Nurse Sandie Peggie’s case against her union, the Royal College of Nursing continues. Three witnesses for Sandie Peggie gave evidence today: Lisa MacKenzie, Jennifer Wilmot and Pauline Fox.
226 tweets
Good morning and welcome to Day 2 of Peggie v RCN from the Dundee Employment Tribunal. Live tweets follow:
The judge has just arrived and court is sitting. There is a discussion about a new document which is being added to the bundle. The first witness is Lisa Mackenzie from Murray Blackburn Mackenzie – a witness for Sandie Peggie and former RCN employee.
J – employment judge melanie sangster
NC – Naomi Cunningham, Sandie Peggie (SP)'s barrister
DH – David Hay KC – RCN's barrister
LM – Lisa Mackenzie
MG – Margaret Gribbon – SP's solicitor (sol)
SP is in the room as are @tribunaltweets. The judge has just risen whilst a document is photocopied. I will use this opportunity to remind you that EVERYTHING I tweet is a summary or characterisation of what is going on. NOTHING is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes".
If you want to catch up on this story, there is a preview interview with SP here:
genderblog.net/peggie-v-rcn-i-want-this-to-be-a-wake-up-call/
And my report from yesterday's proceedings is here:
genderblog.net/peggie-v-rcn-title-here/
If you want to follow the tweets off twitter – you can do so here:
genderblog.net/live-tweets/
And I would be deeply grateful if you would consider making a small contribution to this crowdfunded endeavour. Subscribers get an extra email newsletter which is not published on the blog.
genderblog.net/donate/
[LM is sworn]
NC you were an RCN Scotland Policy Officer Oct 2017 until 9 Sep 2019
LM yes
NC how did you get involved in sex and gender debate
LM I got calls as a policy officer asking me about the placement of male prisoners on the female estate and I started reflecting on that plus I got interested in the proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)
LM I made contact with Women's Place UK who were organising an event in 2018 on the GRA. I couldn't attend, but I asked to get involved and I helped them draft a document on the GRA.
NC anything else
LM quietly reading and started looking at Scotland's 30+ local authorities to see how they represented the Equality Act (EA) and saw that they'd got
In the summer of 2018 I met Marion Calder from For
Women Scotland – a newly formed group and we spent a lot of time talking about our concerns and the proposed changes to the GRA. When parly came back
there was a new bill about the Census which conflated the concept of sex and gender. Cath Murray and Lucy Hunter Blackburn who I'd met through my work at the
Howard League – we were in the habit of meeting up to talk about our interest in public policy and in Nov we decided to submit evidence to the parliamentary committee setting out our concerns.
NC what's the Howard League
LM charity campaigning for penal reform
NC did you and CM and LHB do anything else
LB in early 2019 CM was approached by the editor of a journal called Scottish Affairs to write an article on the prisons policy in scotland, the management of transgender (TG) prisoners and the census change proposal
LM it examined how the two public bodies had got to their decisions and we decided they hadn't though about women – they had privileged TG people without thinking about women. There were two vulnerable groups
but one had been overlooked at the expense of the other.
NC who is we
LM cath and lucy – we became Murray Blackburn Mackenzie – a policy analysis collective for want of a better phrase and that's the basis on which we submitted evidence to parly
NC how did MBM develop
LM initially unpaid, then crowdfunded about £45000 which we used to pay ourselves a very modest sum to work on [various projects] – CM was studying criminology and LHB was completing a PhD – we fitted it around our other work and our
responsibilities to our children.
NC that was also whilst you were at the RCN.
LM yes I worked there 2.5 days a week
NC did you tell RCN about MBM
LM spoke to my manager in June 2018 – told her I was interested in the debate and was doing pieces of work for groups doing briefings
LM after that was seconded to comms in RCN. When I return to policy role I submitted a conflict of interest form in Nov 2018 to RCN because For Women Scotland had secured a meeting to the Chief Medical Office and they asked me to come along to talk about data collection
and I realised I might meet the CMO with my RCN hat on and whilst there was no RCN policy on data collection at the time there might be one so I submitted the form. The FWS meeting ended up being cancelled.
NC so you completed the dec of interest – what happened
LM did it online, told my manager and submitted it to the governance manager in London Jane Clark. Didn't get a response so asked my line manager about it and she said she'd chase it but we got no response
[p685 Dec of int]
NC what happened next
LM in June 2019 there was a meeting and there was a demo outside – 100+ people, noisy with placards. One attendee said it was the most intimidating experience in 25 years of attending this sort of event
LM the meeting was packed. It was publicly open meeting. Some of the speakers were nervous. We had a security briefing. One attendee was sick. When one speaker left early to catch a flight, Julie Bindel was lunged at and stopped by security, arrested and charged.
NC what next
LM the next day I met my line manager – in the early hours of the morning my mother had a catastrophic stroke so it was mainly to tell her about that and my
potential need to help my husband who was with her. I also told her about the meeting – a paper I had partly co-authored – a dry piece of policy analysis explaining
how something had gone wrong, but given the reaction I thought it might be more incendiary than I imagined so I offered to share it with her. She accepted that. I also
said I had seen a man who I thought was a member of the RCN who had made violent threats towards women online and I was concerned that if he was an RCN member he would have access to my place of work.
My LM said she took it very seriously and I was reassured.
