Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #67

[nauticant]

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.

A second Employment Tribunal, Sandie Peggie vs Royal College of Nursing, has just been heard. The hearing started on Wednesday 23 September 2026 and ended on Thursday 1 October 2026. It is possible that a decision will be handed down before Christmas of this year.

Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against three senior managers who were witnesses in the first 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 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

Thread 66: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584074-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-66 30 September 2026 to 1 October 2026

1. What is your biological sex as defined at birth? Female
2. Do you identify as trans? No
3. Do you identify as non-binary? No, but if I were a teenager nowadays I probably would because I didn’t want to be a woman.
4. Do you have a child/spouse/sibling who identifies as trans? No, but three nieces do (two are my late brothers’s daughters 20 and 16, but they have never met as one was adopted at birth and has a different mother), the other is my husband’s sister’s daughter 16.
5. Do you have a child/spouse/sibling who identifies as non-binary? No
6. Do you agree that biological women (as defined at birth) should be able to use toilets and changing intended for women without encountering biological men (as defined at birth) in those facilities? Yes
7. If you think that biological women should share facilities with men who identify as women, please explain why. I don’t think this
8. If you think that men who identify as women should be allowed to share facilities with biological women, please explain why. I appreciate this is the same question framed differently, but I am interested in understanding why men who identify as women get to be in single sex spaces? I don’t think this
9. If you believe that men who identify as women need special facilities and treatment for their own safety, privacy and dignity, why do you think they should be in women’s spaces rather than campaign for their own spaces? I don’t think they should be in women’s spaces
10. Finally, what is the problem with biological men using men’s facilities and biological women using women’s facilities and those who identify as trans who feel uncomfortable in the facilities of their biological sex, using the accessible facilities? I don’t see this as a problem, but I notice that men who identify as women have never wanted their own spaces, only to be in women’s spaces.

I'll answer the personal ones.

1. female.
2. no
3. no
4. no
5. no

Me too.

But not the ones where you have to give your opinion?

That suggests those opinions are neither robust nor well thought out.

@BlueLegume

At your own request, we moved discussion of the SC and other court decisions about single sex services to another thread. Now, trying to access that thread says that you asked for it to be deleted. That seems ... jarring. What's going on?

For me the really hard bit was the treatment of JM but I think that the lack of support for her is so compelling

This! Jennifer's was the perfect case for a trade union. She did nothing wrong and yet she was threatened and racially abused by a pedophile straight from a prison (the worst of the worst of society). Nobody would take the prisoner's side in this and I think the union could have taken this case on and kept their GI credentials intact. I think TRAs would have dropped the pedophile like a hot potato (the "he's clearly not a real transwoman" approach). The union missed a trick with Jennifer's case. That's how blinkered they are.

In a normal world, a trade union would fight tooth and nail for a nurse's right to correctly sex a patient (when it matters) without fear of reprisal. This is a completely neutral matter and it's crucial for patient safety.

DH was so callous. After being racially abused and narrowly missing assault Jennifer was branded a danger to the public and was about to lose her livelihood. She is now traumatised and then along comes a male solicitor telling us to disregard the experience of the blubbering overemotional woman. Fuck off DH. I'm so glad NC was able to respond to his submissions.

Probably doesn't see cupboards as a TRA either
Just another "GC as they come (but you're all nasty bigots)"

A) if I do I'll be accused of derailing,

B) there's another thread I shared a detailed account of my opinions about policy. (Not the one today). I believe you were on it.

C) I don't find the framing of these questions helpful.

It was like Orwell and Kafka taking steroids together to come up with an outrageous plot line.

My trade union Great Nana would be turning in her grave.

That feels like the equivalent of "you don't know him, he goes to another school."

I've never accused you of derailing, that you've posted your opinions elsewhere doesn't mean you're forbidden to repeat them, and the fact that you don't like the way the questions are framed is even more evidence that your opinions are not self-consistent, clear or logical.

People should just ignore Lacksie on this thread. It’s a waste of time/pointless engaging with them. Just going round in circles.

