Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor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

SW - yes
MM - several PCO's being injured
SW - don't receall
MM - but you remeber discussion
SW - yes
MM - she says at this point DT said M is M and F is F when discussing searching
SW - yes
MM - do you remember him saying he wouldn't use He or Sh or use name provided for TP

SW - yes
MM did he also say born a man stay a man? or similar
SW - yes
MM - did he mention religion
SW - it was brought up but i don't know when
MM - SH talked about GA policy and SPS guidance on how TP are treated
SW - yes
MM -said even if you don't agree, you have to put those

MM - beliefs aside and stick to policy. Rmeember something that?
SW - yes
MM - remember as a PCO treat TP???
SW - yes
MM - did DT say he didn't agree with searches and wouldn't do it
SW - along those lines
MM - do you recall SH talking about food, water and toilet access

company policy, but not a UK law

Exactly!

The chill effect on that training cohort after Toshack was sacked pretty much on the spot must have been huge

SW - yes
DH - and DT said ????
SW - not entirely
MM - something along lines
SW - rephrase
MM - SH was talking about access to food, water and toilets and these should be granted and written on form, basic human rights. DT said I wouldn't if not necessary
SW - don't recall

MM - earlier you said you contributed to conv
SW - I agreed it wasn't Scottish law that you had to use PP
MM - was DT's voice raised
SW - no
MM - sure about that?
SW - yes
MM demeanour?
SW - normal
MM passionate
SW - respectful
MM - SH says loud, challenging and ???
SW - no
MM sure

SW - yes I'm sure
MM - SH asked him to leave
SW - yes
MM - as they left you stayed, SH returned 10-15 later
SW - yes
MM - you said she didn't say anything on return
SW - yes
MM - you then said, she said to cohort that DT had been sacked.
SW - I confused with another incident

MM - describe layout of room and what happened in the 10-15 mins
SW - sitting at tables, desks round sides in pairs.
MM - you wer esitting alone
SW - yes
MM - you weren't talking about incident?
SW - there was chatter about it
MM - when SH came back, some expressed that DT had been

MM - a nightmare on the ITC and it wasn't the job for him
SW - no, noody said that
MM - you were on your own, so if someone had said that to SH, you may not have heard
SW - not in this instance.
MM - you jus tsaid there was chatter you couldnt hear. She came back, surely possible

MM - might you not have been able to hear rest of cohort
SW - no
MM - you said there was chatter you didn't hear. so SH comes back and you say it's impossible you didn't hear
SW - I said i heard nothing of that sort.
MM - you like DT and share his views.
SW - yes
MM - you chipped

SW - clear didn't like it, got a bit aggitated
DH - what about her demeanour
SW - quick to speak, straight talk positions
DH - her tone
SW - not loud but bothered by the challenge
DH - did you get an impression of whether she agreed about DT on PP
SW - she strongly disagreed
DH - and SH's language
SW - respectful but in opposition

🦧
Who got emotional?

SW - she went out and came back in
DH - how long SH was out of room?
SW - 10-15 mins
DH - exchange took place, SH and DT outside, you are inroom with group. Any class reaction?
SW - just faces of disbelief and shock
DH - was there discussion later

😲 So nobody clapped ??

DH - did any of the class say anything on her retunr
SW - I believe she confirmed he was sacked

Ouch

MM - in in support
SW - on what was real
MM - your views are aligned, you aren't objective or impartial because you are alighned.
SW - I understad your point but I'm just saying what happened
MM - no it[s your perception of tone and demeanour, it's subjective
SW -no, its hwat Isaw

J - is this not a point for submissions, you are asking him to accept his perception is influenced by alignment of views...
MM - there's one specific point from SW evidence. in answer to a question you said SH strongly disagreed and seemed offended.
SW - body language

SW voice rose and sped up, her whole body language, repeatedly crossing legs, pursing of lips,agitated.
MM - how far from her were you, you seem to have a very detailed view of her from a year ago
SW - it's what I saw
MM - you've seemed unsure about other things, but very detailed

Surely if she walked back in the room, the chatter would've stopped as they looked up to see what she had to say.

