Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #64

[nauticant]

TLDR version: Sandie Peggie vs Royal College of Nursing is currently being heard. The hearing started on Wednesday 23 September 2026 and is scheduled to end on Thursday 1 October 2026.

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 were of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claimed 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 after a prolonged process judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025. That judgment is being appealed and an appeal hearing is expected to take place in 2027.

Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against the Royal College of Nursing, against three senior managers who were witnesses in the employment tribunal - Dr Kate Searle, Dr Maggie Currer and Esther Davidson, against Carol Potter, the chief executive of NHS Fife, for victimisation, against NHS Fife for discrimination, and against its director of people and culture David Miller for harassment. In addition, Sandie Peggie is being investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council over fitness to practice.

The past proceedings were live tweeted by www.x.com/tribunaltweets. Tribunal Tweets are likely to be providing coverage in current and future proceedings. There's additional information on Tribunal Tweets' substack: www.tribunaltweets.substack.com/.

Links to previous threads #1 to #60 can be found in this thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 61: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5472628-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-61 8 January 2026 to 3 August 2026

Thread 62: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5562302-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-62 3 August 2026 to 24 September 2026

Thread 63: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5581909-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-63 24 September 2026 to 27 September 2026

Can I just add about SP and her "allegedly" racist comments.

She copied a post made by someone else, into a private WA group of close friends who were all fellow nurses, after a disaster.

Black humour after disasters elsewhere is common in that sort of group, it's how we all cope with the literal and figurative shit we see day in day out.

Time for a reminder of the wise words of Andrea Dworkin:

"Feminism is a political practice of fighting male supremacy in behalf of women as a class, including all the women you don't like, including all the women you don't want to be around, including all the women who used to be your best friends whom you don't want anything to do with anymore. It doesn't matter who the individual women are."

I know what many of the men who post about how terrible Sandie Peggie is think about women they don’t approve of.

Puritan calls to puritan I guess.

Are you going through the whole thread to chastise everyone they've annoyed, or am I just special.

Absolutely. I will defend the sex-based human rights of all women. Female murderers. Trad wives. Female MRAs. Women who beclown themselves for men who call themselves women. Women who call themselves men. All women.

I do!

😱😰

I feel keeping them out of shot adds to the oh woe is me vibe.

SP indeed, but by extension no woman had/has a right to a changing room without being on view to men who want to be there. It feels like a ’they should just shut up, and put up?’

When NC mentioned to SF today, that it affected all women, he couldn’t even bring himself to look like he, and by extension the RCN, gave a crap. It just seemed to be so normalised for him to disregard the interests and rights of women. It didn’t occupy any space in his head; ‘bothering to consult women about how men in their changing room impacts them, no compute’.

He straightaway brought his, out of context, slogan statement that not all TW (men who claim to not be men, but women) are dangerous’. That had nothing to do with her question about women being consulted, because it impacted all women.

can I just say- as a woman, I don’t need you to “defend” me or to define my rights on my behalf. Your conception of “sex-based rights” is yours; it does not speak for me simply because I am female.

It has much the same flavour as an evangelical Christian telling me they’ll pray for my salvation whether I want it or not: it may feel righteous from your perspective, but it is profoundly presumptuous from mine.

Women are not a homogeneous group. We are perfectly capable of having different views about our rights, interests and solidarities, and of speaking for ourselves about what we believe those require.

And, with respect, your version of “feminism” seems to involve relentlessly mocking, dismissing, silencing and insulting women who disagree with you, often in misogynistic terms, while simultaneously claiming to defend them. I find that contradiction rather concerning.

Well you shill for men in wigs.

I do not feel a need to defend a “woman” when there is a waft of a scented nebulous concept in the air.

Your conception of “sex-based rights” is yours

Er no, it is not a conception it is fact. Sex based rights are, amazingly, based on sex and are clarified in various Laws and Statutes.

Aha exactly — there it is. “You shill for men…”suggests that I’m not expressing a genuine view of my own, but merely acting as a stooge for men.

It’s an oh-so-familiar, deeply sexist/ misogynistic way of dismissing women’s political, intellectual and moral agency, particularly when those women have the temerity to disagree with you.

A pretty revealing example of the kind of “feminism” I was talking about.

Oh @Lacksie work presentation you mentioned/school run/work. You are not helping anyone here.

We get it. You are not a TRA - your words. However you are desperately maintaining Dr Upton is female. He is a man. Rose Henderson is a man.

They maybe unhappy men or confused men but neither of them are women.

We can still treat them with respect and dignity but not reject reality. Neither could have a conversation about women’s biology. They do not have it.

but merely acting as a stooge for men.

Strangely enough that is exactly how TRAs and MRAs view women who are pushing the GI agenda, the nicest thing they have to say about the women who dub themselves allies to the trans identifying men cause is useful idiots. They view said allies with as much contempt as they view women who don't support their cause and they laugh at and mock their gullibility.

Oh well, statement stands.

Certainly there are plenty of people, across all sorts of ideological camps, who seem to find the idea that a woman might have political, intellectual and moral agency of her own remarkably difficult to tolerate.

I struggle to believe that anyone who thinks men can be women if they say so has intellectual agency.

Not special, no. Just the straw that broke the camel's back. I'd been sitting on my hands for pages and pages but eventually I just got fed up with the ongoing derailment and unpleasantness.

Women are not a homogeneous group. We are perfectly capable of having different views about our rights, interests and solidarities, and of speaking for ourselves about what we believe those require

Sure, but you don't get to give other women's rights away. You may not value them, but many of us do, and are fully alive to the dangers you are so blithely cavalier about.

I agree that we're not a homogeneous group. But that doesn't stretch to including larping men in that group. It does include transmen. For the obvious reason.

The thing is that rights don't depend on whether you want or need them. They're granted in law, and you can't surrender them - you either have them or don't, and they wouldn't be rights if you could give them up.

It's a bit like sovereignty: if you can give it up and not reclaim it then it was never yours. You might want to invite men into your changing rooms and toilets, but even if on one day you do so the next day you have the right to change your mind and nothing you say today can affect your right to do so tomorrow.

Incidentally, if anyone of any denomination wants to pray for me, feel free: I think that's rather sweet of them.

Incidentally, if anyone of any denomination wants to pray for me, feel free: I think that's rather sweet of them.

Me too. Recently I had people of several different religious demoninations asking if they could pray for me during a very difficult time, I was very touched they cared enough to do so and accepted their prayers to whichever God they worship with gratitude.

Yes, I view it (as a raging atheist) as lovely that they're thinking of me, and if that's the way they want to do it, crack on.

@Lacksie you say women are not a homogeneous group, which is very true, but you believe a man can “feel like a woman”. If women are not a homogeneous group, how would a man be able to know what a woman “feels like”?