Surely Mridul Wadhwa has to go now? Report into ERCC out.

Going back to the power, I'd like to point out places like ERCC are places of last resort, the importance of that being if the ERCC is also treating you abusively there literally is nowhere else to turn to. You're at you very lowest, the whole world is nothing but pain, you turn to the rape crisis centre for help, and they start giving a bollocking because you asked for single sex support. Can you imagine what it must feel like for a person in the most painful mental space to be told how awful they are by the organisation supposed to be helping them? The self worth taking another battering from the people meant to help, "maybe it's me after all?" How can a person do that to another person in such need, and think they are the good guy? How is that a safe space?

This.

I think it's about power. Having power over other people is a fairly stong emotional feeling, couple that with a large dollop of self-righteousness and the world's your oyster to do with and treat as you please. Some one disagrees with your beliefs? You other them, they are stupid and lesser, they need to be taught how to think correctly.
Once you've decided someone is lesser then all sorts of behaviour that normally would be considered unconcionable becomes both aceptable and even necessary to correct the lesser person. See "untermensch".
If you're in power over an organisation there's literally no one to challenge your superiority. Even the slightest question of the only acceptable worldview must be stamped down on hard. See Roz Adams tribunal.

I would hope if I ever worked in a place like ERCC that my driving goal would be to help the women who need the help of ERCC, but that's clearly not the priority of the recent ERCC. It does boggle my mind how heartless ERCC has treated women who've asked for single sex support. Just trying to understand the mindset of someone who's internal thought process goes something like "ok yeah you've been raped multiple times in your own home, big deal, but your request for single sex support is a really problematic and we are going to force you to "re-frame your trauma" and make you a better person than the snivelling shit you clearly are" blows my mind. How is it even possible to have a position of power at an organisation whose sole purpose is to help vulnerable women, and not give two fucks about them, to feel distain for them? The lack of compassion or human dignity towards the very people you are there to help who have already been through their own person hell is appaling. I would imagine that words like narcissist and sociopath would be required to explain the behaviour properly. I think the people who coined the word untermensch would find that mindset much easier to understand and accept.

Going back to the power, I'd like to point out places like ERCC are places of last resort, the importance of that being if the ERCC is also treating you abusively there literally is nowhere else to turn to. You're at you very lowest, the whole world is nothing but pain, you turn to the rape crisis centre for help, and they start giving a bollocking because you asked for single sex support. Can you imagine what it must feel like for a person in the most painful mental space to be told how awful they are by the organisation supposed to be helping them? The self worth taking another battering from the people meant to help, "maybe it's me after all?" How can a person do that to another person in such need, and think they are the good guy? How is that a safe space? Idiots drunk on power has bloody awful consequences. The sooner this festering atrocity ends the better. Brindley must go to stop others being harmed.

My mistake, it was Twitter reports of what she is supposed to have told her students about marks.

I think some people just love power over others, while experiencing the thrill of “progressive” righteousness - it’s all very Red Guard, so part of human nature I suppose. The writings of the academic referred to in the thread suggests she enjoys wielding power over her students (wrongthink according to me = poor marks) anyway.

I don't get it either, can't understand it, what are they gaining from it?

There is a special place in hell for all the women who have set out to destroy women's rights and spaces and have promoted and enabled this misogynistic, homophobic ideology.

Why are some women so fucking desperate to destroy women-only services?
I don't get it. Help me understand what the fuck is wrong with them. Are they mentally ill too? These 2 are lesbians. They're meant to love women, be on women's side. Why are they actively destroying the systems intended to support traumatised and damaged women? What am I missing? I must be missing a connection somewhere, I cannot for the life of me join the dots. Is Sharon really a woman, or is she/he a tw? That would make sense, in a grotesque way. Them both being female just doesn't.

That's what I think. Mates or activists. Who were probably asked to do so. And no one CAN check if they are rape survivors not if they have accessed services because of GDPR and confidentiality.

Which is precisely why they won't say where they heard about things.

Total set up.

I'm not fancying chances of getting rid though. Look how long Wadhwa clung on for.

There's no accountability and no shame.

Too good not to be repeated in full.

Laid out like this, it's absolutely horrifying.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rape-crisis-scotland-boss-unaware-33670476

"Within half an hour, the Sunday Mail had received multiple emails from survivors backing Brindley..."

I posted this on another thread. I am only just catching up with all this and it is hugely concerning. The horror of Wadhwa’s appointment seems to be spreading to Brindley’s wider behaviour too.

Even if Brindley didn’t rally a survivor’s group to contact media, it seems as if that group is overly heavily invested in Brindley’s personal defence and are or have become activists. A rape survivor support group ? Becoming activist? Or feeling they should? There must be now so many questions about Brindley’s professional conduct.