MM - when SH came back, some expressed that DT had been
MM - a nightmare on the ITC and it wasn't the job for him
SW - no, noody said that

Is SH a witness? We really need her cross questioned.

OK, I have now caught up with TT and it will be as near to real time as I can do.

MM -on SH body language
SW - yes because it was an important moment, i was paying attention
MM - your speech has speeded up are you under pressure
SW - no
MM - you like DT, share his views??????Missed????
SW - I am stating what I've seen and heard.

J - reexam?
DH - yes, you were directed to slide/leaflet, qu was SH recalls that as the catalyst. You said no comment to whether she was correct, what is your memory of when it started
SW - yes that wasn't the moment it started.
DH - sound cutting out

MM being a snippy prick again this morning, I see.

* Sound still out*
DH - .....might be v serious
SW - yes
SW leaves

J - short break
discussion happening, can see but not hear
DH - there is more discussion to be had on whether there's to be ???
J - mysterious
DH - looking at an objection...
J - Ms Lauchland? 20 past

Morning all.

TT Tweets from this morning

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2017153500292272642.html

Thank you @Another2Cats for the C&P this morning.

@Another2Cats thanks

MM - do you remember him saying he wouldn't use He or Sh or use name provided for TP
SW - yes
MM did he also say born a man stay a man? or similar
SW - yes

See MM has double loaded that question

Prior all and only about PP

Then throws in
DT said "I wont use name"
of the stranger he has never met before and needs to move from A to B

Thanks Another2Cats

This is another case where the respondents are basing their case on the tone on the claimant and using it as a smokescreen. Even if DT has been shouty and angry, if the reason he was sacked was for his allegedly "extreme" views, then it's irrelevant. He wasn't sacked for being aggressive towards training staff.

Exactly.

Can the legal bods here confirm that the judge wouldn't be swayed by this bollocks?

We believe the next witness is Laura Laughland (LL). Hoping sound quality will have improved.

We resume.
Oath taken

J - DH will ask you qu, then MM. Then I may too.
DH - details
LL - Laura catherine Laughland - PCO, for SPS
DH - at?
DH - HMP ??
LL - *
LL - female wing (FW)

DH - from about 2021?
LL - yes
DH - not following case?
LL - no
DH - some evidence on SPS on TP prisoners. DUring time in DH (HMP) were you aware of any in F wing, who were TW?
LL - yes
DH - how many
LL - one at that time, since ther's been another and recently 1 again

Not a legalbod but J will see this all day every day on cross.

J will need to take account of all the mismatch and gaps

SW has no skin in the game

In fact he is human (so selfprotecting is rational) at risk from his GA job if they loose so he is more likely to lean to the GA side and protect his wage than tell lies for a "cause".

DH - so 1 then 2 then 1
LL - yes
DH - you had regular contact with them?
LL - yes
DH - your duties involve search?
LL - yes, physical rub down or in cell body search
DH - like a patdown and other search more involved?
LL - yes, body search, we aske if they have anything harmful

LL - or not allowed, then search half body naked at a time, never fully naked
DH - who does it work
LL - males search males, female officers search females
DH - HMPDH, I assume you are F?
LL - yes
DH - so you would search HMPDH women?
LL - yes
DH - at HMPDH are TW treated dif>

Poor woman, she has to pat down the TIM everyday and do a naked body search, I didn't catch how often.

LL - I was told when I arrived that TWAW and I was to search TW, there was one when I arrived.
DH - you were expected to search TW?
LL - yes, they were a long term prisoner, had to
DH - don't identify, but the crime?
LL - murder
DH - was there concern you would be searching

DH - that TW?
LL - yes spoke to manager October after SC ruling to say I wasn't comfortable searching TW.
DH - oct last year?
LL - yes
DH - has anything changed for you at HMPDH? was the body search expectation changed.
LL - yes, when I spoke to them they said i wasn't expected

I think SPS are going to regret the publicity this will get.

I really hope so.