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

[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.

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

Proselytizing?
Just pointing out the law to him.
And she'd already raised it with the first respondent, who TOLD her to speak to Dr U (2nd R). Were they unable to imagine how that might go? (OR was that the plan, all along???).

The proselytising argument is where the judgement totally jumped the shark for me. I think everyone has accepted the CR incidence is a he-said-she-said incident with no witnesses but the accounts of the two people involved broadly agree on what was said, but opinions differ on whether it was offensive or not.

To describe Sandie’s stating of her position as proselytising in a one off, brief argument would also mean any woman one trying to get someone else to see their point of view would be similarly “guilty”. It’s word re-defining nonsense.

Regarding AI hallucinations. Last night I remember a book I'd read years ago. A sort of Watership Down but with badgers. I remember at the time it was published it was huge in the bookshops, tables covered with copies. I bought one and it was meh, didn't keep it. It seemed to have disappeared in the interim. The title was The Cold Moon, wasn't it? Or was it Moons? A quick Google didn't bring up anything relevant so I searched for 'the cold moon badger' which did get some hits (it was 'The Cold Moons' and it was a hyped but essentially meh book). The AI summary that automatically appears at the head of Google searches told me that the book is sometimes called 'the cold moon badger', a phrase i had literally just made up!

If Kemp used AI and didn't thoroughly check its output he is an idiot. If it was all his own work he is an idiot. There is no possible way that he could have written and published what he did that doesn't expose him as an idiot. Anything else wrt his motives is speculation; arrogant, idle, prejudiced. However, he is undoubtedly an idiot.

I had a similar experience on copilot yesterday. Without outing myself with the specifics, I had heard unofficially about someone being appointed in a new public role next year. I searched to see if there was an official annoucement: 'Mr A new Head of Organisation B' and the copilot answer was 'Mr A is the new Head of Organisation B' and gave 2 links as sources, neither of which confirmed this (one was an old annoucement about Mr A's existing role and the other was about the current head of Organisation B).

The more I use these LLMs the more stupid I find them to be. I actually miss old google.

What didn't ring true to me, and it still doesn't but maybe I am biased, is/was that we were led to believe that Sandie wasn't overly bothered by LGBTQIA stuff until encountering Dr U planning to change in the females nurses changing room.

I suppose Isla Bryson probably had a lot more publicity in Scotland, but for the average middle-aged nurse to give it more than a FFS (let alone to remember the actual name of the offender) seems a little unlikely. FWR board Mumsnetters, yes, but a busy Mum with a sick Dad?

The discussion about chromosones seemed even more unlikely. I don't think Joe public really started talking about chromosones, if at all, until the Paris Olympics (July/Aug '24) with the two boxers and that weightlifter causing contraversy. It is TRA speak; up there with the "are you suggesting we all have genital inspections when we want to pee?!"

It is a great shame that NC didn't have a stenographer at that point.

And by that argument Dr Upton was actively proselytising, by example, through his action of undressing in the Women's changing room.

See! I am a woman, just like you. And I have the exact same right to be here. TWAW, because if they weren't, someone would say something.

And all I hear is silence, which as a man I know means consent is given. I mean 'woman' of course. What am I like!

And all I see are a few bigoted women refusing to change until I leave, or loitering outside. Nurses can be so basic and primitive when it comes to biological sex. That article in Nature was brilliant; I am sooo female. My makeup and hair is better than theirs. It's just jealousy.

And rudeness must have consequences. I'll make copious notes to inform my brilliant, brave and much-needed complaint. Perhaps some NHS-Fife wide training is needed, Gendered Intelligence could do with the additional income. A few suspensions-then-sackings to set an example?

Scribble. Scribble. Ponytail toss.

I'm beginning to think the whole crazy situation is an AI hallucination. Gender ideology, NHS Fife, employment tribunals. Everything.

Even you lot. Even me. <runs off to take CAPTCHA test>

The more I use these LLMs the more stupid I find them to be. I actually miss old google.

I miss the old google too. Remember when you could use boolean search terms and actually get the results you were after? 'And' and 'Not' were small words but they made so much difference.

I have taken to ignoring to google AI response - it is completely wrong more often that it is right. But it takes a bit of hassle clicking on links to work out which so it is better ignoring it.

1017. The claimant’s comments in our view were broadly similar to cases where proselytizing which led to dismissal was held to be lawful and not discrimination because of religion or belief

This paragraph doesn't even make sense. What Kemp is trying to say is that the dismissal was lawful but what he actually says is that the proselytising was lawful.

