Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor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

Interesting that SH says "strong opinion", does she not also have a strong opinion, albeit a different one?

How many trans-identifying relatives does she have?

I do wish DH had thought to ask the previous witness whether the TiMs were usually "intact" biological males. It really needs to be stressed.

MM p586. How come to draft this ?
SH wasn’t done on that day but I did it based on a verbal statement.
J - you wrote it ?
SH I wrote it a Couple of weeks later and forgot to send till a couple of weeks later

DH. You were on the safeguarding team. Tell me in terms of your level of seniority, I was interested in comparison to Mr Hutton?
SH similar
DH some time known and worked with?
SH yea

DH encountered a lot?
SH only really in training
DH this session on 7th January 2025. What was your time slot for the class? 6 slides.
SH an hour

DH no disagreement as to the passage of time. A difference in views. DT thought he didn’t take more than 5 minutes. You ask DT To leave the room. If he’d declined you might have put it in stronger terms as a manager?
SH yes

DH DT does comply
SH yes
DT you suggest he goes to canteen and awaits further instruction?
SH yes
sound cuts out for a while

DH you return 15 mins so you were speaking with Mr Hutton for about 10 mins?
SH yes
DH you did offer your views on the impact of what DT said on welfare. Did you have any expectation of what would happen?
SH no

DH after class had finished you typed up events. Part of the process is getting evidence. Things Mr Toshack said. Do you agree he said ‘males are males and females are females’?
SH yes

DH He said he wouldn’t use preferred pronouns?
SH yes
DH he said it would amount to a lie?
SH yes

SH is going quite red in the face and drinking water at the question "It is the law".

DH why he would not use PP is he considers males males and females females. Is that not obvious?
SH no

DH you’re not making the connection?
SH no , pronouns are the requirement.
DH your response was this was policy and he’d be required to do so.
SH yes

DH you were giving chapter and verse on policies.
SH in relation to equality act and GRA.
DH you would have named the legislation
SH yes

DH did you understand it to be the law?
SH within the prison service
DH an answer now that not the law but the policy
SH yes (NB sound continues poor)

This woman is so ideologically captured that she poses a risk to staff and prisoners. Her interpretation of the incident with the TP in the back of the vehicle is woeful.

If she is investigating incidents and does not identify that a PCO having the PER (and presumably a pen - a weapon) in the back of a vehicle transporting a high risk prisoner is horrendous practice, she shouldn't be in a job.

Instead the conclusion she draws is 'we shouldn't misgender in the PER'. Shameful.

Was it only TIM's that SH said DT wouldn't offer food, water and toilet to or all prisoners?

Why do they keep using the terms preferred pronouns? Preferred means that someone has a choice - sounds like the policy didn’t do that.

Good point, clearly never seen Jason Bourne.

DH DT did NOT say he would not refer to trans prisoner’s name. But would not use the pronouns.
SH I can’t (inaudible)

DH he did not say he wouldn’t search a trans prisoner.
SH I don’t recall
DH (inaudible) this is your evidence on this. It’s surprising and you’ve misconstrued what DT said

DH what was DT conveying to you?
SH he would not be open to that. At the time a recollection.
DH essentially the same ground was covered in the corridor. Do you remember repeating that position?
SH ??

DH presumably in your mind what DT has relayed to you was not acceptable? Another exchange took place. For the judge to decide, but we’ve seen DT give evidence and he’s quite eloquent

😂

It's so basic. The reason you transport with a PCO sat in close proximity on either side is so that you can immediately respond and restrain. For which you need both hands.

You definitely don't sit there with a potentially highly inflammatory document and a weapon.

And breathe.

SH he seemed hostile
DH a suggestion he raised his voice?
SH I felt the situation was escalating

DH .. he was gesturing, some people do.. when they talk..
SH it came across inaudible

DH you mention slight hostility - if I suggested not feeling intimidated by his behaviour? Whatever the view, it didn’t stop DT complying with instructions. You were getting frustrated..?
SH it’s a good area to have to voice concerns.

DH was it you getting frustrated or heated?
SH I couldn’t say. What I felt from DT
DH was it not you who was talking faster and getting more animated? You were speaking over DT
SH I was trying to explain

That's funny. As DH was asking SH if it was in fact her that cut DT off whilst talking, SH cut off DH. 😂

That is exactly the kind of thing a good cross-examiner tries to bring out of a witness, and the kind of thing an experienced judge takes careful note of, I think.

DH Spoken with others after?
SH yes
DH p 585. You’re sending this statement to mr Sinclair as opposed to Mr Hutton.
SH I was asked to send it

DH p 586. 13 Feb you sent. Heading then first line ‘star star star’ looks like the way you’ve prepared this statement you’ve not been able to put the date?
SH I had another part of this.
DH interpretation might be by this date you couldn’t remember?

DH you were struggling to remember the date of the presentation could you not find that date easily? Perhaps the statement not quite correct?
SH disagrees

DH there’s a suggestion DT refused to use a trans prisoner’s first name. What you state ‘Mr Toshack said not use ‘ there’s nothing here that states he wouldn’t use their first name.

So DT said terrible things but they were not included in her statement. Just the refusal to use pronouns. 🤔

So the food and water thing, was not in SH statement written at the time. SH thinks pronouns are more important than providing basic human rights! WTF.

She has clearly tried to beef up her statement well after the event to bolster her position.

Where has that happened before????

DH is it the case the reason why pronouns focus not name is because he didn’t refer to name? Are you any less confident?
SH in my memory from somewhere

DH I suggest ..Mr Toshack didn’t say that. No reference to trans prisoners toilets in your statement either is there?
SH no

SH my concern was refusal to comply with procedures.
DH you say more serious not to use pronouns than access to toilet?
SH no.

DH on the question of aggression. ‘DT was presenting aggressively towards me re this topic’
SH on the areas discussed
DH you don’t expand on what the aggressive presentation was?

Surely you would lead any HR meeting with the refusal to provide food and drink to prisoners.

DH he did not say he wouldn’t search a trans prisoner.
SH I don’t recall
DH (inaudible) this is your evidence on this. It’s surprising and you’ve misconstrued what DT said

Well well

From TT she comes across as uncomfortable at her own, erm, misrecollections? Which is to her credit I think - she doesn't seem entirely comfortable with lying unlike other witnesses we've seen in other tribunals

I’m shocked that SH appears to have had no training or experience in how to accurately report a serious incident….either that or her lack of consistency in her written statement and today’s verbal evidence looks a bit dodgy.

SH inaudible
DH you’ve said this was an unusual event. A new employee this would be unusual
SH I’d already verbally had a conversation with others.

DH prisoner’s preferred name?
SH yes
DH the reason why we get more detail that is you’ve been adding to a narrative about this over time.
SH no

DH why should we accept more evidence today?
SH my statement wasn’t complete
DH DH has lost his job
SH yes

DH p 579 DH appeal against his dismissal. Have you seen it?
SH no
DH You were involved in dismissal of DT.