Even the very basic point here that users of RCS and other services feel so unsafe with the prospect of removal of Brindley shows there is something amiss. A service such as this, should be so robust that one or two people leaving should make little negative impact. There should be absolute confidence that high quality support service should be expected. I am speaking of RCS by the way. Wadhwa as CEO would certainly have impact and quickly on the service delivery because Wadhwa was directly responsible for how ERCC provided service etc.

If that quality service, for this type of specific service, has been tied to personalities, ie not the service group this has to be investigated. There should be no room for personality politics in rape crisis support. And yet, these emails to media are massive red flags. Were these people wanting Brindley out?

There really seems to be a great deal to investigate. That survivor meeting where Brindley included her partner was a very concerning read.

Plus, I was convinced that the rape survivors who contacted the paper, were probably just mates of Brindley and not rape survivors at all. Who was going to be able to check, after all?

But she's fucked either way. Either she's got an inappropriate relationship with and leverage over vulnerable women, or she's being deceitful.

Jesus. Just catching up with this thread.

Red nails it.

It seems as though these rape survivors were deliberately targeted to promote the ideology.

I kept thinking how could the powers that be not recognise the creepiness of an unqualified man in charge of raped women.

But now I think they did, they do, and they're complicit.

So lecturer grooms law students to 'get ahead of the law' in a way that better enables male sexual abuse of women without consequences?

Please tell me I've misunderstood this.

Sympathy and a cuppa for the poor poppet having a meltdown that other people have rights too.

Several women spoke up in defence of SB on X in the past few days.

All to say they'd heard that there was going to be an article written on Brindley in the wake of the RCS issues, and had then emailed.the journalist to support.

None of them would respond to answer how they'd heard.

The only logical explanation is that Brindley told them.

If so, then Brindley has used these women, who are all survivors. This is not how you put the survivors first.

I hope all.of these women have access to good support that is not connected to RCS. They've all been treated very poorly.

Sharon Cowan is doing a lot of hard work to help along the argument that gender ideology is not WORIADS.

I'm glad you said it like this because I thought I was misreading this.

The head of a rape charity, who has a partner who works at Edinburgh Uni.

There was a conference about discussing and tackling the huge rates of sexual abuse occurring on all Edinburgh Uni Campuses. On the panel was this partner.

Despite the nature of the issue and this conference's stated aim this woman however lectures to Edinburgh Uni students and writes papers about how some of these sexual assaults shouldn't be criminalised and are unfair.

The also turns up at a meeting to discuss problems with self ID and wanting single sex services unannounced and massively inappropriately because her girlfriend who is the head of RCS is hugely unprofessional.

At this meeting the survivors are belittled and lectured. This woman had absolutely no business to be at this meeting other than nepotism. She sort to use the meeting to crush any possible questions and to make it clear that RCS would not support them. Despite the fact she's fuck all to do with RCS.

This lecturer also expects students to take a 'progressive in their interpretation' of the law or 'she isn't interested' rather than reflective of the actual law. This sounds like she's holding students hostage here. If they don't right what she likes they risk losing marks. So best agree with her and stroke her ego.

This woman actively campaigns against the interests of raped women in terms of weakening the law on their side and she actively campaigns to remove single sex services.

Yet she has access to these survivors. Sandy Brindley has mixed her personal interests with professional and has a massive conflict of interest and is allowing her partner wholly inappropriate access to vulnerable women without their prior consent.

The report into ERCC comes out and it's damning any it asked big questions about why, despite a huge amount of red flags and incompetence, was a male who openly was saying 'therapy is political' and using the service to further Transactivism rather than centre survivors needs. Why was he appointed and why when it became clear he was both incompetent and acting unlawfully was he not removed by those who had the power to do so.

Keep in mind Wadhwa has publicly said he's counselled survivors despite it being apparent he has absolutely no experience, training or qualifications to do so. Which begs the question why did he have this type of access.

Brindley then publicly denies all knowledge of concerns about single sex services pretending this meeting never happened, to dig herself out of a hole. Well she might because if she admits it did then she admits to gross misconduct in her role by allowing her partner to be there.

Then a bunch of apparent service users who seem to have somewhat inappropriate and overly personal relationships with the head of RCS pop up to tell the media how wonderful she is, how she should keep her job and how everything is perfectly ok and everyone is happy. Without regard to issues over boundaries and consent of others.

Throughout this story we have a pattern of people overstepping their roles, domineering, abusing their positions, having access to individuals who are particularly vulnerable women at one of the worst times of their life. All seem to be using their connections and access to further their political and ideological aims without regard to the women they are supposed to be helping and serving.

I swear, just when you think it can't get worse, it ramps up yet another level.

This lecturer literally does everything she can to silence victims and make out they shouldn't be believed and that their trauma over their experiences with males should just be ignored and they should suck up her ideology.

She's on a complete and utter power trip and she's enabled by the very person who is supposed to be most on the side of rape victims.

