@Tunnocksmilkchocolatemallow · Today 19:31
Again, policy does not trump the law. That includes in recording information. They must record sex under their PSED and under the SC ruling this must be sex not self ID gender.
That is a GA problem.
It only becomes a DT problem if he is a open to blame if he records the data within a PSED reporting system.
If the M/F section is not classifed as "ask subject if they want M or F ticked" within the training then DT can say his understanding of the 2 options had to be biological is supported by the SC.
imo head of a pin analysis 😁
Its a what is his role and what is the form used for fuctionally as fair processing of data subjects data by using DTs collected data (eyes) has to be disproved /proved.
@BettyBooper · Today 18:32
If the only info recorded is preferred gender rather than sex, I can't see where (having tried) the SPS / receiving governor could know that the person coming to them is not, in fact, the sex that is recorded on the PER.
Policy says that PER must be filled in accurately.
Policy also says that trans prisoners must be placed according to biological sex initially for assessment.
But how will that happen if GeoAmey staff are recording F instead of M? Someone somewhere has to mention that they're trans.
Thats my point.
In the TIF case someone failed to correctly record sex or did not record her sex at all but recorded a (assumed) gender.
Post intake had her sex not been discovered and she had been placed in general population she could been placed in a shared cell if there was overcrowding
@SternJoyousBeev2 · Today 17:05
MM has not (yet) proved that the document in question only had a "gender" rather than sex option
I really hope DH asks the GEO Amey witnesses exactly what data is being captured by the M/F tick boxes and what the reason would be for collecting that data.
That is a CH question or whoever trained on the PER.
This is key along with when it was covered on the training.
》》 If it is not documented it never happened ...
MM jumped up and down on that point.
GA is claiming DT did all the training.
DEI came up and he said nothing.
None of the other trainers documented his attitude to DEI or a pronoun problem.
How was the training managed?
Did they cover Data Protection?
They were transporting people accused of anything from child rape and organised crime.
And these are peole from the community DT lived in.
Was DT taught and understand how to fill in the PER?
If so when?
Did the prison visit involve managing high risk events and were OMG events discussed?
If this or a near version happened somebody is telling a "it happened because we documented it" post WeFuckedUp version of events.
MyrtleLion [28/1/26 11:44 - 12:09]
DH - did you go to visit a prison
DT - we went for restraint training, ..
DH - who was your supervisor?
DT - Chris Hutton who was leading training
DH - so what is this document
DT - it's like a workbook to mark progress, what did you do in that week, a wee bit about how you did.
DH - the I in ITC is 'Initial Training Course' ..we've got a list of documents, handouts, starter packs, during the training and dates, also signed, this is essentially giving us the headline titles of the various classes or modules you were undertaking.
DH - there are handouts referred to here, the 'personal escort handbook' given to you,
DH - and do we see if you look at
module - IMD 8, 'Equality and Diversity' that was done in November 2024,
DH - modules on prisoner welfare care plans, and personal escort records, both in early December
DH - we will come to week 6 in time, .. wind back to the start of the course, ...any discussion of matters such as DEI,
DT - there was a distinct recollection that it was raised on the first day of the course.
DH - who brought up DEI
DT - CH, he asked 'what is DEI', .. I told him I didn't agree with DEI, it was coming from a good place but wasn't about diversity it was about conformity, if you didn't agree with it you would be punished, not promoted, it was about characteristics not competence,
DH - did the issue of trans come up in Week 2?
DT - I don't remember if it was Week 2 or Week 3 but there were some specific conversations about it.
DH - what was the first one you remember
DT - trainers told stories about notorious cases, about one trans prisoner who bit their own wrists, to make them bleed.
DT - he - CH - said 'she tried to cut off one of her testicles' , I reacted and said 'do you realise how ridiculous that sounds'
DH - what did CH say
DT - he said I agree with some of what you say, it's gone too far in some areas
CH said you had to do it, use their pronouns.
DH - anything else
DT - so i said to him, that's just bollocks, and an older man on the course, said 'literally bollocks' and everyone burst out laughing
DH - what was the tone
DT - it wasn't combative, it was people ....