Custody officer job withdrawn for GC beliefs - Gribbon (SP legal team) is his solicitor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 -weekly comm on staffing also method to communicate with customer
GR - yes
DH - now on changes to SOPs, methods, systems, etc now there is a mechanism for proposals, changes, sign offs, is it possible that a change might start from a convo with a PCO
GR - don't know

DH - is there a way for GA to raise qs about SOPS? Should there be.
GR - we have various ways to communicate
DH - on the contract, we see dated March 2018, beginning of contract,
GR - date of contract, service began Jan 2019,
DH - you had some involv in drafting of contracts

while in SPS,
GR - yes, I did
DH - would there typically be a fairly standard approach, scrutinised by those who tendered but didn't win, what is possibility for changes after that
GR - there have been 7 amendments to the contract, the vast majority for commercial matters

DH - did you have an awareness of SPS policies for TP in custody
GR - policies when I was an officer, were far more primitive, but I had a general understanding of these policies
DH - when did you leave SPS
GR - I left in May 2018 (very crackly)

DH - TP in custody policy, dated 2023, were you aware of these
GR - shared with me yes
DH - it's not clear to me what this doc is, this is described as a summary, has a header and footer, says exec summary - have you seen this doc?
GR - prior to submission of the bundle had not

seen this
DH - says 'TG prison population very small' now the prison population will evolve over time, is there a large cohort of prisoners serving sentences but also those on remand, etc. But I just wondered that the population of TG appears very small - do you have a basis to

disagree
GR - based on my exp, not very big
DH - .3%?
GR - the services provided by GA are broader, we also facilitate transfers to hospitals, places of employment, some we provide continuous service to prisoners who are in hospital, one we have been looking after continuously is

transgender.
DH - the one person is admitted to hospital
GR - yes, inpatient, needs constant supervision
DH - but what percentage of TG
GR - the volume changes on day to day basis but that's unusual
DH - staying with the contract

looking at section on certification of service, page 675, it essentially a number of assorted thing that the contract envisages, including the PER
GR - not an exhaustive list
DH - nothing here on sex or gender
GR - there is not, if I may
DH - your counsel may ask you but this is

my qs.
DH There appears to be space to consider changes or alterations to the PER, do you agree with that
GR - yes
DH - now on equality and diversity, obl on GA to ensure that services is provided in accordance with needs of prisoners, staffs others, in accordance with EA

not only TPs but also it's own staff, must comply with EA do you agree with that
GR - <long pause> inaudible response
DH - mentioned policy on TP shared with you, SPS op guidance, is this also shared with you?
GR - yes
DH - does this address situations where someone come from

custody but also are taken into custody, correct
GR - yes
DH - an expectation that contract provider needs to make contact on where to admit that prisoner, an expectation not just of a form but comms between someone in GA and someone SPS
GR - contr obligation to communicate with

SPS about all prisoners
DH is that in writing or phone
GR - primarily by phone
DH - impact assessment of policy, and was completed in Nov 2023, is this a doc shared with you
GR - not this specific doc
DH - notwithstanding that, on page 188 it says

a heading of the impact assessment, we see that there's a section considering arrangements when TP is admitted to custody and those arrangements. We see that GA must conduct a risk assessment and keep a record
GR - yes
DH - this part seems to be about the prisoner themselves

it says someone's GI cannot be recorded on the form, admission to the prison system is the first step of someone's journey in the prison system and GI should inform that journey. You're nodding, you agree?
GR yes
DH - its doesn't seem to be seen as gender info on the PER is

complete on the form
GR <inaudible comment>
DH - just to understand you were not asked by CH to give your views before he made his decision
GR - that is correct
J - MM, any re-exam
MM - back to page 675, being asked qs on pieces of information, you said 'if I may.....

can you expand what you meant to say
GR - <audio failure>
MM - asked about opportunities to discuss policies, how many prisons are there in Scotland
GR - 13
MM - managed by SPS
GR - all but one managed by SPS
MM - not to diminish role that PCO plays - effectively moving people

about, thinking about changing, promoting change, regarding relationship with SPS, if a change is going to be suggested, where should that change come from
GR - SPS and the EM
MM - fairly seismic change in Scotland, FWS court case, do you know about that case

