Dee Sullivan

When Ideology Becomes Law, Truth Becomes a Sackable Offence He was not rude. He did not shout. He did not threaten or abuse anyone. By all accounts his tone was calm, firm and respectful. David Toshack, an army veteran in the final week of training as a prison officer, said one thing in a classroom in Edinburgh: he would not call male prisoners "she" or "her" because that would be a lie. Within hours he was removed from the session, taken into a corridor, HR was consulted, and he was dismissed with immediate effect. Not suspended. Not warned. Gone. That detail matters. This was not a case of misconduct. It was a case of belief. More precisely, it was a case of a man refusing to say something he believed to be untrue after being told – falsely – that the law required him to say it. Toshack pointed out that this was company policy, not statute. He was right. UK law does not compel pronoun use. Parliament has passed no such requirement. Courts have not imposed it. Yet a trainer stood in front of a room of recruits and declared it "the law" anyway. That lie is the heart of this case. Once an institution starts presenting contested ideology as settled law, the transformation is complete. Training stops being about competence and becomes about belief. Policy hardens into doctrine. Disagreement is no longer something to be answered, but something to be managed and punished. This is not mission creep or confusion. It is the end result of a long capture by a left-progressive worldview that treats language as a weapon, truth as optional, and dissent as a form of harm to be neutralised. For years, universities trained graduates to believe that sex is subjective, speech is violence, and discomfort is oppression. Those graduates moved into HR, safeguarding, training and compliance roles. From there they rewrote internal rules, redefined "harm", and quietly blurred the line between law and belief. What begins in seminars ends in staff handbooks. What starts as theory ends as dismissal. Look at how quickly the system moved. There was no attempt to clarify the law. No effort to accommodate a reasonable, calmly stated belief. No recognition that prisons, of all places, rely on clear sex-based language for order and safeguarding. Instead, the machinery activated automatically. Corridor discussion. HR escalation. Termination. The outcome was pre-decided because dissent itself was the offence. The justification offered only deepens the rot. The company spoke of "care and welfare", yet no prisoner had been mistreated. No incident had occurred. The only person visibly distressed was Toshack himself, described as shocked and upset as he was walked to his car. The harm was theoretical. The punishment was real. That inversion tells you everything. This is how progressive ideology now operates inside institutions. Respect is redefined as affirmation. Dignity is equated with submission. And HR is used as the enforcement arm – not to manage conduct, but to police belief. The law is dragged in as cover, even when it does not say what they claim it says. Few challenge this, because challenging it carries a cost. What makes this case especially serious is the setting. Prisons are not lecture halls or marketing firms. They deal with violence, sex-based risk and vulnerable people. Biological reality matters. Clear language matters. Yet ideology was prioritised over clarity, and punishment over truth, without hesitation. If David Toshack loses his case, the precedent will be stark. You may keep your job only if you say what you are told to say. It does not matter whether it is true. It does not matter whether the law requires it. What matters is that you comply. "David Toshack, an army veteran in the final week of training as a prison officer, said one thing in a classroom in Edinburgh: he would not call male prisoners "she" or "her" because that would be a lie."