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

at what point?

What a fantastic reveal by PM. Genderist pronouns are allowed, gender critical pronouns could be dodgy so best to forbid unless the view changes.

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

Here is a woman who is senior enough and powerful enough to have grabbed Forstater to start shifting the culture and then used the Supreme Court decision to have driven real change through the RCN.

And she has chosen to do nothing.

we are just as interested in both groups of people.

Well not really Patricia. Actions speak louder than words and all that.

thank you. V revealing indeed.

TT

NC: It's OK for ppl to put she/her they/them and so on, gesture of allegiance to G-ideology, it should surely be OK to put "sex-based" as dissent. You aren't confident to say RCN would treat them equally?
PM: Not confident to say - there's no RCN edict, some ppl do pronouns and some don't, and we have staff who are trans.

NC: So you can either manifest G-ideology with pronouns or you can be quiet by leaving themout, but you can't dissent.
PM: I see what you are saying but I don't think it is expressing G-ideology.

Exactly. We have this exact scenario at my org. They have finally begrudgingly agreed to move back to sss and agreed additional gender neutral provision. All sensible. However the amount of hand wringing and teeth gnashing is nauseating. Lots of signposting to mental health resources and safe circles. Fuck all offered when they flung open the doors to sss, first we heard about it was when people were saying about sanitary products in the men’s. No one has pointed out the disparity. Every mention of sc ruling assumes everyone is very sad about it. It’s so one sided.

This is how it actually happened.

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?

[Pause of at least 10 seconds]

PM: I think, no,
[further pause]

It would need exploration and consideration by RCN about what that means.

Edit to add others captured it in much better form!

TT

NC: My point is that RCN has adopted GI so much that you don't even realise? PM: I know that's what you think,
NC: Progress flag has been flying at HQ for months?
PM: I think ..
NC: Is it today?
PM: Don't know
NC: It was at the weekend
PM: Yes

It was a VERY long VERY uncomfortable silence.

I see what you are saying but I don't think it is expressing G-ideology.

The inability to see this (and the flags, and the merch and everything) is indicative of the problem.

PM: I see what you are saying but I don't think it is expressing G-ideology.

I wasn't expecting that reply, it's so entrenched! She doesn't see pronouns as expressing GI?
🙄

To be fair to the witness NHS staff are required to treat paedophiles (and any other fetish patient) as they would anyone else. They may tell black jokes about what people put in their orifices and the excuses they give for said objects being there but they have to not snigger at the time. She doesnt appear to be a deep thinker so the difference between that and celebrating the identity will not have occurred to her.

TT

NC: A union shd be proactive including in legislating for its members
PM: Yes
NC: RCN was prepared to provide some behind the scenes in individual changing room cases, but not prepared to take a public stance in support?

PM: Not sure which case?
NC: This one, Sandie Peggie.

NC: The lack of training on Forstater is why SF couldn't support SP when she asked
PM: No
NC: Unwillingness to be seen supporting her in public is why you refused her/ PM: No, not the reason, it's bcs our usual approach, she already had legal advice, and her new case v linked to that.

Even if she's smart enough to realise, after this, how broken the RCN is, she's not smart enough to do anything about it, she's a paid policy monkey that's all, she couldn't fix her hair.

OUCH

PM: Not sure which case?
NC: This one, Sandie Peggie.

Non as blind as those who will not see.

This is what Mr. Justice Linden said in the Northumbria Police case

When one adds the fact that the Force’s static display, staffed by police officers, was adorned with the Progress Flag and included the Northumbria Police badge and the blue, pink and white of the transgender flag as part of the same display, the impression that there was an expression of institutional support for gender ideology and transgender rights is enhanced further. Similarly, the fact that a police van, which might have been used for law enforcement purposes, was also painted or marked prominently with transgender colours served to add to the impression that the Force as a whole was associating itself with a particular viewpoint and, as far as gender critical people were concerned, taking sides.

Please let her bring this to the court's attention as a precedent.

TT

NC: You presumably know how GT handled SP request to write to the board? p459.
NC: SP asks that GT ask the board 3 things. They are general things - not about her case, but about the law etc.

That's a difference which the RCN has studiously ignored between on the one hand the medical profession has to "include" everyone as patients and has to give good care to them and meet their medical needs no matter who they are or what their needs are - furries, adult babies, paedophiles, fetishists, yes the poor old medical profession really does have to include everyone in their care.

But that's not the same as agreeing that it doesn't matter who your staff are or what their needs are. The medical professions don't have to include festishists, furries, adult babies or paedophiles as staff members. And sometimes they really shouldn't.

@Boiledbeetle "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

PM: I see what you are saying but I don't think it is expressing G-ideology.

I wonder what she thinks it's expressing if not GI?

TT

[PM is reading the docs]
NC: SP wants board to confirm re the law and obligations to female staff
PM: yes
NC: Not about SP case - about the law generally.
PM: yes

NC: And she asks all RCN members to be copied in.
PM: yes. That's unusual in that RCN wouldn't be involved bcs of the other advice SP getting. And it's related to SP case of course - but yes wider staff / members too.

I'm losing the will to live a bit now...