Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

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 #60

1000 replies

nauticant · 16/12/2025 22:37

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
Thread 59: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5459115-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-59 12 December 2025 to 17 December 2025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
38
NebulousSupportPostcard · 30/12/2025 06:44

CarefulN0w · 29/12/2025 22:33

The lawyer daughter is an interesting thought. Did she help Dad put together the complicated judgement, I wonder?

Completely different area of law in different country. I don't think there's any reason at all to implicate her.

SqueakyDinosaur · 30/12/2025 07:15

NebulousSupportPostcard · 30/12/2025 06:44

Completely different area of law in different country. I don't think there's any reason at all to implicate her.

Also, the most likely Alexander Kemp on Companies House (b.1959) is listed as a director of Clyde & Co solicitors (retired) in Edinburgh, and no other appointments. The location and age fit, as does the legal profession.

Dancingsquirrels · 30/12/2025 07:18

Boiledbeetle · 24/12/2025 17:55

As Is Christmas eve...

Inspired by A visit from St Nicholas written by Clement Clarke Moore

A VISIT FROM DR DICK

‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the ward
Not a patient was stirring, not even the bored.
The stockings were worn by the man I'll call Bess
In hopes they'd go well with his after work dress.

The patients were settled all drugged in their beds
While visions of presents danced in their heads.
And Sandie was bleeding, right through her clothes
Had just had a flooding, which every lass loathes.

When in to the changing room Sandie did go
I heard she was met by a man who'd never heard no.
Away back through the door was not even a choice
Tore off her upset, and her discomfort did voice.

The man stood his ground and didn't back down
Gave poor Sandie a fright, the six foot tall clown.
When she told him his presence was not the done thing
“But I’m a woman, a lady, I'm a queen not a king.”

With his reasons so creepy and frankly quite odd
I know in my gut that he’s an AGP bod.
More crap from his mouth about how he'd the right
And he whinged and he whined late into the night.

“Now Sandie. Now Sandie. I'm a woman I am
On this I do swear I'm all woman, not man.
To the top of my head, to the tip of my willy
Now take off your clothes, and stop being silly.

As sure as the sun shines in the night sky
When up is now down. Now why would I lie?”
So up with his arms, as he took off his top
With a smile on his face, when his scrub bottoms drop.

And when he was finished Sandie tried to explain
The reasons beyond him, alas ‘twas in vain.
As he walked out the door she shook like a leaf
Down she sank to the ground in instant relief.

He was dressed in his scrubs when she'd gone to get changed
And was wearing his street clothes as words were exchanged.
A man that had been in no danger at all
And could have left at the start now started to bawl.

His eyes they were wet, his demeanour sooo sad
His mission right now, to paint Sandie as bad.
His self-righteous thinking, all the havoc he'd wreak
And that bloody witch, she’d wish she'd never dare speak.

The froth and the bile that would spill from his gob
And his aim in this all - to lose Sandie her job.
He had a phone full of contemporaneous notes
That helped him keep track of his lying and gloats.

He made up his notes about mean terfy Sandie
And saved them for when they might come in handy.
A twist of the knife and a tilt of his head
Soon all would bow down once gossip had spread.

He would show them who's boss, who's cock of the walk
And he’d close down the women, they’d now not dare talk.
And after he'd spoken to a female boss
And spewed out a load of his made up old dross

He was walked to his car to ensure he was 'safe'
And sent on his way, the poor little waif!
But I heard Sandie exclaim as he drove out of sight
"Happy Tribunal you arsehole, and to being proved right."

This is awesome. Well done !

MyThreeWords · 30/12/2025 07:24

NebulousSupportPostcard · 30/12/2025 06:44

Completely different area of law in different country. I don't think there's any reason at all to implicate her.

Agree. This kind of speculation, especially about private relationships, isn't really fair or helpful.

nauticant · 30/12/2025 10:24

For me, one explanation of the way Kemp has handled this is that it's his own manifestisation of the widespread response to the Supreme Court judgment. Effectively it's been rejected by the progressive Establishment and, without a great conspiracy being in place, everyone knows their duty: it is to ignore or even better thwart it wherever possible. His contribution to this overarching goal was to muddy the waters by mixing parts of the SCJ with his own made up stuff. This creates a real mess that will have a number of consequences:

  1. it will make any appeal far far more complex than it should have been;
  2. it provides cover to enable Stonewall Law still to be employed in many places thus diminishing the power and impact of the SCJ; and
  3. it stalls the implementation of the SCJ and buys time for the cavalry to arrive in the form of legislative change to render the SCJ moot.
OP posts:
OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 30/12/2025 10:57

In other words, bent as a dog's hind leg.

