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 #61

882 replies

nauticant · 08/01/2026 19:40

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 #60 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 60: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5461133-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-60 16 December 2025 to 8 January 2026

OP posts:
Thread gallery
42
KTheGrey · 22/01/2026 08:40

ArabellaSaurus · 22/01/2026 08:11

Exactly. The class aspects are screaming here. The professional classes - doctors, judges, etc - are protected.

The class also intersects with sex.

Male judge, male.doctor, male special identity person.

Female nurses, working class, monstered, labelled, and written off as unworthy of having rights.

The NHS were very firm and clear that the paedophile Jennifer Melle treated must have his rights respected. Rose must have his rights respected. Dr Upton must have his rights respected.

But a nurse? Her rights are insignificant. Whether she's dealing with heavy periods, trauma history from sexual abuse, or racist abuse from a convicted criminal and sex offender, any objection on her part reveals she is a bigot and must be condemned and attacked and smeared and disciplined and probably sacked.

Service humans. Must obey men's diktats. Its a wonder we're not all out on the streets smashing things up.

Your analysis is frightening and infuriating in equal measure.

I also wonder how come we are not on the streets smashing things up. I have concluded that it’s because women continue to negotiate and advocate rather than resort to affray, even in an era where improvements in weaponry would wipe out the problems of relative physical weakness. And this is better for outcomes in the end.

ArabellaSaurus · 22/01/2026 08:50

Women are too sensible to smash things up, as a very sweeping generalisation. We know it'd mean some other poor sod clearing it up afterwards

ArabellaSaurus · 22/01/2026 08:55

The judge, the NHS lanyard class, the Unions, all agree that women's rights are subordinate to men's. Especially when that man has gone as far as changing his name and declaring his special identity.

Women have had to fund out of our own pockets the court cases - take the fucking government to court - three times! Women risked their jobs and wellbeing and shared details of their private beliefs, intimate medical histories, traumatic abuse histories. Theyve had their photos splashed all over the news and characters picked over and questioned.

The special men? Just a gentle chat about pronouns.

They still win.

MyThreeWords · 22/01/2026 08:57

I loved Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. I can't even remember there being footnotes (though I know I will have read them) so I guess they must have felt pretty seamless and unannoying. My favourite novel for brilliant use of footnotes is The Third Policeman (of course!!).

ArabellaSaurus · 22/01/2026 08:58

At this point I could not give two fucks about Scottish independence. You think any woman with a brain wants to live in a country as a second class human? Constantly told by every insritution and politician to be quiet and be kind while men are free to do whatever they please?

The only thing preserving Holyrood at this point imo is the equally shit calamity of the Westminster Boys Club.

MeltedSunshine · 22/01/2026 09:14

I’ve seen people agree the SNP are horrific but vote for them for independence. They say they would drop them after that. But they would never be able to be dropped - their (and Green) sticky fingers would be throughout any government setup, any constitution. Freed from Westminster they would no doubt seek to write self ID into a constitution. That is without considering their general incompetence.

Igneococcus · 22/01/2026 09:33

MeltedSunshine · 22/01/2026 09:14

I’ve seen people agree the SNP are horrific but vote for them for independence. They say they would drop them after that. But they would never be able to be dropped - their (and Green) sticky fingers would be throughout any government setup, any constitution. Freed from Westminster they would no doubt seek to write self ID into a constitution. That is without considering their general incompetence.

I hear people saying similar things, that other politicians will be in charge after independence, much better ones and I just don't get this argument. Where are those talented politicians now? We could do with some talented people in government or Holyrood now, why are they not getting involved now?

moto748e · 22/01/2026 10:55

And yet, despite the fact that, as @ArabellaSaurus says, the class aspects are screaming, somehow 95% of the Left (including the useless unions) manage to support the boss class against the workers. To put it in Spartist terms. 😁

MeltedSunshine · 22/01/2026 11:01

moto748e · 22/01/2026 10:55

And yet, despite the fact that, as @ArabellaSaurus says, the class aspects are screaming, somehow 95% of the Left (including the useless unions) manage to support the boss class against the workers. To put it in Spartist terms. 😁

