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

TT

NC: So you don't value your G-C staff that much?
PM: That's definitely something we need to reflect on
NC: Evidence earlier in the week showed RCN staff v little aware of Forstater. PM: Was not here then, but, that's not good.

Sometimes I wonder how these people rock up to a tribunal as a witness and aren't then whisked into a competency hearing for their own job the minute they leave the court room.

NC: Wd be shocking if any officials didn't understand Forstater?
PM: Yes, but I don't think we did any specific training.

😑

@RoseInAPot

Barrister time exists in a parallel universe where time is elastic.

But when she was there, she should have made sure they knew.

@BlueLegume ‘As someone with such authority PM not knowing or understanding the never ending acronym is surely a lack of awareness particularly with NC pointing out the dark side of this.’

Y’see, I’m not sure we can just put down PM’s complicity in this down to not knowing or understanding. For a start, it’s wilful disregard, if for a minute I believe she is not aware of this.

But certainly after her response to this comment; ‘‘NC and that might be people who are furries, adult babies or paedophiles

PM just said:
PM "that's a judgment I'm not going to comment on in terms of people's choices"

She speaks English. Paedophilia was just mentioned as being included in the +. After she was going for the ‘let everyone do what they want, I don’t judge’ sort of tone, there was no ‘oh, but hold on a minute, maybe amongst consenting adults, and not adversely affecting others. I want to clarify that I am not equivocal about paedophilia. Paedophilia is child abuse, criminal, and should be robustly safeguarded against.’ That would be most people’s response at the realisation they just said they weren’t judgemental about paedophilia, as it is simply a ‘choice’.

I’d save even the tiniest shred of understanding for any child victims of ‘people who exercise their ‘choices’ (aka paedophiles) against which PM thinks it looks virtuous not to be judgemental.

TT

NC: This is the RCN article that actually came out. [reads v fast, including the bit about 'extremity of belief'] It's all from PoV of trans ppl isn't it?
PM: I think it's trying to describe the case, but then talking about application across wider membership.

NC: There is nothing about 'this is a powerful tool for protecting your GC staff" is there
PM: This is for members not staff.
NC: There is nothing saying to GC members 'you can come out now, you're safe, you can speak, sex matters etc"

NC: So you don't value your G-C staff that much?
PM: That's definitely something we need to reflect on

Yes, but John Craven doesn't present it any more. Sadly.

TT

PM: I read the article differently, I think it does say that.
NC: Where? PM: It's clear about what was agreed, as well as what was not. It doesn't use your words no.

NC: We have not seen any internal training for staff about using Forstater to protect staff. Are you saying those do exist?
PM: I don't know, I was just saying that this article wouldn't be the mechanism anyway.

Cogs are going around...

Sooooo... to wrap it all up: THIS is why the RCN was never going to support/represent SP correctly, and this is why SP knew full well they wouldn't.

Her brain travels so fast, it's a relativistic effect.

You can't just say I joined a managerial role after the DDA was passed so it's not my responsibility to ensure my staff are up to date on the law. Which seems to be what she's saying re Forstater.

TT

NC: If RCN had trained the staff in that way, wouldn't it be in the bundle as evidence?
PM: I don't know but that's a fair point.

NC: Given all this it's not surprising Stuart Fraser didn't spot that Sandie Peggie might be the victim of discrimination, not a perpetrator?
PM: Not sure I understand the Q?

NC: Given what we have seen (and not seen) re GC belief, single sex spaces etc, it's not surprising SF didn't spot that SP might be the victim of discrimination?
PM: Not sure - quite possible SF had not had training.

I think she's shown that the rot starts at the top at RCN and has infected everything below it.

TT

NC: It's not fair to put staff like SF in that position?
PM: I can see that but, ppl in SF position are not the legal experts, their role is gathering info.

This woman seems to me to be the most irritating witness to date. Maybe it's because I have a cold and am generally grumpy, but she is really making seethe.

One final ' inclusive'

It's like the golden cop out.

A very long Silence from PM just occurred.

That was the longest silence ever...

TT

NC: It's v clear from SD letter that she understands and was prepared to say that single sex spaces should be single sex, and she wrote it to Thacker. And yet SD has pronouns in her email sig. Telling surely?
PM: Don't know, does she?
NC: [shows email]

NC: Even SD when writing that letter is paying lip service to G-ideology?
PM: Not how I interpret that, she is being inlcusive.

NC: Are you happy to say publicly here that if any RCN staff put "pronouns: sex based" in their email sig, that would be OK?
PM: I think, no, it would need exploration and consideration by RCN about what that means.

Indeed. Adrift.

There is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women.

Madeleine Albright

But SF was able to identify possible victimisation behaviours - and when he did, his on the ground observation and assessment was overruled?