Another GC employment tribunal. Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #2

To be fair, the full quotation makes it clear that it's not seeing survivors that iMW regards as "fun"

The work is incredibly emotionally draining, so Wadhwa has to be balanced and mindful of her own emotional state. The Student asked her what she does to take care of herself: “Well I don’t deal with individual survivors every day, so for me what I do in terms of self-care is a lot of avoidance. I do see survivors – four a week usually – who help me stay connected to the cause…but it’s important to keep it fun. We should be able to laugh and use humour at work. In terms of my team, I try to cook for them once a week or every other week.”
https://studentnewspaper.org/an-insight-with-mridul-wadhwa-into-working-in-a-rape-crisis-centre/

This bit was interesting - and infuriating - though
The Student asked Wadhwa if she believes a man could be a successful rape crisis centre manager. She does not: “I don’t think men are ready to go out and set up services of this nature. Women’s aid organisations and rape crisis centres have been set up with the blood, sweat, and tears of women. It’s about the women’s experience of sexual violence. Our workforce is reserved for women only.”

#Mridulgate has just become exponentially worse.

Mridul Wadhwa has, it seems NO CLINICAL QUALIFICATIONS.

I thought we knew that the MW narrative was, "I worked my way up the ranks from volunteer to CEO status without the usual experience and qualifications because those are all associated with [X]-normative and oppressive institutions".

I'm standing by for the whiplash assurance that these weekly connections are like management walking the shop floor and chatting to customers. Nothing clinical or therapeutic involved. Move along.

I can see how someone could progress to CEO (although not for such a large and substantial organisation) with MW's political connections, narrative, and an MSc in Training and Development.

Ada Wells I believe

Sorry it might have already been discussed but how did MW get this job? Do we know who was involved in recruitment?

"I do see survivors - four a week usually - who help me stay connected to the cause ...it's important to keep it fun".

Vile. And cos playing as a counsellor with no training. The women are just props aren't they.

MW’s words: "I do see survivors - four a week usually - who help me stay connected to the cause ...it's important to keep it fun".

@Hedgehogdetective here on the thread and the earlier ones has actually experienced MW's "counselling"

I’ve just seen this on Twitter / X. When you think things couldn’t be any worse and they suddenly are… https://x.com/psychgirl211/status/1749104781157629998?s=46&t=24c39_JwRrH3k0oebVKtWw

For people who aren’t on Twitter, this is what it says:

#Mridulgate has just become exponentially worse.

Mridul Wadhwa has, it seems NO CLINICAL QUALIFICATIONS.

MW has only the following:

1. MSc in the Management of Training and Development from the University of Edinburgh, @EdinburghUni
2. BA English Literature from the University of Pune, @UnivOfPune
3. Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology from MSIHMCT, Pune, India

MW also does not have a GRC (for what it's worth), yet was doing a job that was advertised as being open to women only.

And, instead of just a management role, MW carried out regular therapeutic interventions with women who had been raped.

MW’s words: "I do see survivors - four a week usually - who help me stay connected to the cause ...it's important to keep it fun".

These questions need answering:

1. Why was a man with no clinical qualifications allowed to carry out direct work with vulnerable women?
2. Did the women seeing Wadhwa know he had no clinical qualifications; if not, has a crime been committed?
3. Did Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre employ him and allow him to carry out counselling whilst knowing he was not qualified to do so?
4. Did @MaggieChapman and those on the interview panel know Wadhwa would be carrying out clinical work when he was appointed?
5. Did they know he didn't have a GRC and was still therefore legally a man?

Mridul Wadhwa's total unsuitability for this role (besides the fact that he is a man), is shown by his saying, it's "important to keep it fun".

This NOT how trauma is treated. The therapeutic goal of trauma therapy is to help someone process the emotions, memories and, the re-experiencing of the event and to prevent this from continuing to adversely affect their daily lives.

Only someone with absolutely no idea about what they were doing would say it was about "keeping things fun". Maybe that's why Wadhwa allegedly asked women if they had orgasmed during their attacks? Maybe that was the "fun" bit for him.

By the very fact that Wadhwa was not clinically qualified in any way, he could have caused FURTHER INJURY to the women seen by him. Because:

1. They were being forced to participate in his lie that he is a woman. Remember these are rape victims.
2. He had no therapeutic training, so WHAT WAS HE DOING IN THE SESSIONS? Was he just asking random questions about their attacks and thereby reactivating their trauma?
3. Without training in how to de-intensify and reframe the reactivated emotions Wadhwa could have left these women 'open' and in a very dangerous emotional state.

We need urgent answers to these questions.

In the meantime, Wadhwa needs to be IMMEDIATELY removed from his job. Otherwise, he will be seeing another four more women this week.

