Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor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

As an aside, I propose that government should issue a new belief certificate in the manner of a GRC - the Gender Critical Certificate (GCC).

Holders should be allowed to produce this certificate at gender training sessions, allowing them to exempt themselves from any training materials that contradict their hard won GC beliefs

MM A PCO search of T prisoner. Do they need to address prisoner?
CH Yes, all about communication
MM In a search, what communication needed?
CH Need to id person. Ask them questions - lots of communication, asking about possible difficulties.
MM Do you give prisoner running

commentary c what doing.
CH Yes. Communication all through. Important. Some can be aggressive / harm selves.
MM DH q c PER form. He was suggesting PCO could leave m/f blank.
CH Can't
MM Yes, he was putting that to you. [to bundle] SPS doc - liaising with SPS for SOP

MM SPS SOP. [reads] SPS requires escort services to follow its instructions and policy re T prisoners. To PR2 - an SPS system?
CH yes
MM When PP confirmed, it will be used on system. Info from dispatching. Info re GI should be stored in responsible way. [reads c use of PP]

MM [reads] Name and PP should be used in all verbal communication, all paperwork,
MM There is a requirement to record things accurately
CH Yes
MM To DH point that you can leave ambiguity on form. You disagree. [to GA welfare and care SOP]
MM Reads c TP status

Yes!!!!! I was waiting for this to be covered.

MM [reads] Any ambiguity, it will be recorded as down by dispatching agency. Re walk ins, prisoner will be asked and any ambiguity resolved by the court.
MM Re ITC being safe space
CH ?? [sound]
MM DH asked you about your decision making process at dismissal.

MM Was you primary concern DT's beliefs or what he was prepared to do or not do?
CH What he'd do.
MM No more question.
[J and DH discussing timing and evidence from Mr Sinclair]
DH MS shouldn't be long.
J [asks about rest of witnesses]

MM There is a requirement to record things accurately

😂

DH MM and I have been talking all day re timing. I need to talk to DH about further witnesses or not.
J [asks c subs] Will I have written submissions?
DH If that would be helpful
J Always helpful. My practice is parties reading out written submissions may not be of benefit.

J I normally read them and then give parties opportunity to answer any questions. We could vacate a day for this. Please discuss among yourselves and say if any objections.
DH Re not reading out, from open justice perspective written subs could be made available to others.

Would need to be careful c privacy/GDPR.
[Discussion re next steps]
DH I will discuss and come back.
[Break till 15.20.]

Tweets so far

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2018303647705161820.html

As long as it's a criminal offence to disclose the existence of a GCC.

J affirms the next witness - information c hearing - and microphone from MM.

JS John Sinclair
MM How long worked for GA
JS ??
MM Have you come through Reliance and G4S
JS Yes
MM What does training manager involve
JS The role is training requirements, custody officer

JS also with team, operational
MM Job title - you said account director
JS ??
MM Accountable to him for performance of training dept?
JS Yes
MM Your background previously?
JS Served in regular army, tank regiment
MM Have you done a variety of jobs on contract?
JS Started as

JS custody officer. Seconded to training
[apologies, sound esp for witness is v bad]
MM You have operational experience in the contract?
JS Y
MM DT - you were asked to do appeal hearing?
JS Y
MM By whom?
JS Susan Pollock
MM [to page 579/581] This is DT's appeal. Seen before
JS Y

MM CH letter to DT of dismissal. Other docs. Part of appeal. You have seen docs before.
JS Yes
MM SH doc to you and SP. Do you know when typed up.
JS No
MM But you received copy
JS y
MM Did you speak to anyone before to gather information?
JS Yes - [gives names but unclear]

Agreed. Clearly, this goes without saying.

I think that the GCC would be really useful for GC people to help prevent them 'kicking off' at gender training sessions

MM These individuals were on ITC with DT. Why did you speak to them
JS ??
MM So just for background?
JS yes
MM And spoke to SH and CH as well
JS Yes
MM No dispute DT didn't want hearing. Happy for you to arrived at decision by looking at paperwork?
JS yes

MM [Reads c decision taken on 14th January.] Don't think that's right, is it. Should be 7th. Is that an error?
JS yes
MM Failure to comply with policies is reason for dismissal.
JS Yes. ..
MM We will come go grounds of appeal. This is factual background.

MM [to doc, DT factual background] This is structure of his appeal.
MM Your response to DT saying making it clear re my beliefs re GC.
MM You say re you in week 1 your opinions may be counter to the law and this is GA policy. What are you referring to re law

JS My understanding is that they should be treated as the id they want to id as
MM would they need a GRC or not to be treated thus
JS Don't understand
MM Had you spoken to SH.
MM You refer to DT presenting in aggressive way on 7th. Not dismissed for aggression
JS no

MM So why reference in letter
JS DT was on probation. If DT had a probationary review he could have been dismissed
MM Yes - you say here under wrongful dismissal. Within six month probation period co has right to terminate
JS Yes
MM For clarity - DT says he believes dismissal

MM disproportionate. It is my beliefs - I would not act in way to discriminate against TP. This is your view
JS Yes
MM You go on to say not dismissed for expressing beliefs, Why dismissed.
JS My understanding was DT wouldn't follow policy/procedures. Not cos of his beliefs.

