Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #59

1000 replies

nauticant · 12/12/2025 19:37

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.

Following handing down of the judgment on 8 December 2025, on 11 December 2025, it was announced by Sandie Peggie and her legal team that they would be pursuing an appeal.

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
Thread 58: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58 11 December 2025 to 12 December 2025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
62
Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/12/2025 12:31

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 11:55

And another cracker of Kemps errors

Jane Russell cross examined Maya Forstater on the Swedish study, and she either didn’t understand the statistics or was deliberately pretending not to. Maya patiently explained but JR made me cringe myself inside out (was watching live).

whatwouldafeministdo · 14/12/2025 12:32

Keeptoiletssafe · 14/12/2025 11:27

I have some theories on this - I would love a toilet symposium! There’s a few people I know off mumsnet I would like people to meet. @prh47bridge has touched on a massive problem that the government has. It is obvious they are trying to tally everyone’s existing designs into the Supreme Court judgement. It can’t be done because for years businesses have not been following building standards and HSE advice.

Now the focus is on toilets, people have realise what a mess this is. The Government tried to do something about it with Document T (only applies to England and not to schools etc) and the intention is there is very clear - single sex first then universal. They made clear it was as the result to stop the rise of gender neutral designs which aren’t regulated at all.

People have been complaining that universal toilets are discriminatory towards woman for 20 years. That too is documented.

HSE talks about people having the need for separate-sex toilet washrooms.

HSE have told me directly single sex toilets are the only one to have door gaps (that’s design C single sex and design D single sex ambulant). This is clearly an advantage to health and safety to women and children. Bluntly, it is very unlikely rapes take place in single sex toilets with door gaps compared to private toilets. The design where most people collapse and do not get found in time are private designs.

If you look deeply enough into legislation and building regs and standards, they were all built on single sex provision.

The disabled toilet expansion came after WW2 in direct response to having provision for amputees. Businesses weren’t happy about the extra costs. The mixed sex element is because it only requires one. The privacy, as people have found out, is a problem because they are used for sex, drugs, parties (!), sleeping, all sorts.

Worldwide, the best way to get girls to go to school is to build girls toilets. That is well known. I use to sponsor a girl via Plan and that’s what they did. It works.

So why the DfE have signed off on quarter of secondary schools just having mixed sex toilets? It’s madness. However, in a cruel experiment, it has shown what you think may happen, happens. The government need to look what has happened to schools. There’s private companies selling subscriptions to schools for all sorts of monitoring devices and alarms in each private toilet now because of the behaviour and risks inside them.

It’s a massive job getting provision to be equal for women. We’ve never had equal provision because of our biological needs compared to men. Now it’s in danger again.

Yes, the DfE on the one hand have non-evidence based extremely high attendance targets with ever more punishment for schools and families that don't meet that yet they fail to do the one thing that would certainly reduce female school absence immediately (and probably boost male attendance a bit too) - ensure single SEX toilets.

All the faff of meetings and 'discussion' and waste of resources when a child's attendance falls below 95% but single sex loos would immediately slash a big chunk of absences and they don't do that.

It's mental. The people in charge are either evil or idiots.

Most girls of secondary age I know try not to wee all day, which is a health risk and will impact their ability to learn.

Most girls I know have also had time off during their periods, because the toilet provision (not just whether there are single sex toilets but largely this) is so poor that it's honestly IMO often child neglect to send them into an environment where they cannot reasonably manage their period with safety, privacy and dignity.

Those in charge in Government clearly don't give a shit. They're happy to impose impossible targets yet not do the absolutely most basic thing to address real needs. It's so depressing. It's also excluding girls from education at least some of the time - so denying them their human rights.

And of course AFAIK there's no good, easily accessible data on whether mixed-sex toilets contribute to either absences or rapes because they don't want to look (there wasn't this data easily accessible last time I looked about a year ago). They could easily look, the data will be there. Not all schools have mixed sex toilets there must be 100s of schools of comparable size and demographic where the only difference is whether the SLT and governing board has completely abandoned safeguarding or not. It's a research project I'd love to do and would sign up for but it falls in the same category as not recording data on ethnicity regarding grooming gang crimes. They know the answer already (because - in this case - it's a 'do bears shit in the woods' type question), and they don't want to have it confirmed.

They'd rather have more and more children unhappy in school, bullied over attendance and in some cases having their childhood destroyed via rape than install safer, better toilet provision, the first step of which would likely cost exactly nothing (making all school toilets over 8 single sex - which is already the law).

Make it make sense.

