
Beth Upton's life and identity have been dragged through the media
Read More:
At the same time tens, perhaps even hundreds of pieces have covered the views of those against the progress of trans rights. This outrage shown in London doesn't fit the dominant narrative, and so it is not the story that is told. So, for many, it remains context unseen in the wider narrative. It remains hidden and remains unable to affect how people are thinking about these issues – people do not see the mounting support for trans people and the majority view that trans people should be afforded their rights and should be treated with respect and dignity. Missing pieces of the story such as this perpetuate the pushing aside of humanity.
Or take as another example, the case of Nurse Sandie Peggie. In this case, voices have been ignored, and what has come to light in the past few days says an awful lot that perhaps would have changed the narrative around this case had it come to light some time before now. Much like with Trans Pride in London, the full detail and context may not support the dominant narrative.
Often the parts left unseen tell the true story, paint the whole picture. The narrative that is presented across the mainstream media amplifies only a handful of voices. What is seen then is the creation of faux characters, martyrs, without critique and proper consideration. So much has been left out, not least the voice of Beth Upton, and of course the late revelation that Sandie Peggie seems to have more than one prejudiced view.
Sandie Peggie has been coloured in the light of a society that deeply values our nurses and our NHS, as we should. This has been heavily utilised in the telling of this one-sided story. The value of our nurses and our NHS, that we hold as a society, has enabled her painting as someone vulnerable, innocent, 'a normal woman,' in need of defence - whilst the evidence, if accurate, would suggest she may not in fact be very nice. We, as a society, feel positive sentiment and kinship with our NHS. So, taking people along with this version of reality was made easier.
Especially if much of the context was omitted from the narrative. The fact that Beth Upton is a doctor, side stepped in this as a secondary detail to the fact she is trans, is unusual given this storytelling thematic – and tells us how easy it is to demonise a trans person regardless of how much good they do or who they are. It was easy to convince people of her otherness, to displace her from our story.
My family are all nurses, I know very well the good principles of nursing, and have discussed at length with them how far Sandie Peggie's alleged comments seem to fall from these principles – about how they fear the damage caused to the perception of those doing this work. Some of the key principles of nursing are compassion, inclusivity, care, teamwork, and transparency. How much have those been demonstrated in this case?
Beth Upton, an ordinary person doing her ordinary job, has now suffered her very existence discussed as though public property. Without, of course, any insight into her life, her reality, her experiences, her truth. On the other hand, Sandie Peggie has had an unfathomable amount of space in the media, and access to elected officials, to share hers.
The racist, anti-immigrant, Islamophobic and unarguably transphobic comments made by Sandie Peggie, that are now widely reported, are, despite her defence of 'dark humour', unacceptable. This speaks to a character that many would find impossible to defend. Indeed, some politicians have since gone very quiet with regards to their previous support for Sandie Peggie.
No doubt they may have been unaware of her attitudes towards other minorities. Their support may or may not now be hanging by a thread. With more of the story visible, perhaps now they might take time to reflect on having championed someone who has been alleged to show clear prejudice towards minority groups and consider what that may tell them about this case and others like it.
Many who have thrown their weight behind Sandie Peggie in the past months are perhaps surmising that maybe they hadn't been given the whole picture, perhaps they have been misguided. What is most shameful about this is that trans people are not given the space that those against their rights are. When the media paints a picture without context, with an agenda in mind to align with a dominant narrative - this of course shapes people's view of a situation and of people.
I only hope this case can serve as a flashing red light – you are quite likely not being told the full story and are very likely being expected to accept a narrative that is patently untrue, that obfuscates context and in doing so fuels the anti-trans movement we have seen take hold in the UK.
Beth Upton went to work on Christmas Eve as herself, she carried on as no doubt she would on any normal day. Since then, her life, her body and her identity have been dissected and dragged through countless media articles, through a lengthy, at times cruel and gruelling tribunal process. Her mere presence as herself at work was challenged. At no point did we hear from her in the media, at no point was her story told, at no point have we heard about the effect this has had on her, her working life, her family and loved ones.
Instead, we have seen countless coverage sharing Sandie Peggie's side. Now we are seeing illuminated some of the other side of that coin. Though we still don't see Beth Upton's side – her story, her humanity, perhaps deemed irrelevant to the toxic narrative many are intent on furthering. The side that allows Beth Upton her humanity, allows her awful experience to be shared, her supporters to be seen is, much like Trans Pride in London, invisible. This, and this week's revelations regarding Sandie Peggie's views, should give people serious pause for thought.