[LM speaks very quickly – I have missed the page number of the tweets she's been taken to but they are tweets from the man LM mentioned which contain violent threats towards TERFs, possibly p2040 of the bundle]
NC would you turn back to p28 I think I stared you at p30 – what does that say
LM "kick the everloving fuck out of anyone whose central political motivations are the annihilation of an oppressed group"
NC what did you understand that to mean
LM [I paraphrase] women who disagree with him
NC what did you hear from your lm about mulraney [the man]
LM nothing
NC was there anything you think you ought to have heard
LM would have been possible for her to ask who this person was so we could find out if he was an RCN member
and either take action or discover he wasn't a member. But I got no response so I never knew
NC you mentioned talking to your lm about a draft article
LM brought it in to work the following week and I handed it to Rachel, my lm
NC let me find the ref for that article – p686
LM – that's the final version not the draft, but I don't think it changed much from the draft I gave her
NC what happened next
LM week off work as I went to visit my mother in hospital – on 20 June I got back and my lm approached me immediately and said I had to
go to a meeting at 1.30pm with my union rep. Initially wouldn't tell me what it was about but then admitted it was about my draft article. So I found out my union rep was Stuart Fraser (SF) and asked me to accompany him to the meeting which he did.
NC what happened at the meeting
LM it was meet Rachel Clackett [?], SF and someone else possibly. It was a 40 minute meeting and i was told I was going to be investigated about a possible breach of [x] and a failure to declare a conflict of interest.
NC were. you investigated
LM yes
NC p718 of the bundle – what's this
LM note of IM between me and governance support managed on 1 July.
NC there are comments there – what are they
LM I was sent a draft of the note with the oppo to comment if it wasn't my recollection
LM so I sent back a few comments
NC how did all that conclude
LM I had two weeks annual leave booked whilst away I got an email to my personal email from Norman Provan (NP) who apologised for sending me an email to my private email
offering to have a meeting.
NC turn to p726 – is that the email you've just described
LM yes
NC p727
LM outcome letter of disc investigation signed by NP
NC what was the gist of the outcome – consequences of that process
LM I was told was not a full disc action against – some debaiety about whether I had been properly advised on the conflict of interest form. I queried that I hadn't had a proper response from London. Was never
told what was wrong with the article I wrote. The allegations about breaching the terms of my contract was that I needed to ask permission if I was going to write something which was damaging to RCN, but I was never told which views might be damaging.
Was told after this letter I had to have a meeting with my lm Rachel Caffette [?] about how to manage my outside activities – which I did over a period of six weeks.
NC how did you feel about the letter
LM relieved that the iv wasn't going any further, but upset by the process. "the experience was the wost experience of my working life, to be under inv by my
employer" but without know what it was I had done wrong. "I remember crying in a meeting. I was quite shaken up. Quite frustrating. Relieved but frustrated."
Thereafter my line manager's interest in my work outside the RCN became quite overbearing.
NC takes her to a note
LM this is a note about a Formal Meeting of Concern with my lm Rachel Cackett [?] – RC – about how my work would be monitored going forward.
NC look at p1257 – four bullet points down
J there are two p1257s – let's look at the second page of the formal meeting of concern two pars down
LM ah yes its p1258 in mine – [reads to the note]
NC what to the best of your understand was RCN's concern about your external work
LM I asked what was problematic about my work. Eileen McKenna said "well if one of our members read it…" and
RC said "you define a woman as a biological female" – that was the only thing I could get from them that was problematic about what I was writing
LM I felt they were being intrusive and because they couldn't tell me what was problematic about what I was writing. The convos I had with RC went round in circles. I wondered of my colleagues thought I was a bigot and could I work with them if they thought that about me
I also had to deal with my mother who was very sick. I was asked by RC to write out a statement about my values. In my final meeting with RC she asked me to reflect on my values and whether they reflected the
RCN's values. All my values align with the RCN value statement. I just don't believe one group should be privileged above another.
LM "i was really upset with what she said about my values… it felt like a sleight on me – i reached the end of my tether. I was very upset. I remember crying"
[LM says she resigned and set out why in a letter telling the RCN she didn't feel sure RC would best represent any exit interview]
LM in June 2021 I decided to write about my experience on the WPUK website. At this point Maya Forstater (MF) who had taken her employer to tribunal
over their views on her work over women's sex based rights – had won at the EAT and this "emboldened" me to write about my experience. WPUK was established by women who had worked in the trades unions and so I thought they'd be interested in my experience.
NC your resignation letter to Lousia Proudfoot [?] did that get a response?
LM no – had a meeting – but she was very careful – "cordial and thanked me for my work" but I think she thought I might bring a case against the RCN so she didn't say much.
NC can you turn to p1200? what is this
LM a blog i wrote for MBM in 2025 on "gender self-ID and the RCN"
NC can you look three pages in…
[here it is: murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2025/02/21/gender-self-identification-and-the-royal-college-of-nursing/]
NC can you turn to p814 – Diversity Training Materials for RCN – how did you know about this?
LM I undertook that training myself the week before I resigned in 2019.
NC turn to 817 – that's an embedded image from a diff publication
LM this is guidance generated for members of the RCN. RCN is a union AND a professional body – so this is guidance on caring for trans patients
NC when was that in force
LM three editions – first in 2016, when I wrote the blog in 2025 the third edition was on the RCN website
NC pls go to p1262 –
J this is the additional doc which was added this morning
NC this is second edition of the same doc
LM yes
NC is that still on the RCN website
LM believe it was withdrawn – it was current in April 2025
NC how did you get the withdrawn doc
LM I saved it in my email
NC can it be found now?
