Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 09/12/2025 07:55

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
64
usernameinserthere · 10/12/2025 14:32

GallantKumquat · 10/12/2025 13:53

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.

Edited
Show quote history

Try Grok - less trans 🏳️‍⚧️ captured

usernameinserthere · 10/12/2025 14:37

GoldThumb · 10/12/2025 13:57

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

Show quote history

Someone down feed offered a correction

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #57
GoldThumb · 10/12/2025 14:38

usernameinserthere · 10/12/2025 14:37

Someone down feed offered a correction

Show quote history

So are we back down to 2 hallucinations, and one misquote?

usernameinserthere · 10/12/2025 14:41

GoldThumb · 10/12/2025 14:38

So are we back down to 2 hallucinations, and one misquote?

Show quote history

Three turtles doves

Two falsified quotes from other cases

And a selective biased editing of a Supreme Court judgment.

ProfessorBinturong · 10/12/2025 14:42

SternJoyousBeev2 · 10/12/2025 14:01

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

Yes, pretty sure we had a link to it on here somewhere.

ThreeWordHarpy · 10/12/2025 14:46

Holy Hell. I’ve been burned at work by AI hallucinating a very credible reference - authors, title and journal all real but when you go to the journal the actual paper doesn’t exist. Pretty much what’s happened here - the quote is credible but doesn’t come from that case.

While the LLMs are a very useful research tool, asking them to cite references doesn’t mean they are correct. It’s still a timesaver overall but you do have to click on every single link to check the reference does say what the LLM claims. It’s not all bad experience as I can now spot a mile off any text that a colleague has generated through co-pilot. I always tweak it a bit to break the AI style, particularly if it’s going to clients. Grin

However, for an actual Judge to falsely quote at least two references and misquote another one so much as to change its meaning, in one of the most high profile employment tribunals in years, ghasts my flabber. Surely this is leading to a convenient early retirement for Big Sond to avoid any further scrutiny?

Conxis · 10/12/2025 14:48

Surely Big Sond would have known there would be a LOT of eyes scrutinising this judgement?

MarieDeGournay · 10/12/2025 14:50

Can someone remind me please? does DrU officially have a protected characteristic? He doesn't have a GRC, but is all the make-up earrings I'm a biological woman business considered enough for 'gender reassignment'?

A PP mentioned 'what Vic Valentine wrote' - is that TransLucent? if so, this is what the judgment says about their submission
850. Although we were provided by the respondents with materials which included what appeared to us to be criticism of some aspects at least of the Supreme Court decision, and by the claimant with commentary on the 1992 Regulations from an IDS publication, were we consider of no assistance to us. These materials are not authority, and we are bound by the Supreme Court decision given the doctrine of judicial precedent. The argument for TransLucent to the effect that FWS was wrongly decided we also reject as not being a finding we are entitled to make.
851. We did not accordingly accept these arguments for the respondents, or the submission by TransLucent.

Note ' we are bound by the Supreme Court decision given the doctrine of judicial precedent.' Confused

SternJoyousBeev2 · 10/12/2025 14:53

Yes, Upton has the PC of GR, no medicalisation needed or effort of any kind.

SirEctor · 10/12/2025 14:54

Yes, he has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. You don't have to get a GRC for that or in fact have done anything except 'propose' going through a process of gender reassignment, whatever that means to you.

It's rather wishy washy.

MarieDeGournay · 10/12/2025 14:54

Conxis · 10/12/2025 14:48

Surely Big Sond would have known there would be a LOT of eyes scrutinising this judgement?

I'm reminded of a child's explanation of the final judgment :

'...an' God'll say you did terrible sins, an' you will say But God, I didn't know they were sins an' God'll say - well you know now!'

Well you know now, Big Sond!

usernameinserthere · 10/12/2025 15:06

Conxis · 10/12/2025 14:48

Surely Big Sond would have known there would be a LOT of eyes scrutinising this judgement?

Only women - we don’t count

ThreeWordHarpy · 10/12/2025 15:11

I can’t help wondering that if the judgement had been provided to the claimants legal team 5 days in advance as previously agreed, these mistakes would have been spotted and raised with the judge. NC surely would have noticed straight away the misquoting of FWS and that would have caused her/CE to dive deeper.

