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

So basically the people who could give useful answers to NCs questions aren't giving evidence. Presumably the judges can take this into account and it will possibly go against ERCC?

Is there going to be any questioning, at any point, on whether ERCC EVER ONCE thought of what their actual bloody users needed?

They needed to reframe their trauma, IIRC...

MR: I'm sorry for RA but when people come forward with allegations have to investigate.

NC: But employer doesn't have to investigate those. Employee's views and beliefs are not the business of the employer.

NC: Comments about RA's views. Why does this have to be part of the report.

MR: Not a decision I made.

NC: And Nico who drafted part of report isn't giving evidence. [mic drop]

Is there going to be any questioning, at any point, on whether ERCC EVER ONCE thought of what their actual bloody users needed?

MR: No her beliefs are not something to be disciplined for. But we were focusing on the behaviour.

NC: But the investigation went further than her behaviour and was a wide-ranging inquisition about her beliefs.

THIS!

i get the impression that they were cross with RA because she didn't just go "ok then" and push off after their first non-reply/guidance when she first asked. And that she pushed to get a sensible reply to a user, who let's not forget had contacted them so was in need of support, the whole time this shit was going down.

NOBODY was thinking "oh, shit, someone is waiting for our help, we'd better get a wiggle on" they were thinking "oh no,busted, we need to get this one on board or get rid before people hear about this"

You can hold a belief but you must enact not holding it in case of upsetting others.

And lets note that only some people and their feelings matter: how upsetting and emotionally difficult it may be to perform something against belief and consent is never relevant is it?

This is coercive control specific to one political belief over others.

NC: Reading c RA's transphobic views mentioned in training sessions. Seems RA wanted to have a conversation c sex and legality. That was in some ways sinister was it?

MR: It says what you said, but also says that RA then emailed again c sex and legality, so I don't think those two facts can be separated. ...
MR: Oh, sorry, I read the wrong paragraph.

NC: Do you say an email questioning what was asserted re the law was misconduct. About her behaviour?

MR: Yes, was about her behaviour.

And MR has never met AB. Bonkers!

NC: Does the trans inc policy require staff members to belief TW are literally women and TW literally men.

MR: No. It wasn't about her beliefs. It was about how it made people feel in the room with her.

well that's charming. It is NOT AT ALL about the service users and ALL ABOUT the people that "work" in the ERCC. Got it. If you pay taxes in Scotland, this is where your money is going.

Dear god. 'No we don't mind that's she's a lesbian but she makes others feel uncomfortable.' FFS

Plus how come "it was how it made people feel in the room" is something you worry about for staff but not for service users?

Some people probably need to be sitting quietly somewhere with a support dog rather than working on the front line with seriously abused women.

but must be well aware of what is going on in the courtroom. (I am assuming like so many of the NB I've read about they have a pathalogical desire to see what people think/say about them. It is their raisin d'etre) [i know. But i saw that here and i am using it forever]

I once refused to see a mental health professional as the journey from the waiting room to the consulting room was enough for me to realise the mental health of the mental health professional was worse than mine!

AB would probably have had the same effect on me!

MR: No. It wasn't about her beliefs. It was about how it made people feel in the room with her.

Worst discrimination justification ever. "It wasn't about her being X, it was how it made people feel in the room with her."

Quite. It's a service that's supposed to support traumatised people, and if a staff member is so easily upset they're in the wrong job.

MR: some members of staff thought RA might have broken trans incl policy and some didn't. As RA had made some comments in training and safe spaces, we left those.

NC: There are been no formal complaint/grievance re RA in breach of policy?

MR: Staff members had come forward with complaints to management so mgent had to investigate.

NC: Supposing one of claimants colleagues had gone to management and said I suspect one of my colleagues is a communist or member of conservative party, should you investigate?

MR: We don't have a policy that those memberships would violate. This is to do with the trans incl policy

NC: Does the trans inc policy require staff members to belief TW are literally women and TW literally men.

MR: No. It wasn't about her beliefs. It was about how it made people feel in the room with her.

This is where trans activism fails its own people. Advocating for a group of people on the basis of ideology rather than reality. AB has been pandered to and now that is coming back to bite them hard on the backside.

AB isn't a witness. And hasn't claimed discrimination.

NC: Disciplinary hearing docs - you have narrowed scope of your enquiry to RA's treatment of AB, causing distress to colleague/s. You are disregarding the wider investigation.

MR: Yes. We had moved on and set out how we wanted to go through the charges we wanted to investigate.

NC: RA's upset and distress c having been put to wider investigation, and colleagues questioned about her and her views, was v distressing.

MR: Yes, clear RA distressed. These processes are always distressing and I understand it's hard to be that person.

NC: But this isn't normal investigation of allegations. it's a wide-ranging enquiry c what can be deduced c someone's beliefs and what is seen as her underlying transphobia.

I'd think AB is probably getting a good deal more than raped women using the service are tbh.