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

It's almost as if Fred himself were here posting. Some of this disinformation is just like his infamous work presentation to the RCN.

Well that's just obvious. Numerous people on the thread have expressed doubts about whether NC succeeded in showing poor handling of SP's case that was related to their having adopted GI beliefs. But clearly she didn't simply ignore the requirement to provide evidence of that.
We'll just have to wait and see whether the judge thought she did. Is it really worth breaching thread etiquette by contributing so actively to the derail with (what I have seen so far) a mixture of error and consensual fact? I KNOW that your opponents - including me - are also the creators of the derail, but you have the most power here, to make the thread become more accessible to all posters.

It’s a very pleasant weekend where I am. I do hope it’s similar for Sandie, Naomi, all their witnesses (and especially Jennifer), Nick W and all supporters, and that they are unencumbered by people demonstrating the sort of relentless, obsessive nitpicking reflections we have been exposed to for far too long on here.

I am at a loss to see how you could answer my comment with something quite so irrelevant.

You seem not to understand the background or the law. I'd suggest you take time to read the EA and the SC judgment at least. The latter especially is quite straightforward.

But apologies to @nauticant for adding to the numbers of posts.

But most spaces don't need "policing" they are managed by social convention- this already happens.

For those that do- tbh gender presentation is no less difficult a basis on which to police than birth sex, in fact it is arguably much easier. And , in fact, both the judgment and guidance provide for this- policing of spaces by gender presentation - they allow trans men to be excluded from female spaces on the grounds of gender presentation, and say that wouldn't amount to discrimination in law.

your amazed that instead of cowing to your scolding/ shaming I asked you to engage with the argument I was making?

I don't know what the judgment will be. Here are my opinions, based on what I have read from Tribunal Tweets and Nick Wallis (neither of whom claims to provide a verbatim transcript).

The RCN are very clearly supporting trans identity belief, and very clearly not supporting women's sex-based rights. We can see this from flag flying, merchandise, and above all documents (guidance for nurses etc), and lack of training on Forstater (which was obviously likely to be relevant to the majority of their members).

Quite coincidentally, if the RCN are to win, no-one in the RCN involved in the case spotted that Sandie Peggie was
a) whistleblowing (whether she realised this or not)
b) discriminated against on the basis of sex, a protected characteristic
c) discriminated against on the basis of belief (whether she realised that her belief had a name or not).

And when these things were pointed out by her and her solicitor, the RCN supported her half-heartedly and didn't attempt to find out whether other RCN members were also being discriminated against on the basis of their sex. They used the fact that she had looked elsewhere for the support they had not given her as an excuse to abandon her to the private legal support they must have known she was unlikely to be able to afford.

The judge may or may not be able to set aside any bias she may have. The legal bars for coming down on one side or the other are unclear to me. I have doubts about some of the tactics used by each of the barristers. But Sandie Peggie was discriminated against by NHS Fife, and her union, left to its own devices, would not have defended her on the basis of that discrimination. Because, in my opinion, they were blinded to it by their institutional position in favour of trans interests.

to me the flag flying and merchandise are completely irrelevant. The lack of training on Forstater- well that would depend- is there training on other protected beliefs? Is protected belief covered in the training? Could be relevant depending on the answer.

It seems to me that the only fact here that does have some legs is that they didn't notice that SP could be a victim of sex discrimination. I can see that line. A) and C) don't really cut it for me, but I think there's something in B). But then SP's own behaviour and the findings of the original tribunal don't really support that imv.

We have got to the stage where we aren't actually having a discussion at all. We are just acting out the emotions of frustration and despair that online loyalties can engender. Back in the old days, those emotions focused on local MN issues, like Moldies and Fruit Shoots. Gradually they started to align with real-world fractures. But it is EXACTLY the same dynamic.

It is this emotional dynamic that motivates these dysfunctional posts - from Lacksie and the people exhaustedly responding (including me). They just have the superficial appearance of addressing an issue. But no one is being converted, or even slightly changing their mind. It is really just a horrible habit aimed at appeasing inner agitation, like nail biting or silent screaming.

The belief trans women are women in all situations under law and trans women are men are incompatible. One is also a fact and one not. That were having to call a fact a belief is diabolical.
In some situations these beliefs don't matter - pay, employment rights etc. and in some they do.

The ground becomes sticky when people who believe trans women are women for all purposes are asked to envisage themself alone in a changing room with a man who says he is a woman and has also displayed scary, threatening behaviour.

I have two lovely male friends who I do an extreme sport with. You could say I trust them with my life. When it was once suggested that I share a hotel room to save money. No. Not for purposes of safety, but for privacy and dignity.
I would not share a changing room with them either.
Why would I feel any less uncomfortable with with a trans identifying stranger? They're all just different sorts of men after all and I have more reason to be comfortable with the former due to knowing them well.

Indeed

”She has to prove…”

”Yes mate, that’s why it’s been taken to tribunal”.

You continue to avoid the substance of the point - the need for clear, robust definitions on law and policy, and how your apparent definition of a transwoman would be almost impossible to use as an identifier. You appear now to have pivoted from ‘a male with a female gender identity’ to ‘a male who presents as female’. As covered elsewhere this would include any gender non-conforming man, including possibly those who identify as gender fluid or non-binary but not as transwomen. These men may also feel more comfortable in female spaces. You have no way to differentiate between the different types of men.

You talk variously about social convention or ‘men understanding that a facility is for women’ as if the thing men are most known for is ‘respecting women’s boundaries’. If you believe that, I have some magic beans you may be interested in.

I’m reluctant to continue the derail of this thread. Although your apparent failure to understand what protected characteristics SP may have and the function of a tribunal - to test the case - may shine some light on why you are happy to move away from the purpose of this thread.

bigly font

Just because I can

Moving on, what do people think are the practical implications of this?

