Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon.
This is the first afternoon session of the 7th Day of the July hearings of Peggie v NHS Fife and Dr Upton.

We anticipate restarting at 2pm

Please see earlier posts linked below for this mornings coverage, notices and abbreviations

This morning's coverage:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1948288981646348529

We resume:
NC - we are quite concerned as an asymmetry in treatment..
J - do we need to hear in private
NC - no
JR - don't know
J - continue for now
NC - of counsel for parties, I've engaged in no attacks or professionalism, my objection to the premise on langauge

NC - was flatly factual, about language. Beyond doubt JR is exorcised no doubt on instruction of client on the qu of language. nothing arguably pejorative about exorcised, not did I accuse her of heresy. One aspect of C case, is SP has been treated as heretic deserving of punish

NC - ment, someone who won't pay lip service to GI belief system. Not novel or fanciful, in addams v edin rape centre, heresy hunt in those words were used. I have no time impuning JR professionalism, converse not true. Clear from public part, and to a greater degree in private

NC - same time JR granted repeated objecton to DU correct sex pronouns on which you have already ruled. JR does not suggest grounds to revisit, nor appealed. JR suggests my use or ordinary language interferes with art 6 rights, despite that imp claim only inviting me to reflect

NC - quite a lot of time wasted that way. So C team has reflected, in response to asymmetry not to be contemplated at this stage. Suggest we resume and complete evidence, but ask any further speeches about my language are restrained unless there's an application

J - so far as the left over objection?
NC - as to ask qu again in similar terms
JR - don't know what terms NC will use, support reask with diff words.
J - response to the rest?
JR - briefly yes, unfortunate it didn't contain an apology. DOn't believe exorcise right, implies heat

JR - which was clearly not there. My concern about impact on proceedings not just art 6. Also DU art 8 right to be treated with dig and respect and witness right not to be subhject to harassment. My objections professional at all times, public and private. FOr you to decide but

JR - don't believe there's been asymmetry, but Bench book contains how we should treat eachother in a prof context. When we are working together, not just right we treat eachother in accordance, it's also kind.
nothing further to say.
NC - nothing to add
J - ask the qu, slowly

J - see how we get on.
NC - long digretion, qu was reason SP had to be punished for heresy, JR on instruction, for not adhering.
AG- disagree
NC - JR says you have been confused/upset by correct sex pronouns, cutting across your use of F pronouns. Am I right you've not been

NC - confused by them?
AG - I know you mean DU
NC - no signs of distress
AG - no but I've misgendered DU and it's not something I'd normally do.
NC - trained yourself into the habit
AG - it's what I've been asked to do
NC - tricky to remember
AG - no

NC - if I called Miss Elves he, it wouldn't confuse you because its apparent
AG - if you use diff ones can be confusing.
NC - you would yourself revert to using usual pronouns
AG - you can see earlier i misgendered as i followed you, if you'd done that to another colleague I may

AG - have done same
NC - I suggest not, you have trained yourself and my use of correct sense pronouns disrupted that and used correct sex pronouns
AG - disagree
NC - in chief asked if approp for SP to say something to DU in F CR, you said don't confront, speak to manager

NC - imagine not DU, doesn't dress as a woman, big masculine manly man, no attempt to appear F, lets call him Pete. If SP in CR in a bra and trousers and Pete walked in. Decent thing for Pete is to back out.
AG - yes he's a man
NC - if he shuts the door after walking in

AG - sandie would be right to say its the no its the F CR
NC - 1237 - 2nd jan GM email to a group, not you attaching datix, 1236 see GM forwards to Norma Beverage NB
AG - director of nursing,
C - you knew that role?
AG yes
NC quite important role
AG - yes
NC - email says

thanks for info this is urgent needs HR advice and potential reputational damage. SHows board taking seriously
AG - yes
NC - NB thinks could be significant rep damage. She was right?
AG - don;t know
NC not
AG - not following coverage no.
NC - is the rep damage from letting SP

NC - say no to DU
AG - don't know
NC - from start senior people involved knew SP needed to be punished for the offence of not agreeing to use of CR
AG - no.

P1 - at start of evidence taken to 776, asked about notes, said it was paperwork mentioned things in it.

