Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor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

DH Even though fired at end of it.
CH No. Fact finding. DT problems with course - seemed unusual to me.
DH Potentially q serious. Actually serious as DT fired
CH Not necessarily, fact finding could be c anything.
DH But serious enough to want note taking
CH yes

DH Meeting has serious consequences for DT
CH Yes
DH Miss Pollock's notes. Signed off, though no sig at bottom. You saw these
CH Yes
DH Happy with it?
CH Yes
DH [to bundle] Number of issues raised in discussion. Starts with why DT called to mtg - referring to person by

DH different pronoun. Discussion re policy and law. Reference to searching - you were testing internal consistency of DT approach.
CH yes to all above
DH DT remembered mtg lasting c 20 mins
CH Couldn't tell you - could be 20 mins.
DH Discussion in mtg. We have your letter

DH on p 578. In letter seems operative reason terminating DT because not fulfilling operational needs to deal with TP in our care with ref to EA etc.
DH Letter boils down to DT's use of PER form
CH Don't understand.
DH What you said in letter - DT not complying with

Not heard that before in the witness testimony, just that he would use the adopted name.

Yes from TT

DH DT said would treat with respect
CH But wouldn't use ID name

He's making it up as he goes along.

legislation, SOP..
CH [re DT searching males/females q]
DH DT said happy to search TP. SPS and GA procedures - DT would only be expected to search prisoners who id as male, so DT wouldn't be expected to search F who id as F
CH Yes
DH We are left with how this is being recorded

DH DT said would treat with respect
CH But wouldn't use ID name
DH Crux of matter for dismissing DT - re letter - is what was going to be put into PER form
CH No. About how he was going to treat person in custody as well.
DH DT re what he was going to call a TP.

DH DT wouldn't call a man a woman, talking c pronouns there
CH could be
DH ?
CH I have a good recollection
DH DT trying to find a workaround.
CH He can't.
DH DT said could use neutral pronouns - is one way of doing it.
CH No it's not

DH Step away from policy for one moment. In ordinary communication, writing they/them.
CH In outside world yes. But in prison service use PP - respectful. If that's how they ID that's the way we'll put them.
DH If DT says i don't believe person to be a woman, instead

fought all their life 🙄🙄🙄

more like since arrest occurred.

One day, the penny will drop with this guy and he will cringe himself inside out.

Don't bet on it.

of calling them a man will use non-gendered term which will do less harm.
CH Not necessarily
DH Discussion moved to DT asking to use non-gendered pronouns/name. Is that possible
CH No
DH DT trying to find compromise
CH He possibly could have been

DH DT to use name. DT trying to find mutually agreeable alternative
CH He can't use them/they. Ppl fight all their lives to ID.
DH That may be your position personally. And the position you have made on behalf of R. But this is DT trying to find mutually agreeable resolution

CH yes, but he can't.
DH It would be potentially v offensive to a TP
CH Yes [missed]
DH So should have been made much more clear?
CH No
DH DT trying to identify solution.
CH Solutions weren't correct. Not a solution.
DH Your position is can only use PP of t prisoner.
CH Correct

DH DT expression is consistent with what noted in mtg. Basis of DT objection is he thought it a lie, the use of a TP chosen pronoun
CH Why would it be a lie
DH Just asking what DT said in meeting. Clear that's what DT said in mtg?
CH Yes
DH DT having to lie c what he saw as true

I don't understand why GA put someone as junior as CH up for this. From the point of view of GA's policies, CH's personal opinions about what should or shouldn't be done are as irrelevant as DT's.

DH identity of t prisoner
CH Not a lie
DH DT said it was a lie
CH That's his opinion
DH DT said there is a basis for his view of m is m and can't change. Did you understand that. Article 10.
CH [didn't know ref]
DH Have you heard of HR Act.

CH Yes
DH You made not connection of Art 10 to HRights Act
CH No
DH When were you last trained re EA
CH Can't remember
DH Understand c protected characyeristics
CH yes
DH Aware ender reassignment is PC
CH yes
DH And that so is religion/belief
CH

CH Yes
DH And that individuals with GC beliefs are protected
CH Not aware
DH So if you weren't aware at the time, even though DT mentioned Art 10. But general protection
CH No one was dismissing his belief
DH You knew religious belief was a PC
CH Yes
DH No qs c where balance

struck.
CH
DH Only advice you would have had would have been from m Pollock - HR. MP not a lawyer
CH Don't know if she was a lawyer
DH Was MP giving you any information c PCs
CH No
[MP- SP - Sarah Pollock]
DH Should you have established legal position before dismissing DT

DH And that individuals with GC beliefs are protected
CH Not aware

Awkward....

CH Possibly yes
DH Did you take any other advice. Just you and SP?
CH Yes
[Sorry - Susan Pollock I think]
DH [to PER form] Every individual who comes to court -section 2 would have been filled out already
CH Yes
DH [Goes over form.] DT would not be expected to alter

DH If they have previously appeared on remand or whatever, they may be a need for info to be entered by PCO
CH Yes
DH If individual id'd as gender neutral there is no box in section 2 to recognise that
CH yes
DH So a dilemma
CH No. On direction of court.
DH So that could be

against prisoners wishes
CH Possibly, yes
DH So if someone in court ids as gender which may not be obvious a decision has to be made
CH Yes
DH Process undertaken to make a decision
CH That's SPS process, not mine. Not seen that.

DH Other ways of identifying ...
CH Can't answer, don't work for SPS
DH Details in Section 2, name etc. Prisoner number where from
CH Depends on where person comes from. Police, etc. May be no number if come from court.
DH Can move on in form even if not filled in previous box?

