Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will shortly be live tweeting from the second morning session of day 10 of Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and Dr Upton. The cross examination of Esther Davidson continues.

Previous coverage can be found on our Substack in our bio above

All rise for Judge
NC [reads re datex and nurse leaving cubicles]
ED Yes, that was in the datex
NC Can you explain datex and what we're looking at
ED Body of datex, tick boxes
NC Quite a few fields
ED Yes, tick boxes and drop down menus. Anything that happens to AE it

defaults to me being the investigator but I can change
NC Where is the info re leaving patients
ED Not here but there are other boxes
NC Yr clear in another box, the datex includes leaving patients
ED I have 15 datex per week. This will be 100s back so unable to clarify

w/out going back
NC Clear is more info re this datex
ED I dont know w/out looking
NC U recall is at least one more field
ED There's New Notes field. Yr asking me about something a long time ago and I wasnt the IX officer

ED ANy incident is recorded. Not just safety and B&H.
NC Once netered u can add more info later
Yes
NC Can u delete info
ED I dont think so
NC You imagine it wld be locked down and can't change info
ED I've only ever added info
NC Can u change info
ED I dont know

NC [reads re SX record we received last Friday.. reads re SX letter] It doesnt mention patient safety records?
ED It's my handwriting
NC U were asked yday in evidence in chief and u chose B&H as reason to suspend
ED Yes
NC You chose that? [lists other potentials]
ED Yes
NC

NC [reads re Susp risk assessment]
ED Not sure if I completed it, tho remember seeing it. Might have been Lottie
NC That records under background, brief details of incident. No mention of derog words but not accepting DU being female

NC Two lines from statement [reads out above] Tells us in yr mind you werent troubled about manner of SP talking but Beth..
ED I didnt write it
NC This is note from SX mtg
ED I've seen this part - these fields. I cant recall seeing the background

NC [reads re SP feeling rubbish] It's obvious it's from IX mtg
ED Lottie wrote it
J Is this not a later mtg?
NC I'm sorry, it's a different mtg
NC U were present and decided to SX on 3 Jan
Yes
NC On 3rd Feb decided to extend SX
Yes

NC Letter 3 Feb confirming SX and IX still ongoing?
Yes
NC So SP told IX ongoing
AS wrote letter. Still waiting SP was fir for the IX
NC Did u talk to anyone else
No, IX hadnt started yet
NC Shld have said IX is stalled
ED Or waiting to commence

NC Suspension revoked in March. MG says to AW, [reads re revoked] Reinstated in late March due rota problems
ED I dont think was reinstated. We asked her re day shifts for senior support.
NC Page 322, Lottie Myles says [reads re reinstating SX due to not wanting to work days]

ED Not my recollection that reinstated. SP on A/L in April and returned [describes work pattern]
NC Shld have been a RA for SX at each stage eg extension of SX and when revoked?
ED I was involved in 1st RA but AS involved later
NC Have seen one RA [finding docs]

NC Headings here re assess criteria [reads out re roles and continuation] Y're going to do check list before SX or restricting duties. So expect one for before she returns?
J Dont we see that here?
NC We dont see one for 1 Jan and 2/3 Feb
ED I dont see one

NC Is there a doc for Jan
ED I havent completed one
NC [find new doc] These are SF's notes on SX review mtg on 7 March. Have you seen before?
ED [reading them] I was present but dont think so
NC Fair account of the meeting?
ED [pauses] Covers most of discussion, yes

NC Covers CR but not the 2 missing incidents
ED It was about her return to work and protecting and supporting her
NC [new doc: email of 12 March of CM re revoking SX and opposite shift patterns] This given as reason for lifting SX
Yes
NC Can see whole reason for SX was contac

between them
ED Them not being in contact wld mitigate risks of both issues - CR and leaving cubicles
NC [discusses various mtg dates: planning mtg 18 Jan, 23 Jan DU's statement rec, 14 Feb LC's statement, and u removed from IX v end of Feb] As far as yr aware nothing else happ

NC So nothing else happened before she returned?
ED We worked out a shift pattern to avoid any interactions. That's all thta had changed
NC U ask us to believe that KS solves issue in Jan and took u that long to work out a rota to keep them apart?
ED We worked out ashift pat

ED It takes 6 wks to work out a rota
NC Need to correct that diff for SP as had a dog and accomodating re working w/ends. CM email of 2 Apr and SP working w/ends - that must be a mistake re day weekends?
ED was a compromise from both
NC Suggestion from SP
ED We also suggest