So in his rush to take everyone by surprise, Big Sond really has been hoist by his own petard.

Chersfrozenface · 10/12/2025 15:16

It’s still a timesaver overall but you do have to click on every single link to check the reference does say what the LLM claims.

Did we not have a hint earlier that Big Sond is not inclined to click on links?

DonicaLewinsky · 10/12/2025 15:20

SternJoyousBeev2 · 10/12/2025 14:53

Yes, Upton has the PC of GR, no medicalisation needed or effort of any kind.

Edited

Yes, plus all the others he'll have. We all have some protected characteristics. So he also can't be treated worse than other workers because he's married, due to his religion or lack of one etc. Same for Sandie.

ThreeWordHarpy · 10/12/2025 15:25

Chersfrozenface · 10/12/2025 15:16

It’s still a timesaver overall but you do have to click on every single link to check the reference does say what the LLM claims.

Did we not have a hint earlier that Big Sond is not inclined to click on links?

Yes, another pair of dots joined up.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 10/12/2025 15:26

@MarieDeGournay Vic Valentine was a witness for R2 cant remember the org name. All parties agreed to accept statement without examination in court, as time was tight at end. Translucent was one of the intervenors that sent in statement with permission towards end of case hearing.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 10/12/2025 15:47

Hedgehogsrightsarehumanrights · 10/12/2025 13:26

I am speculating here. NC asked that SK address all the points the claimant made in his judgement which he did, that is at a guess why it is so long.

NC was already alerted to potential bias, which she did complain about, the transcripts will serve her well in that regard.

I suspect there will be an appeal that seeks a re trial.

Given not only the numerous errors in law, the misquotes of FWS and Forstarter, the absurdities such as no evidence that men are a greater risk.

And the grand finale of making up new rules that flies in the face of the SC ruling.

I cannot see any other way forward.

The transcripts will bring so much value to the task of drafting the appeal. It must be very rare in an employment tribunal to have so many mistakes in the judgment but so much on record to make a confident appeal.

FallenSloppyDead2 · 10/12/2025 15:48

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 10/12/2025 12:31

Just out of interest, in this gatekeeping rule that this judgment has come up with that doesn't seem to be in the SCJ and appears to be new and entirely from the panel -

would a man with a trans identity find it less upsetting to be able to use women's facilities until the moment a woman invokes her right to single sex provision and then be told he has to immediately leave, and that they both now must have separate arrangements (single sex and mixed sex) - which obviously outs both of them and is going to involve difficult and uncomfortable conversations for all - in essence that his access in every use is always entirely conditional on the consent of all women present and could be revoked at any moment -

or less upsetting that the single sex and mixed sex provisions were available anyway and the man and women who don't mind mixed sex provisions just used that one anyway, secure that there would never be any issues involved.

It's the same end point; just a more complicated, uncomfortable and dramatic path to get there. Which seems pointless for all really, and that's before you start looking at the issues around indirect and direct discrimination involved.

Edited

..in essence that his access in every use is always entirely conditional on the consent of all women present and could be revoked at any moment -

Can't imagine many of the trans-identified males wanting women to have that much power over them (though I suppose a subsection might enjoy it🤔).

Majorconcern · 10/12/2025 15:57

Michael Foran appears to have his voice back, says will try to do a live discussion on Knowing Ius on Substack on Sunday. I can't believe he'll be able to get through it all in one session, though

usernameinserthere · 10/12/2025 16:01

Chersfrozenface · 10/12/2025 15:16

It’s still a timesaver overall but you do have to click on every single link to check the reference does say what the LLM claims.

Did we not have a hint earlier that Big Sond is not inclined to click on links?

When he was in practice I suspect he relied too heavily on trainees.

Gotta be over the deets big Sondie. Our Naomi has a quant in Elves and half the internet on side.

Conxis · 10/12/2025 16:04

Baroness Falconer of EHRC will be on radio Scotland shortly to discuss the SP judgement

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.