Times article Mridul Wadhwa placed on 'leave' in May.

Although on re-reading Roz Adams claims, all she was saying is that users had the right to be told whether whoever was to be their support worker was male, female, or trans male or female, or non binary. She had known when she first started working there that the organisation was trans inclusive and was "excited" to be part of ERCC.

Management decided potential users couldn't be told the sex or gender identity of a support worker as this would be breach their privacy.

That's when it al kicked of because Roz Adams said the service users needs should be primary.

Maybe those giving evidence dont even know what was previously decided as policy.

Quite possible, they were pretty shambolic.

So the company statement saying their services are available to both males and females over the age of 12, is a recent change in their aims and objectives?

Wouldn't there be an indiciation on the charity register web site, that this was a recent change in policy.

Not forgetting that the say on their web site that this statement was issued in 2008:

We offer specialist trauma-informed, survivor-led support to: women; trans women; trans men; non binary people; and young people of all genders aged 12-21.

Maybe those giving evidence dont even know what was previously decided as policy.

Which of course is another indication that they were happy to let MW as an individual set policy, if those giving evidence really weren't aware of what has previously been public statements about who ERCC provides services.

Will be really interesting to see what the internal review comes up with. As it seems that anyone at ERCC can say what they think is policy without checking with anyone else, nor the information published of the Scottish Charities web site!

It was mentioned in the tribunal during ERCC's cross examination which many of us watched, and which you can read from when it was live both on Tribunal Tweets and here. They were "women only"' until fairly recently. But they say that was inclusive of MTFs.

From ERCC listing on Scottish Chaarity Register their listing says:

In particular the Objects shall be:

5.1 to relieve the distress of women, men, boys and girls aged over 12 years who have been raped or who have experienced sexual violence and of their partners, friends and families through the provision of emotional and practical support, information, advice and advocacy; and

5.2 to advance education, through the provision of information, advice and advocacy, among professional bodies and the general public about the causes, nature, extent and effects of rape and sexual violence against women, men, boys and girls aged over 12 years, and ways of preventing or relieving the suffering it causes.

https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=SC006208

So if this is the original version of the Aims, ie not lately altered to fit events, then effectively they have not been in breach of their constitution.

So they have never claimed to be women only. So it might depend on what they have advertised as how services are provided.

But yes, are still guilty of falsely advertising the vacancy for CEO as being for women only as per SSE.

And also, as the tribunal found discriminated against an employee.

ERCC say they made a public statement about being trans inclusive in 2008 https://www.ercc.scot/trans-inclusion-statement/

Their services page makes no reference to women only services being available https://www.ercc.scot/who-we-support-and-our-services/

Neither of these 2 pages have dates on them.

I wonder what the women who set up the service 40 years ago would think about this.

I'm not sure about Wadhwa's circumstances but regarding whether obtaining British citizenship would be considered relatively easy -- that would depend on variables like country of birth, visa classification (one might have less trouble if married to a British citizen and thus has a family visa), etc.

Thats very interesting, thank you.
I had no idea India didnt allow dual nationality.
Tbf I assumed most countries allowed it outside of the usual suspects.

In order to get British citizenship you need to give up Indian citizenship as they don't allow dual citizenship. I wonder why he doesn't want to give up his Indian citizenship if he is so sure he is a woman? Is his family wealthy? Could be something to do with inheritance or property. I'm not sure what the law is now in India but for my dad's generation, only males inherited property.

Exactly. If you want something badly enough you'll get it and obtaining British citizenship isn’t that hard. Dh is French. Dd is dual. Pre Brexit this was never an issue. However, we then decided to all get dual nationality so dh and I both applied for French and British nationality respectively. Expensive and laborious process but priorities etc.

Thanks - interested to see MW is the company secretary.

Apparently one of the roles of Company Secretary is:

Advising directors on their duties, and ensuring that they comply with corporate legislation and the articles of association of the company.

I wonder what the articles of association say the purpose of ERCC is.

Too much of a good thing 😂

Very much agreed! I'm so over corrupt management just being relocated to another position of influence to create havoc in.

'Termination of appointment of Katie Horsburgh as a director on 8 May 2024 '

https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=SC006208

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC291742

https://www.oscr.org.uk/
Scottish Charity Regulator

I suspect MW is waiting for the internal review (which ERCC failed to tell anyone about) before seeing what next step to take.

And has a strong case that all along, not only those who carried out the employment procedure and those directly working with MW were fully aware of his status as a TW and that it did not and does not meet and legal criteria in the UK.

And if fired, would probably be able to claim compensation because the employers allowed if not encouraged the direction he took as the lead employee in the organisation.

What I’m wondering is who holds a board of trustees to account?

This should be the charity commission (not sure what it is called in Scotland) and the funders, and if not held to account by Rape Crisis Scotland there are serious grounds for cancelling their membership of the federation which is meant to imply any federated group is competent and professional.

However, at the time of MW appointment, not only did some of us contact the Scottish Charity commission but also funders. None of whom took any notice what so ever. And I dont think this is because they have all been transed but many funders and charity overseers just do not relate to, bother to understand or respect women.

Not foregtting the other group that claims to represent women's services in the charity sector in Scotland (sorry again name doesnt come to mind) at a large meeting all applauded a woman being thrown out to the meeting for daring to challenge Nicola Sturgeon about sex being biological etc.. (The SNP had stipulated that groups in receipt of funding should be trans inclusive.)

So when the whole climate created by those with power is one that not only just doesn't listen to women but also derides them it is quite clear that those promoting the trans agenda think they can not be challenged.

Yes, the root of all this is the question of whether any males, whatever their “special” circumstances, should be given access to women and girls in a state of undress.

There are many men, it seems, who are energetically and vehemently in favour of the answer to that question being i) yes, and ii) yes, without any restrictions whatsoever.

He wouldn't need to use a birth certificate for much if he had a British Passport though. Especially if you have a British driving licence.

I think this about priorities. The priority isn't about a GRC ultimately.

You can't woe is me, if ultimately 'being a woman's is that crucial to who you are.

He isn't a British citizen he still has his Indian passport, he did a long woa is me article about it a few years ago, I'm sure that he could get a British 1 if he was a citizen though I'm not sure how that would work as a British gender panel can't order India to issue him a new birth certificate when he doesn't qualify under their rules

Yes. Enquiry.

Ha, mine too. Can I send him to yours to chew the ear off your DH?!

I'm not sure I believe that, because it would be discrimination if he was a British citizen.

Is the issue to do with residency and passport holding rather than GRC?

Ah, that's good to know. And enlightening.

Thank you.

I think trial by media is far worse than handling things confidentially.