Mridul Wadwha and the thought police

Seriously creepy.

are we allowed to say yet that it's incredibly fucking creepy for a man to move heaven and earth to have a career which gives him power over vulnerable and traumatised women?

No-one.

Wasn’t MWs main experience in telephone counselling where MW revealed MW revelled in the power of being able to grant or deny food charity? I am sure I read this on a previous thread about MW….

Also remember reading that individuals who had undergone counselling with MW were not in the least complimentary of MWs therapeutic relationship or advice….

Does anyone remember similar?

barleybadminton
It is not [VAWG services’] fault if alternative [single-sex] provision does not exist and it is unfair to attack them for it. They have chosen to be a trans inclusive service, they are the ones getting up every morning to do the work and it is their right to decide what kind of service they offer and who to - provided they remain within the Equality Act - and there is nothing in the act which prevents service providers from offering a service to two different protected groups.

Then I assume barley would be just as content if an analogous rationale was used by a rape crisis centre that wanted to provide female-only services?

"It is not VAWG services’ fault if alternative provision for transwomen does not exist and it is unfair to attack them for it. They have chose to be a single-sex service, they are the ones getting up every morning to do the work and it is their right to decide what kind of service they offer and who to – provided they remain within the Equality Act – and there is nothing in the Act which prevents service providers from offering a service to a single protected group."

Because it would be hypocritical to accept the first statement as true, reasonable and legal but not the second, no?

MW is not a fit person to be involved with this sector, because judging by their comments and actions MW has zero respect or empathy for women who have suffered male violence. MW flaunts that in full public glare.

But thanks for yet another demonstration of how gender identity ideology utterly fails women and girls.

Wanting female spaces to recover from male violence is not "bigotry". It's callous in the extreme to frame women's trauma responses that way.

Reframing trauma is a very common approach in counselling/support services and it's an entirely unremarkable comment from someone doing the job she does.

That was definitely not the way it was used. I don't know who you think is buying it.

You were just saying that Stonewall couldn't set up specialist support services because they didn't have the expertise. By Jove, I have hit on the answer. Barley, you should apply there and establish their service, as you have the expertise to say this terminology is acceptable!

I don't think it's about validating her feelings, I think it's because she has a lot of experience in the sector, is presumably good at her job and that's why the board appointed her.

Again you're not addressing the point being made. MW believes women who don't believe TWAW and want female only rape services should be "educated" or expected to "reframe their trauma". MW, the male leader of ERCC has gone on record more than once to say it. This is indefensible.

They pulled the story because Nicola Murray herself asked them to, citing her concerns about what was effectively doxxing of her personal information and concerns about the publicising of her home address and therefore the safety of her family.

Then why pull the story? There's some desperate reaching going on here.

The reaching would be Seven's post. Your problem here is that I can read. Don't worry, many others have found my reading comprehension inconveniently high, too.

The original statement was from Brodie's Trust, so it makes sense that that would be the subject of the complaint.

The police have not denied visiting Nicola Murray though.

Nicola was deluged with abuse on twitter after that article was printed, and journalists got the facts of how she lost her son Brodie offensively wrong. That would explain the withdrawal.

Nicola Murray has herself explained exactly what happened when the police called at her home so its hardly the place of The Times to say it didn't happen. Sounds like they gave the the job of writing that piece to a journalist who wasn't bothered about accuracy. Not unusual now, I feel.

Why the story in the first place?

Or perhaps someone 'just had a quiet word'...?