Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is part II of our afternoon coverage of Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr B Upton.

NC A few qs re reminder to C not to discuss case. [to doc] template letter notifying employee to i/x - includes should avoid discussing. Standard in disc letters. Expect to be used in Fife
GM y
NC Would expect disc to be finalised in a few weeks
GM 3-4 months

NC So reasonable to ask not to discuss if invest happening in normal period
GM y
NC Looking at suspension letter - don't see there any mention of confidentiality in that letter. JR will take you back to it if necessary.
GM not there
NC Nearest is this - shouldn't access work

email / workplace - but nothing about confidentiality
GM no
J/NC [reads / discussing re enclosed guide to suspension]
J second page seems to be blank
NC letter doesn't seem to be filled in
J Do we know if enc guide was sent
NC No. But may not matter. [to guide]

NC Was this the doc that was or should have been enc with the letter
GM y
NC No mention there of confidentiality either
J I think earlier it was said it appeared in a template letter
NC That q was wrong [reads c confidentiality]
J Says must not enter workplace

NC And in addition must not discuss.
NC If it was enc with suspension letter, it would have been tucked away in notes and not on face of letter.
NC [to letter 12 April, AG to Sp notifying AG's involvement in i/x and that has the boiler plate c not discussing.

NC That's the first time SP gets a letter which on its face states c confidentiality.
GM yes
NC [KS email of 29 Dec to all consultants - 29 cons?
GM Under 20
GM To all of them setting out Beth's side of story. Fair to say that by time all consultants in EDept got this,

confidentiality in the case has been lost.
GM I don't think Dr Searle should have sent that to all consultants.
NC KS on 12 Jan email to DU, ED who was i/x at time, cc to [names] - subject PC incident. Says ED taken lead on incident. DU replies asking what it wanted in statement

NC Various exchanges, all the ppl copied in. DU sends statement cc to all ppl asking if needs changes to statement. Exchanges inc person i/x ing and the complainant - confidentiality and integrity hopelessly compromised.
GM [agrees shouldn't have been done in this way]

NC and shouldn't have been copied in this way, compromised integrity of process. And ED, KS, Louise Curren and Lauren Harris were all potential witnesses.
GM [general agreement]
NC doc 3 July. This reacted to stories appearing in press
GM yes
NC Prohibition on discussing

Wasn't to protect integrity of i/x cos that was gone. Suggest it's to prevent SP talking to colleagues re man using f cr
GM I don't agree
NC Even if not its purpose, it was the effect. SP couldn't get tog with colleagues also unhappy re this

GM [disagrees]
NC It was to stop her expressing her G C /sex realist beliefs
GM I don't agree
NC email Lottie Miles to you, 7 March. SP referred to Beth as he/man/male - appeared not a mistake but conscious misgendering. ED and I want to prevent SP using he/man etc

in wider hospital.
NC This is trying to prevent these ideas being spread
GM Don't agree
NC Effect was to limit SP expression of her G C views
GM Wasn't to suggest SP be silenced, but to put her comments to her representative
NC But integrity of i/x already destroyed.

NC restriction to SP not to speak was unwanted by SP
GM yes
NC [doc] SP interview with AG. SP says not great coming into work, staff members have been told not to talk to me about it. Not an enjoyable environment to work in.

N C It was Intimidating, embarrassing etc environment.
JR Can't put all those words to the witness.s
[Judge suggests separating words out- humiliating, embarrassing etc]
GM Awkward, I would say
NC Whole thing was kicked off by interaction with DU on 24/12
GM yes

NC By his presence in the cr etc
GM It was started by the dati x report
NC Re acceptable behaviour by male hospital employee who doesn't id as a woman. May be a long preamble
J They can be difficult.
NC My hypothetical person is Peter. DU would call him a cis man.

NC [Peter walks in on female colleague Jasmin, changing in f cr] Does male Peter deliberately violate colleagues boundaries
GM yes
NC And that is an ex of sexual harassment
GM unwanted behaviour
NC Commonly called sex harr
GM Harrassment anyway

NC If male staff installed webcam in f cr to watch them is sex harassment
GM y
NC cos violating privacy
GM y
NC if violates in different way, but going into f cr, also sex harrassment
GM
NC And if he refused to leave cr he would be suspended on gross misconduct

GM would be suspended
NC ON gross miscondiut
GM Would be a possible basis
NC But if Peter than says I'm a woman. Nothing else changed about him. Male clothes etc. I/x would say you are obviously a man, not trying to change
GM [agrees]
NC If Peter says I'm a gender non conforming

woman, the investigator would be wholly unimpressed?
GM Yes
NC no further qs
J Ten minute break

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp please unroll