This agenda only thrives in muck. Honesty, transparency, ethics, accountability, all the basic principles on which law and a government are supposed to stand, all have been ditched for tranvestite men's desire to be with non consenting undressed women.

But in all honesty, if the SCJ is meaningless, and law and judgments are meaningless, we can all just stop worrying about saying no to men and telling them to get out of our spaces. The EqA is just more words on paper signifying nothing, and if everyone else is just doing what they want regardless, then women need to get with the zeitgeist.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 30/12/2025 10:58

We can stop paying a bloody fortune too for legal teams to sit for months in court rooms that ends in writing bollocks a sixth former could have got from AI in an afternoon.

NaomiCunninghamHasHadHerWeetabixAgain · 30/12/2025 10:59

In terms of next stages within this case, what is the date that papers, etc, have to be lodged to take this forward?

I do think the weight of pressure upon Kemp when it came to this case and all the publicity that went with it, must have been substantial to produce a 'nice' judgement for the trans folks. We're a small country and over the last few years, the Government have shown they have an almost Kafkaesque control over quangos, third sector, etc, that it's impossible to believe that this hasn't pervaded into the judicial process too. Yes, I'm that cynical about it, but having been exposed to Ministerial levels of the Scottish Government over recent years, I simply do not trust them one bit.

prh47bridge · 30/12/2025 11:42

NaomiCunninghamHasHadHerWeetabixAgain · 30/12/2025 10:59

In terms of next stages within this case, what is the date that papers, etc, have to be lodged to take this forward?

I do think the weight of pressure upon Kemp when it came to this case and all the publicity that went with it, must have been substantial to produce a 'nice' judgement for the trans folks. We're a small country and over the last few years, the Government have shown they have an almost Kafkaesque control over quangos, third sector, etc, that it's impossible to believe that this hasn't pervaded into the judicial process too. Yes, I'm that cynical about it, but having been exposed to Ministerial levels of the Scottish Government over recent years, I simply do not trust them one bit.

By my calculation, SP has until 19th January to lodge her appeal, 42 days after the judgement was issued. If the corrections are regarded as a substantive change to the judgement they will have reset the clock giving SP longer. However, it is not clear that the courts would agree that the changes are substantive and going past 19th January would give NHS Fife the opportunity to oppose the appeal on the grounds that it is out of time, so the safe thing is to stick to the original deadline in my view.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 30/12/2025 12:44

nauticant · 30/12/2025 10:24

For me, one explanation of the way Kemp has handled this is that it's his own manifestisation of the widespread response to the Supreme Court judgment. Effectively it's been rejected by the progressive Establishment and, without a great conspiracy being in place, everyone knows their duty: it is to ignore or even better thwart it wherever possible. His contribution to this overarching goal was to muddy the waters by mixing parts of the SCJ with his own made up stuff. This creates a real mess that will have a number of consequences:

  1. it will make any appeal far far more complex than it should have been;
  2. it provides cover to enable Stonewall Law still to be employed in many places thus diminishing the power and impact of the SCJ; and
  3. it stalls the implementation of the SCJ and buys time for the cavalry to arrive in the form of legislative change to render the SCJ moot.

Is the cost to judge Kemp minimal?

-- might have to stop being a judge?
-- close to retirement, so who cares?

-- lauded by the GI side?
-- muddies the water and delays the process of SC acceptance in Scotland?
-- loads up the GC side with more and more court time to get the SC ruling implemented?

Is there any process where Kemp may be personally sanctioned for his actions?

It seems to me that if judge Kemp is a GI believer then the cost to him for his actions may be relatively small.

SparklingCrow · 30/12/2025 13:09

A judge can’t even be personally sued (judicial immunity), only complained about and potentially ‘disciplined’.

I think there’s scope for an investigation into misuse of status by one of the Scottish newspapers or Wings Over Scotland, but it’s going to be a bugger of a task to find cold, hard evidence of deliberate bias (or worse).

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 30/12/2025 13:19

SparklingCrow · 30/12/2025 13:09

A judge can’t even be personally sued (judicial immunity), only complained about and potentially ‘disciplined’.

I think there’s scope for an investigation into misuse of status by one of the Scottish newspapers or Wings Over Scotland, but it’s going to be a bugger of a task to find cold, hard evidence of deliberate bias (or worse).

So if the judge and the panel are GI believers then this is a pretty good outcome for them.
They have put a stake in the ground with regards the 'facts' of the case that can only be changed with a new tribunal.
They have found in favor of both sides perhaps heading off claims of bias.
They have misinterpreted the SC judgment and so muddied the waters in respect of its implementation.
The have likely put back the implementation of the SC judgment by a year or more.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 30/12/2025 13:20

prh47bridge · 30/12/2025 11:42

By my calculation, SP has until 19th January to lodge her appeal, 42 days after the judgement was issued. If the corrections are regarded as a substantive change to the judgement they will have reset the clock giving SP longer. However, it is not clear that the courts would agree that the changes are substantive and going past 19th January would give NHS Fife the opportunity to oppose the appeal on the grounds that it is out of time, so the safe thing is to stick to the original deadline in my view.

I can't imagine that Ben and Naomi will get this wrong, if SP has locked and loaded them with permission to crack on.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 30/12/2025 13:28

I do think the judgement was reverse engineered to justify a conclusion that was reached based on something broader than legal analysis. The Tribunal determined the result it wanted and then Kemp attempted to crowbar authorities into the judgment to justify it.

I am not so downbeat about the judgement as some. It is so bloody awful that there is no scope for a nuanced debate on its merits. If it had been better written and merely questionable in its reasoning it would be harder to challenge because Kemp’s factual conclusions would stand. The volume of errors mean even the factual elements are potentially tainted. We have 3 versions of the judgement none of which can be relied on as some of the key corrections are impermissible under the slip rule. Nobody can say for certain what the judgement actually says at this point.

I think we may well end up with the EAT clarifying the legal interpretation which will have to align with the SC in FWS and then sending the case back for a new hearing. If the interpretation of the Equality Act in line with FWS is fixed by the EAT, I could see NHS Fife admitting at least some liability (especially given Kemp’s adverse finding on harassment) leaving Upton high and dry.

An EAT decision on the interpretation of the Equality Act in line with FWS would bind other ET. Employers would take note.

prh47bridge · 30/12/2025 13:31

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 30/12/2025 13:19

So if the judge and the panel are GI believers then this is a pretty good outcome for them.
They have put a stake in the ground with regards the 'facts' of the case that can only be changed with a new tribunal.
They have found in favor of both sides perhaps heading off claims of bias.
They have misinterpreted the SC judgment and so muddied the waters in respect of its implementation.
The have likely put back the implementation of the SC judgment by a year or more.

Judges are protected by immunity, as are witnesses and advocates. We don't want a situation where any aggrieved litigant sues the judge who found against them. However, immunity does not extend to criminal acts. If, for example, a judge accepted a bribe to find in favour of a particular litigant, immunity would not protect them.

Complaints against judges are dealt with by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Most complaints go nowhere as they are, in essence, litigants complaining that they lost. Where a judge is found guilty of misconduct, the penalties available are formal advice, a formal warning, a reprimand or removal from office.

If Kemp has used AI in preparing his written judgement, that is likely to be misconduct.

I am, by the way, unconvinced that the finding in favour of Sandie is sufficient to head off claims of bias.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 30/12/2025 13:43

prh47bridge · 30/12/2025 13:31

Judges are protected by immunity, as are witnesses and advocates. We don't want a situation where any aggrieved litigant sues the judge who found against them. However, immunity does not extend to criminal acts. If, for example, a judge accepted a bribe to find in favour of a particular litigant, immunity would not protect them.

Complaints against judges are dealt with by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Most complaints go nowhere as they are, in essence, litigants complaining that they lost. Where a judge is found guilty of misconduct, the penalties available are formal advice, a formal warning, a reprimand or removal from office.

If Kemp has used AI in preparing his written judgement, that is likely to be misconduct.

I am, by the way, unconvinced that the finding in favour of Sandie is sufficient to head off claims of bias.

Edited

If Kemp has used AI in preparing his written judgement, that is likely to be misconduct.

How would one go about proving this? The AI tools that indicate if a document is AI derived are themselves AIU derived - marking your own homework

Could a appeal tribunal ask judge Kemp to explain the errors in this judgement? Could they ask him directly if he used AI?

RogueFemale · 30/12/2025 13:52

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 29/12/2025 10:28

JM really puzzles me.
I understand that he has a ‘trans kid’, hence he must defend this bullshit to his dying breath.

But, is there possibly any point at which he’d say ‘ok…it’s over. We lost’?

Sally Hines is another one of those adults who inexplicably just won’t let it lie.
Does she have a ‘trans kid’, or is TRA bullshit just her blood group now??

If it were me, i think (after the SC judgment), i might hold my hands up and say ‘ok, it’s over’.
I dunno.🤷🏻‍♀️

Maugham is a grifter, it's that simple. Millions raised in crowdfunders from the gullible. See labourpainsblog.com/2025/05/27/lost-cause-the-crowdfunded-lawfare-of-jolyon-maugham-kc/

prh47bridge · 30/12/2025 13:54

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 30/12/2025 13:43

If Kemp has used AI in preparing his written judgement, that is likely to be misconduct.

How would one go about proving this? The AI tools that indicate if a document is AI derived are themselves AIU derived - marking your own homework

Could a appeal tribunal ask judge Kemp to explain the errors in this judgement? Could they ask him directly if he used AI?

No, the EAT will not ask Kemp to explain the errors in the judgement.

If there are complaints to the JCIO and they decide to investigate, it will be up to them to determine if AI was used.

RoyalCorgi · 30/12/2025 14:10

In a way, it doesn't matter if AI was used, does it? If Kemp didn't use AI, the alternatives are that he:

1 Made up the quotes himself
2 Asked for someone else's help, and that person made up the quotes
3 Copied the fake quotes from an existing source (which had in turn made them up or used AI to generate them)

None of those reflect well on Kemp. Each one makes him look at best lazy and at worst someone who has deliberately used false information in support of a judgement.

MarieDeGournay · 30/12/2025 14:15

RoyalCorgi · 30/12/2025 14:10

In a way, it doesn't matter if AI was used, does it? If Kemp didn't use AI, the alternatives are that he:

1 Made up the quotes himself
2 Asked for someone else's help, and that person made up the quotes
3 Copied the fake quotes from an existing source (which had in turn made them up or used AI to generate them)

None of those reflect well on Kemp. Each one makes him look at best lazy and at worst someone who has deliberately used false information in support of a judgement.

I am reminded of Samuel Johnson's
“My congratulations to you, sir. Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good. ”
😄

ProtectedlyInsufferable · 30/12/2025 14:30

A BTL comment in The Times when the first correction to Kemp’s judgement was reported was that SK was idle. The author twice within that comment called him a ‘chancer’. It was not clear whether they knew SK personally, but it sounded like it

ArabellaSaurus · 30/12/2025 15:44

I dont know, he's produced 300+ pages of botched judgment. Never mind the quality, feel the width!

MyAmpleSheep · 30/12/2025 15:56

ArabellaSaurus · 30/12/2025 15:44

I dont know, he's produced 300+ pages of botched judgment. Never mind the quality, feel the width!

I am put in mind of Blaise Pascal with “I have made this letter longer than usual because I have not had the time to make it shorter,”

ProtectedlyInsufferable · 30/12/2025 16:04

MyAmpleSheep · 30/12/2025 15:56

I am put in mind of Blaise Pascal with “I have made this letter longer than usual because I have not had the time to make it shorter,”

Oh, brilliant!

ILoveLaLaLand · 30/12/2025 17:11

ArabellaSaurus · 30/12/2025 15:44

I dont know, he's produced 300+ pages of botched judgment. Never mind the quality, feel the width!

He had to make it voluminous to make that judgement.
Probably thought he was on a par with Judith Butler for intellectual sophistry.
He's not and she's a complete fraud.

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