Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will continue shortly with Part 2 of morning session in Peggie vs NHS Fife & Dr Upton. Our morning reporting is here:

JR - taking to facebook post of SP husband, he authored, has a pic and 'is it gay to date a TW?
SP - that's correct
JR - another picture it says 'I mean I don't know because they have d**k'
SP - yes
JR - those are mocking TW
SP - yes
JR - evidence of a deeply offensive attitude

to TW.
SP - I believe it was banter between him and his friends
JR - 'banter' can be very harmful
SP - missed
JR - most people would take offence to those 2 pics wouldn't they
SP - it may feel offensive, I don't think my husband set out to upset anyone in particular

JR - what's harmful about it, is that it gets at a very vulnerable group of people, that's transpeople
SP - he's been very supportive of me during this whole thing
JR - you share his attitude about transpeople don't you
SP - no
JR - msgs between you and colleague, 'Trans doctor

was in CR this evening when I went in' Reply OMG 'PSML'. Pissing myself laughing. You and colleague were both laughing at DU.
SP - I believe that we were laughing about the colleague that I had previously asked if DU was going to use the female CR and thought he was winding

me up about it
JR - you were both mocking DU because trans
SP - no
JR - she said PMSL, you were both laughing about the TW in the CR
SP - no, we were more surprised that DU was using CR,
JR - you were making light of the fact that a TW was in CR,

SP - I was not making light of it
JR - you were, making jokes about it,
SP - Charlene knew that I wasn't happy about it, we weren't making light of it, it was about Chris who told us it would happen
JR - new msg 'I'll lose the argument, everyone will side with minority'

JR cont and your mum said 'I'll make him into a woman' what did that me
SP - I've got no idea, my mum and dad were trying to make me feel better, it was awful, we were trying to make light of it, <missing> they wanted me to run down to the hospital and tell them, they thought it

was ridiculous, they were trying to humour me.
JR - when you say 'everyone will side with the minority' you disagree with that
SP - yes
JR - IX interview 'SP held strong beliefs' this is about DU trans status is this true

SP - no problem with TW status, just that DU allowed in the CR.
JR - she was allowed to use the CR because she was a TW, and that's what you disliked
SP - i did dislike DU in the CR
Jr - you are also intolerant of people of other races
NC - I'm sorry how is this relevant ?

NC - it seems to be a general attack on Cs character.
J - how will this help us in our decision in this case
JR - by analogy, to intolerance of race is also to intolerance of trans people
J - wide latitude in x examination, I will allow, but I hope it will be short chapter

JR - now reading out SP husband facebook posts, about Islam, it's okay to be white, white people disappeared from TV adverts, these are racists posts,, you share these views
SP - I don't share those views, I don't post on Facebook.
JR - now a 'straight pride' post from husband

those are homophobic views.
SP - my daughter is gay, her GF is regularly in the house, I have no homophobic views
JR - first encounter, no real interaction, how could there be a hostile environment
SP - DU was in the CR
JR - on the 3rd occasion you had decided to say something

so it wasn't unwanted conduct. It looks like you were the aggressor.
SP - I don't believe that I was the aggressor
JR - you weren't shouting but the prison comment, calling DU a man, those appeared attacking,
SP - I wasn't meaning to be offensive
JR - even if you didn't mean

to be offensive, it could have been hostile for DU
SP - the effect I hoped for was for DU to understand better
JR - I'm not interested in your intention, but DU may have felt it was a hostile thing to do, can you see how that was the case
SP - I can see how that might have been

the case but it wasn't my intention.
JR - coming back to your case, you don't say that DU wanted to harass you, violate your dignity, etc. You say that it was the effect of DU conduct
SP yes
JR - it wasn't anything she said or did, but it was the effect of DU conduct

how could DU have harassed you?
SP - I don't know what any person's intentions could have been, but I know what the effect was on me.
JR - you've said all 3 encounters were sexual harassment, conduct of sexual nature, but you agreed never touched you, how can that be conduct

of a sexual nature
SP - a man undressing in front of a woman is conduct of a sexual nature, unwanted.
JR - its disputed that DU took clothes off in front of you,
SP - he was in the room with me and changing
JR - you've also claimed that DU treated you badly because you

rejected the sexual conduct. How did you reject that conduct,
SP - I don't understand the question
JR - well that's because your claim is unclear, here's the 3 propositions: 1) DU did something unwanted, 2) you rejected the conduct 3) and you were treated worse because of it.

NC - interjects: does not have to be conduct of a sexual nature, can be conduct related to sex.
JR - thank you for that clarification. We've covered the conduct and the sexual nature, let's go on to rejection, what did you do to reject the conduct.
SP - I can't think of an

answer because I don't understand the question.
JR - you say you were treated badly by DU, because DU refused to leave the CR,
SP - that's true
JR - but DU was first to leave CR
SP - left but after the exchange
JR - the other way that you say treated less favourably was by

making a false complaint
SP - it was not necessary
JR - not true and not necessary are different, you said DU's complaint was false
SP - it was false
JR - first way you say it was false 'you hadn't used offensive language', we've gone over what you said and in relation to

you're a man and the prison comment, could have been offensive.
SP - it was not my intention to be offensive,
JR - but it was offensive to DU
SP - it was not my intention
JR - also - you didn't object to a TW in the CR, you objected on account of his sex.

