#AskRapeCrisisScotland

This is true, obviously. But I was thinking, ok, we are fed up with this constant BS. Why not change tack, be pragmatic an show them that women are in control as we are the users of the service and ultimately the ones who decide where we will go.

There are growing numbers of women from within Women's Services standing up and/or whistleblowing. Now is the time to support them in order to help turn the tide and correct the systemic failings.

forwomen.scot/11/08/2021/scottish-womens-aid-have-failed-the-womens-aid-network/

Susan Jack
"I was the Training and Development worker with Glasgow Women’s Aid (GWA) from 2002 until Dec 2019.

From 2015 onwards there was an increase in discussion regarding the service provided to, and the potential impact of, trans women accessing GWA for support/refuge accommodation.

At this time, Scottish Women’s Aid (SWA) circulated a report which (I think) had been compiled by Rape Crisis Scotland. The aim of this report was to encourage women’s services to be inclusive of trans women. From memory, SWA did circulate a guidance, of sorts, which basically reiterated that message.

There were concerns within GWA that this guidance had been compiled without any consultation with the network of Women’s Aid groups in Scotland. It was also of concern that this guidance was produced by SWA, who as an organisation DO NOT provide direct support to women or children and were therefore not best placed to produce guidance.

We felt that the inclusion of trans women, particularly those that had not undergone reassignment, was of huge significance to the women and children being supported by Women’s Aid groups. There was a frustration that a full consultation with groups had not taken place.

From approximately 2016/17 onwards we became aware that SWA were being quoted on social media as being fully trans inclusive. This led to GWA being contacted by trans activists demanding to know our stance. It also led to GWA being bullied via their social media networks by trans activists.

At this point, I began to engage with SWA (Ash Kuloo) to enquire why there hadn’t been a consultation with groups. Any enquiries were met with mild hostility and no clarification on the matter.

I contacted workers from other groups that I trusted and asked their status. All had concerns regarding trans inclusion and were aggrieved at the lack of consultation and indeed support from SWA.

There was a fear and anxiety as to how we were being portrayed on social media as being ‘TERF’s’. As a group, we acknowledged the need for trans women experiencing domestic abuse to be provided with support, however our priority was the safety of women and children in refuge. The vast majority of those being supported have been abused by men and the element of shared space within refuge meant that any trans woman that retained the physical identity of a man had the potential to re-traumatise and impact the essential security women and children feel whilst in refuge.

We were quite staggered by the behaviour and attitude of SWA. Their authoritarian behaviour essentially demeaned the ethos of Women’s Aid and highlighted their further removal from the network and the work being carried out at ground level.

I asked refuge workers to consult with women they were supporting as to what their feelings were regarding trans women (no reassignment) being accommodated in refuge. Whilst women were sympathetic to their situation, they did not want to share a refuge with them. They felt it would negatively impact their ontological security. One particular woman said she was terrified of men and would have to leave refuge in those circumstances.

I attended a talk given by Megan Murphy at Holyrood in June of 2019. At this event, Iain Macwhirter from the Glasgow Herald asked Ms. Murphy why she thought organisations such as Engender and SWA were fully backing trans inclusion in women’s safe spaces. I raised my hand and stated that I worked for a Women’s Aid organisation that had consulted with service users and there were concerns. This resulted in my manager being contacted by Ash Kuloo (I think) who was furious that I had spoken out. Marsha Scott also contacted my manager and was extremely displeased.

A few weeks later, I was asked by Joan McAlpine to attend an event being hosted at Holyrood by Angela Constance. The panel was made up of Sandy Brindley, Mridul Wadhwa, Emma Ritch and speakers from LGBT Youth, Stonewall Scotland and the Equality Network. Marsha Scott was to be attending but her flight to Edinburgh had been delayed (I checked this out as we knew where she was flying from and it was nonsense). When SWA found out I was on the guest list they contacted my manager to state their disapproval. I challenged Sandy Brindley and a researcher (who was extremely condescending) regarding a report published that day with a comprehensive number of direct quotes from women with concerns.

Marsha Scott’s behaviour towards my manager reached a point where the GWA Board were considering raising a grievance against her.

As far as I am aware, the situation remains the same. Many/most staff are extremely apprehensive to directly discuss this issue due to a genuine fear of bullying and harassment.

I am of the opinion that SWA have failed the Women’s Aid network in Scotland and essentially are a stand alone organisation, that does not provide any direct form of support to women and children experiencing domestic abuse and does not represent Women’s Aid in Scotland."

Patricia Currie on 12th August 2021 (comments):
I am the Board chair at Glasgow East Women’s Aid and these concerns are front most in our minds. We recognise trans women and would not turn them away but we cannot support them in refuge. We are a women’s organisation and are protected by the Equality Act 2010 which recognises that there are organisation who support women and children specifically. We do not support men, work with men nor do we have any intention of doing so. Women and girls need to have access to safe spaces to be able to survive domestic abuse in all it’s forms. We are reluctantly affiliated to SWA due to the funding given to SWA which they will distribute to us. The women we work with need us to have as much funding as possible to allow us to support them. SWA do not appear to represent the voices of women’s aid and we now need the SG to engage with the wider WA organisations to allow us to be heard and to shape the future more positively for women and women’s aid. We need to come together to actually be heard."

