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

Something like the question of the Workplace Regulations?

Or in Peggie and the question of whether the ET has the power to compel forensic examination of the phone?

I think questions of inherent jurisdiction are at root also questions of law so definitely appealable.

More like nobody could be fucked to properly proof-read their elongated heap of ideological drivel.

If the EJ / President had stuck to the 5-day agreement, I’m sure Naomi might have alerted to them to their embarrassing error.

Do they address privacy and not just safety?. I would hope someone would be safe around a doctor, however recent news reports have brought to light doctors who abused their position so it can't be a given.

Assuming though that Dr U is 'safe' . It doesn't mean a woman will feel safe with any man in that sort of environment.

In addition, I can't think of a single male who is not my husband who I would get changed in front of. In some respects having someone I know seeing me in a state of undress would be worse than a stranger who I wouldn't have to associate with again on any sort of social or professional level.
I have good male friends who I trust with my life - we do sports where I might have to one day. I still wouldn't share a changing space with them.

Yes, it was noted by media prior and during currency of this issue, that he previously had not started the "road map" ( a sort of medical record of his progress to "change").So,basically he was just a bloke in drag when he caused this appalling situation for Sandie Peggie. Appalling...this then could happen to (real) women anywhere - gym, doctors,
etc.

Is this what's going on in

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.

which I interpret as 'maybe because of FWS the women's CR should exclude all biological males, maybe because of Article 8 the women's CR should include biological males who ID as women - but we're not going there'

TRAs are taking this judgement to mean that trans-identifying males are allowed use women's facilities, but in fact the tribunal deliberately did not address 'these arguments' because it was not competent to do so.

Is this an invitation to those who are competent to do so to....er.. do so ?

From Scottish Legal News (daily email newsletter)
https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/nhs-fife-harassed-nurse-in-trans-doctor-row-in-four-specific-respects-all-other-aspects-of-claim-refused?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter&utm_content=headline_link

replying to Keeptoiletssafe
Whilst it would be distressing I don’t think you should let that stop you as it would be much more damaging imo to find out later that it was a known issue and ‘covered up’

Na this is nonsense the SC ruling dealt with the matter clearly, sss means biological sex, SOND was advised by NC hat he did not need to consider Article 8 at all.

This morning I’m mostly boggling at the idea than an Employment tribunal is declining to comment in any way on whether the Workplace Regs have been followed or not.

IANAL but surely it is not uncommon for cases at an ET to allege that the employers are not fulfilling their obligations under the 1992 legislation? And so judges must be familiar with the law? Kemp declining to comment one was or another on whether he considers FWS to apply in this case smacks of cowardice to me - presumably he thought that Fife would appeal if he said FWS did apply, and SP would appeal if he said it didn’t.

I think the judgment says that Workplace 1992 is criminal [so to speak!] and therefore beyond the remit of an ET.
edited to add
857. The parties did not make submissions on this matter, but we have not found any statutory provision relevant to the 1992 Regulations conferring civil liability for a breach. We concluded that the 1992 Regulations do not confer any civil right in law on any person, and are purely criminal in nature. We do not consider that the claimant was right to argue before us that she has a right under the 1992 Regulations to a single sex space accordingly.

I'm desperately sad for Naomi Cunningham. Of course she's as tough as hobnail boots - any lawyer specialising in the area of gender criticality would have to be - and is well aware of what she's up against. But still that judgement must sting - it stings me. She's appropriate, competent, admirable in fact, a consummate professional, has not stepped outside the lines of courtesy even when faced with overt rudeness. But her boundaries are absolutely firm, clear and unequivocal - and if there's any place where that is necessary it's in a court of law.

That judgement is a devastating infringement not just on her but on women. I feel it. And I bloody well resent it.

Which, to my non-legal mind, is nonsense. If there was a case where one employee thumped another employee in a row, would the ET decline to comment on whether that was permissible or not as assault is governed by criminal law?