Animal farm

Wackdemmoles · 22/01/2026 12:15

Opinion piece in The Courier

SEAN O’NEIL: Judiciary risks losing public trust with Sandie Peggie NHS Fife secrecy on AI claims
"A public exploration and explanation of the facts seems like the only fair way to proceed."
The tribunal brought by nurse Sandie Peggie, pictured, led to a secrecy row. Image: DC Thomson.
By Sean O'Neil
January 22 2026, 6:02am
Trust in our judiciary is key for a civilised society and – as with all our cornerstone institutions – that trust is built on transparency.
In the wake of the Sandie Peggie versus NHS Fife employment tribunal, that trust has been seriously questioned.
The error-strewn ruling on the tribunal raised a lot of eyebrows, and on current count, warranted 12 corrections.
Perhaps, in a case which has stirred so much debate and controversy, it was inevitable that the long-awaited judgment would not be the end of the discussion.
What has been a surprise however, is the concern that Artificial Intelligence (AI) may have been used to draft the document.
These suspicions are born in those corrections, the inclusion of bogus quotes and misidentified campaign groups.
AI questions rebuffed without answer
Within days of the ruling by Judge Sandy Kemp, talk was swirling that AI had been used by the tribunal chair.
It was the only explanation for some that would allow for the sheer number of gaffs in such an important document.
The Courier put these questions to the judiciary, multiple times. And each time we were stonewalled.

NHS Fife nurse Sandie Peggie, left, and Dr Beth Upton.
It was proclaimed that the judiciary could not comment on such things.
And so the rumours of AI’s usage were allowed to grow, even reaching the debating chamber in Holyrood where Justice Secretary Angela Constance was put on the spot.
Again the judiciary said it could and would not respond.
But now things have changed.
Private letters trump transparency
It would appear that the president of employment tribunals in Scotland, Judge Susan Walker, has carried out an investigation and concluded that no AI was used.
But was this information presented to the press, to the public? No.
It was divulged in a private letter to a former lawyer who had raised his own concerns.
Forget public accountability, it is only when members of the legal profession enquire about what the hell has gone wrong that any answers are forthcoming.
And even then only half a story is told.
Because while Judge Walker has decided that AI was not used to draft the ruling, the source of one of the major corrections is batted away as being the fault of an unnamed “judiciary colleague”.

NHS Fife tribunal judge Sandy Kemp.
How the other 11 mistakes ended up in there remains anyone’s guess.
Sex Matters, the campaign group backing Sandie Peggie, called for a public review of the decision.
Given the severe lack of clarity on how the mistakes in the ruling were allowed to transpire, a public exploration and explanation of the facts seems like the only fair way to proceed.
NHS Fife refuse to be forthcoming
This employment tribunal has been mired in secrecy from the start, which is not good enough for any case, never mind one with such national attention.
Today, The Courier exclusively reveals how NHS Fife refused to give out information more than 40 times when asked through freedom of information laws.
The health board has had a “level 4” intervention placed on it by the Scottish Information Commissioner – the highest measure available to the watchdog.
The judiciary, and the justice system at large, must hold itself to a higher standard.
It cannot fall foul of the same lean towards secrecy and obfuscation.
It cannot be found wanting in that regard – the trust of the public relies on it.

Sandie Peggie backers demand public probe over NHS Fife tribunal ruling as blunders blamed on staff member

A campaign group backing nurse Ms Peggie’s fight against her employer say further investigation is needed after 12 corrections were made to the decision.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/5415383/nhs-fife-tribunal-review-call/

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 22/01/2026 12:33

ArabellaSaurus · 22/01/2026 08:11

Exactly. The class aspects are screaming here. The professional classes - doctors, judges, etc - are protected.

The class also intersects with sex.

Male judge, male.doctor, male special identity person.

Female nurses, working class, monstered, labelled, and written off as unworthy of having rights.

The NHS were very firm and clear that the paedophile Jennifer Melle treated must have his rights respected. Rose must have his rights respected. Dr Upton must have his rights respected.

But a nurse? Her rights are insignificant. Whether she's dealing with heavy periods, trauma history from sexual abuse, or racist abuse from a convicted criminal and sex offender, any objection on her part reveals she is a bigot and must be condemned and attacked and smeared and disciplined and probably sacked.

Service humans. Must obey men's diktats. Its a wonder we're not all out on the streets smashing things up.

Great post. Spot on.

Look at what these women have suffered and are expected to suffer vs what has happened to the men.

If anyone thinks Afghanistan is an aberration. As we've horrifically seen in Iran and Afghanistan, progress on women's rights isn't always just in one direction. Our rights ARE going backwards in the UK.

This is why we HAVE to fight every little incursion. It's why the trans identified men taking over women's spaces MATTERS. At the moment most men in the UK ARE decent men, they ARE in favour of women having human rights, what would happen if the culture changed? If women being forced to strip of in front of special men as a condition of employment was seen as acceptable?

Maybe we should all strike until female nurses are treated equally to 'Rose'. I also note not much has been made of the fact apparently there's a trans person in Darlington who didn't use the wrong-sex changing room but changed separately, without any fuss. That trans person appears to find this fine, it says something about Rose (that he wants access to unconsenting women's bodies, not the changing room IMO) that he can't follow suit.

ProtectedlyInsufferable · 22/01/2026 12:49

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 22/01/2026 12:33

Great post. Spot on.

Look at what these women have suffered and are expected to suffer vs what has happened to the men.

If anyone thinks Afghanistan is an aberration. As we've horrifically seen in Iran and Afghanistan, progress on women's rights isn't always just in one direction. Our rights ARE going backwards in the UK.

This is why we HAVE to fight every little incursion. It's why the trans identified men taking over women's spaces MATTERS. At the moment most men in the UK ARE decent men, they ARE in favour of women having human rights, what would happen if the culture changed? If women being forced to strip of in front of special men as a condition of employment was seen as acceptable?

Maybe we should all strike until female nurses are treated equally to 'Rose'. I also note not much has been made of the fact apparently there's a trans person in Darlington who didn't use the wrong-sex changing room but changed separately, without any fuss. That trans person appears to find this fine, it says something about Rose (that he wants access to unconsenting women's bodies, not the changing room IMO) that he can't follow suit.

Have you seen how Jennifer Melle was treated? Not only working class but black!
Trans patient nearly headbutted me, says nurse in misgendering row

https://www.thetimes.com/article/5fc204c1-8a7a-4609-927b-bb894e137f43?shareToken=41aaa2d85c94de0ce7c75f3d8724e1af

Edited for typo

JustTryingToBeMe · 22/01/2026 12:51

prh47bridge · 20/01/2026 13:19

Having given this some thought, I agree.

The following are classed as judicial misconduct:

  • Bullying or harassment, for example of staff, colleagues, litigants, or legal representatives
  • Using racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language
  • Loss of temper/rudeness/aggression, for example shouting
  • Misusing judicial status, for example to try to influence another person or organisation for personal gain
  • Misusing social media, for example posting offensive content, or content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality such as remarks about government policy
  • Failure to report personal involvement in civil, criminal, or professional disciplinary proceedings
  • Delay in issuing a judgment (The general threshold for when the time taken to complete a judgment may raise a question of misconduct is that the period since the conclusion of the hearing or trial exceeds three months. Some courts/tribunals have different target timescales)
  • Delay in dealing with an application - usually considered to be a delay, without a reasonable excuse, of more than three months. The complainant must first establish that the court have processed the application and placed it before the judge.
  • Falling asleep in court

The following are not classed as judicial misconduct:

  • Bias in a judge’s decision-making
  • A judge allowing one party to speak for longer than another
  • A judge refusing to allow a witness to give evidence or admit certain documents
  • A judge appearing to react more favourably to one person’s evidence than another’s
  • Delay in dealing with an application where the complainant has not established whether the court have processed the application and placed it before the judge.
  • A judge saying that he or she does not believe a person’s evidence, questioning a person’s credibility or criticising a person’s actions
  • A judge making an error of law or procedure
  • A judge expressing opinions about issues related to a case they are hearing
  • The amount of costs or damages awarded by a judge
  • A judge not reading documents before a hearing
  • A judge refusing to transfer a case to a different judge or court
  • A judge reserving a case to themselves
  • A judge refusing to correspond with a party about a case

They may raise questions of competence, but they are not misconduct.

Kemp got the law wrong in my view. That is not misconduct. He has misused the slip rule. Again, that is not classed as misconduct. The hallucinated quotes are the only thing I think could be classed as misconduct. Regardless of the source, he should have checked them. But even then, I suspect this would be regarded more as a question of competence than misconduct, although I think there is an inconsistency here in that barristers using hallucinated quotes are likely to be referred to their regulator.

“• Misusing judicial status, for example to try to influence another person or organisation for personal gain“
if Kemp isn’t guilty of misconduct, does this mean that the judge who provided the information is? There seems to be an argument that they swayed Kemp’s judgement for their own personal gain; possibly because they are captured by the ideology or worse still, in the pocket of the lobby.

ProtectedlyInsufferable · 22/01/2026 13:06

JustTryingToBeMe · 22/01/2026 12:51

“• Misusing judicial status, for example to try to influence another person or organisation for personal gain“
if Kemp isn’t guilty of misconduct, does this mean that the judge who provided the information is? There seems to be an argument that they swayed Kemp’s judgement for their own personal gain; possibly because they are captured by the ideology or worse still, in the pocket of the lobby.