MM You go on to say you don't uphold this ground of appeal and your decision is final. is the end of the matter?
JS Yes
MM No further qs
DH Good afternoon. I represent DT in these proceedings. My microphone is dead. [they swop mics - DH's sound is now worse]
DH In general terms,

DH after coming back from leave, did you get any information from CH c what had happened with DT
[discussion c bad sound for observers and mics]
J Will ask clerk to come up.
J Only suggestion is you have my mic.
DH I asked you re any conversations with anyone

re DT before appeal
JS [replies ... but sound]
DH You just said DT would have been mentioned in meeting when you came back. Do you remember CH telling you c DT
JS No
DH Once you became involved as appeal officer you told MM you spoke to a number of ppl including CH
JS Yes

DH All we have c any other person you spoke to was SH on p 585. Email attached. Did you ask SH to send you something, hence getting this email.
JS Can't recall.
DH Did you ask anyone else to give you anything in writing.
JS No
DH So nothing missing from these docs
JS ?

DH So main evidence is notes of 7th Jan mtg?
JS Yes
DH If I suggest CH didn't talk to you c DT dismissal.
JS [??]
DH If I suggest you didn't speak to CH about this
JS ??
DH Re your understanding of law re t prisoners. Have you encountered the phrase GC beliefs before
JS no

DH Do you understand them
JS no
DH [explains GC beliefs] Do you have a view
JS No. Policy
DH Have you heard of EA
JS Yes
DH Aware of PCs in EA?
JS yes
DH Include religious / philosophical belief
JS yes. [unclear]

DH You have read DT appeal letter
JS yes
DH You have been taken to ground 2 on p 581. [reads] DT stated as matter of conscience would find it difficult to express myself in ways that went against my deeply held beliefs.
DH It's obvious why DT was refusing to do things - cos of

link with his beliefs.
JS Yes. But appeal not c his beliefs. It was that he refused on more than one occasion to carry out duties.
DH You looked at 7th Jan notes. DT there also making connection between GC belief and what he was saying not comfortable doing.
JS yes

DH He made that connection at time.
JS yes
DH Did you get assistance from HR?
JS ??
DH Did Miss Pollock give you any steer re making decision?
JS We talked but ??
DH Did you take advice from HR re beliefs / DT
JS Talked to HR but DT refused to ??

DH You've said not to do with beliefs but DT refusal to follow policy. But refusal is cos of DT beliefs.
JS DT beliefs in organisation - needs to be carried out but he wasn't prepared to do that. Many staff - his refusal to do that.
DH Did you think DT was in wrong c beliefs

Up to where people are grumbling about TT. Please remember these are volunteers and offer to volunteer yourself if unhappy.

JS It was refusal to act within operational - one person doing one thing.
DH No further qs
J - Any result from your discussions.
DH We will hear from witness tomorrow. Should be short.

J May be more efficient to have evidence and then have clear day
J If he comes at 10, hour/hour and a half.
DH Maximum
J And what about exchanging subs?
J We are fast readers. Exchange written subs at 1. If we come back at 2 or 3 for comments on subs.
J We can decide on the day

[They agree on 2.30 for now]
J And provide authorities. If you have any obscure judgments I might not have seen please give links.
MM I have no first instance cases. I always give citations and a paragraph - identifying particular part within an authority.

J So Wednesday morning. Then subs in the afternoon with time to exchange submissions.
J We will adjourn now and reconvene at 10am on Wednesday.
[ENDS]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2018341812423770173.html

Thanks @Another2Cats for all your C&P ing today.

Fab work @Another2Cats

@anyolddinosaur I'm guessing you're English and thus proving my point.

Being a volunteer doesn't make accent bias acceptable. Would you say 'oh its ok to discriminate on GC beliefs if you're a volunteer' - no, you wouldn't.

As I said above, fine for TT to say there's audio issues, but to comment, as they have done several times, on people having strong accents, sounds snobby.

As I also said above, I'm more than happy to recommend Scottish stenographers as volunteers for TT. There's loads who are GC.

We would be happy to talk to anyone interested in volunteering to help out with TT. We are a small group, we keep hoping we can wind up but the cases keep coming.
We are not looking for volunteers for a single case because we need a high level of trust amongst our volunteers, we've been threatened with doxxing etc. Anyone genuinely interested please get in touch.

I wasn't tweeting today and haven't read the TT threads but thank you for the feedback.

@weegielass My nationality is irrelevant but you get strong regional accents in England, Ireland and possibly Wales too, how racist of you. TT are volunteers - suggest to the friends you think suitable that they volunteer if you are unable to do so yourself. Grumbling about volunteers doing the best they can with poor sound quality is petty if you are unwilling to volunteer yourself. If you care so much you can fund a stenographer for them.

Agreed.

His aim (assumed) is to imply the prisoner (data subject) can be reading his own data as the PO is writing so that the use of he/his would trigger an attack as used in the training.

To be clear, I appreciate the work Tribunal Tweets does for open justice, but that doesn't make them immune to feedback. Calling a critique of accent bias 'racist' is a bizarre reach that only proves you’ve missed the point entirely. In my professional life, I work with court stenographers regularly; they would never make it personal by blaming a strong accent—they simply cite 'missing information' or 'poor audio.'
There is a clear difference between technical issues and 'problematic' accents, and TT blaming the latter is snobbery, plain and simple. Furthermore, my disability prevents me from volunteering myself (or funding a stenographer, thanks for that suggestion!), but it doesn't invalidate my feedback. Your refusal to acknowledge this nuance doesn't make me 'petty'; it just confirms that if you haven't experienced this bias, you won't understand it.
I’ve said my piece and I won’t be engaging in any further back-and-forth.

Of course volunteers are only able to do what they can and at times that means they will struggle with accents, be they Brum, Scouse, Geordie or Glaswegian. It is not like Scotland has a single accent either - despite what many TV producers seem to think.

I think this is correct.

If the TT volunteer was in the room with the tribunal, she might quickly realize that she is the one with the strong accent, not the person giving the testimony.

If she was in the room, she would no doubt catch a lot more that was being said regardless of accent. Will you pay her train fair and accommodation costs?