To think that the CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis should be fired?

[WandsOut]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5dc99960-be22-448d-ae42-371a058dce7f?shareToken=810c030b858153875ba6f64bd858ed8d

archive.ph/mtE3W

This is an absolute nightmare of a case. If you've not been aware of it before now it's time to wake up and take a hard look at what is happening in women's support services across the UK. There seems to be a concerted effort to dismantle women's boundaries and withdraw support from vulnerable women who need spaces away from men.

An excellent thread on Twitter here - absolutely shocking

https://x.com/svphillimore/status/1792486056002036117?s=46&t=OKyRO4eweTteo5FEt_J1MQ

I'm working my way through the judgment and was interested to find myself in the part dealing with the credibility of witnesses. The tribunal panel found the claimant "to be a careful witness who was anxious to be totally truthful in her evidence."

However:

183. When dealing with the evidence it would be remiss of us not to mention the most significant issue in relation to the respondent’s case which was their failure to call MW [Mridul Wadhwa] or NC [Nico Ciubotariu]. It was clear that these were 2 leading actors to what had taken place. NC carried out the investigation and made the decision to widen it and speak to individuals who had absolutely nothing to do with the original allegations but simply wished to bad-mouth the claimant on the basis of her allegedly transphobic views. There were clearly a number of questions which NC was required to answer and NC was not called to give evidence. Other than saying that NC no longer worked for the organisation absolutely no explanation was provided for this.

...
The Tribunal felt that given the complete absence of any explanation for NC and MW giving evidence then we were entitled to draw an adverse inference as to what their evidence would have been in relation to those matters where the respondent’s position conflicted with the claimant’s evidence.

The moral if the tale is don't leave an evidential vacuum to be filled by your opponent who comes across as being reliable and truthful.

Oof.

'NC carried out the investigation and made the decision to widen it and speak to individuals who had absolutely nothing to do with the original allegations but simply wished to bad-mouth the claimant on the basis of her allegedly transphobic views. '

This organisation gets around a million of tax payers money a year, I understand? And they're running it like a playgroup for sociopathic toddlers.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mridul_Wadhwa

Mridul's wiki page has grown today but someone is a tad biased.

Someone up thread referred to the comments made when he worked in the call centre - here is a thread about it.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/4990452-mridul-wadhwa-transwoman-ceo-of-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

I am beyond angry about this case. What sort of person would re victimise raped women to validate their own identity. As for the people that supported MW in subverting the service I think Madeleine Albright was right.
“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Someone up thread referred to the comments made when he worked in the call centre - here is a thread about it.

Thanks for posting this, I was going to go looking for it as it gives such an insight into MW's character.

Another thing which does was the now deleted blog by someone who met MW at a party, where MW put women on the spot by making them confirm that they thought of MW as a woman.

People are now digging into the funding and governance of ERCC.

Taxpayers pay a lot of money to this organisation, and it appears to deliberately exclude women who don't share its extremist beliefs. Which is most women.

https://x.com/WingsScotland/status/1792834387660476478

Eighteen officers have resigned since Wadhwa started in 2021.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC291742/officers?page=1

Let's not forget that Wadhwa lied about not being asked if he was trans, when he was at Forth Valley. He stated that nobody had ever asked him, despite there being a question: "Are you trans?" on the application form.

I'm still working my way through the judgment. It gets lively from paragraph 196:

211. We entirely agreed with the claimant’s representative that for AB and MW to later characterise the emails sent by the claimant as humiliating or transphobic is a nonsense. As it transpires it appears that AB is at the time of this email having a conversation with MW. It appears that things are said during this conversation which MW subsequently thinks may have caused upset to AB. However we are not told what they are. AB’s immediate response to the claimant’s email is fairly banal. They email at 13:55 stating that they were linking MW into this as they were just talking about the issue with MW. They say that they have explained to MW that there was some urgency in getting back to the survivor because of her tricky experience getting started with support. It is clear that despite what they later claim the email has not caused them the upset and humiliation they later claim. It is also suspicious that the claim of humiliation only comes later after they have been in contact with Mridul Wadhwa.

