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

When I look at the article I see 'made up' quote not fake?

I'm playing devil's advocate here.

The policy inquestion (let's call it that) makes every single person with the PC of gender reassignment uncomfortable, but not a single one of the people without the PC of gender reassignment.

How can you say it's not "related" to gender reassignment?

So many beeks here!
<Waves>

There is no doctors' changing room or nurses' changing just a female changing room & male changing room.

Upton couldn't obtain a GRC as he started his 'transition' less than a year before the events in question & you are required to live as your desired gender for two years before you can get a GRC. To obtain a GRC he also requires a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria & I am not sure that he has ever claimed gender dysphoria just that he is a biological woman.

Place your bets as to when the amended judgement will be issued. I think I'll take 3:10pm, as I think someone may notice that it might be easier to issue it after SP's press conference rather than before.

It be argued that even if transpeople ' feel their dignity has been violated by being made to use the toilet of their sex, or the "other circumstances of the case" it is unreasonable to expect employers etc to add fourth spaces, i.e. mixed sex toilets, to existing toilet provision, on the basis that the cost in money and disruption is excessive, given the small number of transgender people in the population.

By way of comparison, there are approx 16m disabled people, and 250,000 disabled people in the UK population.

Employers are obliged under the EA2010 to make 'reasonable adjustments' for disabled people, but only 'reasonable' ones, there are limits.
Putting costly fourth spaces everywhere for such a tiny percentage of the population fails the 'reasonableness' test, in my opinion.

they don't do any work and just eat

So just like the STBXHs on the Relationships board then?

I'm envisioning bees posting on BeesNet and being told "LTB" and to take the Freedom Programme...

The screenshot in this thread has fake, as I wrote - but opening the article up does indeed show 'made up' and in quotes. I wonder if that is an update?

It makes them NBees 😉

It will depend on whether the updated versions change the meaning or not.

If he relied on a quote to establish a legal argument, and the quote was incorrect or wrongly attributed, any changes could alter the inferences drawn from the quote (as being representative of the broader argument being made in the source document) and that might undermine what follows in the judgment either significantly or less depending on how the original erroneous inference informs the progression of the arguments.

We won’t know for sure until we see the corrections and how the corrections have been addressed in the wider arguments being made from the original use.

I'm not a lawyer but if the judgement is being amended, then the judgement cannot stick, surely? Is there even a need for an appeal?

See screenshot

T'is uploading image...

Exactly. Most men are good men.
The design for men’s toilets are often safer than the designs for mixed sex toilets. Mixed sex toilet designs are worse if a boy was being assaulted, or a man was having a cardiac arrest as they are always private (except in the case of Leonardos - but that’s another bizarre case with a single sex design being used retrospectively for both sexes).

I can’t imagine any man who wouldn’t act to help a child if they knew he was being assaulted. (Appalling Rochdale Smith St toilets excepted).

Oh, very good.

BBC article:

'The amendment is not expected to change the verdict itself. '

Brings a new meaning to the term "cocklodger" when the cock ends up lodged in the queen.

Yep. Imagine being able to chew parts of a STBXH and push him out of the door...

Sandy

I remember all my life
Dundee Judge as cold as ice
Shadows of a man
A face staring at an AI webpage cryin' in the night
The night goes into
Morning just another day
Clever sex realist women pass my way
Looking in their eyes
I see a memory
I never realized
I misquoted them, fuck me

Oh Sandy well
You came and you gave us a judgment
Data dumped the same day
Oh, Sandy
300 pages and counting, so much of it bent,
Reissued by Thursday
Oh, Sandy!

I'm standing on the edge of time
I've made it up like the truth was mine
Caught up in a world of ideological thinking
The tears are coming I can’t see the facts through blinking

Oh Sandy well
You came and you gave us a judgment
Data dumped the same day
Oh, Sandy
300 pages and counting, so much of it bent,
Reissued by Thursday
Oh, Sandy!

It takes months to get a judgement handed down, how long are they going to spend on this amendment and how much are they likely to change?

Is there any chance that the judge is actually a master strategist who is deliberately aiming for this to be taken to appeal as a shower of shite so a higher court can totally destroy it and seal in some judgements that make sense?

Apologies - I did not mean to suggest your original post was inaccurate, only that the article appears to have changed.

Winston Smith diligently at work perhaps?

Who wants to place a bet that the judgement as it is ends up not standing?

sorry to quote myself, but I wanted to add this:
Employers are not required to do more than what is considered reasonable
Employers’ duties in protecting disabled people at work: Making reasonable adjustments - HSE

The same 'reasonableness' limit should apply to other protected characteristics, surely.

Always worth archiving BBC articles if they contain anything surprising or contentious. They tend to change quite frequently, and almost never record the changes.

Putting costly fourth spaces everywhere for such a tiny percentage of the population fails the 'reasonableness' test, in my opinion.

It does go a long way towards solving a growing political problem though, and may be thought worth it from that pov