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

Thanks for this, it's really infuriating when seeing all the judge's TRSOH batshittery laid out and itemised like that!

Hello Vipers, I've been reading since yesterday, but hobbling along with a phone that doesn't charge well, so not responded. I'm gutted by this, as are we all. Shocked that after FWS we have not one but TWO judges in a week who are keen to fritter away our rights to single sex changing areas and toilets.
Absolutely fantastic that Sandie has won her claim for harassment by they hospital but....
DH is really optimistic, he thinks this is all going to be resolved on appeal and set precedent. He also thinks that the extra column inches in the new media landscape (where everyone calls a man a man) is going to be beneficial for the cause. I just feel for all these women who have to go banging on the doors of the courts again and again and again just to give us the right to say 'NO' to the men who want to be near us when we're taking our clothes off, for whatever reason.
Thanks for all the helpful commentary.
Here's to the next 56 threads, if an appeal goes ahead. Sorry @nauticant.

There was no separate changing room for doctors. Consultants tended to change in a shared office. Junior doctors had same access to staff changing rooms as nurses (and presumably other professions who changed at work).

For the phone evidence, there are a few issues and I can't recall all but the tribunal noted that Upton's evidence was completed in Feb and he was not recalled by either party so the tribunal could not hear him cross-examined on that aspect. As to the editing of notes that were examined in tribunal, the tribunal found that the incidents had impacted him, and the discrepancies may be explained by memory/recall issues.

You've probably already seen Webberly on FB, toasting the 'victory' that 'Beth'has had...being told that she can use any toilet 'she' pleases. Eh? That's what has been taken from this?

In other not really news, I was at the Vic today for an appointment and noticed that - unusually - The Times was the most prominently displayed newspaper in the newsagent's there.

I am going to take credit for that. Mooncups save the world and single sex toilet provision! 😂

I thought the judge was just out of his depth, or not very interested in any woman's view, and favoured Upton for a range of possible reasons, but I think it's worse than that. And more serious.

For those of you not on X, what Wings Over Scotland posted was a paragraph from Judge Kemp's judgment quoting the Supreme Court judgment in FWS, alongside the original words by the Supreme Court. Or not the same words.

Sandie Peggie
803. Sixthly after addressing the dilemma faced by a trans woman "who presents fully as a woman" the decision states that
"such women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users….."

Supreme Court
“Although such trans women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of the other women users, the Scottish Ministers do not suggest that a trans woman without a GRC is legally entitled to do so.” [my bold]

Such a great photo and it is a win.

Clear grounds for an appeal then?

OMG yes I was genuinely shocked when I read that part of the Wings article, so much so that I forgot to mention it in my previous post, when it was the actual point in my reading where I crossed over from "Hmm, he's rather an unthinking Righteous parrot" to "This dude is a shameless TRSOH batshit pious fraud activist!"

It's simply legally wrong. Doctored to be wrong.

Which is not what you expect from a judge.

He’s a client
I’ve complied with the regs
He doesn’t study them himself ( and wouldn’t ) as that’s my job

Just to add, I can't wait to hear what Michael Foran has to say about all this.

In a mealy-mothed way, though, iirc? Perhaps that satisfied the judge that he was talking about gender identity (seeing as though they all seem to be a bit muddled about that). Agree that the witness disagreeing is a big factor.

Mooncups are wonderful but so is the menopause. One of my recurring worries is that I will have a seizure changing a mooncup. Can.you.imagine. (Where is NeverDropYourMooncup btw)

It would be like the scene in The Shining. Sad times for Upton or any other men in the room.

No, I watched that bit and it was “I am not a robot therefore I am biological and I am female, therefore I am a biological female”. He was not talking about gender identity.

So Judge Kemp has pretty much done an 'Isla Bumba' by relying on a selected extract from FWS, without considering the full context?

Perhaps even worse, Kemp has edited the original and changed the meaning, in a hybrid Bumba-Upton manner?

I think that EJ’s doctoring of the text of the Supreme Court’s FWS ruling is a huge issue.

Wings Over Scotland’s analysis has actually left me a bit stunned. This is a judge, in full view, potentially falsifying to deceive.

Just imagine if a major witness took the stand, having taken the oath/affirmed, and then said he was [insert fantasy here].
His evidence would be looked at with deep suspicion.

But because 'gender reassignment' is a 'thing' in the law, a man claiming to be a woman is completely acceptable. That's fine, where's the problem?🙄

I think the fact that DrU, who is a doctor, went further than identifying as a transwoman, and stated under oath that he had actually become a biological woman should have raised red flags about his credibility, reliability, knowledge of human biology, connection to reality, etc...

So pleased the photo is of her smiling and happy.

I haven’t read into the full ruling but can see from pp there’s some issues.

That's on a par with some of the disingenuous "quoting" we see on here! Surely they know we can see the original text?

Genuinely baffled by this sort of thing, and the typos, and the reference to how feminine someone looks, and the reference to Pete being different because he doesn't mean it. Just all the "easily disproved arguments 101" in one. Surprised there's no "ah but what about intersex ".

As a non-lawyer, this absolutely blows my mimd.

When I watched Upton state he was a biological female in court I actually gasped to myself, as to me this was a straightforward lie under oath. Not something I'd ever risk doing myself (not that I'd be so inclined, clearly, but still), as I'd be worried about jail time!

If he'd said woman, I'd just have rolled my eyes, but female is without doubt an out and out lie. I thought the courts took a dim view of that. But it seems that if you're a bloke lying about being female, good old-fashioned male privilege saves your bacon.

To me, that's mealy-mouthed with the stupid "qualifier", but you're right, he stated dishonestly that he was a biological female.

The bit that stays with me is Upton saying that if a women presented at A&E in distress, perhaps with a condition that required intimate examination, and requested a female doctor, he would attend until and unless she asked him not to. I am amazed that Judge Kemp doesn't recognise Upton's determination to practise sex deception and assault.

It's not even helpful to trans-identified males, some of whom are just confused, indoctrinated, properly vulnerable young adults. Must be lots of them looking in the mirror and thinking do I pass enough for Judge Kemp or don't I? Maybe I should take the cross-sex hormones? Maybe I should get surgery?

Unfortunately there is a certain self-consistent "logic" to this position. If you redefine female to be a state of mind, and you note that the brain is biological and can conceive a state of mind then it is non-disprovable. Silly, but self-consistent. Nothing to do with human bodies, of course.