To think that the CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis should be fired?

IW has not read the same judgement as other people. Screenshots from the FWS Twitter feed.

He is a disgrace and needs sacking.

Mridul may well see himself** as wonderful, may truly believe that he's there to convert people to see the importance of gender, may genuinely feel that this outweighs every possible disadvantage to the users of the services. He may have no ulterior motive at all beyond that. It barely matters.

He still led the service into a state where active disadvantage to the users was ignored and those who pointed it out were vilified. So, however sincere his motives, he should go.

** Legally male, as well as biologically, I believe.

So happy to read this Judgement, hopefully it will help getting MW sacked for Gross Misconduct, it would be fitting.

I listened to the evidence at the Tribunal and every one of the respondent's witnesses were sycophants, all told the Judge what a wonderful woman MW is, after not being asked this question. All completely captured by gender ideology.

MW did not give evidence, which the tribunal drew negative inference.

The board members are very young and not much experience and I believe were all appointed by MW.

They whole lot need to go and be replaced with people that centre the victims of sexual violence and not a place to display your virtue and allyship.

He should never have been hired, and he needs to F off as far away from vulnerable women as possible, and take his agenda with him.

They won't be happy that JK Rowling has tweeted then:

No, I think we can safely assume that.

YANBU, he’s a disgrace and should never have been hired in the first place. How people don’t see what a full scale attack this is on women I will never know.

Believe it or not, but a legal advisor decides if you can advertise a job with a GOR or not. It’s not a case of if you advertise it, then it’s legal!

I'm aware of that. I didn't think that explicitly needed pointing out. You didn't appear to understand that.

Anyway...

'it would be nice, for once, to see the Scottish government speaking up for the women who've been subject to unlawful discrimination for defending their sex-based rights, and to hear the government condemn, rather than side with, those conducting the witch hunts'

JK Rowling.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1792531196338917800

They won't be happy that JK Rowling has tweeted then:

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1792528604384887255

Far less reasonable than the thread I posted from r/Scotland, full of TRA tantrumming that she was using "dog whistles"

www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/u6XMDpqha5

Let's hope so! What a totally useless dickhead.

India's grasp of reality grown weaker with every passing day

https://kareningalasmith.com/2024/05/20/as-chief-executive-of-a-charity-part-of-your-job-is-to-set-the-tone/

'Within months of appointment, Wadhwa said ‘sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well’ and that ERCC service users would have to rethink their relationship with prejudice if they brought views that the charity believed to be discriminatory. This, as the tribunal showed, became a condition of accessing support. In a later interview, Wadhwa revealed that ‘large groups of survivors’, who did not want to be exposed to men with transgender identities, were not using ERCC services. He did not appear to see this as a problem.

It is to the detriment of the specialist sector supporting women victims of sexual and domestic violence and abuse, and sexual exploitation, that the feminist activist roots and the political nature of the work is being detangled in too many cases from service provision. For me the sector has to frame our work within efforts to end men’s violence against women as a cause and consequence of sex inequality. If we can’t say what a woman is, we can’t end sex inequality.'

Thank you, Karen Ingala Smith.

Other than those members of the public who can read legislation and therefore know that is it not sex discrimination...

I said it was an opinion from the start. A CEO should not be doing front line services. The exCEO doing counselling of women was an abuse of power and inappropriate boundary crossing.

I am glad that you are now backing down to it just being an opinion from your so black and white earlier assertions... however I do wonder where you have gained your knowledge of CEOs from - the concept of a CEO having a partial caseload is not an abuse of power or inappropriate boundary crossing assuming that they are qualified to deliver that service - it is about remaining relevant and being able to lead an organisation with knowledge gained from current experience... Lots of head-teachers will still teach (e.g. in a secondary school they might have a year 7 or sixth form group in their subject for one or two lessons a week) - they can't do much more as they have a lot of other work to do, but it keeps them grounded in knowing what takes place in the classroom - rather than being isolated in an c-suite somewhere - and a school might have several hundred staff v. the < 40 we are discussing...

CEO means Chief Executive Officer - executive means doing...

Imagine it was any other protected characteristic? Imagine a tribunal found the CEO wanted to cleanse the organisation of black or disabled people, Jews or Muslims? It absolutely would be a sacking offence. MW must go.

Joseph Goebbels would have been impressed by himself had he drafted Willoughby's analysis of the case.

Yanbu

@nauticant

I won't be able to see it but I can only imagine.

https://x.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1792507192660131841

Legal Feminist:

''The Tribunal concluded that Mridul Wadha had an agenda to “cleanse the organisation” of those who did not adhere to an institutional view which was “at the very extreme end of gender identity theory”.''

https://x.com/legalfeminist/status/1792496382454165857

WOS at his best when calling out these people.

This is the impression I got too from reading the proceedings.
MW was clearly not doing the CEO role they were hired to do.
They abused the power of their position to take advantage of vulnerable rape victims (likely for prurient reasons) and bully their staff.