BezMills · 14/12/2025 12:36

Thank you for kind words, here's the original that I nicked from. I like to call it "Scottish Ozymandias", Jockymandias if you will.

www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/puddock/

nicepotoftea · 14/12/2025 12:47

lcakethereforeIam · 14/12/2025 12:03

Katy Gordon, in the Courier article upthread, talks of amicably sharing an open plan changing room with a man who claimed to be trans as though it was the same as Sandie Peggie's situation. Putting aside her assertion that they were just there to get changed, if it was no big deal why couldn't he do that in the men's? Or why didn't she come to that? She had chosen to put herself in that situation. She could have made provisions to avoid it. Arrived and gone home in her sports kit. Given up the sport, along with the other women who couldn't stomach changing with a male stranger. Those weren't options for Sandie. It was her job. She had to change for hygiene and patient safety. Also, as a hypothetical, Isla Bryson will be out of jail sooner or later. He may chose to take up that sport. Would she want to share a changing room with him or his ilk? Does she know how to reliably tell them apart? Can she share that with the rest of us?

Edited

The lack of understanding is staggering.

I regularly get changed on the beach standing near actual men.

I choose the beach and make assumptions about everyone else on the beach.

If I felt uncomfortable about changing for any reason I would change out of my swim suit at home.

If I was experiencing menstrual flooding, I would probably decide it would be too much of a faff and wouldn't swim.

SqueakyDinosaur · 14/12/2025 12:55

@Keeptoiletssafe DM incoming (direct message, not darling mother!)

Binglebong · 14/12/2025 13:08

EdithStourton · 14/12/2025 09:37

I've got a violin somewhere, but it's so small that I can't find it...

It's floating in space with the teapot.

GallantKumquat · 14/12/2025 13:11

BettyBooper · 14/12/2025 11:00

I remain frustrated at the lack of information about the other panel members.

Given the capture of the Trade Unions and the high probability that at least one had strong links to a TU, it seems to me that this should be public information.

This is a very high profile case and not knowing the potential bias of two thirds of the panel does not feel like open justice.

I agree with this. What are the protections against a conflict of interest, or even malicious intent? The best explanation for this entire judgement is that a TRA threw a huge tantrum and Kemp attempted to split the difference, granting the bare minimum judgement to Peggie, in an attempt to mollify a media firestorm, and throwing the rest to Upton through any available legal reasoning (or lack of reasoning) he could find. Others have come up with other plausible scenarios but this still seems to me the most likely.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:14

teawamutu · 14/12/2025 12:02

Legal beagles: I've read that the appeal route could take up to 12 months, but for a cock-up of this magnitude and profile, is there any chance that it might be expedited?

I think has to be expedited. It’s the biggest farce in my legal memory.

The more I read it will have to be re-heard. We are plainly seeing factual evidence and quoted law misunderstood or edited to suit a narrative that takes it away from its plainest meaning.

In my opinion (this isn’t my expertise tho) -nothing in this judgment can be trusted. So it’s not appealable in theory. Because you can’t appeal a totally cooked & crooked judgment.

Start again. If they get something wrong. Then appeal.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:17

BettyBooper · 14/12/2025 11:00

I remain frustrated at the lack of information about the other panel members.

Given the capture of the Trade Unions and the high probability that at least one had strong links to a TU, it seems to me that this should be public information.

This is a very high profile case and not knowing the potential bias of two thirds of the panel does not feel like open justice.

Anyone in the room able to narrow down sex if the panel members, age range? Any data? PM if easier.

I’d they have to be TRA to not have checked or challenged the judgment. I am sure they waved through the legal quotations - but totally misunderstanding the Swedish study. Come on.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:21

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/12/2025 12:31

Jane Russell cross examined Maya Forstater on the Swedish study, and she either didn’t understand the statistics or was deliberately pretending not to. Maya patiently explained but JR made me cringe myself inside out (was watching live).

I’m a lawyer. Horrific with stats in general as most have an education of the arts. 🎭

But even I can pick their crap 💩 apart. Michelle in Kelly v Leonardo was terrible.

Binglebong · 14/12/2025 13:24

There is a part of me thinking that all cases concerning SSS should automatically have a woman on the panel. But then, some men get it and some women push others under the bus. But it is increasingly clear that a lot of people don't understand the intimidation and indignity involved.

