..To be mortified at the treatment of rape victims at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre?

[TorghunKhan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o

No women only spaces for 16 months. Basically women, RAPED women - were told they could not definitely see a woman to help them with such an awful crime, they might have to see a man in a dress, and if they objected they were to be 're eductaed' by the man in charge - a man who himself applied for, and got!! a job which was supposed to be only filled by a woman.

It's shameful, disgusting, but whats worse is how many people put up with it!! Who thought this was ok?! why did nobody do anything, or say anything FOR YEARS

Well if she’s unaware that MW is self identified as a woman, unaware of the “reframe their trauma” interview, unaware of the bullying, and unaware of the opening of Beira’s Place and the refusal to refer women there she’s has spent the last few years with her fingers in her ears singing lalala I can’t hear you.

Indeed and surely it would be a concern that someone in a position of power would be so unaware of what’s going on around her that she could possibly be considered up to the job.

Though I bet she’s fully aware of any TRA flag waving support - selective awareness I feel

I have zero patience with all these female TRA who met MW and claim not to have been able to tell he was male

Blatant liars. These people will do anything to save their own skin.

I don't believe they didn't know he was male as he had publicly admitted to lying to get a post with a Rape Crisis centre, in Fife ,I think. On the contrary, I believe he may have been appointed because he was male. Remember, both Maggie Chapman and Sandy Brindley are trans zealots.

Sorry they are not trans. Should have said Transwomen are women zealots.

I agree. He got favourable treatment because they wanted to show how "progressive" they are. 🙄

Of course they knew he was male. Indian women do not look like him. But he was able to somehow conceal and confuse and misdirect because he used racism as a shield.

State of this. He's a massive hulking bloke! No one who has ever seen an Indian woman would think this was an Indian woman!

Oh 21st August 2021 RCS had this to say, in response to the outcry following the 'reframe their trauma' interview with Wadhwa:

Women only spaces are a core principle of the Rape Crisis movement and upheld through our National Service Standards (read these here). These spaces include women with a diverse range of lived experience and views, including trans women and girls.

Now, the same RCS are doing a surprised Pikachu face that ERCS didn't have women only spaces for actual women. The statement also had a trigger warning at the start for 'abusive tweets'. The abusive tweets quoted being:

'Anything to say to that you fucking cowards? Or are you too busy searching for your missing spines'

'We already know what they are. A bloody disgrace and betrayers of women. They crawl'

'(RCS) is now an abusive organisation caping for fetishistic men, & using women as validation props'

'What the fuck, why do you hate women so goddamn much? Do you get off on ignoring the please (sic) of raped women? Does it excite you somehow?'

Now those tweets may have been strongly worded, but they weren't inaccurate.

Brindley and RCS absolutely 100% knew what Wadhwa was, and what was happening at ERCS, and that women objected, and what women were objecting to, and they still thought they were right and the women who didn't like it were wrong.

Brindley and the rest put their luxury beliefs over the needs of raped women they were meant to serve. They all deserve to go.

He claims to be a feminist and yet he hates women.

These misogynistic pricks make me so angry but I actually feel more contempt for the fawning penis pandering handmaidens who facilitate this BS at the expense of their own sex.

How do we find out how many complaints RCS had received about MW? Can a FOI be done?

Current and past directors of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

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

Current and past directors of Scottish Rape Crisis

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC258568/officers

I found this article from 2021 https://thecritic.co.uk/unclean/ , which seems to strongly support suggestions up thread that Wadhwa was very quick to label anyone who questioned what was happening as racist and right wing, and that this was an excellent way to shut up dissenters. Framing raped women as privileged is an especial low but also:

There is a breath-taking cruelty in the framing of women who have been raped as “privileged” and, as Wadhwa went on to stress, that some (meaning trans identified men) are “more marginalised”. The blithe dismissal of women who have been raped or abused was a recurring theme of the talk. What was also sensationally revealed is that women in Scotland are self-excluding from Rape Crisis from fear of encountering male people who identify as trans. As Wadhwa explained:

You have large groups of survivors, some are not using our services because they see us as trans inclusive and feeling that they may be exposed to… er… to an issue that they are not prepared to deal with.