GR - I'm aware of that case,
MM - has the outcome resulted in any changes between GA and SPS,
GR - we haven't been approached by the SPS on that
J - have or haven't
GR - haven't
MM - more on PER form, no obligation to mark gender on PER

GR - understanding a prisoners gender is essential to handling the prisoner
MM - so GA will take a prisoner from the court to a prison, there is a necessity to know what gender they are
GR - GA wants to make sure that all prisoners are safe during their period in our care

MM - is there a rqmnt for GA to communicate with prisoners in their custody, verbally
GR - yes
MM - ticking the male/female box is a requirement, all that info has to be prepared by PCO
GR - correct
MM - necessary info?
GR - yes.
J - you're finished GR, you can take a seat or

leave, we have housekeeping to do.
J - do we have an agreed approach on subs
DH - I'm nearly completed, mine are a bit more than a skeleton, very much in your hands
J - are you content for me to read that and anything else you can say in response to MM, MM where are you?

MM - ready to share by 1:30 pm
J - I'm going to be here, if you need a wee bit longer let the clerk know
DH - 9000 words
J - just short of a dissertation, MM, not a competition
MM - shorter, maybe 7000 words
J - I'm imagining some of that is the law, but the finding of fact

and the application of the law is crucial I can skim any background or setting out.
MM - say by half past one
J - I was going to say back by 3 pm, I need to read your subs and may need to read some of the cases, you can come back to the clerk.

J - we can always sit past 4 pm if necessary. Another matter, making submissions available to the public, a hard copy in the room, I'm happy with a soft copy.
DH - I'm happy with that,
J - discussion about clerk might print out and make available, suggest that you leave a copy

with the clerk. MM you happy?
MM - yes
J - 1:30 pm to exchange, 3 pm to reconvene
DH - can we use this room to work?
J -we'll just ask the clerk, we'll see you at 3 pm.
Court rises.
End of morning session

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2018984367834742941.html

Thanks again @Another2Cats

Thank you to all who have C&P and to @Justabaker and the TT team for reporting.

I quite like this judge - they seem v efficient and on top of the admin of the case. Thought the comments on the length of submissions were quite funny.

I hope I still like her when we get an outcome.

Agree about the judge. Just thinking that we need a new thread very soon.

Thank you for the c and ps today, much appreciated.

I'll try to put more tweets into a single post as near end of thread.

From TT

J Thank you both for submissions. Have read once fairly thoroughly and then again, and will have to give it thought. I don't have questions for either of you at the minute though may have some later.
MM If need, we can...??
J Yes, I can do that.
MM/DH [sound?]

DH Will endeavour to give comprehensive subs to issues you raised. You may think I have said enough already! Suggest we adopt them and would like to emphasise certain points re MM...
J I was looking for any particular comment c any particular authorities

J That you wish to comment on. Would be useful.
DH First area - places a lot of emphasis on scrutiny of DT belief. and of DT cross examination. I have mentioned in my subs that's something of a trap
J You said red herring?
DH. Yes. [p9 of my subs and bullet points]

J Need to split my screen...
DH my sub - cardinal sin of R subs re belief [sorry- sound bad]. My subs - what R is seeking to do is to seek re way manifestation is unacceptable and therefore GC argument falls foul of Grainger 5 etc.

DH [re Chief Constable Norfolk.] If R correct - if that is the belief.. Social media content was not before the decision maker at the time. Someone accessed sm around Jan and Feb, but decision maker not aware at the time. So a q as to whether there was a perceived

DH belief by CH as to DT belief. Also re what SH said c DT's comments. But if there was a perception re DT belief, then what belief was CH thinking of. Can't be a belief based on events that came to light after the proceedings. Therefore was it disapproval of belief that DT

held or closer to For stater belief.
J You are saying need to distinguish between belief and manifestation of belief. R approach can't take that into account cos info not available at time of decision
DH And not in R mind at the time. Q of what R understood belief to be at time

of making decision. [Asks J to take into consdieration]
DH Also emphasis placed on [sound]
DH [ref to previous case - sound] [An EAT conclusion re Mr Thomas] Need to be careful as to how this reads across.
DH The Thomas case concerned extreme English nationalism

