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

Mr Pratchett always told me I will definitely need ketchup with that.

I'm a man and I just swore reading your first sentence. That is totally unreasonable in any situation where a woman is vulnerable in the presence of a man. That includes

• prisons
• hostel dorms
• changing rooms
• single sex toilet facilities
• group therapy relating to sexual abuse or violence from men

That is not an exhaustive list. How can anyone not have the empathy to understand that single sex spaces and services are necessary, particularly for women given the statistics on sexual crimes and misbehaviour, and the power imbalance between the two sexes?

Now there may be circumstances where there isn't a proportionate means to a legitimate aim to justify a women's group, but I have come across very few examples of women's groups that do not have a reason for being single sex. Can you suggest some? I've been involved in a men's breakfast; part of its aim is to permit men to talk more freely about their struggles or aspirations or ethical dilemmas than some of them would in the presence of women. I think this is justifiable, so in my opinion it doesn't take much to justify a single sex space. I cannot think of any reason why it would be justifiable to include women who claim to be men in this men's breakfast but exclude women who don't claim to be men.

I've currently got a Smokey bacon flavoured one which would go well with the rat.

Brilliant Boily - LOL - literally tears running down my face😂

I'm partial to a spot of Hastings Lemon myself but I can see that anything not rat flavoured would work in this situation.

I tried squirrel once - it tasted like the inside of a rubbish bin.

I cheated and got Google to write it!

My own rat recipes are less fancy!

I've never understood the problem with outing.

First, most people who know a trans person know they are trans.

Second, what's the problem with being trans? What's the problem with owning, accepting, embracing who you are? A person of sex 1 that wants to "present as" sex 2. This self acceptance should be the true trans joy.

TIM are not women and diluting them into the women category does them no favours. It's nothing but trans erasure.

Not to derail this thread but there is stuff circulating online from a serving female soldier who is saying that female soldiers are being expected to share facilities with TW soldiers. And that TW are supervising women soldiers doing urine drug tests ( where you have to wee whilst being observed).

No one is going to do this because women will use the women’s and men who assert a gender identity don’t be happy changing without an audience.

And it was theoretical about some of these instances - they’re likely to be indirect discrimination as men still have the criminal profile of men and so greater risk to allow men to identity in to such a room than vice versa.

You are grasping at straws - it’s not going to happen in reality.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic We have consistently and repeatedly asked this poster to nominate specifically which services could be justified as being limited to “people with woman gender” and she has dodged the question every single time.

You'll of course know that an association for women only doesn’t need to be justified as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim; associations can lawfully restrict their membership to one or more protected characteristics without justification.

Not to derail this thread

I think that ship has well and truly sailed, it is actually due to dock in New Zealand any day now.

Michael Foran has done his usual magic in explaining complex law simply. I will have to listen again and take notes in case there is an exam!

I’m posting as a resource for anyone who would benefit from properly understanding the Gender Recognition Act et al. Its 90 mins long which may be too long for some 😮.

His responses in the Q&A session demonstrate his deep knowledge of the subject but understanding the views of others.

https://open.substack.com/pub/knowingius/p/examining-the-legal-context-of-sex?r=uiqzc&utmmedium=ios

Can I just ask for clarity, when a man being in a women’s toilet becomes a sexual offence in England under The Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 71. There is a special section on toilets and it appears some usual definitions are exempted according to a later section point.

This is also relevant for voyeurism or exhibitionism when venues are operating with ‘cubicles and urinals’ instead of men’s, or when a man is weeing in a cubicle with the door open (like at the home office toilets) and what happens if a woman walks in and he turns round.

Edit: this is also in relation to the service providers duties in providing safe facilities.

Female toilets had fewer microbes than male toilets. Samples from the handles inside the doors of male staff toilets had about eight times more microbes than those from the same handles in female staff toilets, and female staff toilets had the fewest microbes of all toilet types. This might be attributable to more frequent handwashing among females, the professor theorised.
**
Gender-neutral toilets (unisex and disabled) had the highest microbial burden overall. This may reflect heavier overall use, as well as different attitudes to cleanliness between men and women, said Professor Dancer.