MyAmpleSheep · 14/12/2025 13:25

GallantKumquat · 14/12/2025 13:11

I agree with this. What are the protections against a conflict of interest, or even malicious intent? The best explanation for this entire judgement is that a TRA threw a huge tantrum and Kemp attempted to split the difference, granting the bare minimum judgement to Peggie, in an attempt to mollify a media firestorm, and throwing the rest to Upton through any available legal reasoning (or lack of reasoning) he could find. Others have come up with other plausible scenarios but this still seems to me the most likely.

Edited

The EAT sits with lay members too, along side a High Court Judge.

Im curious what happens if the lay members overrule the Judge on what she knows the law to be. Does she have to write a judgment she disagrees with?

TheAutumnCrow · 14/12/2025 13:29

CriticalConditionUnamendedVersion · 14/12/2025 10:44

I don't understand either. Someone up thread found an earlier ET case in which Borwick gave evidence before Kemp. I don't know the details but maybe there's 'history' between them which Kemp found himself unable to put aside. Disgraceful.

Is it this case? Who was Borthwick giving evidence on behalf of, do we know?

I’m starting to think the cut of Kemp’s gib is: find against female complainants overall, irrespective of the evidence; but give them a wee sop to shut them up; and tell off the employer just a wee bit to remind everyone who’s in charge round here.

And no woman has ever had the money or backing or support to challenge such a Big Sond ruling before.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19868215.deeann-fitzpatrick-case-lies-litigation-image-shocked-world/

DeeAnn Fitzpatrick case: Lies, litigation and an image that shocked the world

Lies, litigation and a photograph that shocked the world

WHEN a photograph of a civil servant bound and gagged in her workplace first emerged in 2018, it provoked widespread outrage and condemnation…

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19868215.deeann-fitzpatrick-case-lies-litigation-image-shocked-world/

Mmmnotsure · 14/12/2025 13:30

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:17

Anyone in the room able to narrow down sex if the panel members, age range? Any data? PM if easier.

I’d they have to be TRA to not have checked or challenged the judgment. I am sure they waved through the legal quotations - but totally misunderstanding the Swedish study. Come on.

I think they were both women, and not young. But I can't promise my memory is correct on that.

CraftyRedBird · 14/12/2025 13:34

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:21

I’m a lawyer. Horrific with stats in general as most have an education of the arts. 🎭

But even I can pick their crap 💩 apart. Michelle in Kelly v Leonardo was terrible.

My parents are awful with stats. My age (millennial) all covered the basic in GCSE but older generation don't know the basics.

There's clearly scope for someone to do a course for lawyers.

That said there are concepts even those with advanced degrees tend to forget about like regression to the mean.

GallantKumquat · 14/12/2025 13:35

MyAmpleSheep · 14/12/2025 13:25

The EAT sits with lay members too, along side a High Court Judge.

Im curious what happens if the lay members overrule the Judge on what she knows the law to be. Does she have to write a judgment she disagrees with?

Edited

My understanding is that this is one of the reasons why dissents are rare and there is a concerted effort for results to be unanimous - nonunanimous rulings make life difficult for the judge - which of course gives an ideologically motivated dissenter considerable leverage. I'm curious what other's opinions are on this.

CraftyRedBird · 14/12/2025 13:37

The remedies hearing goes ahead whilst appeals are heard presumably? So Sandie should get compensation for the finding of harassment by NHS Fife whilst appeal goes through (I know ET isn't usually a lot in the grand scheme of things).

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:37

CraftyRedBird · 14/12/2025 13:34

My parents are awful with stats. My age (millennial) all covered the basic in GCSE but older generation don't know the basics.

There's clearly scope for someone to do a course for lawyers.

That said there are concepts even those with advanced degrees tend to forget about like regression to the mean.

So many lawyers need frequent training on so many things and I don’t think it’s there or considered as CPD so less motivation to do.

Like tech lawyers - they should know from hello world to data lakes. This is the AI problem. Where is your data going and where is it sourced from? So many people all over LinkedIn banging on about it without talking about safeguards, quality or sense checking. And here we are. Hallucinated horrors.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:39

CraftyRedBird · 14/12/2025 13:37

The remedies hearing goes ahead whilst appeals are heard presumably? So Sandie should get compensation for the finding of harassment by NHS Fife whilst appeal goes through (I know ET isn't usually a lot in the grand scheme of things).

Great question - I don’t know. Imagine Sandy turning up to say here’s X pounds for your harassment while everyone tries to keep a straight face.

Only Jane Russell will be glad to see him again. He’s the only person who has made her look in the range of normal since he went off the scale bat shit!

prh47bridge · 14/12/2025 13:40

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:21

I’m a lawyer. Horrific with stats in general as most have an education of the arts. 🎭

But even I can pick their crap 💩 apart. Michelle in Kelly v Leonardo was terrible.