Thanks Another 🐈🐈

DH Considered the anti -Islamic view. He decided no place for individuals in society - in cross exam [quotes Mr Thomas c not being terribly upset c some kinds of violence]. This was v extreme case and therefore no general application

J Do you say anything about Mackereth - the doctor one.
DH You asked was it a belief case. DT sees beliefs as being consistent with his religion, but not axiomatic with his Christianity. This is a For stater belief so not necessarily, but if you are not satisfied with that,

then yes, can refer to this.
DH To proportionality re manifestation. There is dispute c what DT said in meeting. I say on balance DT position was to offer to use preferred name and non-gendered pronouns which was the sticking ;point. If you accept that, then proportionality

is engaged. You don't tend to use pronouns other than you when in presence of someone, and could use non-gendered if necessary. It's for the R to establish proportionality of its response. If DT said won't use..
J That was a q I thought about. Whether or not what CH thought DT

was saying - that he would use Susan or Shirley - wasn't CH evidence. If CH didn't understand he would use name are you saying R has to justify..
DH In a meeting like this needing to find solution employer finds acceptable. [sound gone]
DH ...misunderstanding of SH c why DT did

what he did ....
DH If the manifestation is distinct... [ sorry, sound]
DH Points I need to respond to in R subs...[sound]
J Thank you. MM
MM Factual point of view - on the evidence DT view c m is m and w is w was known since start of ICT and no problems noted. His belief caused

MM no concern, inc with CH. We've had discussions c Tiffany Scott - DT's views are writ large. It's only 5 weeks later when it becomes consistent and we say heated discussion. DT refusal to follow instructions. Clear blue water between persistent refusal.

It may be DT was saying will use preferred name and CH thought he said would only use legal name. But we are left with situation where DT is saying I don't believe it, it's a lie, and I won't treat them as the person they want to be treated as.

[my added emphasis]

J But doesn't For stater say doesn't believe but will treat the people with respect etc
MM Yes. She was measured etc. But here is different - passioned position in seeing T as a lie and won't use pronouns. And then he says he'll search anyone and will still call them Susan.

MM That's a world away from For stater measured and polite approach. DT contradicts himself in the mtg and CH tells him so. DH is doing damage to his PC case with his comments re the form. With the case I saw danger arising from FStater re philosophical belief and

.. You need to say m is a m and w is a w and it can't change. You have to look at evidence. GC means something v different to MForstater than it does to DT
J Do you say m is m etc doesn't reach protection of protected belief.
MM Yes. It means more than that.

MM And DH saying it's no more complicated than a m is a m etc. The Thomas case of English nationalism - the EAT judgment - lists structure of Thomas' views. J noted if that was it, the extent of his belief, the issues in case wouldn't have likely arisen.

MM But then J records the anti -Islamic stuff which wasn't in the pleadings and witness statement. Had there been no scrutiny of his position he would have been over the line on basis of his philosophical belief. But one aspect brought in was what was found in his sm posts.

MM That's like this case. Just a man is a man etc. You then delve a bit further, with sm and cross exam ... [goes to Thomas EAT decision, re getting manifestation of beliefs from sm etc and considering the sm elements as well] Thomas's sm was brought in to show true level of

his beliefs and that's what R has done here. Other views anti-t, anti-pride, anti-edi and expresses himself in perjorative ways. That's the source of evidence for his beliefs. He comes unstuck on 4 - coherence and cogency. DT falls on at least 3 or 4 of the Grainger steps.

MM If all that's required to get through door of this tribunal is just to say a man is a man etc the tribunals up and down the country will be swamped. It's more complicated. Grainger 2 - not just a viewpoint or opinion etc. Can't just be something you think and believe.

