The whole thing is very 'Streisand Effect' - they wanted to keep something quiet, but their wrongdoing is being played out in minute detail across months and months and will likely be a key judgment in the fightback for women's rights.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I am annoyingly at work but have all week off now. Had a little listen in on my break. Brilliant people now feel courage to come forward.
Sadly now deceased!
I doubt Mrs McClusky would of tolerated any of the nonsense being taught to kids in schools nowadays.
Wishart can't remember who told her, but REMEMBERS it was definitely SP said all those nasty things....aye alright doll
Thanks to whoever posted this article. I will be cancelling my PCS membership. I hadn't seen they'd released a statement following the Supreme Court ruling although I did check at the time. I'm not giving £20 a month to an organisation who doesn't give a tit about 50% of its membership.
archive.ph
Union activist sues claiming gender critical discrimination | The Her…
archived 26 Jul 2025 08:57:07 UTC
There's a live blog here - https://www.scotsman.com/news/polit...-sandie-peggie-and-dr-beth-upton-case-5244152
What is it with all these unions adopting a stance and (wrongly) expecting all members will agree.Thanks to whoever posted this article. I will be cancelling my PCS membership. I hadn't seen they'd released a statement following the Supreme Court ruling although I did check at the time. I'm not giving £20 a month to an organisation who doesn't give a tit about 50% of its membership.
Union activist sues claiming gender critical discrimination | The Her…
archived 26 Jul 2025 08:57:07 UTC
They should just butt out of issues like this and get on with the day job - Protecting the employment rights of all workers - in a neutral manner.
Unison are just as bad. They sent round voting forms recently and the bios of some of the candidates were terrible. It helped me make my selection easier though
as anyone mentioning trans rights was crossed off straight away followed by those wittering on about net zero/climate change and anyone talking about stuff that was generally irrelevant. I voted for people who were actually interested in workers rights not external issues and their pet politics.Has to be said I have no faith in any of the candidates I did end up voting for and I'm planning to leave the union as soon as issues at my workplace are sorted out.
Here's Graham Linehan writing about Eddie Izzard getting an honorary degree.
www.spiked-online.com
Eddie Izzard’s delusions of gender
His cross-dressing habit has elevated him to sacred-caste status.
www.spiked-online.com
Last edited:
Mrs McClusky would never, and can you imagine Mr Bronson's take on it?
Just came to say this. Unison are the worstUnison are just as bad. They sent round voting forms recently and the bios of some of the candidates were terrible. It helped me make my selection easier though
Has to be said I have no faith in any of the candidates I did end up voting for and I'm planning to leave the union as soon as issues at my workplace are sorted out.
The Hypocrisy is astounding I am lost for words.Here's Graham Linehan writing about Eddie Izzars get an honorary degree.
Eddie Izzard’s delusions of gender
His cross-dressing habit has elevated him to sacred-caste status.
How have you got the link?
I wonder if we will actually hear evidence this afternoon or will it be more Chinese whispers.
Thankfully it looks like NC may be calling one of the two new witnesses. Things are going to get very interesting.
Thankfully it looks like NC may be calling one of the two new witnesses. Things are going to get very interesting.
I can't understand how they can hold a Tribunal, but spend so little time actually getting on with it. They never start on time, finish when it's time for afternoon tea, rather than the evening, have breaks every 5 minutes and have at least an hour for lunch. If they'd spend a bit more time actually doing, there'd be plenty of time to hear from new people.
Boswell summarises this mornings tribunal
Cross-examination will be key here. Wishart admitted she couldn’t recall what Upton or Peggie were wearing on Christmas Eve, didn’t know when Peggie entered the room, and wasn’t even sure who else remained when she left. Her one vivid memory was that “Beth always had a bra on” when changing.
Cross-examination will be key here. Wishart admitted she couldn’t recall what Upton or Peggie were wearing on Christmas Eve, didn’t know when Peggie entered the room, and wasn’t even sure who else remained when she left. Her one vivid memory was that “Beth always had a bra on” when changing.
The morning of Day 9 began not with evidence but with open legal skirmish - each side jockeying to define what the Tribunal should be allowed to hear and when. At the centre of the storm: four unexpected developments. Two surprise witnesses offered by the Respondents, Fiona Wishart and Lindsey Nicoll, whose testimony would reference events, group chats, and hearsay previously undisclosed; and two late-emerging witnesses for the Claimant, who - counsel Naomi Cunningham explained - had come forward under conditions of psychological duress in a "climate of fear" within NHS Fife.
The dispute was sharply framed. Cunningham made clear that had NHS Fife properly investigated or disclosed the Benidorm Party Chat and its participants in earlier proceedings, these individuals would have been called months ago. Instead, the Tribunal now faced a procedural bottleneck. Not only did Peggie herself need to be recalled to answer these belated allegations, but her legal team was asking to call the two new witnesses in rebuttal - one of whom had been party to the same disputed chat. Jane Russell KC, for the Respondents, insisted there was nothing shambolic about their conduct, calling Cunningham’s accusations “hyperbolic.” She objected strongly to recalling the Claimant, objected to testimony via video link, and objected, above all, to the Tribunal being “derailed” just as it neared conclusion. “Momentum matters,” Russell said, “and letting this stall again would undermine the quality of justice.” The judge, however, found the logic on the Claimant’s side more persuasive. He granted, in principle, permission for the two new witnesses and a limited recall of Peggie—on the condition that all examination be “particularly focused” and “short and to the point.” With time running out, the panel would not permit drift.