Agreed. Barristers regularly misrepresent statistics because they don't understand them. Judges are no better. But looking at the wrong table when comparing offending rates between trans identifying men and women takes it to a whole new level.

Taking this judgement apart and correcting all the errors to come up with something coherent is a nigh on impossible task. We have hallucinated quotes, quotes edited to allow the tribunal to make findings that wouldn't fly if the full quote was included, findings of fact that are directly contrary to the evidence and so on. This is beyond saying that the tribunal got the law wrong and therefore we have to apply the correct law to the tribunal's findings of fact. This is so bad that I don't think the EAT should trust any of the tribunal's findings of fact or its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, especially since all the errors identified so far seem to go the same way. Whilst it is not good for SP, I am increasingly of the view that this will have to go back to be heard again by a different tribunal. I hope SP sticks to her guns and won't accept any settlement that doesn't involve complete capitulation.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 13:44

prh47bridge · 14/12/2025 13:40

Agreed. Barristers regularly misrepresent statistics because they don't understand them. Judges are no better. But looking at the wrong table when comparing offending rates between trans identifying men and women takes it to a whole new level.

Taking this judgement apart and correcting all the errors to come up with something coherent is a nigh on impossible task. We have hallucinated quotes, quotes edited to allow the tribunal to make findings that wouldn't fly if the full quote was included, findings of fact that are directly contrary to the evidence and so on. This is beyond saying that the tribunal got the law wrong and therefore we have to apply the correct law to the tribunal's findings of fact. This is so bad that I don't think the EAT should trust any of the tribunal's findings of fact or its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, especially since all the errors identified so far seem to go the same way. Whilst it is not good for SP, I am increasingly of the view that this will have to go back to be heard again by a different tribunal. I hope SP sticks to her guns and won't accept any settlement that doesn't involve complete capitulation.

Capitulation from both Fife and Upton.

And we know that won’t be coming.

Sandie is a powerful woman. She’s exposing the lies and corruption at every level.

At a personal level with Upton.
Employer level with Fife.
Justice isnt available to women a la Sandy Kemp.
Union level corruption denying women support.
Government level sitting on ECHR advice

There is no where for sex realists to be treated fairly. We knew it - this proves it.

On she goes will so much support around her. Ideally it wouldn’t have come to this - but it will be better in the end to have it exposed how crooked the ET judges are in this space.

ErrolTheDragon · 14/12/2025 14:03

CraftyRedBird · 14/12/2025 13:34

My parents are awful with stats. My age (millennial) all covered the basic in GCSE but older generation don't know the basics.

There's clearly scope for someone to do a course for lawyers.

That said there are concepts even those with advanced degrees tend to forget about like regression to the mean.

Does legal training still not include mandatory statistics?
I’d have thought after some of the more egregious cases (eg Sally Clarke) they’d have done something about it.

TheAutumnCrow · 14/12/2025 14:03

FallenSloppyDead2 · 14/12/2025 12:05

@Keeptoiletssafe Is there any direct evidence of the mixed-sex designs in schools directly contributing to the one-a-day school rape statistics?

Which links to the shocking rise in absenteeism in girls 2017-2024, which goes back to @Keeptoiletssafe’s point about how to get girls to go to school (build girls’ toilets).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/girls-school-absent-rise-agenda-alliance-b2794537.html

Analysis shows 257% rise in girls severely absent from school

Analysis shows 257% rise in girls severely absent from school

Charities say more support for girls in schools is needed

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/girls-school-absent-rise-agenda-alliance-b2794537.html

Mmmnotsure · 14/12/2025 14:04

Mmmnotsure · 14/12/2025 13:30

I think they were both women, and not young. But I can't promise my memory is correct on that.

@MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL
My memory is corroborated. Both women, middle-aged, nothing distinctive-looking about either of them.

prh47bridge · 14/12/2025 14:12

ErrolTheDragon · 14/12/2025 14:03

Does legal training still not include mandatory statistics?
I’d have thought after some of the more egregious cases (eg Sally Clarke) they’d have done something about it.

Certainly not for barristers. If you go to the criminal courts, you will still find statistical fallacies being presented such as arguing that, because something is unlikely to happen by chance, it must mean that the defendant is guilty - which is, of course, the argument that was used to convict Sally Clarke.

I don't know if the training to judges provided by the judicial college covers statistics, but from judgements I have read I have to say that, if it does, it isn't sinking in.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread