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

Wow. Let this be a lesson - AI can build upon its original errors. Especially if you codify that initial error into your judgement!

I wonder if they have but the other corrections would undermine the judgment?

Anya Palmer has pointed out that it also makes para 792 incorrect too.

"In para.792 the ET argues that because the Supreme Court in FWS endorsed the EAT judgment in Forstater as "comprehensive and impressive", the SC can be taken to agree there is no hierarchy of protected characteristics. But the EAT didn't say that, so para.792 has to go too".

Anya Palmer on X: "In para.792 the ET argues that because the Supreme Court in FWS endorsed the EAT judgment in Forstater as "comprehensive and impressive", the SC can be taken to agree there is no hierarchy of protected characteristics. But the EAT didn't say that, so para.792 has to go too. https://t.co/oe38Lagfrl" / X

AFAIK, it hasn't appeared in any judgements. Just in commentary.

ETA: Apparently I'm as accurate at Big Sond's Big AI 😆

the 'no hierarchy' quote is apparently from Wilkins v Porton Down, but there is discussion from the Leopard in the basement saying its chunks rather than a complete quote

https://x.com/JonHolb/status/1998889100213154039

Yes, Google's AI has already absorbed Judge Kemp's mistake into its megaclusterfuck of misinformation.

Is there such a thing as a 'notice of correction of a notice of correction' - asking for a friend

At what point does a grown up step in? This is making SK look even worse.

To add...

It seems to me that TIMs claims are twofold, rather than just one.

1. They are 'not men' and so are uncomfortable using the men's (that doesn't effect the other men so we can accommodate you elsewhere).

1. They are 'women' so would prefer to use the women's. (This does effect the women so, no can do.)

Yep. And iirc decided Gillian didn't really seem upset at her recent bereavement, etc.

'MetaCertificate Squared of Supercorrected Annotations of a Judgment final FINAL version updated'

Can one argue that instructing trans identifying people not to use the incorrect CR for their sex is also harassment?

"Do use the men's" is worse than "Don't use the women's"?

Perhaps. But there would need to be another option, the so-called third space, otherwise they are equivalent.

I know we laugh at claims of "othering" and "outing", but it is clear that DU (for example) would genuinely feel his dignity was violated by being told not to use the female CR but offered a cupboard etc. (I don't recall if this was offered to SP, forgive me). His (to me, batshit-crazy) insistence on being a biological woman plays in his favour here because there's no chink in the armour to suggest he knows he's in invented reality. (This point was weaponized against Kelly when the court found she knew there was a difference between trans-identifying men and non trans-identifying men.)

We have to be able to say it's not ever going to be reasonable for people with the PC of GR ever to feel that using a third gender-neutral space for a third space to be the answer, and to get a blanket proscription on TiM in women's toilets and changing rooms. Even then, there may be locations where a gender neutral space cannot be provided.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/sandie-peggie-tribunal-ruling-not-36384978

I'll just leave this here....

Why does it even need to be said that the EA doesn't set out a hierarchy of protected characteristics? Who in the SP case had ever made any claim that was based on such a hierarchy? Who in the world in general, with even the most minimal grasp of the Act has ever said that it does contain such a hierarchy?

Because 360 odd pages wasn't enough, now we can anticipate the sequel, a series of Certificated Corrections, and an errata slip in tippexed biro.

I'm waiting for the version that has a quote saying 'To be or not to be' in it, because next door to the squirrels is a roomful of typing monkeys, and the pages got mixed up🙃

The judgment is simply going to identify as an accurate judgment and anyone who challenges it a judiciophobic

Bugger!

There's a mistake at the bottom I'll need to issue a notice of correction!

If some disabled people require separate sex toilet and washrooms (details in HSE part M) and there are regulations to ensure disabled people has access to suitable facilities, and there is no hierarchy of needs, then we need separate sex toilets and washrooms in workplaces. Certain religions also require this for their faith. As do women for welfare, particularly when pregnant, because there are risks that that’s the location women go to when something goes wrong and also fainting risks. As, I would argue AGE (elderly and children more at risk and need greater supervision).

So in terms of NUMBERS that’s

1. disability
2. sex
3. religion
4. age
5. pregnancy and maternity

that are better off in single sex designs than private mixed sex designs (which is the way this is going).

Imagining the judge banging this all out on a Fisher Price toy computer.

Waves to other beeks 👋

I think the question arises from a consideration of whether harassment of A due to the PC of gender reassignment is excused by being necessary to avoid harassment of B due to their sex.

If Big Sond had given the judgement to Naomi 5 days in advance, like she asked, she would have been able to tell him, and avoid this public ridicule (at least until the appeal)

Version4RevisionstoRevisedCorrectedCorrectionstoCorrectedjudgement.doc