You may not but very many pps on this thread have and insisted this thread be about SP tribunal.

Page 35 of this thread - towards the bottom I provide a very lengthy summary of my opinions of policy related to single sex services/ facilities

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5581208-5581208-some-clarity-in-how-the-trans-movement-became-so-embedded-so-preeminent?page=35

That was another thread where you refused to answer any questions. Happily for you it's now full, so I can't there again repeat the questions and give you another chance to not answer them.

This is the Sandie Peggie ET thread. It will continue, @nauticant willing, until all Sandie's ETs and any subsequent EATs have been concluded and we (the collective we) have run out of discussion points. It cannot be derailed, it can only be extended.

truly unbelievable. 🙃

Page 35 [of this thread] - towards the bottom I provide a very lengthy summary of my opinions of policy related to single sex services/ facilities

You provide a very lengthy opinion. Still no policy.

We really have come to the end of the line.

Standards, regulations and legislation are, and always have been, made in terms of biological sex.

It fully addresses my thoughts in relation to myrtle's qs 6-10 is the pt,

Anyways. Enough of this - back to SP.

Yes, I thought it was good that some of the lawyers on here were explaining the SC judgement but perhaps as Lacksie insisted on knowing better than the lawyers maybe bluelegume didn’t want her/his incorrect opinions to be propagated and spread? Plus, really it went from the law to opinion without explanation or evidence v quickly.

I wasn't "claiming to know more than any lawyers", I was trying to share factual information about what the judgments (SC and the GLP high court judgment) actually said.

people then started asking me a lot of questions about my opinions on all kinds of other things not related to law. If I don't respond to people's qs I'm accused of shying away from difficult questions or refusing to respond (even if I've demonstrably spent hours responding to people's questions). if I do respond, I'm accused of derailing and not focusing on the topic.

There is no way to win with you lot. Basically you cannot stand to hear from anyone who disagrees with you, and you will deploy any tactic possible to try to silence anyone from expressing an opinion or sharing factual information you don't like. That's why these boards are an echo chamber- because no one who doesn't adopt the approved group think is allowed to participate. That's why I was glad to see @alcovecupboards . not because I'm a "TRA" , whatever the fuck a "TRA" is anyway.

Lets just get back to the point shall we?

I don't think SP is going to win this tribunal. Not least NC spent most of her time focusing on the fact that RCN believes in trans rights (what you all call GI). This can't in itself be evidence of discrimination against a gender critical employee . The organisation doesn't have to adopt the same belief system as their employee in order to avoid discriminating against them for their protected belief. Think through all the consequences if the court were to adopt that logic.

What factual evidence has been presented that suggests RCN discriminated against SP for her protected belief, as apposed to just didn't hold the same belief themselves?

But someone created a whole other thread specifically to debate the things you were raising. You wouldn’t answer the questions there either….

QED.

Just pointing out no one was silencing you. In fact you were given a golden opportunity to explain your thinking, present your arguments and listen to others…. So no silencing.

If I don't respond to people's qs I'm accused of shying away from difficult questions or refusing to respond. I'm accused of this. even if I've demonstrably spent hours responding to people's questions. Which I did including yours, no matter how silly.

if I do respond, I'm accused of derailing and not focusing on the topic.

Not to mention, I didn't even want to join that thread in the first place but was told if I didn't it was proof I was a "bad actor".

People asked for my opinions- demanded them no less, I responded continuously for hours, the thread no longer became about the law, went "off topic" and was deleted by the OP, then you all came back here and complained 😅.

So yes, this- and your behaviour right now, are all part of the same silly tactics and I'm definitely over it.

Back to SP.. I don't think she is going to win this case.

You didn’t answer a single one of my questions but that’s beside the point. You can’t go around saying people are silencing you when they’re obviously not. Just makes you look a bit er…. Foolish. Don’t you think?

👍🏻.

So SP. What factual evidence is there that the RNC discriminated against her for having gender critical beliefs, as opposed to simply not having the same beliefs themselves?