Thread by @tribunaltweets

We continue the morning session of Day 8, of nurse Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and Dr Upton. SP’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation.

J We are below air vents. Please keep voice up.
NC Will do. Colleagues pls nudge me if it drops.
NC On to IX interview with AG on 9 May. Email chain. You thank AG for sending witness notes. Don't see in chain AG email sending notes. You have q, c how transcripts done, should you

NC correct grammar, etc. Your next email, saying transcript is inaccurate and ask to hear recording.
DU Y
NC AG rather surprising reply is that recording deleted after notes prepped and before you approve. Offers to meet to go through notes. You accept offer of meeting 15/6

NC You didn't mention this exchange in your evidence in chief and these docs weren't disclosed then. You didn't know at time of ev in chief that we knew about these notes.
DU Don't know what you did or didn't know.

JR Mtg with AG not in list of issues
J might be re credibility / reliability
NC This mtg was important detail. You didn't mention.
DU Not necessarily. I wasn't asked about it.
NC We met. I highlighted mistakes and we filled in where words/sentences didn't make sense.

DU Corrected double negs eg I said I am a TW and the transcript said 'I am not a TW'. Obviously that I wouldn't have said that - transcript wrong. Some evidence I remember giving wasn't in transcript. Eg when I was summarising events at xmas. My message to x dept

DU at xmas wasn't mentioned. I assumed summarised and wasn't clear why some bits had been summarised and some not. The part where I was asked to give my feelings and how coping with ongoing process. I mentioned the C side was trying to find my GRC status.

DU I had to explain process of GRC acquisition and what it means to t ppl who don't have one. Was concerned that in my explanations I would have disclosed something in this legal case that was still being disputed. Other places in transcript had been summarised

DU I asked for GRC status parts to be summarised if not needed for IX.
NC This is notes of that transcription after mtg. Not absolutely accurate, cos you and AG had excluded material you two didn't think was relevant to IX.
DU Yes. We had discussion and that was what we decided

NC Original mtg notes as sent to you. Would you regard those as not relevant to this tribunal task
DU Don't understand q
NC First attempt of notetaker who was present at mtg, producing their accurate record. Altered notes of mtg produced and in bundle. Asking you what you know

NC if anything why original notes not in bundle.
DU Not responsible for bundle
NC R original production inc exchange AG/you asking to review notes and return
DU You respond next day. Agree accurate note of IX mtg

NC we see an anodyne rerun of please approve minutes
DU y
NC no hint in AG email are you happy now we've made changes. It's as if she asking you for first time.
DU That's what's being asked. I've said they are accurate.

NC This exchange inc in bundle. No sign until we pressed of the exercise of you/AG rewriting minutes. Is it fair for tribunal to conclude was concealing you were not happy in first place and they were changed.
DU. No. Accurate if not completely everything transcribed first.

NC Moving on to qs c your account of incidents at diff times. Five items on your charge sheet - or rather, account against SP, 3 x in CR, missing patient and resus incident.
DU Y. wouldn't call it a charge sheet.

NC Yr email 26/12 to BMA. You mention all 5. Met with KS on 29/12 - did you discuss 2x patient incidents at that mtg
DU Don't recall. Unsurprised if we did. Would be normal for KS to have asked me if anything else going on as well as problems with colleague.

NC You told last week that you looked at policies with KS and yr evidence in chief looks as though you/KS/etc looking at policy
DU Y Looking for guidance.
NC It would be misleading if you turned up at 29/12 equipped already with policies
DU I may have - emailed BMA on 26

DU Could have turned up at mtg with some policies.
NC DID you mention BMA discuss at mtg
DU Can't remember.
NC You had already provided BMA 2 days before mtg with B&H policy and EDI policy. On blink?
DU Not if not at work. Wife may have helped.They are better at this than I am

NC Notes of IX mtg. When first see notes.
DU When sent prelim bundle
NC KS explains had email from EP on xmas eve and mtg with you on 29. [reads - Beth confronted by colleague in CR etc. Proceeded to use other offensive terms, like rapist in prison, etc]