I’ve always found the unisex toilets to be more disgusting. Wee on the floors, men not conditioned to wash their hands immediately after making me reluctant to touch anything. Regardless of reasons, it’s clear unisex are the most contaminated so makes sense not to put any more in hospitals.

However, I expect we’ll still pander to this tiny population even to the detriment of everyone else.

Edited to add: if you wanted to run for some political office @Keeptoiletssafe I’d definitely support you 😁

As above with the 'I need 2 more hours' but also for having no witnesses available for Friday. Not a peep about the parallel universe of barrister time we visited.

Nah - I think Lacksie is actually Kate Searle - really keen to give away other women's rights and spaces to pander to the little flower that wants to be there rather than in the gents. Whilst at the same time never needing to use that space herself as her exaltedness means she has an office to change in.....

Its so easy to give away rights that others need when you don't

Wait til I start on flush plumes. There’s some great laser displays on this. It’s why washbasins and dryers are best out the way of the previous occupants flushes!

This is the updated Sexual Offences Act 2003 section re indecent exposure:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66

And this is the section re Voyeurism

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/68

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/71

IANAL but I'd have thought that section 71 relates to "cottaging" ?

It's worth women knowing about all this at a time when men are falsely claiming they have the right to be in women's changing rooms etc, despite the law being very clear they don't have those rights. And tellingly it's a bit of legislation that men / transactivists and of course the NHS / Unions who claim to know about the law are supremely disinterested in .

Can't imagine why. 🙄

I disagree that a woman is "entitled" to assume that every service/ facility labelled "women" will necessarily exclude trans women. Yes, I disagree with that very seriously.

You’ve claimed earlier that I’ve conflated different things. What I did was illustrate that, although you have said that some women’s facilities could include transwomen, you have failed to define who ‘transwomen’ are. You have, rightly, pointed out that there is a definition within the equality act of the PC of gender reassignment, which could be used to define transwomen. You’ve expanded that though to talk about gender identity, and presentation. GI isn’t mentioned in the EA, presentation isn’t always required (see ‘planning to’ transition). For the law to work, we need one overarching definition that means ‘tranwomen’ in all circumstances. You seem to be using several. Or at least not fully explaining which you mean.

So let’s say that women are no longer entitled to assume that every service/facility labelled ‘women’ does not exclude transwomen. Who should they expect it to include? Fully passing transwomen? An ‘Eddie Izzard’ type? A ‘Karen White’ type? A man who is planning to transition (EA PC definition) but has taken no steps yet? Additionally, as presentation is an observable indication of being a ‘transwoman’, if an individual in the style of 80s pop star Marilyn is present (not a transwoman) how could other users know that they shouldn’t be included? It isn’t workable. It isn’t even workable if you call the space ‘women and transwomen’.

In many ways your proposal is worse than the TRA suggestion that all services/facilities for women should include transwomen. At least then we would know what we were dealing with. Your system introduces uncertainty.

It would be like me being unable to ever order a vegan breakfast anymore, because I wouldn’t be entitled to assume that everything labelled ‘vegan breakfast’ wouldn’t include pork sausages.

You're right I've seen that too, I don't know whether to believe it or not.

I've said before that an argument could be made that mixed sex/unisex/gender neutral toilets discriminate against men.

A WC fixed to the floor is demonstrably not appropriate for efficient use by male-bodied humans.

Surely men are entitled to their own facilities with urinals which are more suited to their needs, and to the privacy to use them in comfort.

It's not fair to force men to use a floor-mounted WC, with - it would appear - little likelihood of success.

I'm surprised MRAs aren't campaigning on this injustice.

We're putting that one in the cookbook.

I'm surprised MRAs aren't campaigning on this injustice

I assume a significant majority of men do use urinals in the men’s only toilets, but there won’t be any in unisex toilets making those germs and drips even worse!

Thanks, I had forgotten that about associations. The law is at the same time both quite clear to me and more complicated than my simple brain can keep track of.

I'm occasionally able to supply prime rat if anyone is short. I don't have a five-star restaurant dumpster but I do have a very middle-class compost bin, full of organic veg peelings and avocado skins. It attracts the better kind of rat, and the ones supplied would only be lightly terrier-torn.