P1 - first was susx check list, what is that?
AG - check list of have you done everything meant to do, contacts, representative etc
P1 - diff from risk assessment?
AG - yes
P! - did you see risk assessment
AG- just chekc list and record.
P1 - around same time AH gave you names

DU ED KS and SP how do you decide who to speak to?
AG - anyone involved, seen it, been part of process eg ED and LC look after that area and SP went to them, so needed to know that.
P1 - who decides
AG - ix manager
P - you?
AG - yes
P1 - what did you do with names given

AG - organised diary invites and sent letters
P1 - your remit to decide to change list, add people
AG - yes esp in an iv joe blogs might come up and you think I might speak to them.
P1 - 513 - NC asked qu, took you to para 18-20, you decided not to do anything wiht that

P1 - what did you think when you read it, speak to anyone
AG - spoke to MSF, about what statement said. MSF from HR, said some incidents, previous info in statement, nothing else. Discussed whole statement.
P1 - thats all.

J - 1131 - bottom page feb email ED - AH coped to EH.

looks like 6 docs attached - SP and DU attached, what are the outlook ones.
AG - notes spoken of earlier
J - what
AG - check list, B&H, OH referal
J - any handover from ED?
AG - no, shifts didn't align prior to me being told of ix. Info from ED was given to me

AG - from info hadn't really been a start to ix, so carried on
J - 1501 - message 1st sept from ED to MSF and you saying risk assessment to AG, response to request for doc. MSF replies muddle of check list with risk assessment. She asked for it - any reply to that?
AG -don't know

J - didyou follow up on RA??
AG - no not invovled in susx
J - didn't ask?
AG - just got a folder with the same info in
J - when folder from ED?
AG - GM left in office and got between 4 - 24 march '24
J - urgency in april, an issue with illness of MSF, any thought for another HR

AG - MSF off for a long time Anne was to help me but reverted to MSF when I got back from hols,
J - off again?
AG - yes after summer
J - when
Sept to jan
J - who stepped in?
AG - Ann
JR - can look at spreadsheet 664 of MSF absences.

AG - AH ID'd to help me mid Oct when we knew MSF would be off but she was on hols when I started writing report. First meeting with AH start of Nov.
J - 3 iterations of report, what led to changes?
AG - 28th oct started writing, meant to be completed in 3 weeks, I'd done it

AG - it was a first draft, not final, shared with AH, discussed it, went back looked again as I would for any. Read it again, to make sure it's right. About reviewing and correct
J - apart from AH anyone else involved?
AG - no nobody saw till 13th
J - AH any input?

AG - no. DIscussed tweaking names to initials etc, didn't know we had to do that. that kind of thing
NC - think AG made a mistake, the attachments
JR - no she said statements
J - 2 statemetns, 4 outlook files, asked what
NC - file ends in png, auto junk not docs

J - so nothing else attached 2 statements, checklist etc came in folder?
AG - yes came in folder

JR - email at 807, 12:16 send time refers to an email, 829 - 4 staff in email. MSF email 16th refers to another email at 11:17 refs names - which email did she mean?
NC - leading

NC - implies it's one of those two
J - it does rather
JR - can you assist with which email it meant
AG - 807 meetings on 25th email, saying hour in with witnesses.
JR - gone as far as we can, 484 please. Taken to this IV wth RA, RA remembers conv happened, she was present

But had no recollection of what was said. Put to you a flat contradiction. Your thoughts
AG - don't believe its a contradiction, no
JR - before lunch asked about generally accepted beliefs 1121, do you know what it is? EHRC stat code of practice, says

JR - should treat transsexual people as G they present.
AG - yes
JR - had info from IB last week, about NHS policies from elsewhere which all say similar. Able to comment?
AG - all ive read says TG people should use facilities they've assigned themselves to. Not seen anything els

JR - lastly use of pronouns, said NCs use of pronouns confusing. said asked to use, any other reason.
AG - DU is a TW and it's not for me to say or quesiton.
JR - asked about man in CR, right to object to DU in CR?
AG - DU is a TW able to use the CR, while I understand and respec

AG - sandies beliefs, there are other ways to raise it
JR - how
AG - other ways to raise it, we have to respect others and use NHS values.
JR - who report to
AG - manager, head of nursing, other line managers, common someone to call me and say AG can you talk this through w me

JR - nothing more
J - Concludes your evidence thanks
JR - Anne Hamilton next
J - 5 min break
BREAK

@threadreaderapp please unroll

next session will be

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1948380569227665703