I think it’s been mentioned before, but it is surely misconduct to subvert the disclosure of the personal interest requirement by interfering in a case you are not trying. Whether you have a personal interest or not, it means parties don’t know who they’re dealing with.

prh47bridge · 22/01/2026 13:22

ProtectedlyInsufferable · 22/01/2026 13:06

I think it’s been mentioned before, but it is surely misconduct to subvert the disclosure of the personal interest requirement by interfering in a case you are not trying. Whether you have a personal interest or not, it means parties don’t know who they’re dealing with.

If Kemp asked another judge for advice on how the relevant law stood or help explaining the relevant law, that is (or should be) independent of the facts and is not misconduct. If another judge decided to interfere without being asked, that is another matter.

prh47bridge · 22/01/2026 13:24

JustTryingToBeMe · 22/01/2026 12:51

“• Misusing judicial status, for example to try to influence another person or organisation for personal gain“
if Kemp isn’t guilty of misconduct, does this mean that the judge who provided the information is? There seems to be an argument that they swayed Kemp’s judgement for their own personal gain; possibly because they are captured by the ideology or worse still, in the pocket of the lobby.

"Personal gain" generally means financial gain or similar. Advising another judge on what you believe the law says on a particular subject is not misconduct even if you get it wrong. However, inventing quotes to support your view may be misconduct.

JustTryingToBeMe · 22/01/2026 13:26

prh47bridge · 22/01/2026 13:24

"Personal gain" generally means financial gain or similar. Advising another judge on what you believe the law says on a particular subject is not misconduct even if you get it wrong. However, inventing quotes to support your view may be misconduct.

Thank you for clarifying; I suppose I was thinking of “personal gain” in the sense of supporting a cause that they were invested n, not necessarily financially byt perhaps emotionally.

TriesNotToBeCynical · 22/01/2026 13:32

prh47bridge · 22/01/2026 13:24

"Personal gain" generally means financial gain or similar. Advising another judge on what you believe the law says on a particular subject is not misconduct even if you get it wrong. However, inventing quotes to support your view may be misconduct.

If the judgment draft had originated in the headquarters of DC Thomson then the tactic of deliberately doing your homework wrong so another kid could copy it and be shamed would make entire sense.

ProtectedlyInsufferable · 22/01/2026 13:38

prh47bridge · 22/01/2026 13:22

If Kemp asked another judge for advice on how the relevant law stood or help explaining the relevant law, that is (or should be) independent of the facts and is not misconduct. If another judge decided to interfere without being asked, that is another matter.

And if they were asked but deliberately distorted the law for ideological reasons thinking he wouldn’t notice?

MarieDeGournay · 22/01/2026 13:49

All of the above posts show how important it is to have the 'judicial [but not judicious] colleague' identified, in order to gauge what their motives were, whether they were advising from a position of ignorance or ideology, their relationship to Kemp, their status in the justice system, etc.

Most of all, it's so that they don't, under the cloak of anonymity, get a gig in some similar case and their wrong/biased opinion skews their judgement.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 22/01/2026 13:55

ProtectedlyInsufferable · 22/01/2026 13:38

And if they were asked but deliberately distorted the law for ideological reasons thinking he wouldn’t notice?

Correctly thought he wouldn't notice - he clearly didn't notice!

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 22/01/2026 14:02

I'm less and less convinced that the law is working in any meaningful way for the majority of the population. And particularly not for women.

DabOfPistachio · 22/01/2026 14:05

I still want to know how these quotes ended up being incorrect. If it wasn't AI, did someone just send them to him from memory? From another (incorrect) source? Why weren't they checked? It seems he took them as verbatim.
And if this mystery incorrect source is being used to consult before making judgments, how do we know its not influenced other judgements?
At this point, using AI almost seems like the better excuse.
Because without it, I can't see how that level of error could happen without both extreme incompetence and undue influence from somewhere else.

HildegardP · 22/01/2026 14:07

prh47bridge · 22/01/2026 13:24

"Personal gain" generally means financial gain or similar. Advising another judge on what you believe the law says on a particular subject is not misconduct even if you get it wrong. However, inventing quotes to support your view may be misconduct.

Sure, personal gain's confined to the financial but don't judges have an obligation to disinterest that goes beyond financial advantage?

ArabellaSaurus · 22/01/2026 14:07

The law is all about words, isnt it. Either words matter or they dont. The judge here effectively made up the law. I'm angry while also feeling sorry for the daft man.