This is exploitation. This is just mind-blowing in just how many totally unethical it is and how many professional standards have been broken.

Wadhwa appointment starts to make perfect sense. It was never about helping raped women. It was about using them and abusing them. By design. The epitomy of gaslighting.

This lot should be sacked immediately and there being some serious conversations about whether laws have been broken here (there are legal duties within responsibilities for charities to protect vulnerable person if nothing else).

Yes me too @SinnerBoy

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 00:22

Sharon Cowan believes that Forstater etc is wrong and will be overturned.

Hmm. Does she need help to tie her shoe laces?

First, consideration as a preliminary issue of whether gender critical beliefs are protected is unlikely to prevent such claims progressing to a full hearing, and it will prove time consuming and costly for businesses to defend those claims.

I read that as:

Waaah! WAAAH! WAAAAH! It sooooo unfaaair! Why is it so difficult to bully rational women these days?

Sharon Cowan believes that Forstater etc is wrong and will be overturned.

https://academic.oup.com/ilj/article/51/1/1/6536993

...In contrast, the EAT’s decision in the Forstater appeal, in our view, risks making it more difficult in practice for employers to create diverse and inclusive workplaces. We conclude that, while the approach of the courts should be flexible and fact-sensitive, it should be founded upon coherent principles that are applied consistently, balancing and reconciling conflicting rights in line with the values of the EqA. This is especially important in the current context in which there is an ongoing debate, particularly in the discrimination and human rights context, about the extent to which trans people’s rights are adequately protected and whether and to what degree protecting such rights harms or infringes the rights and freedoms of others.6...

This aged well

....Therefore, even if, as the EAT decided in Forstater, some gender critical views are protected, it may be that Ms Forstater’s unlawful discrimination claims will not succeed once the facts are considered by a Tribunal...

Oh dear, how inconvenient that you can't discriminate and harass women who know what a woman is with impunity:

....But the EAT’s new approach will likely be most problematic for those tasked with practical application of the EqA in the workplace. Taking as an example homophobic or sexist views, businesses requiring staff to work within the parameters of its equality policy, whether to respect colleagues in the workplace or to help ensure non-discriminatory practices towards customers, are more likely to encounter resistance on the basis that individuals do not personally endorse such views, and that their alternative beliefs are protected now. Inevitably, businesses are likely to find themselves defending claims of unlawful discrimination brought by such individuals. Given the widened definition of a protected belief, it may not be difficult for any disgruntled worker to identify a belief for which she or he can allege less favourable treatment.

As a consequence of this new approach, several concerns arise. First, consideration as a preliminary issue of whether gender critical beliefs are protected is unlikely to prevent such claims progressing to a full hearing, and it will prove time consuming and costly for businesses to defend those claims. Secondly, where those who have manifested gender critical views claim unfavourable treatment, businesses may have to defend those claims by asking already vulnerable individuals, who have been subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or harassment by Claimants, to give evidence at a Tribunal....

But we hope to be able to again one day

...Our hope is that when the occasion arises, a higher court will overrule the Forstater EAT decision and approach to applying the fifth Grainger criteria: not all beliefs are equal, and not all ought to be privileged by receiving the additional protections available under the EqA, an objective of which is to increase equality of opportunity and more generally to eliminate discrimination.155...

So to recap, the boss of the rape crisis centre is shacked up with an academic who writes rambling papers with "quote marks" round references to sexual assaults. And thinks by extension that there are unwarranted prosecutions for these. What with the prosecution rate for this being so very very high already [/ snark]

In that infamous documentary about how Thames Valley police handled rape cases in the 80's they had the male coppers leering at the testimonies of women for kicks. Now there's a known BDSM link how do we know CEO isn't doing the same.

"P r o g r e s s I v e"

Maybe her whole career is an extended exercise in submission.

Someone tweeted this about her partner. Tbh if it's true she might actually be ahead of the curve.

https://thecritic.co.uk/edi-corrodes-the-rule-of-law/

Here’s the abstract from one of her papers.

“The Pain of Pleasure: Consent and the Criminalisation of Sado Masochistic 'Assaults'
^^
“This essay offers an analysis of the criminalisation of certain sexual practices that have been (wrongly) labelled as assaults. It discusses the criminal cases in Scotland and in England and Wales that address the question of whether sado-masochism (SM) counts as sex or violence, and thus whether consent can work its “moral magic” to render SM lawful. The essay examines the legal approach to SM in both jurisdictions, and the (hetero)normative construction of certain kinds of sexual subjects as perverted and “risky”, before moving to inquire as to the possibility of Scots law offering a discursive and legal space for SM sex. In doing so, it will be argued that while both jurisdictions have criminalised consensual assaults, thus marking out pleasurable pain as both wrong and harmful, there may ultimately be room for the Scottish courts to interpret the existing law in a way that is more open to allowing consensual SM sexual interactions.”