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

lol, if that had been working for me, I wouldn't have been complaining! That's what I usually do, which hasn't been working today for me. Never mind, X does strange things these days. (And thanks to modern engineering practices, it's not at all surprising when it does different things for different users at the same time, so while it can be helpful to talk someone through what to do, when it doesn't work it isn't always (l)user error.)

I wonder whether the paedophilia bit would have been better to focus on, but I suppose not as it would have been too easy to dispose of by saying that the witness wasn't really listening at that moment.

My concern about the eunuch stuff is partly that being as shocked as NC wants involves extrapolation. RCN didn't say "affirm little boys as eunuchs" it said something more like, respect children's gender identities, plus, one gender identity is "eunuch". So you have to go to the logical consequence to even have an idea of RCN saying you must affirm children as eunuchs. And even then, one response is "well, ok, but they say nothing about what that should mean. Isn't it just like, if a child in hospital says he's a train, you aren't going to go "no you're not" but rather "that's nice dear, choo-choo"?". RCN's whole position is shocking but I don't feel that's a particularly strong illustration of it.

I think it’s inherent in legal system - anti-SLAPP style. UK legal system probably doesn’t see itself in these terms but I think the parallels are clear.

I agree, it highlights the fact that either no one stopped to think and question what was being asked, or someone decided it was OK. Someone sat and typed the words out. Someone saved / circulated it.

The Executive was signing off in support of words she did not understand the meaning of and couldn't explain why she had done so.

Thank you for the c&p-ing from two sources.
Especially valuable to be able to follow NC's speech as it happened.
[In my head I keep thinking of it as 'NC's Speech from the Dock', as in Robert Emmet's😄]

It's great to hear Naomi outlining this as it will hopefully get picked up in the press.
But I have my fingers crossed for sandie- the stress of what she has gone through in recent years! She is so brave.

Perhaps it's caused by the superspeed processing inside her giant brain as she thinks of a hundred ways to discuss the subject succinctly, making the interior whirring of thousands of tiny cogs a bit distracting?

I loved how Naomi emphasised that GC/SR "beliefs" weren't a thing until recently, they were just facts. Also, I don't remember whether TT caught it but she said to the judge that she didn't have to decide whether gender ideology was worthy of respect in a democratic society but...

I don't think the judge likes Naomi though. I hope it's not because she's thoroughly GI herself.

I wonder will the text of NC's Speech from the Dock be posted on the Legal Feminist website, where there are a number of pieces by her?

Yes - that was very powerful. And highlights why so often the NHS is found to be failing when confronted by child abuse with medics displaying a worrying lack of professional curiosity about signs of child abuse.

❤️

Agree with the sentiment but Naomi wasn't in the dock!!

Also hoping NC's closing subs are published.

So pleased she highlighted Sandie's bravery 💜

I think she's gone too far tbh. Being gender critical is a protected belief in law, and it is illegal to discriminate against someone simply for holding these ideas. But NC seems to be trying to present the case that this (being GC) is not only a protected belief but in fact the correct way of thinking- the "facts" of the matter. And that any evidence that someone else doesn't hold the same beliefs, or that they might have different ideas/ values about sex and gender, is somehow in itself evidence of discrimination! Such a position is obviously not compatible with democratic values, nor is it law, and I hope the court will see through it for what it is

The judge may have felt harangued... obviously my reaction is tough shit, judge, it needed to be said so cowboy up, cupcake
but objectively it may have been too much, too long.
But there can be no doubt that NC demonstrated how a GC member was unlikely to get a fair hearing.
There's an old Yiddish saying:
'What will become of the sheep if the wolf is the judge?'
and I think NC has painted a picture of an organisation of lupines saying
'And how may we help you today, Nurse Sheep?'

I spent lunchtime wisely...

Rather belatedly, tweet from Nick wallis before lunch
NC
On p264 on th RHS - there is no report back on progress of tackling misogyny and sexism. It is consistent that sexism is not to be named - instead there are claims that sex is a spectrum, that there all sexes and genders - a delib attempt to dilute and blur sex as a cat in its own right - to diminish sex and its consequences. The wilful desire to turn the telescope to the blind eye shows the depth of misogyny and the evidence of the extent of R's toxicity in its commitment to GI. And its for all these reasons I would ask you to allow the C's claims.

I think DH is going to say "nothing to see here, SP got the support any other member would have, so the question of why she didn't doesn't even arise". Let's see.

I appreciated her highlighting the amazing ignoring/dismissal of law.

This is all founded in a belief built from the start of 'this is the RSOH, we enlightened and wiser will Do The Right Thing, and eventually the law will catch up with us'. Build it and the law will follow. That was the whole MO.

So when these cases come, they daren't openly state what they believe, what they are doing and why - they'd much prefer to look staggeringly incompetent than do so - but behind the scenes will be sad back patting and head shaking of we are right, and so oppressed, but one day the glorious day will arise where women and homosexuals no longer have rights, and adults do not question the desire of a child, probably guided by adults with significant issues, to have their perfectly healthy genitals removed .

To normal people it's utter batshit. Naomi is strongly illustrating how normalised and boiled frog it is, while also surrounded with menaces and severe penalties for not getting in line and embracing it.

She has done this many times before. It really is a question how long this can go on for before for example the minister of health says enough, obey the law, properly, now, or find another job.

They're coming back. If we have no volunteers to c&p I'll carry on but may disappear at the most thrilling moment, you have been warned...

I'll open the book for odds placed on

complicated
unclear
unsettled law
more guidance needed (always more guidance to the guidance)

I'll add, they were only trying to support the most vulnerable and marginalised...

I know😄
And also NC will not lose her head if the judge didn't like her speech, unlike
'bold Robert Emmet' did.
But NC's speech had a heroic ring to it, hadn't it?

DH starting now

Thanks! I'll take over if I'm around, but may also be in and out this pm