Whilst there is clear obfuscation by Wadhwa about the “issue” survivors are concerned about, it is abundantly clear that what those women who have been raped wish to avoid, is a man, however that man may identify. They are tragically holding back from the help and the services they desperately need because of this CEO and the decisions made about including trans-identified men in a service for female survivors of sexual violence.

That was in 2021. Wadhwa knew why raped women were self excluding from ERCS, and the validation of gender ideology was more important than their needs. I do not believe that Brindley and RCS weren't aware of what was happening, Wadhwa was talking about it in public. They should all go.

Well known and yet not acted upon - and according to this traitorous woman - nobody cared enough to tell her.

this is what I mean by lack of action. Letters need to be written. In public. To MOs, to Sarah Brindley- to anyone to constantly loudly and publically denounce men in dresses taking advantage of sexually abused victims.

never just be kind again.

Can and should. Immediately.

I believe RCS is a charity not a public body ie a local authority, government dept or NHS therefore not subject to the freedom of information act

In the United Kingdom, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) grants the public the right to access information held by public authorities. Public authorities include government departments, local councils, the NHS, and other organizations carrying out public functions.

Generally, charities are not considered public authorities under the FOIA and are not obligated to respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. This means you cannot typically send an FOI request to a UK charity with the expectation of a response under this law.

However, there are some exceptions:

• *Publicly Funded Charities*: If a charity receives significant funding from public sources or performs functions on behalf of a public authority, some information might be accessible through an FOI request to the funding body.

• *Contracted Services*: If a charity is contracted by a public authority to provide certain services, information related to that contract might be obtainable by sending an FOI request to the relevant public authority.

If you need information from a charity, you can contact them directly and request it. While they are not legally required to comply under the FOIA, many charities value transparency and may provide the information voluntarily.

RCS also tried to influence the amendment to the policy which enabled women to have female only medical procedures as part of the rape investigation.

RCS wanted women to not have that right.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Just to add that RCS emailed all the MSPs the night before the vote on the amendment. Absolute assholes, imagine that, not wanting women to have a choice on who does their forensic examination after being raped.

Makes you wonder what their motivations are right?

@TorghunKhan makes me feel nauseous considering the implications and motivation behind it.

Brindley has clearly gone for Rebekah Brooks strategy. A choice between being seen as complicit, or stupid. Like Brooks, she has chosen stupid.

Under good advisement, no doubt. That's the cleverer strategy.

These people are completely cynical.

This is not the first time this movement of aggressive, intimidating women-haters have muscled in on rape victims, an extremely vulnerable group among the already more physically vulnerable sex class. In fact, they've a long track record of making a beeline for rape victim support. First time it came to my notice was Vancouver. They attacked and vandalised the place, and succeeded in having their funding significantly clawed back on the basis that some of its support was for women only.

Then there was Sarah Summers and the horrible debacle surrounding Sussex Rape Crisis. Sarah is an incredible woman for having the courage even to take on this fight, knowing what she was letting herself in for. She got it, with threats and doxing.

Now there's Wadhwa comandeering a post at Edinburgh Rape Crisis which was only open to women, then asking female victims intrusive questions about orgasms during rape and uttering that offensive phrase about women 'reframing their trauma'. Wadhwa has had plenty to say about female 'bigots' being raped too, which stopped only just short of that age-old misogynistic trope that they somehow deserved it.

It's not enough to see his motives as anything but altruistic. It's more than that. There is a concerted pattern emerging of a deliberate targeting of rape crisis centres by male rights activists larping as women and/or trans activists for the express purpose of persecuting vulnerable women. Worse, no one is so much as questioning those motives, and worse still, the brave women who have questioned it and taken up the fight have been further targeted.

What this man was doing anywhere near vulnerable victims of a repellent crime is a question for which his employers should be answerable. Women warned that this would happen.

Well, surprise surprise. It did.