House of cards falls down again.

Glad he asked about recording of NB people ...

Jobsworth!

Yep. It doesn't withstand the gentlest prod.

CH Yes
DH If an issue or ambiguity c individual walking in, it's open to leave m/f boxes unticked?
CH Court says re information - PCO doesn't decide m/f. The court decides.
DH Where is the harm in a difficult case where PCO doesn't feel able to put m/f in,

DH to leave blank.
CH We are contracted to fill in form in its entirety. It must be completed.
DH Contractual obligation
CH Yes
DH You know the terms?
CH No
DH [to bundle] There are examples on PER where you leave boxes blank. Eg for gender reassignment

DH If m/f box left, you could alert system that individual was asserting gender reassignment
CH Box can't be left blank.
DH [To box for drug/alcohol issues.] But can leave blank?
CH Fill in further down to give information to place receiving person.

DH [to Drug/alcohol section of form. Reads from form]
CH Then info would be placed in other box.
DH Where is health/risk assessment
CH Under medical. Any reasonable adjustments - that's where you put if eg drug/alcohol dependent.
DH Situation where individual presents as

gender neutral. Or refuses to tell you.
CH When court tells us what gender they are, that's what we go with.
DH Have you seen other documentation c TP
CH I don't work for prison service so don't deal with their TG policies.
DH Other side of contract is prison service

CH How they house TG ppl isn't up to us.
DH Would be unusual for prisoner to see content of PER unless ask for it via legal rep
CH Correct
DH SH mentioned T prisoner who injured a PCO as a result of being misgendered
CH Yes
DH This is only eg of this that has been mentioned.

DH Not trying to underplay, but seems to be one eg where PER form entry has caused an incident.
CH Probably other examples over the years, but we use the most recent. Can't remember all.
DH SH incident mentioned is clearly serious. SH said yesterday that prisoner hadn't just

been misgendered once but other boxes on form.
CH yes
DH And PCO in question possibly didn't make best choice in letting form be seen.
CH No. Cos sitting next to prisoner and has to write on form during time as per contract.
DH Back to DT solution not to cause distress by

CH No. Cos sitting next to prisoner and has to write on form during time as per contract.

So writing on a form trumps risk management and safeguarding in this GA trainer's view?

If I was a senior in GA I would have my head in my hands at this point.

Bingo.

dismissed because of his discriminatory beliefs!

calling TP chosen name.
CH Correct
DH That approach - would only be concern as to what was entered in box on 451
CH Yes
DH [to bundle p 573] Form filled out by you
CH Yes
DH On same page as mtg terminating DT employment. Reason for leaving box - reference made during mtg

DH Someone has looked at DT social media and there are concerns. Where you told about any posts?
CH No
DH Have you dismissed people from disc mtgs before
CH yes
DH It is usual for then to look at person's sm?
CH Depends on situation
DH You are listing here matters re decision

DH Company policies. Then you say discriminatory beliefs
CH yes
DH Part of decision
CH Nothing to do with his beliefs. It's him trying to call someone they
DH Company policy
CH Company policy is to treat everyone equal

DH Part of reason dismissing DT is re his beliefs
CH Nothing to do with his beliefs. Discriminatory to call people they/them when they have fought to be who they are.
DH Did you not agree with DT that m is man and woman is woman.
CH Don't disagree. Disagree with the situation

He'll turn himself into a pretzel in a minute

that would have happened.
DH Way DT expressed himself in classroom was part of reason
CH I didn't feel threatened but everyone has different level of tolerance
DH DT appearing angry, voice raised. Anyone would have been under pressure
CH Yes
DH Recollections are different.

DH But seems DT dismissed within hour of being asked to leave class. Seems very quick.
CH No, not if presented with evidence as I was. I don't know the timing.
DH You were not considering evidence with what SH said happened in class, but on what you were seeing yourself.
CH Yes

DH That includes DT presentation but you didn't find intimidating. You think dismissal within the hour was a reasonable response
CH yes
DH Even though DT rights
CH DT putting people in position where could cause harm or harm selves
DH DT refers to TG and you say because

of your strong beliefs
CH Strong beliefs were cos going to call them them/they.
DH you remember saying that to him
CH yes
DH Re SP notes. Sent on 10 January. Then your letter of 14th. On one view DT is dismissed within an hour, takes seven days to send a wee letter of

I’m not able to watch live today but last week the sound quality especially for witnesses was very poor. I’m Scottish and I really struggled last week to catch a lot of what was being said do I don’t think it’s just an issue with accents.

termination. Any reason.
CH I have courses to teach. Busy
DH Anyone else in on drafting.
CH HR. To make sure done correctly.
DH It wasn't because of anything else
CH I could have been on leave. Or training. Can't tell you without looking at my training calendar.

DH DT dismissal doesn't seem usual within a process - investigation, etc. Doesn't seem to happen here. DT might not be entitled cos on probation but you offer him to appeal. Why?
CH Cos he has a right to appeal a decision
DH DT was paid to end of month. Given more than entitled

to under contract
CH No reason
DH Could be it because you realised...
CH No
DH You have had conversation with Mr Sinclair?
CH No
DH Not even what's this about
CH No
DH That's all, thank you.

J Re exam
MM DH has come close to suggesting only issue between you and DT was re PER.
MM You have said also.. [to bundle - reads, but sound gone]
MM DT said was not going to call a man a woman cos it goes against his beliefs. Writing down - was that about the PER form?
CH yes
MM [reads] does that refer to filling out PER form
CH yes and no. [explains, but sound]