LM not that I am aware of
NC what did it say?
LM was ref in it as to how a nurse might accommodate a person with a trans identity
[they are trying to find it]
LM p6 of the doc – [reads about trans patients]
"patient placement should be based on both asking the patient for their preference and their gender presentation" – so that says to me that single sex wards cannot be maintained.
LM that concerned me because if you believe women have rights based on privacy safety and dignity, they cannot be accommodated in a hospital running that policy
[NC takes her to the glossary]
NC any problems with this
LM v shocked with the RCN endorsing the idea of eunuch gender ID – I found it shocking that a professional body was reifying the idea of eunuch as a gender identity
NC no further questions
[J short break before the cross-examination]
David Hay for the RCN does the cross-examination (xe) of LM
DH we know you were a policy officer with the RCN and you have a background in policy in comms to late 90s?
LM correct
DH you are not a nurse
LM no, i am not a nurse
DH you worked with Norman Provan (NP) – had some interactions with him.
LM NP was deputy head with responsibility for employment relations so yes
DH you knew Stuart Fraser (SF) because he accompanied you to the meeting
LM yes he was my rep
DH part of your role as a policy officer (PO) would be in assisting in dev of RCN policies
LM yes and govt submissions
DH and staff engagement policies
LM yes
DH please go to p673 – that's the start of your T&C of employment – go to p675 – there is clause 11 entitled Timed Attention with three subclauses – 11.2 says you "must not act against the interests of RCN" and you must not engage in other business activity without permish
of head of dept and you must not write articles in which you express views which are or may be against the views of the RCN or might damage it unless you have permish from head of department
LM yes
DH and looking at that they were issued to you on 27 Sep 2017.
LM yes
DH lets go to p686/7 in your article you considered two case studies. 2nd case study on p687 – intro section the second case study was looking at scottsh prison service policy on TG prisoners.
DH let's go to 696 – the body of the article – heading 3 – Scottish Prison Service (SPS) – within the body of the article there is a critique of SPS management of TG prisonsers.
LM yes
DH on p701 most "pointedly" – looking at the par starting "in an organisation…"
SPS is a "policy failure" and an example of "capture"
LM yes
DH now as part of your role you'd be engaging with external agencies – stakeholders
LM yes
DH and your portfolio included engaging with the SPS
LM "I had prisons in my portfolio, yes"
DH p727 NP's outcome letter – look at p730 we can see at the top of that page that NP is setting out his concs in respect of the investigation was that your portfolio did include prisons
LM yes
DH I appreciate you mentioned in evidence there was a discussion of the managing of a potential conflict over your activities – you had this letter from NP – where he specifically raises prisons
LM yes
DH now NP is gpoing to give evidence – I anticipate he might say as part of his evidence he recollects working and getting on well with you
LM "I did – I liked Norman"
DH "he liked you"
LM [laughs] "that's nice to hear."
DH NP did not perceive any "animosity" between you and he after this process came to an end. Is that right?
LM "yes, that's very fair"
DH you were taken to some tweets in the smallest of the black lever arch folders p24 – 30 [?]
LM yes
DH you spoke to them and this was in the context of the event at the Uni Of Edinburgh – this was a pre-publication in part of the article
LM technically I was in the audience – one my colleagues was making the presentation
DH was this org'd by the Uni of Ed
LM academics working within it
DH so not an official event
LM no
DH but it wasn't an RC event
LM no
DH there were "notable remonstrations" during that event and you came to realise that one of the inds remonstrating was the author of the tweets
LM yes, yes
DH these tweets start 10 Dec 2018 and run through to 11 May 2019
LM yes
DH help me with when the event took place
LM 4 or 5 June 2019 – first week of June
DH I take it this was the first time you had encountered Ellie Mulvaney
LM I think I had seen the tweets prior to the event as feminist groups were making notes of threats of violence by individuals
DH how did they come to you?
LM I think they were shared by FWS
as they wanted to highlight the threats women were facing, so they probably shared them from their account
DH and your concern to your lm when you told her about this event and what had happened was the q of potential access by Ellie Mulreaney to the RCN HQ.
LM yes there's a
library in the RCN which any RCN member can access. "This was a person making violent threats to women who had attended the protest… so I was raising concerns about fears of my own safety"
DH we may hear evidence from NP in respect of the office facilities at the RCN that these are secure and need to be access with key cards.
LM yes, but obvs people will obviously be going in and out during the door.
DH this tribunal will hear that Ellie Mulreaney's membership of the RCN came to an end in 2018 – but you wouldn't know that
LM no I'd hoped I'd be given that info so I could be reassured
DH did you show Rachel Cackette [?] these tweets?
LM no
DH and you didn't volunteer this individual's name when speaking to RC? No.
DH and there was a complaint about the article presented at the event
LM Someone within Edinburgh University Press saying that "it was transphobic and likening it to antisemetic, transphobic material"
DH on p771 – there is a times article about this
[www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/academics-tell-of-bid-by-edinburgh-university-press-to-censor-article-on-transwomen-5frs77fhd]
DH you were taken to a blog you wrote, it's in two places in the bundle p777/781. Let's look at p777 – this was posted on MBM website on 21 Feb 2025
LM correct
DH – just looking at p778 – first par makes reference to a report that RCN has refused to rep the nurse Sandie Peggie… [murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2025/02/21/gender-self-identification-and-the-royal-college-of-nursing/]
DH let's go to p812 – there is a link to the report re RCN not helping SP
LM I think it's in the Daily Mail
DH those of us that are accessing the bundle electronically can use the link and it takes us to the Daily Mail article on 19 Feb 2025
DH did this article have a part to play in motivating you to write your blog?