[I've started a new thread just in case this one fills up]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5485962-custody-officer-job-withdrawn-for-gc-beliefs-thread-2

MM Must be background, thinking to elevate it to level of a philosophical belief. Bar mustn't be put too high - or too low. Balance of proof is on the claimant. Lack of evidence of structured thinking with DT. I asked if he'd done research, etc, and DT said just took it at

face value.
J To be fair to DT evidence wasn't just listening to anyone, but to ppl he thought were experts in their field.
MM Yes, but who were they. Have to look at evidence and who these ppl were. Jeopardy in this case is it's put as simple, man is man, etc. But no -

MM you need to establish more the basis of DT beliefs. Can't just sever off T and GC parts. Claimant - lack of evidence of required steps in Grainger.
MM CH evidence. Didn't pick up on Art 10 - didn't know what was talking about. CH told DT entitled to your beliefs

but it isn't about that. You need to follow these policies. If DT doesn't get home on PC he doesn't get home on facts.[?] There are no pleadings on that so great care should be taken
MM Re DH subs. Direct discrimination. No pleadings for hypothetical comparator.

MM He's wrong on comparator he says should be used. First, I submit can't go there cos no witnesses asked c this or evidence laid.
MM DH says correct comparator is someone who refused to not note c another prisoner using drugs but will record everything else...I say comparator

is another PCO, no other material difference
J I don't have to look at constructing a Hyp. Com. do I. Can get v complicated. Better to point out reasons why.
MM Back to the evidence. Dismissing manager had been aware throughout ITC of DT views, glowing comments re DT

MM It was only when DT refusing to do aspects of PCO job. Reason why was DT refused to change his stance. DT had expressed this view, 6 or 7 times by time dismissed, that wouldn't follow aspects of SOPs. DT out of door in short time but DT had made his position very clear by then

MM Repeated refusal to follow SOPs, mandatory part of job and policy requirements.
MM Para 55 of DH subs. Strong beliefs - CH said not reason why dismissed. Need to be taken in context of notes of meeting.
MM No challenge to legitimacy of aims. Suggested workarounds,

MM but they were faced with someone who hadn't even been signed off to do job yet, was being paid for training, not someone with years of service. Balance might then be different. It is someone who hadn't started job yet - that is the reason, not belief.

MM Doesn't matter there was only one eg cited of aggression/risk. This is about a person not going to be doing job. Breach of EA, contract, and risk - proportionality has to be seen through that lens. It not about number of times, but there is a risk. T

[missed - glitch]
MM That is all I have on DH's subs. I have some typos
J I picked up section 13 / 14
[MM looking through]
MM Also para 16. Should be 'he does not know' instead of 'he does know'
J Thank you very much much and thank you for the manner in which

J you have conducted these proceedings. I will issue decision in writing, hopefully within 3 -4 weeks. It can take a while for it to go through admin.
MM I didn't address remedy.
J I have your position on losses from the counter schedule.

MM IF DT decided to go ahead re gardening job, that would stop it at that point.
J Thank you. And I will issue decision in writing as soon as possible.
[ENDS]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2019055277387960387.html

The argument about Forstater seems to be taking us back around to a Bananarama-style approach. We can't accept that you believe the sky is blue unless you have done your research, only listened to other people who say the sky is blue if you have checked that they have the proper education and credentials - oh, and you need to explain the Physics to us as well.

MM Must be background, thinking to elevate it to level of a philosophical belief. Bar mustn't be put too high - or too low. Balance of proof is on the claimant. Lack of evidence of structured thinking with DT. I asked if he'd done research, etc, and DT said just took it at
face value.
J To be fair to DT evidence wasn't just listening to anyone, but to ppl he thought were experts in their field.
MM Yes, but who were they. Have to look at evidence and who these ppl were. Jeopardy in this case is it's put as simple, man is man, etc. But no -

This appears to be saying that only intellectual people who do research and can evidence structured thinking qualify to hold GC as a protected belief. If you're lower class and read popular sources, GC must be prejudice.

Heaven help us (no pun intended) if religious adherents are asked to show evidence of 'structured thinking' about how and why God sent his only son to die for humanity before accepting it as a genuine beief worthy of respect.

Yes, it reminds me somewhat of Miller v College of Policing back in 2021 (a case about 'non-crime hate incidents') in the Court of Appeal.

