Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor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

The judge and lawyers themselves recognised the problem with sound quality at points!

Of course, this is not the first time people have criticised TT. I seem to remember the claimant’s barrister in Peggie’s case did too.

Some people don’t like them making these proceedings so public.

Back to the case though…. I presume respect for these prisoners would fall away if any of them were GC? It is not about respecting prisoners, it is about upholding an ideology.

Of course, this is not the first time people have criticised TT. I seem to remember the claimant’s barrister in Peggie’s case did too.

That's where you choose to take this? Really?

That's the point, though. Everyone has an accent.

It's not necessarily snobbery to acknowledge that you are having problems with an unfamiliar Scottish accent, any more than it would be if someone from Scotland said they were having difficulty understanding a person speaking estuary English, for example.

Yes. And if a prisoner requires a complex transport based on risk, you would also have a PCO sat in the passenger seat to take notes / backup in case of incident . The prisoner is either high risk or they aren't. If they are, you precide risk management and don't have PCOs writing notes in front of the prisoner.

And as for 'contractually taking notes every 30 minutes' how are PCOs meant to do this while restraining a prisoner? Nah. They messed up.

This is a terrible example to use in training new staff. They should actually be using it as an example of poor risk management, not a reason to use PP.

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

This makes it clear the objection nothing to do with accent, it is simply anti-English nationalism of the type shown by the SNP. And we know the SNP would much rather these cases were not public.

@MyAmpleSheep how do you think the case is going? Do you think the policy trumps DH's beliefs or does the GA staff not understanding EA sway it somewhat?

Not just to pick on you! Other views of course welcome, but I found your thoughts earlier interesting.

I think the tribunal is not placed to answer - and isn't being asked - some of the questions we want confirmed, about whether prisoners should be self-identifying their sex or not, and the lawfulness of GA's policies.

I think the fact that they sacked DT the same day, and the fact that GA staff don't really understand the issue, speaks 100% of poor process. Writing about his social media posts only afterwards makes that doubly clear.

I'm not clear whether if, after a long and properly conducted investigation, it had been decided that unfortunately DT's beliefs combined with his determination not to act contrary to them meant he wasn't able properly to fulfil his duties as GA determined them to be and therefore that his employment would be terminated - that decision would have to be struck down.

For example: an observant Jewish person who will not work on Friday evenings or Saturdays cannot reasonably fulfil the duties of a weekend market inspector.

Unlike for disability, I don't think there's a statutory requirement for reasonable accomodation to be made for employees' beliefs, but if an employer is unreasonably inflexible I think they can found to have indirectly discriminated against someone without the justification of it being a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. The law certainly throws the onus on the employer to justify it, and the attempts at justification here don't impress.

I am again surprised-not-surprised that such junior staff got to make the decision about his employment.

My take on this is that he was in a probationary period when many people believe you can be sacked for any reason. The staff had a bit of training in protected characteristics but not enough to realise that gender critical belief has legal protection. So they didnt think to take advice on sacking him. The appeal process should have picked up on it and didnt.

He was trying to suggest compromise, they were not willing to consider any compromise nor to consider whether there was a mismatch between accuracy in completing the form and their requirement for personal pronouns.

I’ve just caught up. Also glad that CH was asked about how to fill out the form if the individual was NB.

And has anyone worked out how it’s known that they are dealing with a TP? The witnesses are very confidently talking about situations with TP but I don’t see how they would know from the form. ( Obviously they are not just going to say that they can see if someone is a TP 😀)

I have watched everyday and the sound issues, combined with some stronger than others accents have made it more difficult than the Sandie Peggie case to hear, the witness microphone has been harder to hear all through, with every witness,

I think Mr Toshack's case has been clearer and more reliable and honest but I still think the Judge might kick the can down the road and say it was company policy, so leaving it to some other tribunal to challenge the company policy, waste of time and money but I think that how these cases will go for a long time until the government see sense and follows FWS

"Don't get me wrong, women can present many risks"

I'm really sorry to quote you from a couple of days ago, but I was just going back over this thread and noticed your post.

This just reminded me so much of somebody I knew 30 years ago.

She had been convicted of various offences in Bradford and was then sent to HMP New Hall (half way between Huddersfield and Wakefield).

She was five foot nothing and very slim indeed, there was nothing to her at all. But she did have one hell of a temper.

I was told that she was often behind her door (not unlocked from her cell) due to various issues.

She said (and I do not disbelieve her) that on more than one occasion she was unlocked from the cell to face four male prison officers who were to escort her somewhere in the prison.

She also said that there was often a look of bemusement (my word, not hers) on the male prison officers faces when they saw her for the first time. As though they could not belive that such a diminuitive woman could be considered to be so dangerous.

Sorry, that was just a totally off-tangent anecdote.

Another off-tangent anecdote. DT stated that his salary would be about £24k a year.

I just noticed that HMP New Hall are currently recruiting for prison officers with a starting salary of £35,875 (along with a civil service pension - with employer contributions of 28.97%).

https://jobs.justice.gov.uk/careers/JobDetail/Wakefield-Wakefield-United-Kingdom-of-Great-Britain-and-Northern-Ireland-202601-Prison-Officer-HMP-New-Hall/13302

I wonder if the SPS are recruiting or if it's just private sector companies like Geo Amery. I note they run courses continually throughout the year for new employees, there really must be quite a high turnover.

"The staff had a bit of training in protected characteristics but not enough to realise that gender critical belief has legal protection."

That was something I noticed as well.

