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've been skeptical during these proceedings but I thought that NC did a great job with limited material to show that the RCN supports gender ideology while being, at the very least, unsupportive of gender critical views.

However, the question before the panel is whether the RCN discriminated against Sandie Peggie because of that position. I'm unsure how successful NC has been in getting the panel to come down on her side.

I do wonder whether this case was entered into knowing that, and the real purpose was to get the, at times extraordinary, positions taken by PM into the public domain.

NC no further qs

J no qs

DH a little..

Oh, inclusivity, of course. We've mostly done with because terrorism, and moved on to because inclusivity.

"I think no".

Ok Lights out we are done, right? That shouts 'we would have to investigate whether members are allowed to resist GI' indicates RCN has chosen a side. Not yours.

I find this woman's behaviour loathsome. Neither fairness nor moral compass demonstrated.

TT

NC: No good reason though why RCN should not have written in those terms though?
PM: I see what you mean that in general my experience is it would be unusual.

NC: I've said there's no reason RCN should not have written, and I suggest there IS a reason RCN did not, and that is because in grip of G-ideology and couldn't bring itself to go public?
PM: Not my understanfding.

NC: No more Qs.
J: I have no Qs. Mr Hay?

Nearly done for the day I hope!

I agree. But I think there's enough rope for the Judge to hang herself getting the law wrong in support of her view of the factual material (I know it's supposed to be the other way around, but look at the first Peggie tribunal) for a successful appeal on points of law. Which would be more valuable in the long run.

I disagree. I've cared for paedophiles, including some handcuffed to security staff) and patients with all sorts of hidden objects they accidentally fell on/sat on (not that the paedophiles and those with a proclivity for inserting objects are remotely comparable imo).

It's perfectly possible to treat people with humanity and dignity, whist still knowing that sex matters fundamentally. She's not thick, it's a choice she's made.

Good. She should be uncomfortable, with her well cushioned life paid for by avoiding doing her job for those who pay for it.

They definitely haven't picked a side but pronouns are approved of and 'sex based' would lead to an investigation?
Pull the other one, PM, it's got bells on.

TT

DH: You were asked about the issues RCN tends to take up, you mentioned patients in corridors, can you say others?
PM: Safe staffing, social care provision, state of NHS generally, immigration in relation to staffing levels, nurse education, first that come to mind.

DH: you were taken to Code of Conduct. p31 of small bundle. 1.1 and 1.2 - 'members must conduct ... reputation of RCN'. Was suggested all members bound by CoC.

DH: But if we look at 1.8 - it's clear this CoC applies when a member is acting on behalf of RCN. Yes
PM: yes
DH: You were asked about Dave Dawes. Aware of?
PM: Yes chair of Council.

DH: The 'care for trans patients' booklet. Heading re psychological support on p6. Says staff have powerful ways to affirm the identity of patients eg re pronouns. Was put to you that this was an obligation, is that true?
PM: No, no obligation.

DH trying to salvage what he can.

NC has an easier job than that. She just needs to demonstrate that the RCN were institutionally biassed against one of SP's protected characteristics, and that they supported SP inadequately. The tribunal is allowed to infer that RCN's bias is the reason for RCN's poor support unless the RCN can convincingly show otherwise.

DH done

I think it's a bit stronger than that, but not much.

I love that NC clearly sent someone to check the flag status at the weekend.

End of evidence

Submissions tomorrow

Bugger. I think I'm going to miss the end of the submissions tomorrow as I've got a dentist appt!!

Pronouns "not an obligation" but they didnt support Jennifer Melle who was treating the paedophile restrained by prison staff from assaulting her and subjected to racial abuse.

TT

DH: Supplementary bundle p1007, transcript of the video introducing the SC engagement sessions. The last para on 1007 appears to make the point that there are exceptions and complications re healthcare workplaces. That's the intro to what is said the next page?
PM: Yes - it's not just about employers and service providers

DH: No more Qs

J: That is the end of the evidence. We will have submissions tomorrow. Can I check how long you will need?
NC: That partly depends how much written submissions we do?

J: I think we should hear submissions as we have many observers. You can produce a document and speak to that.
NC: DH and I have not consulted on this - perhaps 2 hours each?
DH: Yes I agree

J: That's good. We will resume at 10.00 tomorrow. [ENDS]

Well I think PM's evidence confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt that the RCN is institutionally captured by Gender ideology.

I can't recall one thing in their favour.

I am thoroughly pissed off with PM.

I get the lower rung staff thinking "I don't get paid enough to do a decent job, a thorough job, my actual job or to give a shit."

What's her excuse?

Totally systemic.

I read this as PM wasn’t here when this evidence was given earlier in the week, not when Forstater happened.

BTW, just for future reference for my fellow C&Pers, 20 minutes in Naomi time is nearer 50 minutes 😬