Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor

[InterrobangsArePureBias]

I wonder how many more of such actions will be launched. To adapt Jimmy Doyle’s phrase, “the spectacle of this nation’s [lanyard classes] enforcing moral auto-lobotomy as a condition of entry to [employment]”.

A prison custody officer who was sacked for saying he would not address male-born transgender inmates as ‘she’ or ‘her’ has launched legal action against one of the UK’s largest security firms.
Army veteran David Toshack, 50, was dismissed by GEOAmey during a training course only days before taking up a role as a prison custody officer (PCO) at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court.
The father of three told a safeguarding workshop that he would not be comfortable using a transgender inmates’ preferred gender pronouns and expressed his belief that a man could not become a woman.
It sparked a horrified reaction from bosses at the firm, which employs thousands of justice workers across the UK, who said his views were against the law and company policy.
…
He said: ‘I’m just a normal, working class person who’s never been in trouble with the law before, not got a criminal record, lived a good life. I’ve been prepared to go and fight and die for my country, and then I have come back here and been told that there’s certain things you can’t think or can’t say.’

https://archive.is/bxjqC

Original story about David Toshack in Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14963309/Prison-custody-officer-sacked-refusing-call-male-born-trans-prisoners-her.html

From TT

MM - that's what you believe
DT - that's the truth
MM - CH said that TP have rights and you referred to your gender critical beliefs are protected as well, art 10
DT - yes, that the law that I understand protects GC beliefs
MM -can you remember what he said about the PER doc

DT - what I recall, is that he was saying you had to use pronouns, and I said I would use non-gendered language,
MM - you said you wouldn't call a man a woman
DT - yes
MM - CH says he understands your beliefs and you said you wouldn't comply and he said you couldn't be a PCO.

From TT

DT - I said to him that he didn't believe it either.

MM - he acknowledged your right to have those beliefs, but that you needed to follow policy. But isn't it mistreatment to not refer to TW as she/her.
DT - no, I said I would use their name to not be disrespectful,

From TT

MM - CH offered different examples of how neutral terms can be confusing do you remember that
DT - the explanation I remember is that it would take too much time
MM - do you remember the search questions, you said you were willing to search, the whole GA policy is to recognise

Again, what language should be used for NBs if non-gendered language takes too long?

I can’t keep up. On one hand we are being told me must use non gendered language and now the R/s are acting as if doing so would be breaking the law.

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Scotland!

Hypocrisy for me but not for thee :)

Yes a policy, not law.

That would provide quite a bit of entertainment for the prisoners I imagine. Especially if they are then handed the power to make complaints against prison officers for not using the ones they demand…

See: Alex Stewart

From TT

identity and you said you wouldn't do that.
DT - i said that I would search anyone regardless of their sex, and I wouldn't be disrespectful.

MM - you seem to incapable of understanding that it is disrespectful to not affirm their gender
DT - My refusal to recognise their

gender is not disrespectful.
MM - <missed section of tex>
DT - I don't know what that means
MM - he says that you can have strong views but still need to follow the policy, its a lie that a person born male is treated as a female.
DT - that is a lie

MM - he's not asking you to lie, he's asking you to follow company policy
DT - I'm not aware that it's against the law to misgender someone in Scotland
MM - the policy says must respect identity
DT - I was prepared to use their name but not pronouns

MM - when use the word 'the name' the note doesn't specify birth name or affirmed name,

DT - I can remember saying to him, 100% that if a man wanted to call him Susan or Shirley, I would do that.

MM - it's not in the note, but we can ask him next week.

MM - but surely calling Steven Susan you are treating them as a woman, that goes against everything you have been saying for two days
DT - no I'm not, people can have any given name they want.
MM - is this document a fairly accurate and complete record of this discussion

This clown is embarrassing to listen to.

From TT

DT - there are things that they have chosen not to record
MM - they may have omitted them in error
DT - as example, the point on names above,
MM - <letter of 14 Jan from CH> refusal to fully comply with GA policies, the comments made by you in relation to TP in our care, MM - is this document a fairly accurate and complete record of this discussion

but surely calling Steven Susan you are treating them as a woman

Then... what's the problem?! By MM's definition he's treating TW as women!

God, this is going into next week?!!!

I might not have the energy...

This is hardly a gotcha.

From TT

do you see that
DT - yes
MM - and on that basis you were deemed to have failed your probation
DT - in my dismissal meeting they said it was because of my strong beliefs
MM - we were just speaking about the completeness of the meeting note, you did not say that the terms

A boy named Sue…

@Tunnocksmilkchocolatemallow That song went through my head too. 😂

From TT

strong beliefs' were omitted.

DT - I cannot remember everything at all times
MM - I gave you the opportunity to tell me what was omitted and you did not mention strong beliefs
DH - <interjection, unclear>
DT - I said it yesterday more than once,
J - yes you did

MM - you seem to incapable of understanding that it is disrespectful to not affirm their gender

Why on earth should anyone "respect" someone else's fantasy? Pity them, perhaps, but respect? I think that's a wholly unreasonable expectation.

From TT

MM - now discussing various other members of the training cohort who may share DT's beliefs, Were you singled out for dismissal, what was the real reason you were dismissed
DT - the real reason, i would not lie and use the incorrect pronouns for biological men, and women

From TT

MM - your appeal letter, largely drafted for you but you agree with it's content
DT - yes
MM - para that discusses convos about views, I was not told that my beliefs were incompatible with GA employment, but you had not said that you wouldn't follow a policy.

DT - I had made my views clear.
MM - at no stage until 7 Jan you had not said you would not follow policy
DT - could you rephrase that
MM - 7 Jan was the first time you told a GA trainer you wouldn't follow a policy
DT - it definitely came up before

He’s trying to undermine the ‘protected belief’ defence by claiming that using a stereotypically female name for a bloke means that he doesn’t actually have a genuine belief….but all he’s doing is making himself and the company he is representing looking like idiots.

But obviously names are arbitrary; pronouns have a meaningful specific definition relating to sex.

From TT

MM - reads out para quickly
DT - I did say that I would have problems
MM - you did not mention at an earlier stage, it was not in your evidence yesterday,
DT - but it's in the letter from 23 January 2025, my recollection would have been better then than now

MM - but you didn't write the letter
DT - I didn't type it out but it's the information I provided
MM - <recounts history>,
DT - from what I recall, I made my views clear, no one had a problem with my views,
MM - <training log> we don't see any trace in any of the docs