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

Well they were stupid enough to issue it without doing that in the first place...

in one case deliberate manipulation of SC wording.

At least 2. I think only 1 with actual wording changes, but elsewhere he's cropped a quote in a way that significantly alters the meaning.

Caught up again but need to go out, and will miss the press conference. Mind is boggling. See you all on the next thread.

I’m worried that the squirrels‘ brains will be unable to make some of the corrections needed without exploding, given the extraordinary porridge of arguments they appear in. More red bull or less, such a dilemma. It must be making Sandy’s Christmas a bit less festive, I fear

How did he think no one would notice? Has he not paid any attention to NC for the whole trial? Has he like, zoned out or something?

The alternative is a policy that makes huge numbers of people with PC of female sex uncomfortable and contravenes W(HSW)R1992 or EA2010 as clarified by FWS.

The policy concerns SS services, doesn't even mention GR. An EIA will pick up "likely to piss off people with PC of GR" but will, if carried out properly, recognise that not having SS services has worse outcomes.

Now I am picturing the legal squirrels swimming around in porridge, whilst drinking their Red Bull 😆

Well...
That was actually the second version of my image as the AI messed up the first version. 😂

Ist to the left second to the right.

Look at the squirrels faces in the first image 😱

Ha I asked a journo the very same questions but a few minutes ago

if they’re correcting a ‘clerical’ error as the BBC indicates unlikely

But fraudulent quotes from another judge and deliberate editing of a judgment of our apex court.

Come on

I just use my lump hammer!

Then wonder why all my surfaces have massive holes in them!

My money is on over-confidence in his own ability, fostered by his inclusion in matey canapé-nibbling Edinburgh soirées, meaning he underrates the abilities of other. Probably thought he’d covered his tracks

You chose the debauched squirrels - quite rightly, I think it will prove

Is there a summary somewhere of all the contested quotes?

Big Sond just seems totally out of his depth 😔

Wings has the best summary I've seen:

Wings Over Scotland | The Valley Of The Dolls

The SC said that where services are segregated it has to be by sex. (More widely, wherever sex is mentioned in the EA, it has to be biological.) Toilet provision at work isn't governed by the section of the EA on services at all. Workplaces aren't open to the public or a section of the public, so that section is of no use.

The EA doesn't say you have to provide single sex toilets at work at all. That's in the Workplace Regulations. (We want to say that the definition of men and women carries over via the same reasoning in FWS, but no court has said that, yet.)

The best argument I can find is that the Workplace Regulations should be interpreted biologically, and the existence of those separate regulations means that it is no longer "reasonable" for anyone with the PC of GR to feel dignity-violated by using the correct sex toilet. A => B, as it were.

However the logic is reversible: if A=> B then B' => A' - if we start from the proposition that it is reasonable for anyone with the PC of GR to feel dignity-violated etc. then a biological interpretation of sex in the Workplace Regulations must be incorrect.

You also wrote this:
You may be right, but isn't that a harsh illustration of the different attitudes to the 250,000 transpeople, and 16m disabled people?
'Reasonableness' limits for the 16m, but 'whatever they ask for, everywhere, regardless of cost' for the 250,000.

I think so. The amount of time and attention, and money, that is being devoted to trans issues throws a terribly harsh light on the clear contrast with the way disabled people are considered. It's quite stark, when one turns attention to it.

I know you’re trying to play Devil’s advocate, but that makes no sense at all. At the rate your logic’s going you’ll be deciding trans people will be best off peeing in the potted plants around the office as a compromise.

The judgement reminds me very much of my undergraduate dissertation. I got completely overwhelmed, had IT issues, left it to the last minute to write up, lost my references (back in the day when it was pen and paper notes) and had an 'ah fuckit moment' and just made references up. The difference in my case was I knew the marker was most probably not going to check all my refs as I was a model student.

BBC's been updated in a way to suggest the revised version is out:

A different quote from the Forstater case has now been added regarding how those with gender-critical beliefs cannot "misgender" trans persons with impunity.
The revised version of the Peggie judgement then states: "We consider that quotation provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics."
Under employment law, a judge may "at any time correct any clerical mistake or other accidental slip or omission" and an amended version issued.
Ms Forstater said she was astonished how the error happened and that she wanted an explanation.
She added other mistakes had been spotted in the verdict and that they "severely undermine people's confidence in the legal process."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pnzwl2r4o

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Peggie-v-Fife-Health-Board-and-another-Certificate-of-Correction.pdf

From the BBC article

"A different quote from the Forstater case has now been added regarding how those with gender-critical beliefs cannot "misgender" trans persons with impunity.

The revised version of the Peggie judgement then states: "We consider that quotation provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics."

Under employment law, a judge may "at any time correct any clerical mistake or other accidental slip or omission" and an amended version issued."

Surely that's a bit more than a clerical mistake or and accidental slip or omission?!

So only the one error corrected so far...

V1.1

NHS Fife comms team are definitely in charge of this 😆

Expect Version2.FINAL.FINAL very soon.

So they haven't realised there is more than one fuck up.