Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #68

[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

Thread 67: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584523-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-67 1 October 2026 to ????

@Lacksie

Do you believe that a female patient can give consent that is with full knowledge and no coercion if a male doctor (who they expect to understand the difference between male and female humans and who they trust would act ethically and that they have to trust to treat them) presented themselves as being the female doctor that they requested?

It is a yes or no question. Do you believe they can give consent based on this scenario or not?

This. It’s completely false. Upton is a biological male. There are only two sexes.

Part of the problem is @Lacksie that even a few years ago we would have read your word salads and probably just thought ‘oh never mind’ and scroll on by but we have tribunal after tribunal showing us what trans havoc looks like.

We did what you and people like you told us to do. We ‘educated’ ourselves. Probably not in the way you wanted us to, by listening to dim witted TWAW rhetoric but we really educated ourselves.

You are not dealing with a load of bigots you are dealing with clearheaded adults who are done with pretending and want logic, common sense and reality to prevail. Not virtue signalling suicidal empathy to appear ‘kind’.

When I look my grandchildren in the eye I do it with absolute love. Not a side agenda that one day I might tell them they might have been born in the wrong body.

Any thoughts on Sam HAll and the children she harmed?

The gaslighting continues

We have been told that the acquisition of reference terms for female people by male people has no negative impact on female people at all.

And yet, here is a very clear example and it is dismissed as semantic.

By this stage the incoherence of the beliefs supporting people claiming to be transgender is rather clear. Or maybe it is just that the self appointed spokespeople are misinformed while still demanding that they have the knowledge and can talk on behalf of trans people.

The point is that someone can understand human anatomy perfectly well and still have a different conceptual understanding of what the terms ‘female’ and ‘biologically female’ pick out — that's a question about how we define and apply categories, not something biological facts alone can settle.

Don't be silly. We can't have doctors redefining biological terms.

If I want someone to explore ‘conceptual understanding’ then do it in an art gallery not a hospital or medical setting. Any update on Sam Hall affirming and doling out medication such as PBs or hormones to children @Lacksie ?

So if my Dad arrives at A&E in his kilt it's OK for a Dr to think he's a biological female?

In medicine, particularly emergency medicine, it would be life-threatening to dismiss or conflate what man/woman and male/female actually mean. The two sexes need to be treated completely differently in terms of medicine, surgery drugs. A man presenting with abdominal pain will not have an ovarian cyst or an ectopic pregnancy, for example.

Words have meanings. You can't honestly think that it is OK for doctors to "have a different conceptual understanding" of what female means. I get that you are trying to bolster a weak argument here but I just cannot accept that anyone truly believes that we can just make up our own meanings of words.

Male and female is absolutely "something biological facts alone can settle". You are just talking absolute nonsense and you know it.

@Lacksie Dr Sam Hall is a woman who has coerced her children to think they have no mother
Anaesthetist & GP
Who unlawfully prescribed Class C drugs (testosterone) to children & vulnerable young women
Boasted she was a "Pied Piper" made a film full of red flags with her children in it. Hounded a safeguarding lead because she did her job properly and highlighted what Sam HAll was doing.

Do you condone this because of some conceptual understanding? If so please enlighten me.

Can you please answer the question about whether you believe that a female person is able to give consent in the event of a male doctor presenting themselves when a female doctor has been requested please.

It seems rather like an important question to have an answer to.

I am referring to this question:

Do you believe that a female patient can give consent that is with full knowledge and no coercion if a male doctor (who they expect to understand the difference between male and female humans and who they trust would act ethically and that they have to trust to treat them) presented themselves as being the female doctor that they requested?

It is a yes or no question. Do you believe they can give consent based on this scenario or not?

Nobody’s redefining anything. “Female” is an ordinary word that was applied to people on sight long before anyone knew what a chromosome was — biology didn’t define it, and doesn’t settle it.

Come on @Lacksie simple question deserving of your wisdom. Please answer @Helleofabore even if you ignore 90% of all our other perfectly good questions.

I am sensing you can see the game is up and reality is being restored after years of listening to word salad nonsense around trans.

The Emperor’s New Clothes comes to mind. Groupthink has been dismantled tribunal by tribunal. Reality will always triumph even if it takes along time.

I do wonder whether we pander to this nonsense too much. Taking seriously randoms who claim that Upton and his cohort of men aren't claiming to have changed sex. Seriously?
Arguing about the word female no longer meaning women.
Let alone the creepy and downright dangerous demands that sex change is applicable to children - including 4 / 5 years olds?

While being very appreciative of the immensely wise and insightful posts from posters on FWR, I do wonder whether repeatedly engaging with this drivel gives those with this disordered thinking the belief that they have ethical and rational arguments? When nothing could be further from the truth.

Just a thought.

Good point. I sense it is the sheer frustration at the never ending word salads and verbal gymnastics that keep us replying. Point taken though!

This is remarkable!!

People really must have been confused about who was female and who was male before the discovery of chromosomes! Or you know, people understood the biological differences well before the discovery of chromosomes. And the word ‘female’ had an established and scientifically proven meaning that has not changed.

And no male person can claim to be a female person because he adopts a transgender identity.

Well yeah, biology did kind of define who was female. It was the people with a vagina 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.

@Lacksie you are talking absolute nonsense. Constant posting of complete rubbish and internally inconsistent logic. Its not that you have a different opinion to most of us on this thread, we welcome engagement from people with different views. But, seriously, posting the same nonsense again and again, misrepresenting facts to try to bolster your nonsense, not responding to direct questions and coming up with completely illogical and inconsistent points is SO FRUSTRATING. You are not helping your cause with these posts, youre just making the weakness of your "arguments" clearer and clearer.

I would happily debate anyone who can take on board other people's points and respond with logic and coherence, even if I completely disagree with them. But, seriously, your word salad is highlighting the chasm of critical thinking that underpins GI.

Yes you are trying to redefine words to suit your agenda.

Biology absolutely does define the difference between men and women and has done since the advent of the human race, if it didn't there wouldn't be a human race.

This silliness really needs to stop.

The word female does not apply to Dr Upton, he does not qualify, he is not and never will be female and he has no right to apply that word to himself and anyone who cheerleads him doing so and goes along with his nonsense pronouncements clearly attends the same school of utter delusion as he does.

Great — so it’s anatomy, not chromosomes or gametes. Then a trans woman who’s had surgery is biologically female on your own definition. If you want to say no, you’ll need a different criterion, which is exactly my point: biology hands you several candidates and you’re the one choosing between them.

This is such a weak argument @Lacksie . Female has a specific definition in science, and modern medicine is based on science.
Would you argue that 'star' is not a settled term in stellar physics, because some people confuse stars and planets?

Remember though, this is a person who has appointed themselves to be an educator spokesperson for people with transgender identities.

Imagine that….

Trans women are men. Any thoughts on Sam Hall the woman pretending to be a man @Lacksie and the children she unlawfully gave medication to?

TW who have had surgery do not have vaginas.

No transwoman has a vagina. They may have a surgically constructed fuck hole but that's all. You need to be female before you have a vagina.