Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #58

[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), 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 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.

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 2025 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
Thread 57: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5457132-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-57 9 December 2025 to 11 December 2025

Does anyone else think that a de-novo hearing might be a bad idea? An ideal outcome is that even on bad facts the law is clear - female changing rooms need to be for women only. I haven't worked my way through 300+ pages yet but isn't there enough to work with to base an appeal entirely in SK's wrong interpretation of the legal position?

A re-hearing would just be brutal.

I haven't watched any of the tribunals, I only followed on here and on TT, and have only ever seen pictures of Sandie.

After watching the press conference, and hearing Sandie's voice did it really sink in that DU wrote horrific non-contemporaneous notes about someone so unintimidating, gentle voiced, and small framed.

I knew these material facts during the tribunal anyway, because it was logically obvious, SP is a woman and DU is a man, and it was presented as a point during the tribunal hearing, but the way it came across from a written perspective during the tribunal was that DU made it sound like SP was coming at him like a bull dog, and he had justifiable cause to be scared and intimidated by her.

It's given me some reflection that not only have the court and the media tried to rip apart Sandie's character but they've completely painted her as some kind of ogre, when in reality she comes across as just the sort of nurse I think any of us would be lucky to be treated by, or would want our loved ones to be treated by.

There have been sustained and repeated attempts to paint both SP and DU as something they are not, except in DU's case, it was with sympathy and adoration for being courageous and authentically truly female, above reproach.

I hope now the press conference has been done and a notice to appeal has been made that the narrative can shift away from Upton being saintly when he is actually a 6' odd tall bloke in a skirt who is catastrophically manipulative.

In the interests of everyone, it would be a bad idea. We would win, but the endless pointless hours and effort would be a fucking waste.

Like getting a gold Blue Peter badge

I can understand a judge - not just this one - disagreeing, and feeling that there is a considerable difference between a man who has intruded into a women only space, and a man who has raped two women.

We've not had SP speak to the press before, I don't think? It was very affecting.

JKR has entered the Twittersphere in the past 30 mins:

“Judge Sandy Kemp and the Judicial Office need to explain exactly how this bogus quote made its way into the ruling. Misrepresentations of the Forstater ruling are commonplace in the trans activist community, but for this to turn up in an actual court ruling is truly shocking”

Both men demanded access to women's spaces.

The issue in question isn't the previous actions of either man.

Just as Sandy's previous Whatsapp comments were irrelevant to whether she is entitled to a single sex space.

Rights are not contingent on character in this scenario; only sex is relevant.

My thought too but I wondered if that reference would devalue it. More of a medal than a badge.

No I don't think she has either but I've not heard her during the tribunal either as I didn't apply to watch them.

I've only ever seen pictures circulating on news reports and I think those news reports did their utter best to obfuscate the difference in size and demeanor between both DU and SP.

I don't usually cry at speeches, but I was really moved by SP today listening to her speak.

If a woman found a man (who actually thought he was a man) openly stripping off in the women's changing rooms, would it be unreasonable for her to say to him 'look, it's not on. You should not be here. You're acting like a pervert'

I seemed to have had a very brief bout of a respiratory virus this aftrenoon which passed swiftly thankfully.

We cannot allow the widespread misrepresentation of FWS, which this decision has exacerbated, to continue. Heroines like Sandie have to keep whacking those moles until they are completely squished. And that goes for SK, I have to say. My experience of a judge who was regarded as an embarrassment was that he was quietly spirited away. So the squishing will probably be subtle but comprehensive, I reckon

Yes. If men dont want to be accused of transgressing women's boundaries and consent, then they should stay out of women's changing rooms.

A 6 foot balding beardy bloke doesnt magically become less creepy just by shaving.

Another element of this, er, interesting and courageous judgment.... (channelling Sir Humphrey)

It does attempt to say there is a difference between some men with trans identities and other men with trans identities.

As if there is some way to tell the difference, and as if appearance or sincerity or something else turns an Isla Bryson into someone naice women would uncomplainingly take their clothes off for.

The SCJ addressed all this: there is no way, even when a GRC is involved (nothing to stop Bryson or White or Dolotowski getting a GRC with their records for sexual violence) and a single sex space is only single if all males are out of it.

Expecting men to pass some kind of test or check to ascertain if they're allowed in or not (until a woman nicely complains in a polite voice)? How on earth does that work? And how very hurtful for those men told they don't pass. And it was already established before the SCJ that a man without a GRC had no right to be in a single sex space anyway.

LLMs are programmed to help the prompter - to satisfy (as I've just got ChatGPT to confess) "user intent signals". Kemp should disclose the LLM conversation he had so it can be ascertained whether any of his questions were prejudicial or leading.

The thing that struck me about Dr U’s/SP’s evidence was there was one witness who was wholly up to speed about how TRA’s were so misunderstood, vulnerable and marginalised and oppressed versus another who just thought it was wrong to have a bloke in a female changing room.

The “what are your chromosomes” thing is straight out of the TRA news/forums in. Ditto being able to name Isla Bryson by name versus “that bloke”.

How do you know Chatgpt didnt just answer with what you wanted to hear, eh?!

At one level I agree. It would be awful for SP, especially if JR was again allowed to repeatedly make unevidenced allegations of bigotry (although the fact the judge allowed this could be regarded as evidence of bias, in which case the EAT would be clear that this should not be permitted). It would, however, be fun to see the NHS Fife witnesses squirm again, especially if the EAT's findings on the law meant they knew they'd already lost.

By the way, in my view characterising SP's actions in the CR by saying Upton shouldn't be there as proselytizing whilst giving Upton a free pass for saying he should be there potentially shows bias in my view. One view can be expressed freely, the other can only be expressed in limited circumstances.

According to the judgement, that would be improper. And potentially harassment. Said woman of course has no insight into what the man thinks - so any man in the women's changing room could have a protected characteristic.

Why should the woman have to give up her hard won rights because of something that only exists in the man's head?

Thanks Nauticant!

I've just had a wee cry watching that. Poor Sandie, she's so brave and has been so strong.

Going to catch up with the thread now.

I remember observing a session later on where NC objected to a point JR was making about this and the J said it was already accepted by SP as fact in agreed bundle (despite Upton's evidence that he "assumed")

Possibly!

My prompt was > do LLMs sometimes hallucinate because they aim to provide the prompter with what they want?

In my defence, not "Can you confirm that ..." - but still possible?!

Anyways, it's my experience that ChatGPT 'aims to please'. Though also that it's entirely impervious to gender critical thought.