NC Look at IX notes of interviewing AG: by 26 Apr you knew v well that SP being IX for alleged HI re the CR.
ED I thought also compared to a convicted rapist
NC Background is board treating DU right to CR that cldnt be challenged
ED That's what E&D said

NC U cld see how much trouble ppl got into by saying Beth is a man
ED Rephrase plse
NC [rephrases re being willing to say Beth a man]
ED Beth Ided as a female
NC Whatever's in his head, or how he dresses, is still a man
ED It's how you say yr views

NC You say [reads re not realising DU used F CR and hadn't thought of CR issues as dresses and behaves like a F]
ED Correct
NC U know it's trouble to say women cant be men and M cant be W, so know acknowleding this causes trouble. SO yr frightened and saying what yr saying now

ED I treat ppl as I find them, respect their beliefs and treat everyone as an individual
NC But, that's different. Shldnt discriminate on ppl for PCs. Everyone agrees on this. But diff to say a man is a woman if he says so and uses undressing situation/space

[didnt hear response]
NC [new page] You said u hadnt spoken to IB before Beth arrived. 1st talk in August
ED Yes
NC IB spoke to ED in July 23 after R2 joined
ED I dint discuss w IB until end of Aug, so incorrect
NC How is this in claim docs then?
ED Never seen docs before

NC You answered re Beth using CR, and everyone is comfy w situation. That answer shows desire to say the right thing. Y're anxious.
I disagree
NC Again, yr asked re earlier advice and saying no one else had raised and not making Beth feel unwelcome

NC Y're saying the things yr supposeed to say
No. what I think is correct and believe
NC No other staff has contacted you
Yes
NC You heard re being M or F, and sometimes has consequences. Y've heard JR say this is an odd belief and not fact
JR Just said is a belief
NC

JR I just said is a belief
NC U heard JR say this, but most of ppl understand that u cant change sex. U heard her say this was a belief rather than a fact
ED I dont understand what being asked
J I'm not surprised
JR Some ppl have differnt beliefs

NC V clear that opposing beliefs in this case' JR calls the GC position. The other is GI that only that person can speak to and that trumps sex.
ED I dont understand what I'm being asked
J She doesnt understand
NC It's clear the trust instit position is that GI is what

matters, and GI assets over sex
JR No, the trust position is GR which is a process and not a thought
ED I beleive shld treat ppl as they want regardless of their sex and SO
NC Trust position is clearly not their sex / body but their GI
ED E&D policy said cldnt exclude Beth

ED Treat them as the sex they believe they are
NC we agree re trust position, it;s GI
ED That's the advice I got from E&D
NC SO when SP stood her ground all hell broke loose on Sandie
ED I wldnt say so. Was the manner
NC The consequences were unfair
JR was also the prison

JR comment. Unfair and misleading Q
NC Sp stood her ground and had v bad consequences
ED SP had a diff situation in CR and that's what led to the SX
NC It's obvious why no one else complained. Theyre frightened
ED No, but y'd need to ask frightened

NC U are too as GI got hold of trust
ED No. I treat ppl as they want to be
NC [reads re any further incidents and DU's statement re lack of interactions and not being aware]
ED Yes, as erious allegation and wld have IX it brought to my attention. Wld be neglectful to not

follow up
NC ANyone shld report it?
ED Yes, but remeber not that many staff in each room
NC But if staff had seen, they'd have a reg duty as so serious
It' s serious yes
NC So Beth shld have escalated at the time
ED But no detriment to pat as Beth remained

NC U wld expect staff to escalate and report to clinical supervisor
Yes
NC Imeed?
ED I dont know the dates involved
NC He shld have done on same day and not wait for next supervisory mtg?
Ask Beth
NC We did.
ED I'm nursing but wld expect quick response if was a nurse

ED If detrimental to pat care shld have done this promptly
NC This is 3 July email of LC, copied to you: [reads re IX policy, not discussing case] You complied w this?
ED was instruction to others, sorry
NC Y're right

NC [reads re SX review mtg] It's right that nurses have to change uniforms as arrive and leave
Yes
NC for hygiene reasons
Yes, infection control
NC Not professional to travel on bus in uniform
Yes
ED [discusses toilets/locker room for convenience]

NC Locker room shld be to change there into scrubs
ED Not what designed for but used this way
NC Locker room used by custom for changing
ED Yes
NC [reads ED advised re CRs for M and F and SP not wanting to change in toilet cubilce] She's right isnt she for hygiene reasons?