NC accurate?
DU a fair summary of C actions towards me? Not the detail I would have inc.
NC anything in account you think not quite right? I wouldn't have said that/not q true?
DU. No It's accurate.
NC Asking c completing Datix. Accurate. Read her response

NC Accurate?
DU In as much as I was involved - not inv in last para. It's a reasonably accurate summary
NC Did you send a FC to your line manager as result of mtg
DU Don't think so
NC How serious is it if ppl refer to you as he/point out you're a man

DU Depends on context. I'm not a man. Someone misgendering isn't necessarily a crime. Some colleagues do it by accident.
NC But if colleague say you are a man, don't want you to use CR, q clearly. A police matter?
DU Didn't report. Didn't know if would reach level for police

NC [reads] KS notes - we talked about reporting to police. So you considered it?
DU No, we discussed. You said a police report would be labyrinthine - you wouldn't want to get involved in a long process/scrutiny
No, given attitudes to t ppl. Didn't want to-hope we could resolve

NC you are happy it's a fair report by KS c what she learned from you in mtg.
DU She said I have notes of resus incident which I don't. I haven't keep a log of all occasions - not the resus - but log of the other incidents. Reasonably accurate re what I would have shown KS

NC Did you show KS phone notes?
DU Can't recall exactly what I said. May have mentioned/shown re phone notes.
NC [reads] KS has info. And notes. And Beth has notes.
Re what you showed KS. Did you show KS your resus notes on phone.

DU Don't remember. KS may be mistaken. Have to ask her.
NC email KS to ED 30/12. Foreshadows IX interview. [reads c SP v diff to work with and Beth kept log]
DU KS understanding but not true cos I don't have note re resus
NC You told KS about it though. [turns to DU

NC contemporaneous notes on phone] reads dates
DU I understand. That is what contemporaneous means.
NC Last wrote note on 28/12
NC notes still on your phone. Backed up? May be q imps you don't delete them.
DU Not intending to.

[discussing notes/incidents/dates]
NC Don't think SP should be forced to be in CR with me. Its c whether she harassed me and her discomfort justifies me not being able to use CR. Not in business of making ppl uncomfortable.

NC Incidents - CR, resus and missing patient
DU Main complaint c xmas eve. Others are where someone appears to be difficult with me - now in clinical areas, so how do we proceed. still trying to work things out as best for everyone.

DU these are records of my perceptions.
NC EIC re importance of trusting colleagues
DU y v impt
NC patient safety issue
Du Y. Potientially. Yes, I'll agree with you it's a patient safety issue. Trusting with life of human beings - different from eg gossip.

NC and if so bigoted can't work tog with you is patient safety issue.
DU Y if req to work tog
NC Resus incident is most alarming and important of all. More imp than pretending you are a woman.

DU Y if talking c patient safety But xmas eve more important re colleague
NC respecting/validating / paying lip service/ immersive role play that you are a man was more imps for you than that SP has abandoned her work cos couldn't work with you

DU At that point we were talking about C behaviour to wards me. There can be two different kinds of severity.
NC Your demand to have ppl pretend you are a w when you're not and id validated flattens everything in path. C's article 9 right,

NC art 8 right, art 10 right - and flattens interest of patient safety. Only thing matters that others should forced to share your belief system.
JR We went round and round y day. This witness has art 8 and Eq Act rights too.
J difficult to ask qs on premise.

Don't think claimed that HR engaged in tribunal.
J A disputed q
NC Can put q again.
JR Pls moderation of language. Immersive etc
J We've been over ground again. Repetitive qs are an issue.
NC Not sure I follow
J Immersive term. You've asked that.

