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

This is so depressing and infuriating.

It gets more unbelievable by the day. Wtf

what on earth is Big Sond making of all this I wonder. He must have known every word of his judgment was going to be heavily scrutinised

The various AIs are in general fanatical TRAs, presumably it's part of their model training. A lot of the judgement reads as though it's informed by AI, Gemi in particular. But to my eyes it doesn't read as literal AI output; so i assume it's not a copy/paste job.

I was especially struck by the conflation of holding a GRC - and therefore being a 'legal women' per the GRA - and discrimination against trans identity as a PC in the EA. I simply couldn't get Gemini to relent with its insistence that the discrimination clause meant that anyone who identified as trans, with or without a GRC, could demand to be treated as a woman. It had the feeling of being 'hard coded' by training, i.e. there are certain 'safety' topics that AI will simply not reason about. (unless tricked) That same conflation appears to be in the ruling.

It would be a shocking thing if we're now seeing AI opinions being transcribed directly into case law through the courts given the high degree of ideological capture in the technology. If it were to be so, this is a serious crisis much broader than the GC debate.

Wings has spotted another one. I'm dashing out but someone else have a look?

Yes, I'd hoped for better and it's a shame that he's yet another sad sack of a man.

And on and on the apparent fabrications in the Peggie judgment come. The Court Of Appeal quote from Smith v Safeway here seems to be made up. The only occurrence of the word "identical" is in the second pic

https://x.com/wingsscotland/status/1998749016427794436?s=46&t=ALGAiHxwK3XXeRoDQylnWA

https://x.com/WingsScotland/status/1998749016427794436

"And on and on the apparent fabrications in the Peggie judgment come. The Court Of Appeal quote from Smith v Safeway here seems to be made up. The only occurrence of the word "identical" is in the second pic."

Sorry @GoldThumb , cross posted.

Great minds! ☺️

So what number are we up to now? This is genuinely shocking

There have been a number of cases where lawyers have come unstuck through overzealous use of AI.

This one is worth reading as it's particularly pertinent dealing as it does with fake citations. They considered charging the junior with contempt of court!

In short, during the course of her second-six pupillage, the junior barrister in question drafted and signed a High Court pleading in which she purported to rely upon 5 authorities that did not exist. This resulted in Mr Justice Ritchie, not only awarding wasted costs against her (and Haringey Law Centre) but also referring each to their respective regulators.

https://www.11kbw.com/knowledge-events/case/andrew-edge-successful-before-high-court-in-ai-fake-authorities-case/

Did the Rs closing statement get published? Could these incorrect quotes come from arguments that JR made?

Oh, can you imagine? 😬

This is so shocking. More and more revelations proving the utter incompetence of the judge and also overuse of AI.

Well any TV drama writers have 57 threads of strong material to go through when the programme eventually gets made 😅

Sorry I somehow managed to delete the 4 at the end of the twitter handle and you probably clicked before I edited.

I am actually shocked at how much of a complete shitshow this judge has made in his judgement.

Sandie has to appeal this. This judgement can't be allowed to stand.

I really feel for her right now. She must be absolutely fucking raging.

I very much am. I knew it was a possibility; so I was bracing myself. However, while I accepted that there might be an unfavorable judgement, the intellectual dishonestly feels like a betrayal. 🥺

Look what I found!

https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/rulesandregulations/Employment%20Tribunal%20(Scotland)%20%E2%80%93%20Making%20a%20complaint%20of%20Judicial%20Misconduct%20about%20an%20Employment%20Judge

Shall we write it or get ChatGPT to do it?

I recently posted a list of female sports people (from a news article) and asked ChatGPT if any were known to be trans, and instead of an answer to my question I got a lecture about outing trans people. I couldn't find a form of words that led to a straight answer and just gave up. I am not into sports and didn't recognise a single name so it seemed a reasonable use of AI to find out, but no.

I'm very far behind. As I understand it, 42 days is the period to file an appeal. 14 days is the period to request the panel to reconsider their decision. Somehow I don't think SP and her legal team will be going down the reconsideration route.

In other news, please could you all slow down.

True but it’s factually inaccurate nonetheless.

No one is asking Big Sond to reconsider. He had his chance and choked.

It is enraging to watch her go through over a year of hearings only to be disrespected by the judge in this way.

It's one thing for a judge to decide that an unpopular decision must be made, and to stand by it. But to make so much up, or rely on unchecked 'facts' is inexcusable.

Try Grok - ChatGPT is a trans 🏳️‍⚧️ head

I’ve a few of these on the stocks - but I’d say best to wait until the appeal is filed

You sound as if you are going to be very busy!

(and @GoldThumb)

In this instance, Wings may be incorrect, a reply to that tweet claims to have found the source of the quote.

https://x.com/eoghannmacd/status/1998758618934686023?

TRAJudge Kemp has made up enough bullshit already, hopefully we (and Wings) can be more careful than Kemp has been, when it comes to hunting down errors.