Meaning they're not intelligent enough to get the measure of her. I'd concur. She's that curious combination of gentle subtlety and surgical precision. Her closing submission was nothing short of brilliant - and stood in extremely stark contrast with that of Jane Russell.

We are dealing here with people who think men can be women, and that women's rights should always stand in submission to men's. It's about as subtle as a brick.

This absolutely boils my blood. In addition to all the obvious evidence to the contrary in terms of crime statistics (that apparently the judge couldn't be bothered to click on a link to read), there's also the risk of forced pregnancy from rape! That is something a female will NEVER be able to inflict on another female. It should be the definitive example of why males are more dangerous to females than other females are. Even the biggest female body builder who decides to sexually assault a woman with an object (sorry for the graphic example) will NOT pose a risk of forced impregnation. I'm not saying this is the only thing to consider, obviously. Overwhelming statistics and basic human understanding for 1000s of years tell us men pose a danger to women. But even the most die hard ideologue who thinks there's no difference in size, strength, or aggression between males and females can't argue with the fact that only one sex can forcibly inseminate and fertilize the other.

I haven’t had a chance to read the judgment properly, but does Jane Russell receive any criticism from Kemp?
I know her conduct was appalling at times.

I completely agree with everything you’ve said. 🎯

No one collects data. I went down that rabbit hole years ago. I can give them a head start.

RovingPublicEnquiry · Today 11:26
SingleSexSpacesInSchools · Yesterday 15:01
"
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?
This absolutely boils my blood.

Mine too, but my first reaction is - so bloody what, Judge? it's not a matter of assessing the risk factor of every male on earth -

he's a sweetie, I know him/he wouldn't hurt a fly/he's my Nigel/he's a dangerous brute with a record/he's my lovely lovely trans friend who only wants to live her best life...

it's a matter of principle: various laws and regulations establish that there should be separate facilities segregated by sex, and the SC ruled that 'sex' means biological sex, so we don't have to do that risk assessment thing, Judge, we just have to respect single sex spaces. Like people did before the trans juggernaut rolled all over women's rights.

I'm really not keeping up, but if the breach of the 1992 workplace regulations is a criminal matter, who would you report it to? The HSE?

Apologies if this has been covered.

acc to the judgement, in case of an alleged breach of the 1992 regs:
862. It must be a matter for the Procurator Fiscal, the police or HSE if desired, in the first instance as to whether or not to commence a criminal investigation should a complaint be made, then for the Procurator Fiscal to decide whether to commence a prosecution, and then for a Sheriff to decide if there has been a breach of the law if a prosecution is commenced.

Mine too, but my first reaction is - so bloody what, Judge? it's not a matter of assessing the risk factor of every male on earth -

Indeed - why didn't he also consider that (in his terminology) "there is very far from sufficient reliable evidence to establish as a fact that a trans woman assigned male at birth is a lesser risk to any person assigned female at birth within a changing room environment at a workplace than any other person assigned male at birth".

That’s an interesting question. How could a tribunal be sure that A thumped B? What evidence would they need to hear, and to what standard of proof?

You’ve identified a good analogy but buried the important part by assuming the thumping is a given.

In this case there are different ways to interpret those regulations. The ET would be the first forum ever to have to decide on the interpretation which it might well be reluctant to do since the ET isn’t the place for a prosecution under those rules.

A breach of Bregs is brought by local councils building control departments

So Fife local council would need to bring it against the hospital
Firstly giving them an opportunity to remedy and comply
If they were going to do this I would imagine they would have done so but are waiting for ECHR guidance.
Or at least that will be the excuse

As in Sandies case there’s a cross over with ET grievances can be brought in a civil or criminal court aswell

Continuation thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5457132-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-57

Next time I'll see about updating the title (unless there's a call for it to be unchanged) and do some other tidying up. Both threads #56 and #57 were done in a hurry and I had no time to revisit what the threads should now be saying.

Yes - they should work together with local authorities
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/section/18