JR - you didn't DU to be in there, you objected to DU being in the CR
SP - I objected to DU being allowed by the NHS to come into a female facility
JR - you say false on account of chromosome comment, you say, you did not say but there is some evidence you did say

that. About the chromosomes, they concluded that you had said that.
SP - I disputed that I said that.
JR - you said you didn't recall, so it's possible that you did say that.
SP - I didn't need to say that, I knew that DU was TW and biologically male,

JR - you compared DU to Isla Bryson who is a rapist, that is offensive
SP - I couldn't remember the actual case or name or details, just a man in a woman's prison, I didn't know that he was a rapist
JR - you did know, you compared him to a male rapist in a woman's prison

SP - I compared him to another circumstance of men in a woman's space.
JR - you knew that IB was a convicted rapist.
SP - I couldn't remember the name or details of the case
JR - the uproar was about a male rapist in a woman's prison.

SP - I didn't remember the details of the case, just a man in a woman's prison.
JR - you compared DU to a male rapist in a woman's prison
SP - it was a comparison of a man in woman's prison
JR - anyone would know that once you compared DU to the man in woman's prison anyone

would know what you were referring to.
SP - I knew only general case, not what the man was in the prison for.
JR - you also say that you didn't repeatedly stated views in an aggressive manner, no voices raised or bad language but there can be an aggressive atmosphere created

SP - I didn't mean to create an aggressive atmosphere, I was calm
JR - it is possible to seriously bully someone in a calm manner to undermine them,
SP - I was not bullying DU
JR - DU says you were unprofessional in work situations, you dispute that
SP - yes, disputed.

JR - your case is that DU brought the complaint because of your rejection of DU's harassment. In reality, DU brought the complaint about you because very upset by what you said.
SP - I accept that was what DU felt.
JR - you also say 'victimisation', what you're saying is that

DU has contravened the EA. And then DU did things to you after that because of the convo, is that what you're saying.
SP - yes
JR - isn't it more likely that DU brought complaint because very upset
SP - hard to know motivations
JR - part of victimisation is retaliatory

treatment, isn't it the case that you are suing DU in response to complaint about you, you're getting back at DU, your solicitor wrote in Feb 2024
SP - I was complaining about the NHS
JR - we've been looking at your case against DU all morning and part of y'day, it included DU

JR - now onto Fife harassment policy, offensive jokes and banter, your comments could be under the category
SP - it could be
JR - freezing out, ignoring etc - that could fall into that category,
SP - it could be
Interruption and request for derogatory remarks

JR - comparison to man in a prison and calling him a man, that's not a fair comparison is it
SP - I was comparing DU to a man in a woman's prison, not saying a criminal,
JR - has DU ever been convicted of a crime
SP - no
JR - failure to use preferred pronouns, etc also

are bullying.
SP - I tried to use preferred pronouns, but it doesn't come naturally to me
JR - you've called DU a man throughout these proceedings, you're making a choice to use these words
SP - its very difficult to call a biological man a woman, it's the gender speak

JR - you find it difficult, you don't want to do it and you don't do it.
SP - I have tried but it doesn't change that DU is a biological man
JR - I'm surprised, throughout these proceedings you have misgendered DU, and instructed your legal team to misgender them. You've chosen

misgender him.
SP - I believe that DU is a man, he wants to use she/her pronouns, I tried to use them, but its difficult.
JR - you're not trying now are you
SP - no, I'm not trying now
JR - looking at this def of harassment your choice to do so, is harassment under this policy

you are the only person guilty of harassment under this policy
SP - yes,
JR - you were placed on special leave on 30 Jan, due to a bullying and harassment complaint, you knew it was because of what had happened with DU.
SP - yes
JR - u said yesterday, that you were surprised

about the complaint but you did know you had upset DU. You yourself were emotional about it, you said you were upset and shaking.
SP - correct
JR - not any old convo, one that one your case had left you shaken,
SP - yes
JR - going back to DU acount of aftermath of convo

JR - 'I am distraught, find Elspeth, explain through tears what happened', DU was in tears.
SP - I did not see that
JR - DU is saying that was in tears when talking to a colleague, do you dispute that
SP - that's what DU said

JR - now email, sorry to but a dampener on your holiday, but I don't feel safe working with SP and don't feel safe using CR when she is there', do you see who upset DU was
SP - that is what DU wrote
JR - from IX report, Pitt says DU was extremely upset, was first person

encountered,
SP - that is the IX
JR - DU was off sick for 2 months, because so distressed by what had happened, and being named as 2nd R in your case,
J interjecting dates,
JR - citing ACAS certificates and solicitors correspondence
JR - you did not need to include DU

as 2nd R. It was vindictive
SP - no it wasn't, DU was using the female CR.
JR - you got the phone call, special leave, about a serious allegation of intimidation or bullying, you shouldn't come into work, you claim that this was because of your GC belief but that's not true

is it. it was to prevent a repetition of the incident.
SP - it's possible.
JR - they did it because of the bullying allegation, not your beliefs or your sex,
SP - that's possible
JR - what you're saying is that by putting you on special leave is a form of harassment

you rejected conduct and were penalised by being put on special leave. Now saying that the section needs to be rewritten,
J - its a very long question, it's a question of law, and this witness cannot answer it.
NC - my position is that this is better addressed in submissions if

MLF agrees
JR - yes, that is better
JR - LC did not put you on special leave as a punishment, but because of the bullying complaint
SP - I'm not sure I can answer the question
JR - it says nothing about Equality Act, nothing about you rejecting DU conduct does it
SP - no.

Judge calls the lunch break. Court rises.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.