Mr Miller's beliefs were described as:

[31] Mr Miller holds what are sometimes described as gender critical beliefs which are encapsulated in his belief that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women. Mr Miller considers that conflating sex (which he considers to be a purely biological classification) with gender, poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights

In the original case, his tweets had been described as "profane" and "unsophisticated" but he managed to obtain Professor Kathleen Stock as an expert witness and it seems like her evidence played a big part in helping him win. In the Court of Appeal case the judgment quoted part of the original judgment at [116]:

He went on to say at [252]:
“[Mr Miller’s] tweets were, for the most part, either opaque, profane, or unsophisticated. That does not rob them of the protection of Article 10(1). I am quite clear that they were expressions of opinion on a topic of current controversy, namely gender recognition. Unsubtle though they were, [Mr Miller]
expressed views which are congruent with the views of a number of respected academics who hold gender-critical views and do so for profound socio-philosophical reasons"

[emphasis added]

"...and do so for profound socio-philosophical reasons"

and not just working class reasons that aren't approved of

Without that appeal to authority of "respected academics" things might have been quite different

It all feels backwards. A belief is something you hold without evidence, and sometimes despite evidence to the contrary. It's by definition, almost, arbitrary and unsubstantiated. Otherwise it's fact, of which judicial notice may be taken.

I think maybe the point is (or should be) that the belief itself has been studied, rationalized etc - taken seriously - by someone, even if not by the adherent. A Christian who has never opened a bible and knows only what they know from what their vicar told them should still benefit from the fact that Christianity is widely respected, studied and worthy of serious people.

I call bullshit on SOP changes only flowing from SPS.

The SPS hire out specialisation like GA on "short" contracts for innovation. No need to upskill when the tenders bring the latest and best options to the table

Plus the whole systemic vs systematic problem.
If you are redesigning a system you have to first audit to find out who is doing what and why to understand what is working and what is being ignored by staff.
As staff have seen a problem and implemented an off-SOP solution or seen the problem and ignore it to follow the flawed SOP

If not prisoners escape or GA rock up to house a woman in a Mens Prison.

Or using GAs gender ID for staffing rota can send in two males who say they are women to search a woman who has no way to object as GA will claim that is women searching a woman.

Another2Cats · Today 11:27
it says someone's GI cannot be recorded on the form, admission to the prison system is the first step of someone's journey in the prison system and GI should inform that journey. You're nodding, you agree?
GR yes
DH - its doesn't seem to be seen as gender info on the PER is
complete on the form

MM - managed by SPS
GR - all but one managed by SPS
MM - not to diminish role that PCO plays - effectively moving people
about, thinking about changing, promoting change, regarding relationship with SPS, if a change is going to be suggested, where should that change come from
GR - SPS and the EM
MM - fairly seismic change in Scotland, FWS court case, do you know about that case
GR - I'm aware of that case,
MM - has the outcome resulted in any changes between GA and SPS,
GR - we haven't been approached by the SPS on that
J - have or haven't
GR - haven't

MM - fairly seismic change in Scotland, FWS court case, do you know about that case
GR - I'm aware of that case,
MM - has the outcome resulted in any changes between GA and SPS,
GR - we haven't been approached by the SPS on that
J - have or haven't
GR - haven't

Of course they haven't. The SPS will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge that women matter or even exist.

It doesn’t matter if SPS have pproached them or not, they still have to follow the law.

DT knows enough to quote his 2 rights had lawful protection

1. Faith : God creates Adam and Eve
2. GC : Science says humans come in only 2 sex.

Lets be real MM .... if SH had not shown up on that day CH would have signed off on DT without thinking as he had already covered the T question at least twice and CH failed to evaluate or push a question up to his manager.....

MM CH evidence. Didn't pick up on Art 10 - didn't know what was talking about. CH told DT entitled to your beliefs
but it isn't about that. You need to follow these policies. If DT doesn't get home on PC he doesn't get home on facts.[?] There are no pleadings on that so great care should be taken

Just a reminder that this thread continues here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5485962-custody-officer-job-withdrawn-for-gc-beliefs-thread-2

The fact that the person may not attend a formal gathering or follow all the rules is not a reason to suggest the person or another person holds no belief.

Which is what GA tried to imply with the church attending female PO (LL?) who was told she had to search males