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

My impression is that NC was illustrating just how embedded GI is within the RCN.

NC gave PM and other witnesses the opportunity to say - with the benefit of reflection I can see guidance advising RCN members to affirm children who claim to be eunuchs is not appropriate. They didn’t because they have been indoctrinated to the point they don’t see a child wanting to be castrated as horrific.

WRT children learning about Eunuchs - surely in school they learn about castrato’s in music.

Noun vs. adjective, I think -

He was inimical to GC ideas; I am adminical to them. I am an adminicle of GC thought.

I think the reason NC keeps coming back to eunuch is because according to GI there's such a thing as Eunuch Gender. I think she's highlighting how absurd GI is and at the same time showing that a high up in the RCN has no problem with such a concept, even though someone from the Royal College of Nursing really should have.
According to my research the RCN was granted a Royal Charter in 1928 by King George VI, I think in 2026 King Charles III should ask for the charter back.

I think 'adminicle' sounds like a very small administrator. Perhaps covered in fur. Like these.
[I don't make these images myself, I recycle ones from the Bluestocking, or find them ready-made online]

About PM giving evidence about eunuch children. I couldn't see clearly enough watching the stream but I had the impression she was upset and might have been about to burst into tears. I took it to be not so much upset as frustration in that she knew she ought to say that affirming children in this identity is bad but also felt she couldn't because she'd been indoctrinated to never question a child's asserted unusual identity.

I think yes eunuchs is very sensationalist and that is why NC used it. It is an example that no reasonable person would agree with, the witnesses response shows how under the GI cosh RCN are because she didn't feel able to say of course she didn't agree.

I remember she clearly had a wobble at one point, but couldn't remember when, so it probably was as you say above.

@Boiledbeetle

That Hijra flag is ominously baby pink and blue, isn't it?

One might argue it's adminicle.

Stuart Fraser has been doing his job for 5 years so back in January 2024 he had only been in post a couple of years. He has no background in nursing or even in healthcare as he previously worked in customer services. All the above means that he was inexperienced in the NHS & also new to the role of a union rep. When he started his job he would have picked up on the fact that the NHS & RCN was in thrall to Gender Ideology so would have thought that TWAW & Sandie was a nasty transphobe for objecting to Upton in the female changing room. That's why he didn't clock that Sandie was the victim not the perpetrator. He thought that she was on a disciplinary for misgendering Upton & proceeded accordingly.

I think most normal people would just not believe there was a eunuch gender identity. I mean, it’s preposterous, isn’t it? But it’s out there in real time and the RCN bigwigs wouldn’t dismiss it as preposterous. Everyone knows there are paedophiles, but I bet it wouldn’t cross most people’s minds that there are people identifying as eunuchs.

I hope I’ve correctly put together two tweets from Nick Wallis

NC Finally I want to take issue with something DH said by way of intro - he said there were occasions in my submissions re shock hope and morals and urged you to decide on evidence. You do of course have to determine the claim on the evidence
But you bring your own experience to bear on the case and inevitably a judge brings their own moral compass. much of your function is to assess what is plausible, the motivations of someone. If you see a witness unable to confirm that affirming a eunuch ID of a little boy is extraordinary evidence because it is morally repugnant and you can take into account of that and the implausibility of a senior person that position is morally wrong. If PM cannot condemn that and say god knows how that got in there then something has very badly come unstuck and I think that thing is GI and not just with PM but across the whole healthcare sector.

That is a mike drop ending from NC.

Mention Paedo and some people go all PiE, or '15-year-old temptress', or 'depends on the age differential ', or it's too close to grooming gang politicalisations, or sympathy with 'involuntarily attracted...' ( I know irl ppl who express sympathy with that), but 'let's chop a kid's balls off just because they say so' takes some serious PR to justify.

I also think that the word causes such revulsion that many people sort of switch off if it's part of the conversation.

Thank you to everybody who's updated over the last few days - I don't think my blood pressure could have dealt with watching in real time. Now to catch up with today...

I take any tears from her as seriously as I took Paula Vennell's.

And maybe because if you take 'gender affirming care' to it's furthest conclusion, castration is pretty much what happens.

So it's preposterous as an idea on it's own but as part of affirming someone's gender it raises a distinct possibility for the future for a minority of people who identify as the opposite sex.

Well quite. I demanded a hysterectomy at 15 due to excessive, crippling period pain. The nurse gave me ponstan and said I wasn't old enough to make a decision re kids. Now it turns out I stuck to the decision, but she was absolutely correct to tell me that wasn't happening. And yet eunuch gender for kids???

I had a message from my GP earlier asking for a blood pressure reading and it was just not the right afternoon for it.

As PP said - if it was as slam dunk as DH seemed to hint, the RCN would have been able to produce at least 4 cases where they had supported GC union members to counteract the 4 cases where NC could produce witnesses who were not supported by them. As well as purple, white and green lanyards on sale.

Thanks so much to all the c&p'ers and analysts of proceedings, I've been dipping in and out and always too far behind to comment meaningfully, like the lanterne rouge, arriving breathless just as everyone else has scarpered off in a cloud of dust.

But it strikes me that with so many organisations that end up in these shitshows, RCN have completely lost track of what their real purpose is. Their version of inclusivity is absolute doublethink, and the whole eunuch fiasco is sickening.

Now off you all go again!

That's a good point. They had no cases where they'd supported a GC person.

Thank you to @nauticant and those able to C&P today. Sorry I could not help - I caught some of this morning's session but was out this pm so just catching up. Feels like the day has been quite a roller coaster. NC SP and the rest of the team must be exhausted.

That's a good point - and in addition, any mention of trans + kids can be met with 'Oh that's just 'will no-one think of the children' moral panic!' or
'Typical hate-fuelled transphobes, comparing transfolx to paedophiles..'

NC might have thought it better to come up with a different reference, and one that it was reasonable for anybody, let alone a rep of the nursing profession, to immediately say 'of course we don't endorse that!'

If NC had the choice of going more deeply into RCN's position on affirming paedophiles or eunuch-identifying children, and consciously chose the latter for the tactical advantages it would provide then she's even more clever than I took her to be.

And, yet, my recently voted in (early 20s male they/them) Green Party councillor campaigns for exactly that.

Any 'trans' Gillick-competent child should be given any 'gender affirming' medical treatment they want, including hormones and or surgeries, on demand without the need for any parental consent. Apparently.

Yes, I know, red flags from space.

I think the 'eunuch' thing was NC demonstrating (very well) how mindless the compliance was with gender ideology. BTW - eunuch came from WPATH guidelines.

So wedded to it that nobody even read through the public documents of the RCN for what we called in my org 'stupid shit we shouldn't say' (SSWSS). Before publication of a document, after all the proofreading, editing, wordsmithing someone with sufficient relevant knowledge who had not been involved had to read the document for SSWSS. Caught some howlers.

A bland statement about many genders or gender fluid should have been adequate for that publication. But no, they went with SSWSS.