LM yes I think that's fair to say – I'd come along to the case for a couple of days and taken an interest
DH your blog is posted 2 days after the DM article
LM correct
DH in your article I don't see any reference to any other source in respect of the question as to what was decided by the RCN re SP
LM don't understand
DH you seem to be proceeding on the basis that the RCN has refused to represent
LM – it's in inverted commas – we had no way of confirming that – we take it as read that an article in the newspaper has its own sources – but we couldn't stand them up which is why we say its reported
DH and then on p812 you write about the RCN and its role and in conc in p818
you say that there is a way that RCN deals with the TG issue and that there is little or no thought to the way the RCN's policies impact on woman.
DH did you have your own view on whether the RCN should be repping SP
LM not really I didn't know enough about it – our wider point was that the RCN was promoting self-ID and that this disadvantaged women
DH thank you – final 2 qs you mentioned in evidence convos with your lm RC after NP's outcome letter
DH I noted you "saying you were getting a bit frustrated with RC's handling of that issue"
LM yes
DH and that frustration played a part in your decision to resign
LM yes I think that's fair
DH you didn't raise any employment claim
LM correct
DH that's your choice
LM yes
DH given this is considering events which took place some time ago
LM yes
DH and we don't have any determination from a judicial body as to whether that process was appropriate
LM yes
DH those are all my qs
J you said you were hoping your lm would come back to you – did you follow that up?
LM don't think so no
[NC re-ex]
NC pls turn back to p687. Your contract of employment etc – there are only two names at the top of the article in the journal
NC why?
LM I asked if my name could be removed from the article in the journal as I was worried. I thought it could have a negative impact on the investigation – they agreed.
NC what effect did that have on you
LM I regret it. I'd never had an article cited in a peer reviewed journal. It has been cited more than 70 times and the conclusions – that the SPS policy was unlawful
was found to be the case this year, that the proposed changes to the GRA have now been changed and that the definition of a woman we defended has been upheld by the supreme court so every point in it has been vindicated "I would have been proud to have my name to it and I don't"
NC how would your employer have felt if it had seen your name on that article
LM they might have been unhappy but it was hard to get my employer to express a view until the final meeting when all they would tell me re the problems they had my work was something to do with
NC why did you not pursue a claim against the RCN
LM "I didn't have the stomach for it to be perfectly honest" I knew it was an "intensively intrusive process that could go on for years"
LM In the same way as what happened to Maya Forstater, Jo Phoenix and SP. I consider those individuals "exceptionally brave" but I concluded I did not want to do that, so I would leave and continue doing the work I wanted to do.
[LM's evidence has finished but the next witness is not here yet so we are taking an early lunch. I am now spending some time in the bundle room]
[we have returned from lunch – court is sitting]
[New witness – Jennifer Wilmot]
[takes oath]
NC pls turn to p597 of the bundle – what's that
JW email I received in June last year from RCN to discuss how SC judgment might affect role of nurses and places that we work
NC what's over the page
JW same thing but from the RCN's website – inviting us to attend online or in person to discuss impact of the judgment
NC it's right isnt't it that both you and Pauline Fox attended diff sessions in those series.
JW The same day I recevied the email I signed up for the first of the engagement sessions which was the 24th and Pauline signed up for the on the day after.
NC and you have both brought actions against the RCN as a result of those sessions
JW yes
NC what's p608
JW the event sign up page from the RCN website – explains what sesions are about – the SC judgment. And the RCN is invited nurses to attend the session so we can find
out more about how it affects us.
NC p629 – your particulars of claim
JW yes
NC how well did you know Pauline Fox (PF)
JW not before the event at all
NC what happened when you signed up – I wrote to RCN to tell them I was a member of Scottish Lesbians and that SL had been
been intervenors in the SC case and I offered my expertise and knowledge if they wanted it. I went on to the RCN's website and I used a contact form on the website to tell them. I think it was the RCN membership email I used as that was the most appropriate.
"I got an automated reply saying they'd be back in touch in 5 days which they weren't. I never heard from them."
NC you attended those sessions on 24 June – who else was there
JW 4 or 5 women officers from RCN all in senior positions – head of Equality and Diversity – head of
professional practice or something like that. Each of them was going to speak – somebody was facilitating the chat. There was also a vid from Joanne Galbraith-Marten who I think is head of legal. There were around 30-40 nurses or healthcare assitants in attendance.
"These were all people I didn't know"
NC Before the JGM video was played was there an intro
JW yes from a woman called Christie – she facilitated – said it was an oppo to give thoughts – but that it was a safe space and if we touched on the bounds of unsafe the meeting would be
terminated – she said there was support on hand for any lGBTQ people who might be upset or indeed anyone else and then we went quickly into the session.
NC olay go to p1005 – transcript of JGM video
JW yes – my memory of what she said was she was describing FWS case and
judgment of the SC she gave an accurate summary of things.
