Thread by @tribunaltweets

We expect to resume our coverage of Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr B Upton this afternoon at 2pm.

A reminder of the judge’s admonition to witnesses re our live text based communications:

Limitation of our reporting:

Additional abbreviations:

GM – Gillian Malone, Director of Nursing at NHS Fife
OfS – Once for Scotland

J Like to explain to remote observers we have discovered changing layout doesn't work. Most important is for witness to be comfortable for giving evidence and for us to see and hear.
NC Back to Jan. Did ED tell you it had been established no risk of SP and DU being together

GMDon't recall.
Not my decision to suspend her
NC In email ED says been no change. Angie Shepherd wants to tell SP [missed sound v bad ]
NC Email you to Melanie Jorgensen. Ask to review suspension. A misspeak?
J Seems so
NC Was intention that Lottie Miles would conduct genuine

process

GM Lottie was taking over this case and do the four-week suspension review.
NC No notes
GM no
NC No email confirming agreed?
GM No. we only work two doors away
[missed]
NC [to doc] GM reading

NC That was background. MG had written protesting suspension.
GM Not my understanding. Policy was that suspension reviewed.
NC This letter didn't cause review
GM Not seen letter before. It's part of policy to review suspensions.

NC [to doc] Letter from Margaret Gribbon [MG], forwarded from Angie Shepherd's inbox. Exchange with Adam Watson. You said just now you hadn't seen this letter...
GM AS's PA Sent it on and I immediately forwarded it
NC
NC We can see was legal advice as result of that letter

NC MJ email Feb to you - anything further on this suspension being lifted? Looks as though decision taken that suspension to be lifted. You are saying that MJ means anything further on suspension being lifted means another more on suspension.

NC Your email to Lottie Miles

was to tell her suspension was to be lifted
GM Don't agree
NC That decision to lift suspension was cos MG was objecting to suspension on no proper grounds.
GM [missed]
NC Friday 8 March you to MJ - further risk assessment supported returning to workplace on different

shift pattern.
NC But had been established by end Dec no overlap between DU/SP shifts. Always poss to keep them apart?
GM DOn't recall
NC SP assures will be professional. You don't suggest she would have failed to give you that assurance
GM This asks Sandie if she can do that

NC Safe bet SP would have given same answer if asked in Jan
GM Don't know
NC Are you saying someone has done another risk assessment
GM Lottie and Esther have
NC L and E have together. Is that right.
[unclear]

NC Email Jamie Doyle to L Miles, with attachments. Look as suspension risk assessment -third column, restricted to working alongside senior charge nurse. Text populates the table. JD send pre-populated form to LM
GM I'd say it's a blank assessment
NC But there are specific pre-

[discussion about email sent by J Doyle to Lottie Miles about risk assessment form, whether pre-populated by J Doyle or not]

NC More text added by Lottie Miles
J Doyle seems to have sent pre-pop form and she has added in background details
GM Have to ask LM but not what I would expect
NC Would seem risk assessment been made after decision made re suspension
GM re sss cr. part of your job to look after

nurses welfare
GM y
NC So if you thought that it was an affront to dignity etc of your nurses to let a t man use the cr it would up to you to speak up about that?
GM yes
NC LM email to you re mtg with SP 7 March. LM records SP asks why DU couldn't be moved/ asked to change

elsewhere. That would have been solution to problem.
GM SP was suspended cos of all the things in the dat ix, not just that
NC SP's sol said SP needed ss space to change in. Why wouldn't is be solution to problem to give Beth single occupancy room for him to change in

GM Dept took advice from DEI lead and so it wasn't what we could do.
NC Would your view be this is a pragmatic solution
GM We took advice
NC But the practicalities - refusing to stop allowing DU to use cr means SP at work couldn't avoid possibility - she couldn't be sure would

not meet men in there
JR asked q many times
J not really answered
NC SP couldn't be sure wouldn't meet a man in f cr
JR Not c men using f cr, but tw
GM We took advice, Beth, t member of staff could use facility
NC No reliably ss (biological) space for SP and colleague s

to change in

GM If we are talking about biological sex, then yes
NC SS spaces for staff provision is conduct related to sex. That is obvious.
JR [objects]
J reasonable q to ask
NC This is to do with sex
GM Guidance re t member staff was to allow to use f cr so not re sex

NC Women who are G C / sex realists
JR May need to understand what GI theory is
NC That gender matters more than sex, depends not on what body is like but how envisage themselves in their head. This lay behind IB's guidance.
JR Not IB approach in her evidence.

She relied on the code of practice.
NC Try again. Women who believe bio sex is real and sometimes matters, my see t id men as men, not woman. They still see a man if that's what they think.
GM yes
NC So if you provide ss bio spaces for staff, it's to do with SP

G C belief - that sex matters
GM don't understand q
NC I'll leave it there.
NC It was obvious re suspension/ d/x process that SP was unhappy. That she felt f cr being used by man intimidating and humiliating.
GM Yes, on Xmas eve
NC ED doesn't doubt genuineness of SP feelings.

GM Doesn't seem to
NC Do you doubt?
GM No
NC I'm giving you the opportunity to say if you think it was ?un/reasonable for SP to object to the [inclusion of DU in f cr]. It's okay if you don't want to take that opportunity.
GM [declines]
[short break]

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp please unroll

Limitation of our reporting: