Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor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

Given she said that she investigates incidents, this is very worrying...

So SH has only had specific training on one protected characteristic. Can all guess which one!

Her sole focus in her written statement is very telling.

SH I felt the situation was escalating

When did people stop thinking and start feeling?
And it seems there's a bit of retrofitting going on, mind you given that she's feeling it rather than thinking it I wouldnt believe a word she says.

DH you’ve mentioned trans training have you had any training in Equality Act?
SH yes in 2018
DH refreshers?
SH yes

DH you’re not a lawyer but you’ve some cognisance of it. Are you aware of religion or belief?
SH yes
DH are you aware of gender critical? A protected characteristic under the EA?
SH no.

DH a structure of enforcement and performance measures.
SH yes
DH some of that involves penalty points eg completion of documentation
SH yes

J Can we go back to the presentation? Prisoner record same?
SH different sound break

J have you had challenges in the past from participants?
SH yes. Debate.
J Have you asked someone if they’d step outside before?
SH no

J five minute adjournment till 1531.

Returns. J decides to end session. Reconvene on Monday at 1000.

Afternoon tweets from TT

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2017223186308313582.html

For those not on the live stream, the two barristers wanted a conversation with each other so that is the reason for the short break. MM then advised he had no additional questions for SH, there were some cryptic references to a possible additional witness and the judge adjourned until Monday.

I wish we could reset to a time when violent male offenders didn't have to be referred to as she. I'm so tired of this, that it is written into policy that we have to respect their "preferred pronouns" or they might react violently (as Jennifer Melle recently discovered).

Or remits claiming it’s a breach of human rights not to use preferred pronouns ….utter bilge

I'd be happy to never hear the words preferred pronouns ever again.
The amount of bloody attention for tiptoeing language gymnastics and compliance enforced by various sorts of bullying, harrassment and threats, and actual violence, is completely disproportionate.
And not having heard of gender critical as protected by the EA is not doing your damn job properly.

Just catching up. I’m surprised by the implication (statement?) that preferred pronouns needed to be used to avoid a violent confrontation. I’d be interested to know if there’s any similar examples of where this has been done.

I have no idea where ‘remits’ came from from 😫

Today’s Dundee Courier coverage.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/5422759/prison-officer-pronouns-respectful/

I could be totally wrong here as i have not seen the particulars of the claim, but it seems to me that the claimants argument is that the policy that staff must treat biological male prisoners as if they were women, (giving them leaflets meant for female prisoners etc) is what is unlawful, and flowing from that his dismissal on the basis of an unlawful policy is the basis of his claim.

which if i am correct makes this case quite important.

The people close to the problem see there is a problem but dont have the power to act but its still flagged at union level

Notice its all about men TIFs are carefull

How many of of the Male PO would have been asked to volunteered to strip search a woman?

What issue could that indicate a out the male PO who wanted to do the job to management and senior staff?

Did she even see the bus 👀?

No legal training
No specific relevant qualification writing what she thinks is lawful 🙈

And not wise enough to say it was based on a copy paste from SPS training....

Another2Cats · Today 13:49 14:43
MM have you received training for Safeguarding?
SH yes including for transgender. Based on the management of transgender.

J - who delivered the training?
SH SPS

SH yes training based on
MM 2024 document
SH yes

MM look at p 220 2024 description. What involvement do you have?
SH I created this document
MM physically drafted it?
SH yes
MM reference the GRA I take it policies incorporated ?
SH yes
MM p 224 transgender must be allowed to adopt and addressed by us as the gender they identify. This is your drafting?
SH yes
...
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

Better if he had asked if DT would be expected to volunteer to strip search a TIF

Its the prisoners PP.
Not that staff had an option

Eg at the prison
The staff member would be "handed" the male along with a page which would list name and if he wanted to be called "she".

Or would have to fill out a blank sheet. Filling the "fact" that Jo thinks he is a female and should be called "she".

The information would be taken from the hand off staff (or in theory from the prisoner himself)

Indeed while she is rolling back on prior statements 😬

Indeed. Many things in an (as per policy) accurately written PER have the potential to incite a violent reaction.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't write those things. It means you shouldn't let the prisoner see them. Especially when in a high risk situation like transporting.

I'm honestly gobsmacked that this is being given as a reason to use PP, as it demonstrates the high risk of the prisoners involved potential propensity to violence.

I have literally never heard of another example PCOs being actively told to be inaccurate on PERs to prevent violence from prisoners. It's absurd.

The other thing that strikes me is that if GA staff are being taught that TWAW, the temptation for staff may be to risk assess TW the same as they would women (in terms of strength, staff needed to manage them etc etc).

Don't get me wrong, women can present many risks but to risk assess a man in the same way as a woman puts staff (and the prisoner and other prisoners) at risk.

Double issue if a male "woman" is sent out with 2+ female PO

I'm not understanding prisoner procedures fully.

Are prisoners always transported individually, in separate vehicles, with 2+ prison officers?

Just wondering if filling the form in with preferred gender (not sex) might mean that a violent TIM could be sharing transport with a female prisoner?

If a TIM has to be addressed using their preferred pronouns to prevent them 'kicking off', couldn't the same logic be used to justify them being transported with other female prisoners?

I think that example was about the risk of DT not using verbal "she/her".

Which tbf is a valid risk.

Problem is the SPS have decided to upgrade incident by forcing staff to missex and prisoner gets a soft pass on an agressive response.

Which ignores that people will sex by eye (see person/object/ > brain names person/object > verbal expression) so human male called Jo is a he/him

Plus that the 2 PO were speaking across the prisoner as if he was not there..

But it was not the 2 POs comments which I will guess were not "respectful" which triggered the attack rather the word he/his/him(?)

Another2Cats · Today 14:05
MM p 226. Rights for T people . The risks associated - can you describe?
SH self harm. Showing signs of, or harassed access , needs to identified as. Seen examples of where this hasn’t been followed and causes escalation.
MM for example?
SH self harm to themselves. Also officers are sat either side of the prisoner and reference to prisoner unfortunately assaulted officers