Dr Rebecca Don Kennedy is chief executive of the Equality Network

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
Higher gambling taxes won't solve child poverty
As the man who first gave Britain a £150 billion deficit, I don't think Gordon Brown is the best person to advise the current government on its fiscal policy. But even so the gaping hole in his call for higher gambling duties does raise the eyebrows. Brown seems to think that higher gambling taxes are capable of lifting half a million children out of poverty. Writing in the Guardian, he claims that raising online gaming taxes from 25 per cent to 50 per cent will raise an extra £1.6 billion, jacking up general betting duty from 15 per cent to 25 per cent will raise an extra £450 million and increasing the duty on physical slot machines from 25 per cent to 50 per cent will raise an extra £880 million. Together, it is all apparently enough to put food on the table for 500,000 kids who are currently going hungry. The government last year spent £313 billion on welfare, £137.8 billion of it on children and people of working age. Given that the latter bill is forecast to rise to £161.7 billion by 2029/30, a couple of extra billion from the gambling industry is not going to make much of a difference – it would quickly be lost in the general welfare budget. It is only a few weeks ago that backbench Labour MPs ganged up on the government and blocked £5 billion of cuts to Personal Independence Payments and other out-of-work benefits. These payments are being doled out in mushrooming proportions to people who, in many cases, have not even had to present themselves for a face-to-face assessment to show they are incapable of work. Those modest reforms would have saved twice as much as Brown is hoping to raise from his gambling tax. 'Hoping' to raise is an important phrase, because at the bottom of his Guardian piece Brown seems to flip on the purpose of his proposed gambling taxes. He starts laying into the gambling industry, writing that 'its most addictive practices are responsible for social harm that costs the NHS and other public services more than £1 billion a year'. I have no great liking for the gambling industry. It is one of the few industries, along with tobacco, in which I decline to invest my own money. It is, as Brown says, a source of misery for many – as well as a form of harmless fun for many others. I would have respect for anyone – Gordon Brown included – if he wanted to ban gambling altogether, even if that is not my view. But what exactly does Brown want: does he want to discourage gambling or does he want to raise extra revenue, because the two aims are in obvious conflict. If you discourage an activity through taxing it heavily, you then suppress its revenue-earning potential, just as the government is discovering through its windfall tax on oil and gas production and VAT on private school bills. A betting tax of 50 percent – which, like the windfall tax, would be levied in addition corporation tax – is very much entering the realm of punitive taxation. A government which took that route should not be surprised to see revenues shrink. It would also impact more widely on the horse-racing industry, for example. Brown's intervention is symptomatic of Labour's fiscal desperation. The government finds itself unable to cut spending for fear of provoking mass unrest among its own backbenchers. But neither does it have many options when it comes to raising extra revenue. Taxation has reached the point where it is discouraging economic activity, while soaring public spending is impacting on growth by transferring resources from efficient private companies to a stagnant public sector where productivity is sliding. It cannot borrow much more. Moreover, it has made an election promise not to raise income tax, VAT or National Insurance (although it has already broken the last of those promises). Thus, the Chancellor is left grubbing around for minor taxes that she can raise. There really is no way out of the fiscal mess other than slashing public spending, but it is not going to happen under this government – at least not before the crisis reaches a point at which Reeves is forced to follow the same path as her Labour predecessor Denis Healey and beg for an emergency bailout from the IMF.


Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Victoria Starmer received £650 tickets for Royal Ascot - despite the Prime Minister paying back more than £6,000 worth of gifts just last year, reveals Richard Eden
She's been described as a 'reluctant' political spouse because of her rare public appearances, but Victoria Starmer is, it seems, anything but reluctant when it comes to accepting freebies. Her husband, Sir Keir Starmer, has disclosed that her attendance at a horse racing event last month was thanks to a gift from Ascot Racecourse. This week, the Prime Minister updated his entry in the parliamentary Register of Members' Financial Interests to record that he accepted £650 worth of tickets from the Berkshire racecourse. The entry states: 'Name of donor: Ascot Authority (Holdings) Limited. Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Tickets and hospitality for three family members (value approximate), value £650.' Sir Keir did not join his wife at the King George Racing Weekend event. It is thought that he was preparing for his talks with Donald Trump, whom he was due to meet after the US President's trip to Scotland. Lady Starmer, 52, an NHS occupational health worker, was pictured enjoying the warm weather in a bright orange sundress as she attended The King George and Queen Elizabeth Stakes at the racecourse. Sir Keir's acceptance of the freebie is surprising as last October he paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality he had received since becoming Prime Minister, following a backlash over donations. That included nearly £2,000 for four tickets to Doncaster Racecourse, as well as six Taylor Swift tickets and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by Lady Starmer. It came after Sir Keir and other cabinet ministers faced weeks of criticism for accepting freebies from wealthy donors. The Prime Minister said it was 'right' for him to repay the cost of some gifts. Asked about the donations, he said his Government would bring forward new principles for donations 'as until now politicians have used their best individual judgement to decide'. He said: 'I took the decision that until those principles were in place it was right to repay these particular payments.' Sir Keir has committed to tightening the rules around ministerial hospitality and gifts to improve transparency. Earlier, a Downing Street spokesman confirmed that the ministerial code would be updated and will include 'a new set of principles on gifts and hospitality' commissioned by Sir Keir. MPs are allowed to accept gifts from donors but have to declare these on the register of MPs' interests. It's the spiritual home of cricket and now Lord's is for sale – well, at least small pieces of it. Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) is offering its members the chance to buy chunks of turf from the north London pitch for £50 each. 'At the end of the 2025 season, we will be resurfacing the famous outfield on the Main Ground at Lord's for the first time in 23 years,' explains an MCC email. 'To raise funds for the MCC Foundation, and to aid future development of the cricket field, we are offering all members the chance to own a piece of Lord's turf.' One louche member tells me: 'I normally buy my grass in Camden Town.' Anneka (and jumpsuit) is back in black Anneka Rice once revealed she had a 'shrine' to the jumpsuits she used to wear on 1980s hit TV show Treasure Hunt and even hired them out for hen parties. Clearly, the presenter has saved a few of them for her own nights out. Rice, 64, slipped into a black jumpsuit for the opening night performance of Secret Cinema's Grease: The Immersive Movie Musical at Evolution in London this week. The Welsh-born presenter returned to our screens last year for the revival of 1990s reality series Challenge Anneka, but it was cancelled after just three episodes due to low ratings. Dame Mary Archer is not just 'fragrant' – as a judge called her in her husband Jeffrey's 1987 libel trial – but extremely fit as well. I hear the 80-year-old is to join five other dames in running a charity relay race next month. 'The Great Dames are dusting off their trainers… and generally limbering up to run in Cambridge's famous Chariots Of Fire race,' she says, referring to their team name. Each woman will run a 1.7-mile loop before passing over the baton. 'The beneficiary is Roald Dahl's Marvellous Children's Charity,' she says. 'The funds raised will go directly towards establishing a new Roald Dahl Nurse.' Francesca saddles up in style ITV's perkiest presenter, horse racing pundit Francesca Cumani, is determined to prove she'd be a stylish dresser whichever century she happened to be born in. The mother of two attended the Goodwood Regency Ball – where guests were transported back to the 19th century – wearing a floor-length red dress from vintage fashion for hire store Constantine Rex. 'In full costume at the Goodwood Ball with this handsome pair,' Cumani, 42, wrote of fashion stylist Sarah Byrne, pictured left, and racehorse trainer Stephanie Easterby, pictured right, next to this photograph taken at Goodwood House, the Duke of Richmond's ancestral seat in West Sussex. Middleton's answer to ruff days at work Some might say he's barking, but James Middleton has called for companies to let employees bring their dogs to work. The Princess of Wales's brother claims it would boost productivity. 'Dogs in the workplace should be a generic 'yes' unless there is a very good reason to say 'no',' says James, 38, who runs dog food firm James & Ella, named after him and his late first dog. 'I started the business during the pandemic and the whole team works remotely. 'When we all get together, there are dogs everywhere and I really believe they increase productivity. Ideas come from those 15-minute breaks, taking them out to the garden.'

The National
19 hours ago
- The National
Media 'give false impression' Scots care about independence
John Cooper, who represents Dumfries and Galloway at Westminster, told the local democracy reporting service that he believed people are in fact 'heartily sick' of calls for a second independence referendum. Cooper was speaking after First Minister John Swinney said there would be 'no mucking about' at the 2026 Holyrood elections, and people would be clear that a vote for the SNP was a vote for independence. The SNP leader further said that he was 'only interested' in a legally agreed referendum and not other proposals to achieve independence, such as using the Holyrood list vote as a de facto ballot on the issue. Speaking in response to Swinney's remarks, Cooper told the local democracy reporting service he was fed up with the 'independence bandwagon' being wheeled out. 'It's really disappointing because even just talking about it means it's a distraction – and therefore we're not dealing with the things that really matter,' he said. 'Despite the fact that there's not an election on immediately, we continue to go up and down Dumfries and Galloway knocking on doors, talking to people. 'During the summer recess, I've been visiting different areas and handing out contact cards to constituents. 'When I'm talking to people out and about, and ask them what their priorities are, they tell me that it's jobs, the economy, schooling, the NHS. 'They very rarely mention independence. So, when you see a poll in the media describing 'support for independence' at whatever level, then that gives the false impression that people are talking about that issue. READ MORE: Ian Blackford to give shock return in Kate Forbes seat 'careful consideration' 'That's not really the case. These opinion polls have simply involved people being approached and being asked, 'so what's your opinion of independence?' 'They might say yeah. They might say no. That'll then be reported. But if you actually ask people, 'what are your priorities?', I have no doubt that Scottish independence is way, way down the list.' He added: 'There's just not a public appetite for it. I think it would be obvious if the country was crying out for another independence referendum – you would know about it. 'We are anywhere near that at the moment. Quite the opposite – I think people are heartily sick of it. 'They see it as a distraction, and just want politicians to tackle the issues that really matter to them.' READ MORE: Robin McAlpine: John Swinney's indy plan will not work. It is not designed to work Swinney said a second referendum would allow the SNP to make 'Scotland's energy wealth work for Scotland' and make 'fair and equitable' changes to the welfare system. He said: 'It only happens if we have that referendum and we only get that referendum if a majority of SNP MSPs are elected next May.' A majority would require the SNP to win 65 of 129 seats in parliament in the 2026 elections. Professor John Curtice has said that a Yes majority, followed by a hung Westminster parliament in 2029, is what he sees as the 'most likely' route to indyref2.