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

Had no involvement in appeal or grievances process

One thing I've notuced by following these cases is that barristers get witnesses to cover things that they want to bring up in their own written submissions. So it's now on the record that the 'hate emails' folder had a name change. The defence can't get around the fact that the organisation (or someone) initially framed such emails has 'hate' but they will presumable want to mitigate by showing someone realised that was wrong and changed it. I don't know how high the bar is to prove constructive dismissal. Maybe this will chip away at it.

Yes. The more I learn the more I want to know can we put the enforced, willful naivety down yet?

Back in now, people arriving.

After this is over, whatever the outcome, I really hope someone else takes it up.

<sends JKR mind vibes>

I don't know in what way, it's not my field, maybe fitness to practice or conflict of interests (bearing in mind the money given to his partner), the obvious lack of qualifications, the purpose of the entire centre being compromised, etc.

Anything just stop this man, and other men like him, treating vulnerable women in this manner.

I can't find words strong enough. Abhorrent, disgusting, disgraceful, scandalous, inhumane.

None of them are enough.

If you are not looking at this through an unblinking ideological lens of TWAW then yes, it is hard to miss the very troubling coercive aspects involved in this.

Just thinking about the imbalance of power here, let alone the fact that the service user will be a traumatised woman to start with. Faced with the CEO of the whole place, where she needs to access support and who will have a lot of say in whether she receives any or is told they can't help her and she needs to leave. Having to question the top person in any way, let alone the most fundamental 'are you a man counselling me in this space and yet I have to believe you are a woman, because that's what you are telling me you are, while doing so'. Sounds like abuse.

The phrasing of that made me shiver. Hope that's not how it works.

I don't think that's been discussed so far @IcakethereforeIam but the current witness is the service manager so I think she can expect to be asked that

How is it decided which su get MW personally? Survivors whose ordeal particularly attracted MW's attention? Or just random?

Shortly after it was mentioned at the ET is my guess

And these are only the questions they would know about and would have been able to rehearse answers. DH is leading the witness to the appropriate response. How will she cope when NC questions her? I think there will be a lot of the bingo responses then.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240122130337/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1749364194485412110.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240122130337/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1749364194485412110.html

This mornings tweets

Examination of Katy McTernan, director of services at ERCC by David Hay KC

It's well beyond the scope of this case, but I'd also now really like it dug into in great detail why such people wish to be near vulnerable, abused women.

Because it's bloody obviously not through any passion or commitment or care for them.

Well said. It's such DARVO.

I'm sorry but if I was going to an ET I'd be making sure I had key dates noted down. I'd go and check my past emails / files if I didn't know and IF I really didn't know and couldn't find out, that would be my pre-prepared answer. Did they not prepare at all? I felt like there were quite a few sighs from DH at various points. 😂

Am also slightly gobsmacked at the main response to all the 'hate' of people pointing out the issues for traumatised women wanting female only support (and not to be bullied and coerced for saying so), was how to market the male person better and drown/silence those women's voices.

Wtf are these people doing anywhere near anyone vulnerable?

Probably Friday last week.

Further to @HappierTimesAhead's comment upthread, it seems to me that loads of jobs that were always about putting the other person first have gone through a 180 degree turn. Nursing, midwifery, other ancillary healthcare jobs, doctors, teachers - all being encouraged to think of themselves first. Is the 'bring your whole self to work' ideology the cause?

This case is so ridiculous. It is entirely down to a failure of Management to anticipate enquiry's from service users after the appointment of MW.

As for calling the folder HATE, it is so unprofessional, surely complaints/enquiry's would have been appropriate.

They should have had a policy from the get go, that they let all their employees know, if they had, none of this would of happened.

Well they've told us all about the change policy so presumably they will be able to identify who set it up and when it changed

I wonder when it was renamed?

Maybe we’re going to get some marginalised and oppressed spin later and need the hate mail for that?

I suppose it gave them the chance to say that they did rename it to something more appropriate?

Im struggling to see how any of this is helping the defence. All it's showing is that their procedures were shoddy and not adhered to anyway. Going on about the data policy and implying RA should have been aware of it then asking the witness a question about the policy that showed she didn't remember it because she'd read it a long time ago