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

I didn't know there were all these variants of bigly. In my old-fashioned way, L thought bigly/non-bigly was a binary.

Do you have a 10% off caramel wafer tin though?

https://www.gilliankyle.com/collections/tunnocks-collection

For Worcestershire sauce haters, Leon's spicy tomato ketchup is an excellent sub for both WS and tomato ketchup to make Marie Rose sauce, btw.

Bigly font size doesn't show up on the app.

Bigly rules

I see we've hit "that" part of proceedings!

😊

Now that's showing off...

I do have a patio, dh has announced he's going to relay it for me!
It was nice knowing you all.......

Sorry!

Doesn't everyone?

To add...

Tunnock's have their own online merch. And it's definitely not tat!

tunnocks.orbgroup.co.uk/

Grrr.... 👿

I don't. And as a child of the 70s, I don't like dessicated coconut either.

I would kill for a Tunnocks umbrella though, and I can bench press 35 kg which should help with the patio laying side of things.

I didn’t make the assumption you were a woman.

I think you'd need to press more than 35kg to squash a person, unfortunately.

I sold a pushchair on eBay a couple of weeks ago, and when I wrapped it in bubble wrap and some left over damp proof course membrane to post it, it looked like Tutankhamun. I queued at the till and two young teenagers were behind me:

T1: "That looks like a body"
Me: "Might be..."
T2: <Hisses> "Do you always have to say what you're thinking?"
Me: "She's not wrong though....I could have offed someone...."
T2: <lowers voice> "Your secret is safe with us".
Me: <Nods sagely> "Thank you".

No one has yet mentioned Henderson's relish.....

Quite enjoying the 'ok, there should be designated space for the women that have been excluded from the women's space by making them mixed sex, THEY can have single cubicles' -

I suspect this is probably supposed to be the lesser option to deter lesser women with inconvenient barriers in their lives from not putting men before themselves. I doubt women who want single sex spaces care much. So long as it's clearly marked single sex and mixed sex/gender neutral, whoopee.

Proportionality of provision obvs a requirement. There will be many more biological women who can use a single sex facility than people with gender identities who would really prefer not to. And the clear requirements that mixed sex can't be open cubicles also likely to scotch this.

Frankly this ship has sailed. Long ago. The captain's retired and is raising his grandchildren.

The rat discussion's more fun and probably a lot more useful.

As @Lougle said, they don’t meet building regs. Approved Document T is for England. Each country has slightly different regulations for toilets. There’s an interesting regs dilemma that FWS have created in highlighting cubicle designs should be, like regulations state, leading out on to a single sex environment.

‘Inclusive’ designers in England after 2024 now have no option but for individual private unisex (universal) toilet/sink/dryer rooms unless they break building regulations. And of course these are great for complete privacy but face the same health and safety challenges particularly for women, children and the medically vulnerable.

Because of this ideology the number of unisex toilets looks set to go up. It’s the ‘sophisticated’ choice of the Good Law Project. I would eat my hat if the GLP had done a proper risk assessment on design. I have, based on years of research. We are all safer in designs for our sex precisely because the toilet compartment doesn’t have to be completely private. Single sex designs can put health and safety first.

How are you defining ‘large’ and ‘smaller’ in terms of height/ weight?

<Asking for a friend, obviously>
Whistles innocently 🫢

I’d say that large is 6ft+ around 14 stones. Smaller specimens around 5ft 8 and 11 stones. I hope that this helps your friend.

I've thought that too - if everything is going to be individual mixed-sex cubicles, there are going to be an awful lot of them to match the provision that used to be there in the good old days of men's and women's. And there are rules about how many toilets are required, arent there?

I also have a vague memory that some regs - prob building? - do not allow alterations to an existing building [i.e. one that was approved previously] tthat reduce the number or quality of facilities [cos that would be sneaky - you get building regs approval but then move the goalposts, or the women's toilets, more likely].

So all these building getting rid of single sex spaces - esp women's, did The Barbican Centre do that? - and replacing them with inferior provision may be in breach of building regs, or something.*.
Anarchy.

*Sorry for the 'or something', I'll never match KTS for depth and precision of knowledge😒

Sharpens saw in case of 5ft 11 contenders

DH and 2 teen DSs are all over 6'4" I don't need a patio I need a full on piazza

If you do two of the thing you do to get bigly you get middle bigly three gives small bigly four equals

tiny bigly

As you can see it's definitely non biggly

Sorry this is long but I love a design question.

These are the true solutions tried to counteract the problem of complete privacy creating a reduction in safety:

• Floors that weigh the occupant so the doors won’t close if it thinks there are 2 people in there. Problem: Parents with children or heavier people have to use the toilet with the door open. Fattist.
• Automatic doors that open after 10 minutes unless you press the button. Toilet doors have to always be wide open at rest and that can be a problem outside. The mechanism is notoriously bad for trapping people or opening mid-poo. Kids learned to kick the doors so the door opened on to passing vehicles.
• Heat sensors that can show how many people are in the toilet and where they are. This has been used in schools. Pupils understandably avoid the toilets as they feel watched. With any sensor there’s trust issues as you don’t know what it’s recording.
• Glass toilet walls and doors that go opaque when you lock the door but others outside can see the outline of movement. This was abused by men who unlocked the opaqueness targeting lone women. Also the opaqueness didn’t work under certain weather conditions.
• Smart Alarms where if you shout ‘help me’ or ‘stop it’ it sends an alert message to someone. These have been used in U.K. schools targeting their ‘gender-neutral’ designs. Pupils don’t like them. They get turned off over misuse. They require someone to have the ability to shout, the technology to work and a staff member to be available.

Attached is an advert for a smart alarm.

Well, this thread has clarified one thing beyond doubt.

The demand is not merely that a space should be available for men who identify as women. It has to be the women's space, and the main women's space at that (with an afterthought naughty-corner space to fob off the women who want their rights under the law.)

And it has to be labelled just "Women".

So it's not really about poor vulnerable transwomen not being safe amongst the men. Any space away from men would solve that.

It's not about not outing transwomen. A totally mixed sex space would solve that, in situations where it is legal. Alternatively, so would a third space of appropriate size labelled "Women and transwomen", ( or "Feminine gender"!) because if you don't pass, you're "out" anyway, and if you do, nobody knows whether you're going in there because you're a woman or because you identify as one.

It's all about validation. Appropriation of womanhood. The illusion of sex-based "business as normal" has to be maintained to enable that.