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

The Building Regulations Part T, for example, require all toilet accommodation to have clear and appropriate signage. That means it must be labelled correctly. Labelling a mixed sex facility as the women's facility is neither clear nor appropriate.

Beaming great smilies following insults is not appropriate behaviour and does not look well regulated. It's a fairly classic move too.

I'm not remotely interested in whether that gets your dictionary out, or your pathologising everything, I'm really not. Don't do weird stuff and people won't comment that what you did there was weird.

I don't think a building regulation governing the signage of toilets in new builds establishes the much broader proposition that any facility labelled “women” is, as a matter of law, “mislabelled” if trans women are allowed to use it.

@Lacksie Trying to grasp a coherent point of yours is like trying to grasp a blancmange.
You haven’t made any solid arguments - it’s a mess.

However, what is good is that I have learnt a bit more about the legalities of the case from several posters.

If you think calling me “psychotic” and “weird” is an appropriate way to engage, that’s your choice. I can’t stop you.

"I believe you should be able to request a doctor that you are comfortable with."

Ah, so you disagree with Dr Upton, who said that if a woman requested a female doctor, they would still treat that woman, knowing that she didn't want to be treated by a man, because 'I don't have to disclose personal information'.

@Lacksie legal arguments aside. Why should I share women’s facilities/sports with men?

See my previous post on British standards BS 8501 and BS ISO 7001

Do you know, I'd have much more respect for someone that said "I hold these principles (despite being confused on the law) but I recognise that Dr Upton said some deeply problematic things at tribunal and was revealed to be willing to ignore requests for same sex care because he wrongly asserted that he was a biological woman. So we do need to be careful to make sure that women are protected."

It's not going to happen though, because the GI movement is all or nothing. Close your eyes to the fact that TWAW is a convenient cover for any man with nefarious intent. Close your eyes to the disproportionate statistics regarding criminal conviction. Close your eyes to the risk, and the harm. March on regardless.

And? You have been distinctly disrespectful in your responses to posts by @prh47bridge

Pot - meet kettle.

is 'dehumanising' a yellow blobby emoticon a crime now?

🤔?

Criticising someone’s legal arguments is not the same as calling a person names . You can think I’ve been disrespectful, but “pot meet kettle” doesn’t really follow

Bloody hell!!!!!!! I do not wish to unwatch this and subsequent threads, in case i miss something IMPORTANT. so have to keep revisiting and then reading as is my habit.

i think the legal arguments have become repetitive now.

I personally do not give 2 hoots about what the L says, i mean who cares what some random from down under thinks he thinks anyway.

i suppose on the positive side it has helped people firm up all the legal interpretative stuff.

I would very much like to tell a certain someone to just fuck off and go annoy people somewhere else, but it just seems such an inadequate expression of my irritation.

No. Just tired of explaining the exact legal situation to you for you to contemptuously brush it off and demand something else. Your manners on this thread are not impressive, to say the least, and I'm not surprised legally qualified posters have had enough.

Sometimes I think these threads are a desperate attempt to find any loopholes or regulations gotchas by grilling everyone’s collective knowledge for free.

Or training some sort of AI programme to hunt for flaws. The repetitiveness and lack of knowledge suggest that.

Whether or not anyone on this board wants with more unisex or mixed sex provision, I can't help thinking that it would be more helpful to trans people to argue for that because it gives certainty, than to try to push the idea that a sign with a woman pictogram might possibly include men.

I don't think language comprehension is going well really. Which may be in part, as well as everything being taken entirely personally when the meaning is actually bleeding obvious, the whole confusion on the law in a nutshell.

Yep

Who called you names? The cowardice of your refusal to be honest was a fair comment. The smiley did look a little weird, possibly even psychotic, they all do.

😶

I love that I'm the one on this thread who needs better manners after all the shit I've taken and how restrained my responses have been 🙃

This discussion is about paragraph 61 of GLP vs EHRC which specifically refers to lavatories. I have therefore signposted you to the relevant building regulations as an example of regulations requiring clear and appropriate signage.

Yes, a number of us witnessed him saying it live.

It's most unfair of you to bring a gun to a fistfight with Lacksie!

You do not have the courage to spell out exactly where your ideology takes you I.e. female people losing the right to control whether they are touched by a male or female person in intimate medical
procedures. You support women being deceived by a male health care worker who wants to be female.

For all the endless splitting hairs over toilets, you give this one a swerve. Why not have the courage of your convictions and put men’s feelings over women’s needs.

Why would anyone want signage to be unclear?