NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #57

[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 28 September 2025 to 21 November 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 19 November 2025 to 8 December 2025
Thread 56: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5456749-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-56 8 December 2025 to 9 December 2025

Yes, I've never seen one there either.

Me too, in S Spain. There is one non single cubicle unisex toilet that I can think of. Even the single cubicles generally are either for males or females, not both.

Beliefs aside is this an example of 'willful ignorance'? Upton claims to be a woman but that only works if he refuses to take his clothes off and look in the mirror.

He is wilfully chosing to perfom this pantomine. It only works as a defence if he argues a different definition of 'woman' but there must be a test? It's not a test of his belief but how he inflicts it on women.

Yes, even the smallest independent bar in El Born ( trendy area of Barcelona) had two single occupancy rooms....one marked 'Male' and one marked 'Female'.

Mixed sex toilets are NOT accepted by all.
Many women and some men 'self exclude'
they are back on the 'urinary leash'

There was a poster who was on here for years who lived in Germany
supposed home of all things mixed sex.
She sought out a female only Gym
and places with female only toilets.

The people who USE the mixed sex are happy with them
but one CANNOT assume that everybody is happy with them.

Or as is often said "My rights are not yours to give away"

Confirming, this quote (picture, when it gets through) does not appear to be present in the judgement found here:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020
which, unless I'm very confused, is where it should be. Not in the press release either.

Edited : my link wasn’t working. @alsoFanOfNaomi ’s is working. Thank you!

Screenshot from Sandie Peggie judgement. Searched for ‘hierarchy’ in bakery case. Doesn’t seem to be there?
Not my find. Saw on X earlier, but did double check SC judgement.

So bizarre, 3 wrong judgement quotations!!!

I'm intrigued (well, worried) about the Darlington Nurses case will go now. Will it follow the logic of the Maria Kelly and Sandie Peggie tribunals? If so, we have a real problem on our hands with how the SCJ is being interpreted by ETs.

Or will it be more compatible with the SCJ?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/09/sandie-peggie-tribunal-supreme-court-transgender-ruling/
Michael Foran now saying that the tribunal findings are incompatible with the Crown Court Judgment.

In case I'm not the only one now painstakingly checking each quote: the quote at SK's para 796 is genuine, it comes from para 248 of the FWS judgement.

At least the judge can’t say only one person complained!

actually, on second thoughts, and given the quality of the judgement in Peggie, perhaps they will.

I imagine it’s going to be under a lot of scrutiny.

If the judge has edited / made up multiple quotations, he must surely have severely underestimated the level of public interest and political significance of the case? Which seems astonishing in itself, given the attention it received while it was in court.

He can't seriously have thought that multiple people wouldn't be going over the judgment with a fine tooth comb?

This is incredible stuff. I'm sure NC is very well aware and I look forward to hearing an official statement from SP's team.

Sorry if this has already been answered, I’m struggling to keep up with the thread.

Long term, could this end up being to our advantage? If Sandie wins in a higher tier court would it then set legal precedent. Whereas, a full win at this level wouldn’t do so?

The Kelly judge also made some errors about toilet design I can’t get my head round. She seems to imply single sex toilets don’t need any partitions at all. Even I don’t fancy an old chinese-style communal bench design 😅. She mixes up rooms and cubicles which is a big deal when it’s a room for mixed sex in 1992 legislation.

Yes, and if the Peggie case goes to appeal I should imagine they'll be very mindful of that....supposing an appeal is announced before the judgement is delivered.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/patrick-harvie-uses-sandie-peggie-36375870

Worrying.

It’s absolutely crazy. It’s got me thinking it can only come down to two things - he’s either a captured TWAW SNP gov ideologist and it’s a big F U to the Supreme Court, or he knows this would happen as he, like everyone else, is aware of what went on with FWS so to send this higher would then set a precedent. Or maybe he’s just stupid. So three things.

I'm French and I have never, ever had a workplace with mixed sex toilets. It's also very rare in restaurant, theatres etc as soon as the place is big enough for multiple toilets.

Everything about Patrick Harvie is worrying.

What about this quote? It sounds like the kind of thing the EAT in Forstater might possibly have said - maybe orally in introduction? - but I don't find it in the judgement. Anyone?

The EAT held in Forstater that what are generally referred to as gender critical beliefs, which are also referred to as sex realist beliefs, fall within the terms of section 10. The decision also sets out in general terms the context in which decisions such as those we take is undertaken, which includes the following:
“We wish to make clear at the outset that it is not the role of this Employment Appeal Tribunal to express any view as to the merits of either side of that debate (which we shall refer to as the “transgender debate”); its role is simply to determine whether, in reaching the conclusion that it did, the Tribunal erred in law. Our judgment should not therefore be read as providing support for or diminishing the views of either side in that debate.
In taking that approach, we do not in any way seek to ignore or downplay the difficulties faced by trans persons seeking merely to live their lives peacefully in the gender with which they identify, irrespective of their natal sex. The regrettable reality for many trans persons, however, is that something which most take for granted - the sense of self and autonomy in identity – is under constant challenge and attack.
[There was then a quotation from the Equal Treatment Bench Book] The vulnerability of many trans persons is something we bear very much in mind. “

He clearly is captured, judging by the use of TRA language such as "assigned at birth", the idiocy of his arguments and the fact he delivered a similar verdict in the Gillian Philip case.

It is nonetheless remarkable that he seems to have assumed no one would notice that his judgement includes fabricated quotes and fallacious legal reasoning.

Obviously if this goes to appeal, it SHOULD work in our favour, as appeal court judgements are binding, but it's going to mean an awful lot of work and additional stress for Peggie and her team.

Not to mention the additional confusion and misinformation he has chosen to throw into an already very difficult situation.

Making up Forstater ruling quotes is NOT going to go down well

But all of those things would render him unfit to serve as a judge, wouldn't they? They can't twist the law to suit their own politics, they can't strategically fuck up on purpose, and they're supposed to be top tier legal minds!

Is there any other possible reason? I can't think of one but I'm not an expert on the judicial system or the law by any stretch.