NC how were contributions from the floor managed? What was the tech set up
JW at beginning all mikes turned off – we'd be invited to contribute which involved turning mikes on – first time I tried to speak my mike didnt
work. "It wasn't smooth, but if we wanted to speak that was managed but the chat function was open to anybody who wanted to contribute via the chat"
NC what happened after JGM was played
JW put my hand up to speak
eventually got my mike working and I did what I'd done in the email – introduced myself – explained i was RCN member – dir of Scottish Lesbians and involved in Lesbian Intervention in the SC and the q asked was how
do we feel about it I said I felt "relieved by it because it gave a very clear definition of what a lesbian is – it's a same sex attraction – you can't opt into it" I also said I thought the judgment might 'pose some difficulties for
nurses" and all I meant by that was that many trusts have policies which allow people to id into whatever ward they want to and it's frontline nurses who have to deal with telling people the might have to go into side
wards or whatever. JGM had said the judgment was complex I was surprised and said I disagreed with that.
NC was there are response
JW – 2 main responses – a transID man said he
fundamentally disagreed with what I said and that it was very difficult for him and a couple of people in the chat said they were upset with what I said and "someone asked if Tommy Robbinson was going to be
invited to speak next". The facilitator had thanked me for speaking so politely and respectfully, but no one else was congratulated on their politeness.
NC what did you understand from that distinction
JW not sure – I was a little bit taken aback by the time. I don't know if she was surprised I had that opinion. It was set up fro LGBTQ+ umbrella people (and I am the 'L' in that) to be upset or I don't know if she was surprised by my approach.
NC what happened after that
JW the DEI director had a slot to say something – unfortunately I had no recollection of what she said at all as that was when the chat was lighting up saying things like "there are bigots in every community"
NC what next
JW we were asked what we needed from the RCN so I said
NC how were you invited to make that contribution
JW they wanted us to type in the chat – so I said I woul dlike the RCN to follow the law as it has now been clarified – most of the other responses were along the lines of "respect ALL genders" – "I was the only person expressing anything like support for the SC judgment – everyone else thought it was as a disaster – one person wanted the RCN to start campaigning to have the law changed"
JW I think it was about that point that I and another participant got really concerned about the tone of the comments – it was already concerning enough after the TR comment. I decided to say something and the other participant did at the same time. saying it's got a bit heated.
at that point the facilitator asked if it could be kept respectful in the chat.
NC pls go to p600 in the bundle – what's that
JW about half way through this session I started taking photos of the chat – with my phone. I was just so concerned at some of the things that were being
someone called Hazel had made the TR and bigot comment and right at the end of the session we were asked if we wanted to speak again. Hazel was invited to speak and when I saw that H had been asked I decided that for my own protection I would record what she said
used this on my phone – woman A is H and woman B is the facilitator. And what woman A said it "basically aimed at me as I was the only person saying anything against the "SC is bad" flow of the meeting. What's she's doing there is comparing me to a racist – an anti-migrant… bigot." She'd already called me a TERF a couple of times and saying what I am doing harmful and v vulnerable people. She said solidarity to trans people. she got emotional and at the end the facilitator said the RCN recognises the potential for harm in what I had said which was why they had closed the chat. So I took from that they said they had closed the chat because of my words.
[NC takes her over the page to the comments JW photographed in the chat and JW flicks through them reading a few out]
"'if this is what we are seeing in the chat – what are minority groups experiencing' – which was pretty unpleasant to read I ahve to say. The final photo is H again saying "attacking trans people does not help cis women in any way" and that was in response to me saying 'I don't think anyone in hear is in any way advocating unkindness'"
NC what were you expecting
JW not sure to be honest. SC was an unusual thing and the RCN had not run sessions like this before for other things. And when they said it was a safe space – they meant differing views would be accommodated.
I recognise this is a very heated debate – that I am on one side of it and that the people who expressed their views in the meeting are on the other side. "I certainly didn't expect it to descent to name-calling"
NC you gave an idiomatic expression when describing your evidence
JW "I felt I'd been ambushed to be honest. I felt it had been quite the kicking. It had been a pretty unpleasant experience. I was quite upset and I am generally a resilient person, actually. But I was left feeling… pretty wobbly"
NC no further qs
DH [xe] – you are making a claim against the RCN
JW yes
DH you are an experienced nurse – qual'd in 2006 –
JW yes
DH member, but not employee of RCN
JW correct
DH told us about the event in June 2025, but if I was to suggest to you that the stated purpose of the sessions was for the RCN to find out how the SC judgment was affecting nurses in their role
JW finding out but for us to get advice too
DH bit of a talking and bit of a listening session
JW I guess so yes
DH and it was voluntary
JW that's how I understand it yes
DH and its obv from how your evidence developed – online and in person sessions
JW yes
DH and yours was entirely online in MS Teams
JW yes
DH and you raise in your claim there's a number of aspect of the event which form the heads of your claim – so lets go to p649
DH heading pleadings and acts complained of pars 78 – you are the second claimant (2C) in this doc
JW yes
DH most of par78 refers to PF's complaint – she is first claimaint (1C) in this
JW yes
DH the derogatory comments you complain of you have just mentioned in evidence
to this tribunal and my understanding is that these comments were made by other participants in the session
JW this list, yes
DH and these actions are claimed as being discrimination in a number of respects…
DH looking at all the comments on 650 – we see that your claim was prepared on 21 Nov last year. There is yet to be any final hearing – that's not been fixed yet has it
JW not to my knowledge, no
DH don't know whether you've seen the response to your claim p655 – have you seen that?