How many women's lives has he damaged already?

This is a national scandal.

Please RX. This mustn't be allowed to blow over.

I'm sure there was much hilarity caused by someone doing this for...St John's Wood, iirc.

I was thinking of that psycho who was women’s officer at Edinburgh when Magdalen Berns was there & tried to bully her out.

Oh yes, had forgotten that one!

Pretty much.

And, for anyone curious, it's not just Australia. It's the US (lands appropriated/stolen from First People) and Canada (hence my current deep knowledge of various historical treaties). I'm not being hyperbolic, this is what happens.

The only people who conspicuously don't do the 'stolen land' declarations, at present, are the UK. However, given the history of being conquered, colonised by Romans, Vikings et al, and then going out into the world and doing likewise…I am, however, increasingly hearing abasements from colleges that are uneasy about their funding.

I've attended conferences where each panelist has delivered the land acknowledgement for the place and then their own, from their own affiliated institution, to explain their own position.

And now, as we've seen on other threads, there are people watching you for signs of not appearing to be adequately engaged.

Some aspects of modern working get in the way of productivity and even collegiality.

I was thinking of that psycho who was women’s officer at Edinburgh when Magdalen Berns was there & tried to bully her out.

And here's a link to the tweet. https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1749080242755404242?s=20

On behalf of Tribunal Tweets, just bring this to everyone's attention.

And the reason he probably got the post was because 90% of students are too apathetic to bother with what’s going on within the SU (an org they pay to join but IME rarely reflects the majority view on campus). The remaining 10% then have free rein to bring in that type of batshit.

I think she was referring to Lily Madigan in the Labour Party. But I agree with your point.

I'd wondered about that. "We're meeting on the ancestral land of the X people, which was nicked off them in the 1800s by, erm, us. Their descendants are to this day disadvantaged and have poorer life outcomes and let's face it are quite unlikely to even be in this meeting. Which is a shame but at least we've absolved ourselves now by saying so. Now, first on the agenda..."

I don’t understand the purpose of land acknowledgement statements - unless people in the relevant organisations are lobbying for the land the uni or business is built on to be returned to the original native owners.

Otherwise it’s a performative gesture; it also kind of rubs native peoples’s noses in it somewhat if you’re constantly reminding them that you know what they’ve lost but all you’re going to do about it is virtue signal.

I've just come across this article in the Spectator about meeting mantras in Australia.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-australia-became-obsessed-with-land-acknowledgments/

https://archive.ph/KH7AH

I'm sure some people are sincere, some just go along to get along, some just virtue signal. I would find it deeply patronising, the emptiest of empty gestures.

from the days of a young male gaining a 'women's officer' post

And the reason he probably got the post was because 90% of students are too apathetic to bother with what’s going on within the SU (an org they pay to join but IME rarely reflects the majority view on campus). The remaining 10% then have free rein to bring in that type of batshit.

Years ago, a friend who was a GP practice manager said her practice only had male doctors until they got one female GP - at which point lots of elderly ladies made appointments to see her to discuss things they hadn't felt comfortable talking to the men about. So they'd gone without treatment for years, & I bet everyone thought the situation was good until it was proven that women had been self-excluding.

I would've thought that people were happier these days to discuss anything with anyone - but they're absolutely not. I was about to undergo a treatment which is different for men & women, & I asked a male GP about the experience of it. He said he didn't know about the women's version, as he only got men talking to him about it.

This.

I am absolutely for the meeting of the needs of the whole diverse sex class of men. Of high quality rape support services for men of all chosen identities, however they need in order for this to be accessible to them. They just cannot remove accessibility from women or use them as a resource in the process.

No using and reforming women's services so that they better meet male needs, and we'll all be fine. And no confusing male people with TQ+ identities with biologically female women when it comes to the meeting of female people's needs. Regardless of how sad this may make male people.

I think it would be great if the lovely folk here all looked at the women’s services in their area to see if they are in fact biological women only.

I already did this i think early last year, in an effort to find a woman in crisis a place to go.

The problem is if they reply yeah course we are women only, you then have to ask if any of those women are men.
It is far from easy to get them to admit they allow men in, when they think men with lady feels are women.

Or they dont answer, and you take from that what you want.

But that just highlights that the needs of men are different to women. Its not appropriate for women's services to be alongside men's services, but mens needs are not the same as women's needs...

I remember the impossibility of seeing a female GP (consequence of the quota system restricting the number of women who could go to medical school or similar - I think this was until 1979) for a fair amount of my early life.

It's probably one of the reasons my mother's health complaints were endlessly misdiagnosed as nervous indigestion and anxiety (contributed to her early demise from colon cancer).

Although I have recently heard that men have been complaining because there are so few male GPs available, and some prefer a male.