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

I watch everything with Sub titles on where possible and they can be a bugger for giving the punchline of jokes away too soon!

TT

NC: [ref] this is RCN code of conduct. "Inclusive of all members". FW attending your events is not going be be inclusive of any female member is it?
PM: Certainly if that conduct happened at any event of ours we'd take action.

NC: CoC says, ppl must be aware of reputation of RCN and conduct selves accordingly.
PM: It talks about ppl standing for office, it says somewhere - [is reading to locate section I think]

PM: Talks of taking action around members standing for office, but, re other ppls / situations we might judge but doesn't say we'd take action.

I think PM trying to spin quasi-legal wording to the panel while being cross-examined by NC isn't a winning strategy.

Especially when Naomi won't stop banging on about Fred!!

TT

NC: Opening paragraphs are very clear they apply to all members surely?
PM: It's fair to refer to the CoC in terms of knowledge we know have, but, it's not RCN role to monitor all members.

NC: Given this material, RCN v keen to keep out of tribunal, one of the things FW did when he sent out that material he tagged a disabled woman whose gender-critical stance is primarily bcs of her need for same sex intimate care?

PM: Didn't know that no, I don't know the person.

TT

NC: And see p50, answer to Helen Staniland. Is there anything s/o could do in their public lives to make you review their membership, their professional body membership and report maybe?

PM: We to date wouldn't basically, no, outside ppl standing for election, but it's very interesting to consider that position in light of this.

TT

NC: RCN did report Dave Dawes in the end?
PM: Yes, but I don't know many details about that.

I’m copying what rightspator said from the last thread as I think it’s such an important point.

Rightsraptor · Today 12:55

So this woman is a nurse of some standing yet she won't judge paedophiles or those to ID as babies or children. I do wonder what she'd advise when asked if those men should be placed on a children's ward as that was what they were requesting? And how she'd view the reactions of the parents of the children on the ward?
^^
There are times when judging someone is not only the right thing to do but the necessary thing to do.

I used to believe ’inclusivity’ was a good thing and consenting adults and all that.

Until men, and it is largely men albeit supported by too many handmaidens, took this to mean that they can do whatever they want, go wherever they want, and there will be no repercussions for any of their outlandish, harmful, paraphilia behaviour. In fact, they will be fucking applauded for being their authentic selves. And any woman who suggests that this behaviour ought not to be included is demonised, called a Karen, or pearl clutching or a dinosaur. Subject to a punishing process including being arrested or investigated or harassed by those wonderfully inclusive virtue signallers. This woman is a prime example of this attitude "not for me to judge". Yes it fucking is. Grrr.

Is it too extreme to see a connection between her ‘never judge’ attitude and the case of this poor poor 20 year old subjected to gang rape at Cornell University? Young women are being told that vanilla sex is so boring, that they should be up for whatever goes, that they shouldn’t judge their male peer’s behaviour, and they should be inclusive and accepting of men in their sports teams, their locker rooms, their changing rooms and any single sex spaces.

When will this change?! I actually feel a bit despairing today. Though NC’s cross examination is cheering in having her set out so clearly how the RCN was so busy being inclusive of trans identifying men that they did not give one single thought to women.

Interesting to see PM be manoeuvred by NC into very very reluctantly having to defend Wallace and his extremely dodgy and concerning behaviour.

Her constant, I don't knows, are infuriating to listen to.

Most unions have a broad catch all " bringing the union into disrepute" clause. so that you can get rid of pretty well anyone if needs be,
I'm sure Wallace could have been thrown out quite easily had they put their minds to it.

Oh screaming now.

I thought PM said she didn't judge.

To be fair Fred and eunuch questions would fry most people's brains!

The problem they have is that having not thrown out Wallace before, they can't now say in the hearing that they'd want to throw him out now.

It's not even as if evidence would be hard to find!

No view. Not an expert. Don't know.
How much is this woman paid?

TT

NC: p14 of the 'trans patients' doc we looked at earlier.
NC: Says 'gender identity' is sense of being a man, woman and then others - genderqueer, eunuch. This is an extreme expression of G-ideology surely? 'Eunuch'?
PM: I don't know.

NC: With that in mind - this section talks of respecting children's identities too. Including 'eunuch'?
PM: Given the definition yes
NC: Do yo uhave a view on that?
PM: No

NC: Do you think a child that identifies as 'eunuch' should be affirmed in that? PM: I'm not aware of what that really means.

NC: Surely if the adults around a child id-ing as eunuch affirm him in that, that is terrible child abuse?
PM: I don't know enough about it all to say.

Does PM know anything? Or is she explicitly paid the big bucks not to?

I'm still catching up, but I don't understand how judges can get annoyed when things start showing they need more time.

In a general sende I understand time keeping in itself is hard and can be annoying but a lot of the reason things start taking more time than originally allocated is down to witnesses just not answering the damn question and it surely would be a denial of justice to force lawyers to omit or shorten some of their lines of questioning just to fit in with a tidy neat schedule.

It's misplaced annoyance.

Also they were well ahead of themselves earlier so a little slack cut is fair enough I feel.

How much is PM paid?

TT

NC [ref missed]
NC: You have been senior in RCN for a long while now, you presumably recall Lisa Mackenzie leaving and why?
PM: Didn't know her, and didn't know her story until I saw the bundle.

NC: These are tweets from Ellie Mulreany. Threats to punch, stab, kick etc - this is very violent and menacing to ppl that dissent from G-ideology?
PM: Yes very unpleasant.
NC: And there's a lot of that sort of material out there?
PM: Don't follow closely but yes.

NC: So it's not surprising is it that ppl don't come forward with concerns about G-ideology is it?
PM: I can't say why, but it's true that ppl aren't coming forward.

We just don't know
Must be part of of the INCLUSIVE training pack.
See also plopper contributions on FWR.

I think she’s admitting to anyone watching or reading that she’s never bothered to actually think through anything about the actual implications of uncritically affirming/accepting self ID… it’s all fine because it’s inclusivity. That is where the thinking stopped.