Then Fiona Wishart took the stand. Her testimony was less revelation than echo. A long-serving emergency nurse practitioner, Wishart described the now-infamous Christmas Eve changing room encounter as uneventful. She said she’d entered with Dr. Upton and another doctor after a shift, exchanged pleasantries, and left. Sandie Peggie was there. Nothing “untoward” occurred. But Wishart’s most damning contributions came not from her own memory, but from social hearsay. She repeated that Peggie had referred to Upton as a “weirdo” and “freak” during a work lunch - words, she admitted, she'd heard from others. She also said she’d heard Peggie had used the word “it,” though couldn’t recall who told her that, or when. More striking still was her claim that Peggie had made derogatory comments about immigrants and a new mosque in Kirkcaldy - again, not from first-hand experience but from second- and third-hand chatter among colleagues.
Cross-examination will be key here. Wishart admitted she couldn’t recall what Upton or Peggie were wearing on Christmas Eve, didn’t know when Peggie entered the room, and wasn’t even sure who else remained when she left. Her one vivid memory was that “Beth always had a bra on” when changing. Wishart’s evidence may have been intended to reinforce the narrative that Peggie harboured animus. But by relying so heavily on back-channel gossip, it may instead undermine the Respondents’ case - raising serious questions about what NHS Fife deemed investigable “evidence” and why Peggie was sanctioned on the basis of workplace hearsay, while Dr. Upton’s own conduct (or credibility) has not been subjected to equivalent scrutiny. The Tribunal broke for lunch with more still to come. But the stakes were now unmistakable: if what’s being adjudicated is not just what Peggie said in a changing room, but who is allowed to speak truthfully about sex and fear, the question of fairness may prove even more determinative than law.
The dispute was sharply framed. Cunningham made clear that had NHS Fife properly investigated or disclosed the Benidorm Party Chat and its participants in earlier proceedings, these individuals would have been called months ago. Instead, the Tribunal now faced a procedural bottleneck. Not only did Peggie herself need to be recalled to answer these belated allegations, but her legal team was asking to call the two new witnesses in rebuttal - one of whom had been party to the same disputed chat. Jane Russell KC, for the Respondents, insisted there was nothing shambolic about their conduct, calling Cunningham’s accusations “hyperbolic.” She objected strongly to recalling the Claimant, objected to testimony via video link, and objected, above all, to the Tribunal being “derailed” just as it neared conclusion. “Momentum matters,” Russell said, “and letting this stall again would undermine the quality of justice.” The judge, however, found the logic on the Claimant’s side more persuasive. He granted, in principle, permission for the two new witnesses and a limited recall of Peggie—on the condition that all examination be “particularly focused” and “short and to the point.” With time running out, the panel would not permit drift.
Then Fiona Wishart took the stand. Her testimony was less revelation than echo. A long-serving emergency nurse practitioner, Wishart described the now-infamous Christmas Eve changing room encounter as uneventful. She said she’d entered with Dr. Upton and another doctor after a shift, exchanged pleasantries, and left. Sandie Peggie was there. Nothing “untoward” occurred. But Wishart’s most damning contributions came not from her own memory, but from social hearsay. She repeated that Peggie had referred to Upton as a “weirdo” and “freak” during a work lunch - words, she admitted, she'd heard from others. She also said she’d heard Peggie had used the word “it,” though couldn’t recall who told her that, or when. More striking still was her claim that Peggie had made derogatory comments about immigrants and a new mosque in Kirkcaldy - again, not from first-hand experience but from second- and third-hand chatter among colleagues.
Cross-examination will be key here. Wishart admitted she couldn’t recall what Upton or Peggie were wearing on Christmas Eve, didn’t know when Peggie entered the room, and wasn’t even sure who else remained when she left. Her one vivid memory was that “Beth always had a bra on” when changing. Wishart’s evidence may have been intended to reinforce the narrative that Peggie harboured animus. But by relying so heavily on back-channel gossip, it may instead undermine the Respondents’ case - raising serious questions about what NHS Fife deemed investigable “evidence” and why Peggie was sanctioned on the basis of workplace hearsay, while Dr. Upton’s own conduct (or credibility) has not been subjected to equivalent scrutiny. The Tribunal broke for lunch with more still to come. But the stakes were now unmistakable: if what’s being adjudicated is not just what Peggie said in a changing room, but who is allowed to speak truthfully about sex and fear, the question of fairness may prove even more determinative than law.
This is pathetic. They must have know this, so why wasn't she called earlier?
Lindsay has already misgendered him 
And again!!
And again!!
LN can't remember much, but she clearly remembers one thing SP said sometime between 2012 and 2020 - and she's thrown two of her colleagues under (what is now a very large) Fife bus.
The Scotsman says 'her' so I don't know whether TT or The Scotsman is correct:
- Status