Surely it is consistent for a busy mum and nurse to say ‘ffs’ and not give much thought to trans issues until confronted directly by them in her workplace? That doesn’t mean she would have missed all the headlines about the GRR bill, the front of page headlines about Isla Bryson, and other issues, just that she probably hadn’t realised the personal impact of them. They were certainly all over the Scottish papers, including with Nicola Sturgeon’s subsequent resignation. She is a nurse so chromosomes should be part of her vocab. And once confronted by the situation she is likely to have read up.

The reason most people have moved from positions of sympathy to ones of saying ‘no’ to trans issues is because it has moved out of the theoretical into the personal in their lives.

As for ‘LBGTQIA stuff’, her DD is ‘L’

I think the judge took the view that SP was making claims on the basis of her GC beliefs, and that if she had GC beliefs she would be at least aware of 'Isla Bryson' as it was such a big case, and the chromosomal differences between male/female.

He simply didn't believe her version. He also didn't believe her at another point when she stated that when she called DrU a 'weirdo' she only meant that he acted weirdly.

He just wasn't convinced by some of her evidence and that made him favour the other side - although the other side's evidence looks really dodgy to us!

As a paragraph it makes sense to me; you can be dismissed for proselytising about a faith in the workplace without it being religious discrimination.

What is means in this circumstance is that Kemp wants to ban women for standing up for their rights. It is a more modern version of ‘she was hysterical’

A long way further up the thread someone pointed out that there had been a couple of really nasty cases with children and women being abused by trans identifying people and then insisting on going to a woman's prison within 30 miles. Any woman who'd previously been abused would find those hard to forget, so the 'it's like the men in Scottish prisons' made sense.

The truth, sadly, is that Dr Upton wanted her to get undressed in front of him and acknowledge his womanliness. Her removing herself was wrong. Her wanting privacy was wrong. She was there to validate him and her not wanting to do it made it more of a target. I can think of quite a few words to describe that attitude and none of them are 'kind' or 'compassionate'

Put simply, if he wants to watch women undressing then he needs to go to Spearmint Rhino.

Absolutely, and also
'...and DrU wasn't proselytising? Explain that, Judge!'

I read it as an attempt to go for the 'women are free to believe there are only two immutable sexes, but expressing or manifesting those beliefs is 'harassment'' angle.

Which is a very TRA derived angle.

Yes, it’s such a wanky conceptualisation of a woman asserting her basic rights. Guess the panel agreed with Upton that there was no way she could have expressed her discomfort which would have been acceptable.

I agree that this is what Kemp is attempting to do but what he has written is actually saying the opposite. It was the dismissal that was lawful not the proselytising. What he should have written was something like this

1017. The claimant’s comments in our view were broadly similar to cases when proselytising occurred but dismissal was held to be lawful and not discrimination because of religion or belief

Tribunal tweets reporting from the EAT

EJ Kemp: ( overheard singing to Judge Fairley in HMCTS toilets )

This law is your law
This law is my law
Oh wait that's YOUR law,
No wait, it's MY law

But my Lord, you haven't even heard the chorus!

My mind was blown by the idea that stating facts amounted to trying to convert someone.

Can I retrospectively complain that whoever marked my maths 'O' Level was trying to 'proselytise' me by marking some of it as being wrong and not giving me a better grade?

The Duncton Chronicles (Duncton Wood was the first one, William Horwood)

Duncton Wood was about moles and, not my cuppa, far superior. The Cold Moons (sometimes called the cold moon badger 😃) was by Aeron Clement.

Am an idiot. Moles, not Badgers! Clearly think I'm in some sort of Wind in the Willows...

We know from July hearing that SP's team had paid for a transcript of the Feb court recording and NC intended to include a copy with her submissions. This came up when NC presented to Kate Searle something that DU had said in cross exam in Feb. JR began to raise an objection that she had seen no transcript, Kemp said they had already discussed it, and NC sounded delightfully smug when she said that "we paid for it" and that she would provide a copy to JR in due course.

There's was a niche bit of literature probably riffing on, inspired by or hoping to make money from the audience for Watership Down. I think the author of the Duncton Chronicles, or his publisher, might have been encouraged that there was a market for those stories and that helped get them into print. There were other stories of animals being animals, Joyce Stranger wrote a lot and I've got one called Kine about weasels a little more anthropomorphic.

Too often they're so anthropomorphic the characters might as well be teeny furries.

Eta sorry. I've gone completely off track. I'll stop now.