ED Staff change in toilets for privacy reasons
NC Not a good idea
ED It's their choice. Incl using? room.
NC Sp was right to not want to use the toilet
ED That's her cjoice
NC U tried to get her to work in a diff area
ED That was Jeckie's idea, it's a fairly reg used

option
NC It was a way to get her back to work. Not attractive
NO, but was a solution
NC Was a detriment
ED SHse chose not to take that option
NC [reads re coming back on days when senior staff available] Why did she need supervision
EP She'd had a diff situation and wanted

ED her to feel supported
NC But suggestion she needed senior supervision and might do something wrong
ED No, I see supervision as support
NC [new page] Letter CM to Sp of 28 March which explains day working decision and proper oversight of yr interactions w patients and staff

NC So wasnt about support but feeling she'd do something wrong
ED We wanted her to be safe at work after 8 wks absence
NC Did u see the letter at the time?
ED Dont think so
NC are u aware it's first time she was made aware of poss patient issues
ED I dont know about it

NC SHe wasnt a risk tho
ED More staff in the day so easier to monitor and make sure no interactions w Beth by separating. And make sure SP fine
NC But no reason to doubt she cldnt do job professionally
Were offering her support to get back to work
NC SHe didnt want support,

but her old job back and shift
ED There were concerns re leaving cubicle and to offer support.
NC She needed watching?
She shld be supported back to work
NC With hindsight SP had approached you twice, she'd not had help and had said she's raise it. Were worried

ED Long Q. Thought the risks small as rarely in CR at same time and thought ppl wld be professional. If I was uncomfortable in CR I'd remove myself
JR Sl confusing Q so to suggest SP had approached ED twice is wrong
NC We differ on this. There'd beeen 2 interactions

NC Trust put u in a diff position and a recipe for disaster
ED Only SP complained and I cldnt exclude Beth from the CR
NC SP told u she'd say something and y'd have thought saying No to Beth wldnt go well
ED I thought cld be a profess convo. have found Beth v persoanable

NC On any view, a convo was going to be difficult
ED Cant comment as wasnt going to have that convo
NC U cld see clash of interests between Du and SP. If SP was going to raise discomfort was obv going to be difficult
ED Wld never be easy, but cld be professional. Didnt set up

mediation
NC Y'd been sympathetic to SP and were worried what the trust wld make of that
ED I was sympathetic to Sp's position of not wanting to be in CR
NC This risk exposing you as having same privacy views as SP
Dont think have the same views. I treat ppl as individuals

NC Were u hoping to bury yr earlier involvement in the IX
ED Absolutely not
NC Lots of bad consequences form Xmas eve
ED What do u mean?
NC Bad things have happened
ED Yes, they're bad things for any one
NC [lists consequences]
ED Moving to a diff area is normal process

NC Yes, but was unwelcome
ED But encounter was unwelcome too
NC Beth was harassing her by being in CR, which caused it
ED Beth a TG who was allowed in the CR
NC SHe complained to him about harassment and feeling uncomffortable. Caused all this

ED I think also comparing her to a convicted T rapist
NC All cos she wasnt prepared to lie that he wasnt a man. These consequences flow by following evid og her eyes and wldnt enter into a pretence that he was a woman anf undress
ED Sp entitled to her beliefs

NC She's entitled to privacy and dignity in a CR
ED SP can answer that
NC I said I'd come back to SX mtg at the end
JR If we're about to finish..
J I'd like to finish cross at lunch
NC [notes re SX mtg: reads re her coming in and her angry demeaner and her not wanting to

her to use the CR]
NC Why change her words here?
ED Yes I corrected
NC Is it cos yr so scared you even change SPs words
ED No
NC re her leaving the meeting and finding it bizarre. Can u agree that being treated unjustly it makes u angry
ED If u perceive that

NC If bare faced denial of reality y're likely to be even more angry?
I dont know as not been in that sitn
NC Think from SPs view: prev been able to change w/out issues. She knows ppl cant change sex, that growing hair or wearing w clothes and makeup doesnt make DU a woman

NC She knows M and F is about bodies. So as far as she's concerned a man is in CR, She felt bullied and harassed and stood her ground, as did he. She has a history of s assualt. She's bullied and not protected from her bully. She's treated as the aggressor. that's the truth of

NC what's happened and it's not surprising she was angry when suspended
ED E'one entitled to their feelings
NC Heard of DARVO?
No
NC [details darvo] Y've heard of it now. It's what's ahppened isnt it? Bully is Beth and victim is SP. That reversal ahs happened w full approval

NC of the Board hasn't it?
ED No
NC No further Qs
J Right, we'll have lunch now and see everybody back at 2pm

[Session ends]

@threadreaderapp unroll