Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #66

[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

Thread 64: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64 27 September 2026 to 29 September 2026

Thread 65: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583663-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-65 29 September 2026 to 30 September 2026

Not trying to stop you posting, but could you wait until lunch? No one wants a discussion right now.

From TT:

You may feel that someone's moral compass has been distorted if can say that if a little boy ID as a eunuch not necesary to trigger a safeguarding question about who has encouraged this and protect them. The spectacle of an org like RCN to affirm this is telling just how bad this is

PM asserted not sufficiently expert to have a view I asked her do you have a view ... put to her first that even children had to be affirmed. I asked did she have a view and she said no. I asked again and a third time whether she had a view if a child asserts a eunuch ID

from Nick

[NC mentioning the eunuch thing again] You may feel that anyone who's moral compass hasn't been distorted beyond recog by GI may be able to see that if a little boy says he IDs as a eunuch the first thing to do is raise the most urgent safeguarding concerns
and find out where he got that idea from. The idea the RCN says it should affirm the eunuch ID of a child is one of the most telling illustrations of just how damaging this GI can be and just how it can distort clinicians and others sound instincts about safeguarding and their moral compas

I put the eunuch point to two witnesses. Neither felt able to say even with hindsight it was shocking. PM [yesterday's witness] said she wasn't sufficiently expert to say she had a view

NC:WE are hear in Dundee because SP's first tribunal was meant to be in Edin but there was a threat against me for misgending DU and the judge for allowing me to.

But it’s good that shes backing up general claims with so many specific examples.

from Nick

NC
I tried three times. Eventually she said "I don't know. I can't answer". Now that paralysis - that moral paralysis from PM is an indication of the vigour and violence of GI that it should be capable of causing sufficient fear in someone as senior as PM that affirming a child as a eunuch is clearly wrong. Anothing thing you don't have to decide in this tribunal is whether GI is WORIADS.

@Lacksie this is the final day of this momentous tribunal. Perhaps start a separate thread for the discussion points you have posted. Said with kindness nothing else.

For many of this this summation by NC is vitally relevant.

In my view this shows that NC is doing two things here. She's arguing Sandie Peggie's case but also presenting gender ideology under harsh sunlight for the media to pick up. Unlike normal ETs, this also has a campaigning aspect.

Maybe it shows that adherents won’t condemn what amounts to child abuse - castration. Also, it seems, no judgement around paedophilia seems to signal you’re a good congregant. At least, not to condemn it outright as child sex abuse. No ifs, and no buts.

This thread is to discuss the tribunal no?

From TT:

And she said she had no view.

PM moral position is evidence of power of GI, that it should be capable of inducing fear in someone as senior, to question eunuch gender in child

1043 blog post about RCN delegation to Northern Pride, delegates draped in PP. NP agreed this evidence of support.

Posts promoting access to PBs. Medical treatment of Gender Distress in children a flash point but this post is supportive.

It's an ET not a trail, don't speak while NC is speaking, and if you do take a big

SHUSH

It isn’t a trial @lacksie It is a tribunal.

Yes I had already corrected.

Today we are just following the closing statements. Discussion will follow. There is too much packed into these statements to discuss concurrently and the statements will get lost in the discussion for people coming to it later, after work for example.

from Nick (not copying over every post, just where detail may be helpful as well as tt)
NC:Then we have the search of the RCN's website which has 2 mentions of GC, 170 of TG and 60 of LGBTQ - using that expression declares a position on GI - because GC people don't believe that T or the other letters have anything to do with sex orientation - rather than essence

From TT:

Disproportion of posts about LGBTQ and the fact that use of this acronym is itself contested by some GI, and that sex orientation is akin to gender expression

LGBTQIA+ is a term contested

Post about protection fails to cite Forstater as a protection for GI members, as opposed to JGM post about Jaguar providing protection to Trans members

There are other people allowed to discuss things without being told to SHHHH.

@nauticant that's what's worrying me a wee bit, its a bit more campaigning than you would expect from a tribunal and I worry it might go against Sandie.

In my former CS department, the inclusion of pronouns in a signature was almost always followed with a hyperlink to ‘educate’ the uniformed reader as to why pronouns are important which of course was all about making trans identified colleagues feel comfortable about sharing their gender identity. It was virtue signalling at its best (or worse).

I've started a couple of posts but deleted them, to keep the focus on what's being said.
I did my own Shushing

I can't see Naomi only needing 2 hours!

From Nick
NC
Nothng has been shown to you about training for RCN members on Forstater. Nothing about Higgs and nothing that encourages officers and activists to understand that

Forstater provides powerful protections for a lot of its members. PM accepted that 60% of general public in 2024 didn't think that TiMs should be allowed access to F changing rooms and she accepted too

Gillian Tait didn't feel able to accept that at least a substantial minority of nurses would believe sex was real and matters. She was able to make those assumptions in case of obvious common sense propositions which didn't contradict GI, but couldn't when it did.

Really appreciating the Nick Wallis and TT c+ps. I'm locked out at the moment having tried to come in late. It's gripping stuff just going from my reading.

Thank you one and all.

Lots locked out, so it's not you it's them.

From TT:

Note that nothing shown to you about training or RCN officers how to use Forstater to defend members nor to fact that belief and manifestation. Nothing about Higgs, and how provides protections for quite a lot of members.

Note PM accepted polling data that 60% of UK public say no men in women spaces in 2024, and GT didn't feel able to accept that should be obvious that at least a substantial minority of nurses would believe that they would agree. Common sense proposition not accepted despite that she agreed others like vax effectiveness and round earth would be.