Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor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

that you have identified that you will not follow policy, I think it's an indicator that you never said it.
DT - that's not true. It's not in there because it was not flagged as an issue.
MM - you were told that you can hold your views, but need to follow policy

From TT

DT - it was not flagged on an issue
MM - you were up against the granite of GA policies, why didn't you raise as an issue
DT - if it's such a big deal, why was it not flagged earlier
MM - the reality is that all you had talked about until Jan was your views

All the Unconscious Bias training I've been on has been patronising rubbish. Complete tick box exercise that makes the company think they are marvellous and does nothing to tackle the problem. I completely agreed with DH on that.

And I can completely understand why it can even make issues worse as pointed out by pp.

Absolutely no way would I have raised it with the employer though. Which is part of the problem.

Well that really is an exaggeration! He must have talked about other things on the training course.

Surely unconscious bias training should teach that we should not make assumptions about sex, race, age or class based on a name?

Exactly! As a reservist he will have colleagues with allsorts of nicknames. He will also have to refer to Officers as sir or ma’am even if he thinks they are donuts. So he can do that. But using sexed pronouns incorrectly is not remotely comparable.

From TT

DT - and my views were about the use of pronouns.
MM - you were paid for the month of January that was more you were entitled to,
DT - not sure what I was entitled to
MM - per contract, one weeks written notice
>>
MM - grounds says decision to dismiss was a disproportionate

reaction to my beliefs,

DT - there was a compromise and work arounds that we could have come to,
MM - where do I see reference to these work arounds in this appeal document
DT - I don't know if its in the appeal doc, but it came up in the dismissal meeting

MM - CH explains why these wouldn't work, in relation to the PER form,
DT - he said the time it would take, this did not seem genuine to me
MM - you say you wouldn't discriminate or harass TP, isn't refusal to use pronouns that

From TT

DT - using their chosen name is not disrespectful and not misgendering.
MM - you declined an appeal meeting,
DT - I didn't want another face to face meeting, given how the last one had gone
>>
MM - reads out from documents, SH presented slide that said TP are distressed by

From TT

failure to affirm, you said you wouldn't be searching a transgender person, and that you wouldn't identify a TP as he or she in PER document
DT - I said I would use their name or non-gendered language
MM - you were not dismissed for your beliefs, but refusal to follow policy

I genuinely think he didn't say he wouldn't search a trans-identifying person. Because then who would? And searching is a vital part of prison conditions.

I think they're making it up that DH said that he wouldn't search a trans person. He denies saying it and it just doesn't fit with the rest of the evidence he's given.

Cross post!

From TT

MM - I'm done with this topic, I have another hour or so. We're doing well on time.

J - do we have another witness for today,
DH - we don't have another witness tee'd up for today, but definitely tomorrow morning.
J - we will adjourn now until 1:55 pm.
Court rises.

End of morning session part 2.

Surely sending a man who thinks he is a woman to a male prison is going to be of a persistent and daily offence to him, as opposed to calling them by certain pronouns when they are not there?

If he had only talked about transgender issues then why would all his earlier course evaluations not flag up something? If he tried to dominate all course discussion sessions why would none of the course leads flag that up as an issue?

Second morning session tweets here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2016829552182313372.html

Court resumes at 1.55pm. I won't be available to paste until 2.30pm at the earliest.

DH has repeatedly said that he was being forced to tell a lie.

Can an employer legally force you to lie?

It makes no sense.

Hopefully this judge will have some common sense.

@sillygoof · Today 10:50
Based on the tweets, this isn’t going that well now. Especially the unconscious bias stuff. It’s one thing thinking that biological men can’t become women, but thinking that unconscious bias training is nonsense isn’t right.

Its on how you read the point being made.

Back before BT was even imagined
My management decided they would solve the functional (not HR) problems by having a round table "investigation" meeting.
We all troop in point out problems
We all troop out more aware of many more problems than at the start of the meeting.
Management do not action anything.
More people were more irritated about more stuff which they had no contol over and could not fix

The theory is great.

But dont expect that people will put a strangers well being above their own.

On a personal level when an individual can recognise and make changes it benefits social change.

The problem is both when systems are not put in place and when they are. Eg a few years ago London LA ran an blurb in an ad for Indigenous people (so White Brits) to join community space

He is Ex- Army a profession based on kill "them" ( conscious and unconscious bias) because "we" dont like what they do /say /think.

DT - in my experience when people get promoted based on it are not competent, they are bad leaders, and bad for organisation

One wants to field a "us" against "them" army.

And have a Command which will not order the Light Brigade into Russian Cannon

The Judge may have an unconscious bias.

The world has changed so hire quota or bias training in the Forces carries risk

Rather than training away a bias its everyone is graded as combatant or allies or "us".

The Uk police are demonstrating that with their TRA activism problem.

Iffy when its a positioned along side dealing with men who may be telling lies in the community removed from "normal" society by the justice system
Its a double sword but its a legal argument

He believes them to be male so I can't see the logic in him allegedly refusing to...

Will there be any witnesses for the claimant? I'm wondering if anyone will back him up or if they will all be keeping their heads down.

I think the allegation is that he said he wouldn’t search a transman because they are female.

His evidence was that in the army he searched both men and women and that he would search anyone at all.

I don't see any support for the respondent to say that he wouldn't search a trans-identifying woman.

But he's also said he's searched women before and it's just a physical act. I think he meant not sexual.

Short answer their equal rights eg
Legal SS marraige etc

DT when gay people didn't have the same rights as straight people

Back before Stonewall decided to roll out sex is not about sex and "sexual racist" trope

》》 U dont like:

MM <cancellation of Pride month> you don't like Pride Month
DT - no need for it
MM - gay people have same rights as everyone
DT - yes, that's what i think

》》 have rights> U dont like purpose

MM - what is the purpose of pride month, why do they happy
DT - nowadays I don't see a good reason for it, what are they marching for, i could see it years ago, when gay people didn't have the same rights as straight people, I could have seen the point years ago, but why now.

》》have rights & purpose > dont like freedoms & see them as harmful

MM - it's just that community, the LGBTQ+ community celebrating their greater freedoms,
where is the harm
DT - I would say where's the need? I know there a number of LGB people who don't want to be associated with it. They don't agree with pride.

》》have rights & purpose & freedoms & not the full community > U see a harm/ bad thing

MM - you didn't answer the q. Why is it a bad thing
DT - I did not say its a bad thing, I said it's not needed.

》》have rights & purpose & freedoms & not the full community > U see a harm/ bad thing

MM - even if you are right and it's not needed, where is the harm
DT - I'm not saying there's harm, I'm saying it's not needed. As a military person, there's only one Armed Forces Day

》》have rights & purpose & freedoms & not the full community & not harm > U supress by cancel

MM - why do you want it cancelled
DT - there's no need for it, no rights that gay people don't have. It was marching for equal rights, they have equal rights. Why do they need it

》》have rights & purpose & freedoms & not the full community & not harm & explain "why" to me first > U supress by get rid

MM - why do you want to get rid of it
DT - I don't understand why pride month when they have the same rights as everyone else.

》》have rights & purpose & freedoms & not the full community & not harm & explain "why" to me first > horse is likely dead no further whipping needed.....

MM - that's the end of the social media posts,