A female only service would be unlikely to receive funding in the current climate which means that all women only services would have to be funded by donations

I know I'm not being very realistic here. But also, on the topic of funding, I wonder how much is actually needed to run a charity like this vs. how much is spent on perhaps inflated salaries, PR, lobbying, publicity, media advisers, etc.

Could you not run an equally effective but leaner service with volunteers focusing on the job at hand, keeping overheads to a minimum? These charities increasingly appear to be tools for propaganda rather than organisations to help people in need.

But that's the point. If someone funds a new charity, they can establish whatever policy they want.

Much of the funding comes from government who put conditions on that funding, it's why we're where we are now. A female only service would be unlikely to receive funding in the current climate which means that all women only services would have to be funded by donations.

We fought for and built these services from the ground. These are OUR services. Why should we walk away

This is true, obviously. But I was thinking, ok, we are fed up with this constant BS. Why not change tack, be pragmatic an show them that women are in control as we are the users of the service and ultimately the ones who decide where we will go.

2019 Engender Podcast (screenshot by For Women Scotland) appears to show how Wadwha, as volunteer coordinator, filtered out those applicants who did not conform to the gender ideology. orthodoxy. Such a policy would apply to board members as well as volunteers running the helpline

If you want to report a woman to the police for hate crime - let's say for referring to a convicted rapist as 'he' - the College of Police guidelines say:

'The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief...police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception'.

If you're a woman in Edinburgh who has been raped and you want a female-only service, your bigoted beliefs and perceptions are to be challenged and reframed.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

The new charity will be vilified, some will try to cancel it, etc. But if women go there, and people donate, why would it matter?

The funders will probably have a policy that states women's services are for All women

But that's the point. If someone funds a new charity, they can establish whatever policy they want. I know it's not easy, but these organisations don't seem to be fit for purpose, women should stop attending, and new ones need to be set up, fast

mustlovegin if only it where that easy. The funders will probably have a policy that states women's services are for All women

They are now looking for a Chief Operating Officer and transwomen are "especially welcome" to apply.

I bet they are.

Is there something in the water these days?

There seems to be, yes

The more I read about this, the more I wonder what the hell the interview process was like for the CEO role. Are there interviews for CEO roles?

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic. But this is a a charity, right? Can't another one be set up with adequate staff where women can go for help? If nobody reaches out to RCS because they find some of their staff unsuitable, the organisation will gradually become redundant, phased out and ultimately funding will be withdrawn. Is this not the case?

That "draw a line" is just another way of trying to shut women up, like calling complainers Karen. Maybe even DARVO - I am the victim but will draw a line under it and move on. If you recognise you said something wrong (or was 'taken out of context' and misunderstood) then you would commit to addressing the issue not trying to set it aside. Just another attempt at #NoDebate.

There is something seriously wrong on Scotland - we have this and the ‘school guidance to affirm trans kids from 4 years old - and don’t tell the parents’.

Is there something in the water these days?

The more I read about this, the more I wonder what the hell the interview process was like for the CEO role. Are there interviews for CEO roles? Its not like MW is shy about their views. The people who hired MW must have known and accepted those views. I wonder if anyone with GC views would have been interviewed/hired. It feels all kinds of wrong to me. Did anyone at any point think, wait, how will this look to the people who actually use our service?

And you can’t just say ‘draw a line’ and just shut down the discussion (no matter how much you want it it). Words don’t magically make thing happen.

The thing is RCS is already endorsing this view. They have shown that this week. It's a done deal.

Women who have been raped will be subject to thought crime investigations and possible corrective therapy.

Progressive Scotland

A raped or battered woman really doesn’t need a lecture. They need support and legal advice.

Some snippers from the Times. I don't have a share token either

She claimed yesterday that some of her comments had been taken out of context, but wished her “language had been clearer”. In a statement Wadhwa said: “The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre or the rape crisis movement in Scotland is not looking to re-educate survivors when they come in for the urgent, potentially life-saving support they may need — that would be inappropriate.

“What we can do, when they are ready and if they are interested, is to help them take part in wider discussions about how violence against women is a cause and a consequence of a deeply unequal and sexist society. Seeing it through this lens can, potentially, empower survivors to not feel alone.
and she would say this, wouldn't she “I am drawing a line under the podcast and in desperate hope that my words here are understood in full and with the compassion and integrity I am writing with.”

The latest statement is no better than what was said on the podcast

edinburghrapecrisis.wixsite.com/ercc/post/statement

[quote Igneococcus]Wadwa is "steps back" from the bigot comments. Front page on the Times online page, my share token isn't working at the moment:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rape-crisis-chief-mridul-wadhwa-steps-back-from-bigot-comments-2b9kdvc75[/quote]

The prick needs to step down. MW has been in the role for only a short time and is causing irreparable damage. It has been an utter disaster and this person is totally useless and incompetent and wilfully misogynistic. That this hasn't happened tells us everything we need to know about the sadist.

Actually, it's not in the main section but the Scotland section.