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

Wasn't there a recording (a few years ago) of an event attended by representatives of services for Scottish women... a woman at the back of the room bravely stood and made clear the damage of TWAW on services for women...IIRC the attendees did not welcome her comments and mostly avoided eye contact until she was escorted out. RCS (affiliates) must have been represented in this meeting? was this a fever dream or really happen? I have such a vivid memory of it and I was so humbled by the woman speaking ...she was wearing a jumper if that helps.

A board of trustees can remove a CEO, or discipline them.

Thank fuck he is gone. And I doubt that any new employer could claim they thought they were hiring a female person.

The toxic management style should absolutely be a deterrent to any employer hiring this person in a management role. But as you say, there seems to be this special defense screen around some of these extreme activists, you just know they will get plum jobs again and again.

Hmm statements isn't there now on the link below.

Imagine being a woman going their in that environment wanting women only services even now.

Exactly. Has the culture really changed? Will it? Personally, I think the person who was instrumental in RA having to go to an employment tribunal in the first place because they placed their 'non binary' status and that being pandered to and enabled above the welfare of traumatised women needs to go too and have a damn good think about their attitude and values.

Took them long enough! Glad he's gone though!

I read the word 'demands' with some relief, as it struck me as suggesting that the RCS was hopefully communicating with ERCC in a tone that came closer to dealing with the severity of their failures than the public language in the report did.
Perhapd I am being too optimistic, though.
At any event, I wouldn't expect this holding statement from ERCC to do justice to the situation. Time will tell whether they are willing to make the full extent of change that is required.

Bearing in mind he should never have been employed there in the first place, should have had action taken against him for his remarks, the diktats and what he was enforcing in ERCC, this news he has finally gone is welcome and about time.

He was not at ERCC for the benefit of the users of the service he was there for his own benefit and to push his ideology you can see the measure of him by where and who he chose as players in pushing that ideology.

All those who supported and enabled him not only have questions to answer as to why they did so but should hang their heads in shame, be named and never be in a position to do the same again anywhere.

It's not exactly enthusiastic nor willing is it?

It's making a point about how it's being forced and the word demand suggests they think these changes are somewhat unreasonable.

It doesn't say a lot about the continuing culture having improved. Indeed it says the exact opposite.

It says it is hostile.

Imagine being a woman going their in that environment wanting women only services even now.

So he never did get sacked, despite being in a job reserved for a woman, despite traumatising women, despite making a pigs ear of running the place. Shame on RCS.

Stood down. If he hadn't, they'd have supported him in place?

Good news that MW has finally gone. The wording in that statement that stood out to me, however, is 'We are in daily communication with Rape Crisis Scotland, have met their urgent demands' ... this isn't a hostage situation! The trustees allowed the organisation to get into an absolute mess and should now be working their arses off to fix it, not seeing the need for urgent improvement as 'demands'. I do appreciate some may not have been fully aware of how horrendous it was when they took on the role but this has been rumbling for years and frankly it was obvious MW was an entirely unsuitable leader who they should never have employed in the first place. I bet Forth Valley were delighted they took MW off their hands. I also recognise MW is probably a complete nightmare to manage, but that's just another reason why good recruitment is so important.

Good.
No apologies to the women and girls who have been harmed by this awful man's policies and style of "leadership", though.

www.ercc.scot/statement-from-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-board-of-directors/

Regarding sacking without compensation, I wish that could be true but the board knew all about his (lack of) qualifications, his maleness and the fact that he didn't have a GRC before they gave him the job. Unless he was asked about these things and lied to them they cannot claim any kind of fraud.

As for the SSE, I was told by lawyers on this board talking about the case of the Period Poverty Lead (Jason somebody?) that it was not his fault if the employer doesn't apply the SSE correctly - so I would imagine it would be the same here.

Probably they gave him the post because he was a MCW and despite not being suitable in other ways either.

ArabellaScott · Yesterday 12:27

^'The review was heavily critical of Wadhwa, who self identifies as a woman but does not have a gender recognition certificate and is legally a man.
It found her be a domineering as chief executive who “who did not understand the limits on her role’s authority” and it said Wadhwa “failed to set professional standards of behaviour” within the organisation.^

Actually, that's not the point, which is that he deliberately and wilfully undermined all standards of professional behaviour, as well as the actual reason for ERCC's existence, to look after the women it was supposed to serve. All for his own nefarious and fiduciary ends.

It doesn't even touch on the fact that, as a male, he should - under the SSE - never even have been considered for the post he took. It also fails to mention that he was utterly unqualified for it, he has no counselling qualification whatsoever.

If they have the will, I'm sure they can sack him without compensation, but I have little confidence in that scenario.

Imagine Sarah's lawyers quoting from this report that women and girls survivors were damaged by having to ask for a female counsellor for women-only counselling time. Or that women have self-excluded because of the RCC "trans-inclusive" policy.
There's also lots in this report that they can use to show the tribunal panel what RCCs are supposed to be like.
Though having said that, I think the Sussex group is bang to rights anyway, that they know that already but are stringing this out because they are bastards.

This line from the Times article about the report is heartbreaking. Such a callous disregard for traumatised women and in contravention of any common sense understanding of women's experience of male violence.

"During her research, Ling asked the ERCC for further information on the women-only services it provided but was told there was “very little demand” for them."

As the Police Scotland and other "authorities" accepted last year that they will make referrals to Beira's Place, I dont think that one individual now on paid leave will be that relevant.

And if in fact ERCC with its now stated committment to women only services is refusing to do this now, then they will immediately be open to it being said that they lied in the statement about how they have "changed".

(I have this sort of fantasy that Roz Adams is sent into ERCC to provide training to ensure staff and volunteers are up to date with acceptable and professional standards of service support. I am sure she has better things to do with her time, but it would be a nice lesson to ERCC about how much they have messed up. At the expense of women unfortunately.)

Is that saying that if he had bothered with the legal fiction of a certificate, it would have been fine and dandy? It's still calling this abusive man she.

So I'm wondering if they are trying a fudge. Lamenting the lack of 'women' only spaces. Everyone assumes they mean single sex spaces, but ... they don't.

Because we haven't had enough sex fudge.