JW can't remember if I've read that or not.
DH I put it to you your claim is being defended by the RCN
JW absolutely t
DH this is the London Central Employment Tribunal
JW yes
DH there is a legal defence based on whether the RCN can be liable for the actions of its members rather than its staff
JW I am not a solicitor
DH at the least – there's a long way to go in the determination of your complaint
JW yes
DH who put you in touch with PF
JW after the event i attended I posted in a group that I'm in just really to say how awful I found it and how upsetting it had been and someone who had been in that group with PF had heard very similar things so it was suggested we might want
to be in touch with each other.
DH was this a whatsapp group?
JW basically yes
DH no further qs
J no qs from me
NC no re-ex from me
J okay you are free to go – pls don't discuss this with anyone else due to give evidence
[JW leaves]
[Pauline Fox sits in the witness box]
J good afternoon
PF Good afternoon. [makes the chair go lower] I'm small
[J affirms PF]
NC good afternoon Ms Fox – I am going to ask you some qs on behalf of SP – name
PF Pauline Alice Fox
NC we have heard you and JW have brought your own claim against the RCN – how did you know JW
PF vaguely remember her name in relation to the SC interventions but I'd never met
Jenny.
NC how get to know her
PF after the events in q I contacted Sex Matters feeling I needed a debrief after that session. I was quite upset [she starts crying]
NC take your time, take a sip of water
PF and as a retiree you don't have the same pro support around you so I
approached SM who put me in touch with another nurse who was in a similar situation and that was JW. It was over the phone – messages initially and then a chat.
NC you attended a diff event to JW on a diff day 25 June 2025. Who else was in attendance.
PF I put it in my statement 15 months ago I can't recall it now – but people were from the RCN. Can't recall here and now. Between 5 and 7 RCN members of staff
A practice lead. Legal – who gave a presentation at the beginning – v factual, but she didn't contribute or stay for the rest of the session. A technical guy who was called bob or gary – there might hav been a Liz who contributed quite a bit to the session. I was so
focussed by what was going on in the chat I wasn't paying as much attn as I would have like to what was going on on the screen.
NC how did the event function technically
PF we were told there were some problems there had been from the day before and we were told we could log out and log back in again and that might work. I couldn't get my camera to work – but I was told my screen had been switched off by
the organisers. i put my "hand" up but wasn't getting a response. I logged in and out and it didnt' seem to resolve the issues – so I thought maybe it had been manually switched off.
NC we have a transcript of what JGM said – what happened after her contribution
PF the session seemed to me to be "somewhat unstructured", but we were expecting contributions from Liz who was a TIM nurse and they were talking about the impact it had on him on an emotional level
my understanding was that Liz was retired so it wasn't quite clear what it meant in terms of work. There were mentions of trans-supporting organisations as consultation stakeholders and I thought there might have been more than that
I wanted to understand where there any other stakeholders involved given the SC involved 9 PCs – I asked had any women's organisation that had been consulted and whilst the chat was going on in the main session I was getting a response in the side chat which made it quite
difficult to concentrate on the two. Especially as my screen was shut off. I think Wendy Irvine who I think was a DEI lead came back to me in the chat and asked me to email her – and "I felt like I'd been taken aside"
So I went back to her and asked if she was saying she hadn't consulted with any women's groups. and wendy came back to me again and said I should email her. Meanwhile there was a discussion about how important gender was and how it had been very upsetting for trans people
and how nursing had to protect trans id'd people. There was a person in uniform and she was quite upset by the whole thing and I was quite concerned as to how this was all panning out as this was supposed to be an oppo
to contribute to policy. I had experience of doing that in my working life and I wanted to help the RCN move forward so that we could find a way through this and I just felt that there wasn't any space for that so I wanted to remind
people what I'd come across in my working life when it came to law and understanding and language. And if you don't get language right things get confused. So I made what I thought was a factual distinction between gender as a concept and gender reassignment in law
and said we needed to be careful about not confusing the two. And Patricia I think was her name reiterated my statement and said it was more a matter of reflection than a question and she read it out and it drew gasps
I thought something else was happened I was quite shocked by the reaction to what I thought was pretty mundane. I though the reaction was what I've called "tears and snotters" – it all became very emotional – I
thought "you're allowing people to get really upset about something which really isn't happening" – there was no reassurance to trans people. I was really upset
by the calibre of the leadership I was seeing. I was seeing people being able to ventilate their upset about something which really wasn't happening.
NC did anyone respond to liz's contribution from the RCN
PF they were empathic. Liz said it was horrific what was happening and the RCN leaders seemed to affirm with him "I think at one point I thought 'I have arrived in the wrong movie. I thought I had landed on another planet and I didn't know what was happening'… 'I felt quite alienated by the whole performance, because it felt very much like theatre that I was watching" rather than my professional body exceuting their professional duties.
NC what was going on in the chat
PF it was difficult to know because what was put in the chat was not made visible to anyone unless it was approved by then.
NC what else did you try to say in the chat
PF I'm sorry I'm a bit nervous – I think I would have made a comment about employers having a duty to employed members of staff including TI people and we need to find away forward. That comment was not approved. My comment about engaging with any women's groups was not approved, my repeating of that was not approved. When I put my hand up I couldn't ask a q and I couldn't take their "organisational veto" of my question off. When I asked why I couldn't ask a q and if it was a technical q I didn't get a response. "The word that comes to mind of the experience was feeling 'coralled' by the staff that were managing the event"
They asked if we would put our emails in the chat to continue the convo and when I said I didn't feel comfortable about that. I didn't actually feel that safe putting my email address in an enviroment when I wasn't quite sure who it was visible to. No response and session was closed.