I am concerned the nhs is going to waste money creating a lot more private unisex compartments (toilets and changing rooms). These are proven to be less safe and hygienic as a design. They also create a new compartment for misuse so the net affect is negative. All demographics are better using communal facilities for their sex in terms of absolute safety and hygiene.

https://salus.global/article-show/pathogen-findings-raise-concerns-about-move-to-unisex-hospital-facilities

The lack of training on Forstater- well that would depend- is there training on other protected beliefs? Is protected belief covered in the training? Could be relevant depending on the answer.

I think it's in some ways unfortunate that Forstater was won on the basis of belief, because that is now seen as the defining legal judgment when it comes to what are actually sex discrimination cases. They are intertwined because of the competing understandings of sex and gender, one of which is clearly part of belief system (the belief that classification by gender identity is morally superior to classification by sex, whereas "GC" is based more on practicality – sex is quite often important).

So, while Sandie Peggie's belief did come into play, she was discriminated against by sex, and only when defending herself did belief come into play. In contrast, Dr Upton's belief came first and dictated his behaviour in expecting access to the women's changing room.

We've seen before that judges' decisions in tribunals are a bit of a lucky dip.
That's the way it is with the legal system, and unless the judge can be shown to have done something really really wrong - quoting form AI hallucinations doesn't seem to make the grade😒- you have to take the rough with the smooth.

What has been conclusively proven, though, is that the RCN, despite most of their membership being [a] female and [b] working in a science-based profession, have chosen to go down the path of accepting uncritically, and promoting emblematically, an unproven, un-scientific, anti-biological-women position on sex and gender.

Whatever the judge may decide, I believe objective observers will grasp that a biological woman in conflict with a trans-IDing man in the workplace would approach that organisation with some trepidation.. A lot of trepidation, after what the RCN revealed in this tribunal!

To take up the atheist/Christian analogy: some Christian-based organisations are proudly human-rights based and would support an atheist's human rights 100%.
But if it was an organisation run by fundamentalists who believe every word of the bible literally, and believe that if you are not Saved you are going to Hell, an atheist can expect short shrift.

So as an atheist, I'd go to the former not the latter for support. If I had the choice...

Nurses who like SP who joined the RCN years ago, joined a union they thought would always be on their side, and had no idea that it would later morph into a Progress-flag-flying 'anything goes except sex realism' organisation that would automatically assume them to be the perpetrator if they were in conflict with a trans-IDing man in the workplace.

The RCN has chosen a path, and it's one that leads away from science-based facts and even-handedness, and fairness towards all members, leaving sex-realist nurses with a fundamentalist union which doesn't think they are among The Saved.

But judges? Who knows what this one will decide.

I’m concerned @Keeptoiletssafe that there will be toilets without the pull cord that I’ll end up having to use as the accessible
option.

I have short hair, often don't wear make-up but frequently do wear trousers. I am the height of an average UK male.
Which gender id policed spaces would you have me use?

Yes we haven't heard a peep from this judge, have we? Other than once asking NC and a witness to slow down.

Compare with the judges' constant restrictions to NC in the Leonardo case and the simmering testiness and inability to keep up (in more ways than one) in the Sandie Peggie vs Fife case.

Difficult to draw conclusions from this judge but from past experience we know better than to expect rationality.

@Taztoy Please use the accessible version with a pull cord. It’s called accessible for needs. Accessible toilets have to have a pull cord in regulations.

One thing I hope for is that if people do add another unisex toilet is they have the foresight and kindness to make it an accessible toilet too - especially if they haven’t got one already. Many (most?) toilets suitable for non ambulant people with an opposite sex adult carer aren’t up to standard so this would be better for needs for a larger demographic. Of course having a new design of accessible toilets within the main single sex accommodation would make single sex accommodation inclusive to non ambulant people.

Unisex accessible toilets should be the most looked after and monitored toilets. They are frequently left in a bad state. They also need to be carefully positioned leading off to a main circulation space like all unisex provision.

But what if I don’t want to put myself as disabled @Keeptoiletssafe ?

that’s the trans argument - they don’t want to put themselves as trans. So why should I be forced to put myself? What’s the difference?

(And I am genuinely concerned that for people like me who sometimes use crutches the disabled loos will be policed by folk who think I should be using the unisex accessible space. And my biggest fear is that disabled is done away with and that they become unisex accessible for anyone and not just disabled any more)

*out

(sorry just noticed and it’s too late to edit)

There was one small 'moment' between NC and the judge when the judge momentarily seemed pissed off. I can't remember what the issue was that caused it though.

It was when NC said she’d need another two hours with a witness.

I agree it's really important to preserve the hard-won accessible facilities designed specifically for disabled people, and it's important for able-bodied people to respect the accessible facilities, just as we demand that male-bodied people respect women's spaces.

Only people who need the adaptations in an accessible toilet should use them - so somebody on crutches, obviously yes, but if somebody doesn't actually need the extra space/support/facilities in an accessible toilet, they shouldn't use them.

That's why calling them 'accessible toilets' rather than 'disabled toilets' is significant - not all disabilities require adapted toilets, and disabled people who can use the standard toilets do so, leaving the accessible toilets available for the people who actually need them. Not 'prefer' or 'feel more comfortable using' - need.

Don't forget that single-sex toilet blocks have what's called an 'ambulant' toilet cubicle, it's the bigger one with more space and some extra supports etc. which are for people who have some mobility or strength issues, but don't need all the adaptations in an accessible toilet.
They are also designed to be useful for parents with buggies or people with luggage because they have extra space to accommodate them.