212. We shall deal with the respondent’s duties to AB below where we discuss the issue of justification. However, at this stage it is sufficient to say that we considered AB’s later reaction to be completely overblown.

What would lead a man to apply for that job?

When he knew that it was for women only, and that most survivors want female only support, and that his presence would upset/trigger/retraumatise women?

Years ago.

He never should have been employed in the first place.

Exactly. It was clear that he had an agenda, and that was getting transwomen into spaces which were by definition for women only and a single sex permitted exemption under the EA, for obvious reasons. He doesn't give one shiny shit about women who have been raped, which should be that organisation's sole priority.

'Wadhwa eventually quit the SNP after MSPs backed a law that would let rape survivors choose the sex of the person examining them'

I'd forgotten about that. Wadhwa was raging because MSPs voted to allow women to ask for a female forensic examiner.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/comment/shamed-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-32855685

'in 2021 Wadhwa set eyes on Holyrood. Aiming to stand in Edinburgh Central or Stirling, Wadhwa's presence on an all-women shortlist for the latter sparked anger'

Wadhwa targets things that were set aside for women.

Being an abuser.

I'm continuing to mine the post-200 paragraph part of the judgment:

214. It is against this background that Mridul Wadhwa sends her 2 emails of 22nd 25 June to AB. Both are egregious. Although the claimant does not see them at the time the fact that the chief executive of the organisation is telling other colleagues that the claimant is guilty of humiliating a colleague is bound to cause the proscribed effect on the claimant. Her email states without having carried out any investigation that what the claimant did was humiliating. She also goes on to state that she will arrange it so that AB has no further contact with the claimant. Given that they are colleagues working in the same team this seems to be an extraordinary step to take. MW then goes on to say “Transphobia exists in our organisation as do other prejudices”. The clear implication of this is that the claimant is transphobic. She then goes on to invite AB to file a formal complaint. In the view of the Tribunal this was clearly unwarranted behaviour which was linked to the claimant’s philosophical belief. It clearly had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the claimant. She was being called transphobic and a promise made to a colleague that they would no longer have to work with her. We agree with the claimant’s representative that in the view of Mridul Wadhwa, the chief executive of the organisation, the claimant’s belief is hateful and that by holding it she is a bigot and a transphobe. It was this view of the claimant’s belief which motivated Mridul Wadhwa to behave as she did. The fact that there is more to it than a simple desire to protect a member of staff is clear from her interview with NC where she herself raises the issue of the claimant ‘s underlying beliefs. She clearly saw the claimant as some-one who was not on side with the respondent’s belief system. As she subsequently stated to the meeting at Edinburgh University she saw firing people as a way of ensuring the staff in the organisation fully complied with her definition of trans inclusion. The claimant’s beliefs were incompatible with this definition. This was clearly harassment.

The more that gets uncovered about this the worse it becomes and the more upsetting and traumatising for SA victims like myself and the more angry it's making me.

A man took over a rape crisis service for women.
He then harassed women who didn't agree that rape victims should be able to choose whether they could have a woman to talk to about their trauma from being raped by men.

Women who requested to only talk to a woman were turned away and not referred to JK Rowling's service that's she specifically set up for women who have been so traumatised by rape by a man that they were afraid of sharing this information with a male practitioner.

This MAN didn't understand that women who have been raped by men have fear of male bodies. Even male bodies in a sari. AND SO HE SAT IN ON THE SESSIONS?

He applied for the job knowing it was for women only and didn't say anything.

I'm actually fucking raging.

This MAN didn't understand that women who have been raped by men have fear of male bodies.

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure he is completely aware of the fear that rape victims often have around males.

He didn't fall into the job by accident.

Also, Wands, I'm sorry.

I hope you're okay.

It is well understood in that sector that women want female support.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/about-us/why-women-girls/

'Research conducted by the Women’s Resource Centre found that women who had used women-only services greatly valued this support. An independent poll of 1,000 women across the UK found that 97% of those interviewed thought a female rape victim should have the choice of accessing a women-only support service.'

Mridhul could not possibly have worked in this sector for any length of time without being unaware that women-only services are standard, and the reasons why are obvious. The job was restricted to women only, and he knew why.

Yet he went for it anyway.