NC Cos coming true from R2 answers - have just heard that he wasn't interested in patient safety aspect
J q to put ...
NC among the things that your demand to have id validated is patient safety.
DU Not demanding . Asking for respect. If someone hands over patient and calls me

sir I won't refuse handover. Patient safety in an emergency ...Individual safety, then team, then patient

Someone treating me like this - incivility harms ppl ability to work well. In an urgent sit patient safety trumps everything after individual and team safety

NC If resus incident true, then SP so bigoted cos to trans is can't put it aside even when working tog to save life of sick patient.
DU Y that is potential consequence.
NC If true should be suspended at once on gross misconduct

DU varying degrees of seriousness.
[JR mentions comments of ppl in room tutting and mocking R2]
J treat everyone appropriately or will leave.
DU refusing to do obs or say in room is relatively low level. Wish I'd made a note but didn't. Wasn't making allegation v C but concern

NC You agreed my summary that SP so bigoted that wasn't prepared to put that aside and be prof. you agreed
DU Disagree . Patient was serious
NC I said potential. If someone is prepared to act with a patient who is sick
DU Not all patients are vv seriously ill.

DU Fast moving place, AE. Not like a court.
NC So you're saying your allegation not too bad.
DU No. Just potentially and that's why I mentally noted it.

NC I said if that was true SP would need to be suspended at once. She'd be a danger to patients and poss FtP
Du there are degrees of danger. Poss called away to something more serious. But this is someone who hasn't shared a space with me before. Need to speak to so

serious and clear it up.
NC you spoke to KS on 29 /12. The incident was between 25/10 and 18/12 - on C evidence was 31/10, early in period. You said it might have been a misunderstanding. that's an eg as to why concerns like this need to be IX straightaway

NC If bigoted colleague all hell should have broken loose. If not, then different.

DU At time I was thinking of it as comm issue. Poss naive. A failing on my part. For me to reflect on my thresholds for raising concerns/urgent concerns

NC Xmas incident. You treated that as terribly urgent - finding EP in early minutes of Xmas morning. Your story of being disrespected detained her but the resus incident was raised at once.
DU Didn't detain EP - told her had been deeply distressed by colleague and needed to

Du tell her.
NC Benefit of hindsight - xmas incident /resus incident. Did you get th priorities v badly wrong
DU No - incidents didn't conflict. Would have been sensible. I prob should have raised resus incident sooner. Not prioritising incidents over the other.

NC You have prof obligations to raise concerns.
DU Some one asking abruptly to do ob not as serious as another event, but nothing to do with my assessment of xmas incident.

NC Nursing Midwifery Code. Don't have dr one here. Act without delay if risk to patient/public safety. Dr one would be similar. You have comparable obligations.
JR NMS doesn't give time frame
J Not code for this kind of witness. Need to use GMC code
NC Not in bundle. Shortcut.

J I don't know dr obligations.
NC It's right you had your prof obligation to raise patient safety concerns.
DU Y and I raised those. We can argue re timeframe
NC Promptly?
DU Don't have entire GMC code memorised. Assume similar but I don't know.

NC Explicable if true you didn't report at once. It was under discussion in Jan?
DU I discussed with KS and she was aware after 29/12.
NC Why not inc in report - HI - you sent to AG in Jan.
NC We have this am received email to AG attaching that.

NC First we heard that 23/1 email to ED had HI attached
NC Can you explain why you said HI to ED but omitted this serious allegation.
DU Because I thought I could bring other background items up later.
NC You have already delayed bringing this serious incident

to the board. Your prof obligation surely is to bring it to attention.
DU I told KS. I had already raised it with a senior.
NC So alerting KS you had done your job. Anyone culpable is KS?
DU I raised my concerns. With appropriate person, senior.

NC Did you meet with KS between oct and dec
DU Don't remember a mtg
NC Did you see her even if not formally.
DU Perhaps on shift. Possible. Would have to see rota.
NC Given gravity of incident, why doesn't your phone log mention.

DU I was busy, stressed. It was late at night. Patient safety not compromised cos I can take ob s so don't immediately need to raise it. Can't recall why I didn't raise it earlier. Perhaps I was still naively thinking it was a lower level comms issue not patient safety.

NC FC - sent to board for first time 11 June by Adam Watson?
DU Presumably. Don't have control over AW's emails.
J How long
NC Getting on considerably faster than yesterday. Can't reach your target. Best estimate is 4 today.
J Why. Long time. Given great deal of latitude.

J Consider over lunch what left to be asked and best way to do so.
NC Just seen a dupe in my notes. Will revisit estimated time over lunch.
J We will break and return at 1.30.

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp pls unroll