NC how did the session come to an end
PF they shut it down at 1035 and it was due to last to 1100 but they said they would keep that chat open so I thought I'd write something into the chat, but I was expelled from the session "and I was just left feeling a bit dazed I suppose as to what they heck was that… I felt really discombobulated by the whole thing and I kind of sat with that for a few hours and then I thought I need to speak to somebody about this. This is terrible"
That's when I decided I had to call SM – because I thought I can't be the only one. And so I thought if I contacted a central point I might find someone who felt similar. "And I'm really glad I did."
NC no further qs
DH [xe] you were experienced nurse with expertise in psychopharmacology and addiction
PF yes
DH retired in 2019
PF yes
DH never an employee of the RCN – a member
PF yes
DH can we go to p597 of the bundle
PF don't recognise that
DH signing up to the event email – p598
PF no don't recognise that either
DH okay. you attended the session via Teams
PF it was some online platform
DH when you first joined the call you say your camera and mic was switched off by the organiser – might that have been the same for everyone
PF no – other participants were visible to me
DH I think you go in to the session with your camera and mic off and if you raise your hand your hand you can speak.
PF the person who go emotional and Liz were both visible to me
DH and the trans ind Liz – my understanding they were a participant
PF that was my understanding
DH you've raised a claim with JW
PF yes
DH that claim is defended by the RCN
PF I understand that
DH can we go to p655
PF yep
DH have you seen that before
PF yes
DH and I understand a hearing is still awaited in this case
PF yes
DH thank you that's all my qs
J no qs for me
NC no qs for me
J you are free to go
[PF leaves]
[next witness will be Stephen O'Grady, Director of Projects, Free Speech Union – giving evidence remotely]
This brief paus in proceedings allows me to post some more of @iain_masterton's superb pics this morning starting with David Hay KC, the RCN's barrister:
@iain_masterton First witness this morning – Lisa Mackenzie – a former RCN policy officer:
@iain_masterton Sandie Peggie arriving with her barrister Naomi Cunningham:
@iain_masterton And Jennifer Wilmot – the second of the day's witnesses RCN member and member of the Scottish Lesbians, part of the Lesbian Intervenors who gave evidence in the For Women Scotland Supreme Court case.
@iain_masterton I am hoping to get my court report up a little sooner than yesterday, but I am also keen to have a look at the evidence presented to the court about JW's experience of the RCN SC session, which means (if they'll let me) going through the evidence bundle after court.
If you would like to be the first to get the court report and a special subscribers only newsletter which I start putting together after the court report goes out, please consider a small donation. More details here:
genderblog.net/donate/
[court is back in session]
[Stephen O'Grady (SO) from the Free Speech Union about to be remotely sworn in]
[SO appears to be giving evidence from a sauna]
[SO is sworn in]
J are you in a room on your own
SO yes
J do you have access to the bundle
SO yes
J and nothing else in front of you
SO no
NC good afternoon – I am counsel for the claimants – what's your full name
SO Stephen Patrick O'Grady
NC current occupation
SO director of projects at the FSU
NC before that
SO FSU legal officer
NC what is the FSU's approach to casework and your role
SO we're membership org not unlike a traditional union – we're for members who have employment issues. We try to deal with
issues at the lowest possible level – if they've got a disc hearing, helping them file a grievance, filing an appeal if they've been sacked – there are legal elements to this and so we have a legal team. We can provide legal assistance in house
with case officers and should matters proceed further, where something needs to be owned entirely by a legal team we will instruct lawyers and needs arise.
NC who does FSU act for?
SO we act for our members we're a not partisan org we will take any meritorious case that comes in – we don't deal with threats of violence etc – but what is reasonable to defend.
NC how are cases managed
SO based on Salesforce platform – case comes in
given to case officer who picjs it up and speaks to member. We categorise via metadata and that allows us to see whats going on – area of law, topics – eg what a member might have said that got them into trouble
NC can you give us any examples of category names relevant to this case
SO this is GC beliefs which we don't record as such – but related ones are TransGender and Pronoun Use "which is a hot topic"
NC does salesforce capture whether members are a member of any union
SO broadly
we don't but we do check to see if they are union members as we sometimes don't
NC how many GC cases have you handled over the last 3 years – a broad impression
SO "certainly without q the single biggest category of cases we have dealt with – looking back over the last ⅔ years – it's constituted almost a quarter of our caseload" – the absolute number of cases has begun to
increase year on year, but as a proportion it has declined compared to immigration and politics, but it is unquestionably one of the biggest.
NC are nurses bringing cases relating to GC
SO we are doing lots of case irt the healthcare sector in general. a large number of respondents are healthcare orgs – NHS trusts, GPs etc. Nurses aren't the biggest category we deal with but two thirds of the cases for
nurses is GC beliefs which is two to three times across all our cases in general.
NC Can you tell us anything about the RCN
SO we've noticed a dearth of support for nurses. i haven't been able to find any cases on our books where substantive support was provided by the RCN. In a
couple of cases the RCN has assisted with one element but not the other – declining the employment element, but taking up the regulatory side.