For those of us who follow these issues here, FWS is well known. It is also likely that amongst HR professionals this issue is also on their radar.

But, outside of these two groups, it seems that this really is not an issue that has made it's way into the awareness of people at large.

I reported your post as being not only a personal attack but completely inaccurate, as many posters who have been here as long as I have could attest.

Moving on and back to the topic at hand, I have an interest in this case as DH used to work for a similar organisation and their policies/training were similar. So I'm curious to know the outcome. Furthermore, in a previous life I worked in HR as the DEI lead (before the T takeover made me move to a GC organisation)

Many thanks for this and the other opinions offered.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your post. Genuinely! Not being snarky!

Women can present huge risks to themselves or others. I am utterly flabbergasted by GAs idea of what risk management involves in terms of transporting prisoners.

Transport is very high risk - you have limited resources, high stress situation, no immediate backup, etc etc. Can you imagine being in a situation where a prisoner becomes violent in the back of sn SUV while yoiur traveling on a motorway?

What actual HR training did GA provide to its onboarding trainers?

I have no qualifications to provide training but any and evey time I provided training it was made clear that it included an assessment of the person within the role.

And that nothing was confidential because
a) my (paid) role was to report my progress.
b) the person was an employee being taught to carry out a role and concerns I may have would be reported.

I have always been in the same position as a probationer.

And if I spotted a massooove problem such as
"men are men and women are women"
after running a training session about how we must pretend that a man who said he is a woman is a woman I am not sitting back and waiting for the employee to double back and self report a problem.

If nothing else it is arrogants to presume my training was sufficient to enable the trainee to understand why the breach of policy was not allowed and what would happen if a breach happened.

And as for having onboarding professional trainers with a 50%+ removal rate with not even the back of an envelople understanding how to lawfully remove an employee who said I have a PC ..............

Another2Cats · Today 11:17
MM The learning objectives re personal responsibility. The EA
CH Yes
MM Re 25 Nov session. Was there gen discussion re content
CH Yes, it;s a safe place to discuss anything. Discussed Sex orientation as ppl have opinions. Ppl dont take things outside the room
Ch Have to make sure things dont get out of hand
MM So moderate to ensure stays respectful
CH Yes
MM Y're trying to promote discussion Yes
MM How did things unroll
CH Subject got to T ppl. DT thought M amand and a woman a woman. He was bringing his opinion but we quickly moved onto another topic
Nothing untoward.
CH He also said he had his religious belief which he's entitled to. Others have positions on sexual orientation. it was a discussion
MM It was a general discussion
Yes

Another2Cats · Today 11:25
MM You conclude the EDI
CH At the end of the course, everything discussed stays in the classroom [missed due to accent] Told to come and discuss any issues or concerns.

Another2Cats · Today 11:32
CH He didnt raise any concerns with me, no

From reading this thread and the posted TT (Thank you to all the TT posters) I can see the dismissal may not have been lawful in terms of process. No right to be accompanied, no reflecting or researching protections under EA 2010 and HRA etc.

I can understand the black and white thinking about the policy setting out how they filled in the PER form. Discipline would be a high priority I.e. a follow orders don’t question culture. The question about non-binary was valid but from memory case law does not offer protection to non-binary people under the Gender Reassignment pc.

As with other ETs the issue is the policy. Remember even GC lawyers thought legal sex I.e. GRC holders, might trump biological sex. This is why FWS was such an awesome win.

DTs offer to use they/them, initials and chosen name are reasonable compromises that respect both perspectives. Had CH and SH taken time to obtain legal advice the outcome might have been different.

SC ruled that Non-binary is not protected under the EA10 as it is not a PC (as the process is not to be seen as the other sex).

Note
CH is wise enought to blame the SPS but I assume the policy referrences is GAs not SPS?

But he admits he was on notice that a EEs PC was going to be used to sack the EE.
🙈🙈🙈

Another2Cats · Today 11:38
MM What law is this
CH SPS says we must treat someone who IDs as F as F. It's the EA
MM WHat does it say
CH Missed
MM You say sex orientation, but thats different
Yes
MM It's yr understanding of the EA
CH Yes
MM He said he also had rights ie GC. Did u understand what he meant
CH At the time I understood that he had religious beliefs about this
MM That was yr understanding
Yes
MM So if they have a GRC, u have to treat them as such. Now look at p220
MM A doc related to TG and non-binary.
CH Yes. I'm famililar w it
MM They are legally recog as their gender w a GRC but you dont need a certificate
CH Yes
MM [reads re policy and how they ID] Legal name must be used

GA are driving a massive bus...

SH willingly Jumped Under it by claiming 100% ownership of the policy. With No Reference to legal (internal or external) or even SPS.

Flaw flows from the T policy.

He is saying he was trained on the T policy.

It moves the problem from a organisation (senior staff) level to individual (junior) employee level.

Easy solution re problem employee?
Solved by a replacement in the role.

Proper process clearly wasn't followed, so DT should win on that point alone. The fact that GA investigated his social media history is telling; if this were a straightforward dismissal for refusing to follow policy, that extra 'digging' wouldn't be necessary. In my view, this strengthens the case for belief discrimination.

Did they research his SM before dismissal i thought they did it after the fact, upon appeal?

@BettyBooper
BettyBooper · Today 14:28
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.

Yep

Stabby stabby pen beside a violent male.

And a distracted employee who was suprised.

And the leaning is PP not dont get distracted

Another2Cats · Today 14:46
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.

Hummmm..... No prep work before turning up to court 👀🙄