1994 Workplace regs are concerned, in light of the SC ruling.

That's a pretty basic element in the case, it's odd that it can just be dismissed as outside the competency of the tribunal... but let's carry on regardless.

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.
[my emphasis]

Yes, which is blatantly wrong because if the facilities are designated to be for women, then men can’t use them as per the Supreme Court ruling. Which is why I asked why this tribunal judge got that wrong. You just confirmed why it was wrong.

Maybe someone who doesn’t think men should be allowed in women’s spaces can discuss it.

You do, and this is simply your way of avoiding having to rebut it. Men can't be women; once you stop pretending that they can, you can answer questions honestly rather than hitting "does not compute" through the absurdity you want to maintain. No woman needs to seek legal fictions and caveats to enter women's spaces. Only men need to do that because they're not women.

I don't think I'm a saint. I don't think I behave a fraction as badly as many on this board- who have shown themselves capable of relentless and unrestrained bullying.

Im not interested in discussing my undressing preferences or to have personal arguments.

I believe that trans people should be allowed to make decisions about which toilets and changers to use as they always have.

Sal Grover has just made the excellent point (as usual) that any man who gets sad, angry or depressed because he can't enter women's spaces should definitely not be going into them.

I know that has been the mumsnet orthodoxy on how the judgement had
to be interpreted but I never thought it was that simple. Turns out this judge, at least, agrees

And any man who gets excited or thrilled about entering women’s spaces shouldn’t be in them either.

In a written judgment on Monday, the tribunal upheld Peggie’s harassment claim against the health board but dismissed other claims. It also dismissed the nurse’s claim against Upton, whose evidence was held to be “more reliable and materially more cohesive in nature”.

I find this troubling. I have not listened to the tribunal but from experience generally I woukd say that of course a British doctor, with the likely education Upton would have had through school and university, would most likely be more fluent, able to plan coherent arguments set in an order which clearly expresses what he intends to convey, and be altogether more accomplished at speaking, than a nurse is likely to be.

It sound all sound more reliable.

She should not have had to speak at all. It should be so simple. TW need their own space, but TWANW. If a changing room is single sex an actual woman should not have to beg for it to be single sex, get speech and drama coaching, then need a £million court case about it. This is all so senseless.

You have a challenge, in that you are taking on a lot of people all in one go. That's going to feel repressive. We don't have a queuing system here, we all get to reply to you (and each other) at the same time, that's just the way it is. Nobody is trying to bully anyone, and we all have the same keyboard and screen as everyone else.

If you're not interested in discussing what your preferences are for changing rooms, it seems hard for you to avoid the inevitable charge of hypocrisy. One rule for you, a different rule for everyone else.

I believe that trans people should be allowed to make decisions about which toilets and changers to use as they always have.

And are you content to live with the personal consequences of that belief, in a situation such as the one SP found herself in?