NC can you tell what RCN cases you are aware of that you have got involved with
SO i dealt with one where a nurse used female pronouns for a female patient with a trans ID, whilst also mentioning their trans ID.
she was discriminated against. She sought support from the RCN, but she did not receive any substantive support. We assisted her with putting the case through ACAS and then we started helping with drafted pleadings – she went to the RCN and the RCN eventually adopted it
not sure where she is.
NC any others
SO one or two – a nurse handed over a patient with correct bio pronouns and faced employment and reg proceedings. The RCN assisted him with his reg matter, but declined on the employment matter. We often have members in a workplace dispute
who tell us what's going on in their workplace. Intelligence I suppose as to what their union has put in place – they haven't yet been punished for transgressing the policy, but they are concerned they might. and what advice on challenging it
NC was there a case in Glasgow
SO yes a nurse saw a policy come in which she thought was biased against her GC beliefs. She raised it with the RCN who declined to help and was told something along the lines that if her values didn't align with those of the RCN they wouldn't
help her.
NC is that on p1116
SO yes that's the one – that's the email where she says she was told if her values didn't align they' wouldn't be able to help her.
NC could you go over the page to p1117
SO yes
[there is a pause]
J it's on p202 if you're looking at the same as me
NC ah yes thanks – tell the tribunal about this exchange
SO that describes one of the nurses I described earlier who faced reg and emp proceedings and he forwarded that to us.
NC no further Qs
DH thank you SO. can you hear me okay
SO i can
DH my learned friend took you to p1116 and p1117 – these are both emails or email chains passing between inds and the FSU.
SO yes
DH do I understand that you or someone at the FSU provided these two emails
SO yes
DH you were asked a series of qs about patterns and impressions received by the FSU
SO yes
DH do I understand that the evidence you have given that the patterns and impressions you
have got from a case managment system
SO correct
DH you put info into a database and you generate reports to ID cases by type
SO yes
DH nothing appears to have been provided by the FSU from the case management system – is that because it's privileged?
SO no
SO case matter details would not be privileged
DH but the details of a case might be privileged
SO correct
DH names and dates for example
SO correct
DH let's look at p1116 and you said this concerned a nurse based in the Glasgow area
SO correct – that's my understanding
DH there are three things conveyed by the nurse in this email – she advises a verbal exchanged between herself and her rep and then the nurse copied and pasted some examples of emails from their RCN rep and then at the bottom we've got a short email and that
is a copy and paste of the reply by the nurse in q to the rep – is that right
SO yes
DH and this email chain was certainly passed to the FSU by this nurse on 7 Nov 2024.
SO yes
DH don't think we have the subsequent email dates – ah we have them as annotations
SO yes
DH so an email from 30 Oct 2023 and 7 Nov 2023
SO yes
DH and what's posted as an email sent by the nurse is sent on 8 Nov 2024 – right?
SO that's what it says
DH has this case proceeded to proceedings in a tribunal?
SO not to my knowledge.
DH p1117 – emails from 13 Feb, 14 Jan and 19 Jan 2026
SO confirms
DH and this led to a query as to whether there would be support in proceedings on employment and regulatory matters
SO yes
DH in the fourth par – "as at 14 Jan the disc actions have concluded with my employer and
… the individual remains employed"
SO yes
DH not clear what the ongoing issues actually are
SO well I don't have the remainder of the case file in front of my but as a general observation has concluded – that is not always the end of it.
DH I take that point. But we don't
get any illumination of whether RCN were asked to provide support
SO he does say they reviewed the case in the first par of the email and he says he is trying to negotiate with the employer on his own
DH what we can say is that RCN ar supporting him with his ongoing proceedings with his regulator and he has legal support as it mentions his RCN solicitor
SO correct
DH do you have any awareness of what if any support is being provided by the RCN to the individual after 14 Jan this year.
SO no
DH that's all I have
J thank you no qs from me
[no re-ex]
[no more witnesses today]
NC my two remaining witnesses aren't available till Monday
J are they not under a witness order
[they are – luckily DH has agreed to "interpose" his witnesses tomorrow so we are going to have Norman Provan from the RCN tomorrow]
[court rises for the day]
I'm just earwigging conversation between counsel – looks like just Norman Provan all day tomorrow and then Bethany Hutchison and Jennifer Melle on Monday. We're basically a day ahead of schedule.
I'm going to see if I can spend more time with the bundle. Court report later this evening. Then newsletter. Thanks for reading. I appreciate all the comment and retweets.
I've been asked by Lisa Mackenzie to make a correction to one of my live tweets. Earlier up the chain I quoted LM as saying…
"in early 2019 CM [Cath Murray part of Murray Blackburn Mackenzie] was approached by the editor of a journal called Scottish Affairs to write an article on the prisons policy in scotland, the management of transgender (TG) prisoners and the census change proposal"
This is not correct. It was MBM who suggested the topic for the paper not the editor.
Apologies for the error. Happy to correct the record.
Here is a tweet from Lisa referencing a different part of her evidence for info…
x.com/lnmackenzie1/status/2103107114994667941?s=20
Earlier today I gave evidence in the case of Sandie Peggie vs the Royal College of Nursing. I was questioned about this document which reifies ‘eunuch’ as a gender identity.
I am in a tiny room waiting to given access to the bundle…
okay – I've seen all I need to. The thread ends here. Thanks very much for reading. Look out for the report of today's proceedings followed by the newsletter coming in your email inboxes soon.
