..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

I'm becoming increasingly enraged about the role Sandy Brindley has played in this. Inviting her partner to sit in on a meeting with female survivors of rape, without saying who she was, and then that partner berating women for wanting single sex spaces and telling them it was illegal to provide them was disgraceful.

Brindley now seems to be fully compromised with regards to that self ID meeting and the people sending letters into the media to help Brindley keep their job.

I cannot see how Brindley can stay with this level of unprofessional conduct.

Brindley now seems to be fully compromised with regards to that self ID meeting and the people sending letters into the media to help Brindley keep their job.

I cannot see how Brindley can stay with this level of unprofessional conduct.

Me neither. The conflict of interest is huge.

*also huge. Of course it's not just that, she has proven herself thoroughly unfit for this role.

I see the SNP are rallying round Mridul. 🤮

FML. give it a rest.

we get it. You don’t care about women. Please hang up the keyboard.

Is this a parody photoshop? Surely it must be?

It seems an example of that ‘kindness’ that only goes one direction.

The red flags with this male person’s employment in that role were plentiful. Including how this male people also considered their four one on one counseling rape victim sessions ‘fun’! I cannot imagine how any woman or girl would feel to know their counseling session was ‘fun‘ time for this male person.

I mean. So much that Wadhwa said publicly was concerning. The fascination with women orgasming during rape, the fun counselling (when Wadhwa doesn’t seem to have any qualifications in trauma counseling), telling women to reframe their trauma to accept male people when they want single sex, the political tantrum about the same sex medical examiners, the whole power trip Wadhwa had about the US food voucher role, and on and on and on.

I mean. So much that Wadhwa said publicly was concerning. The fascination with women orgasming during rape, the fun counselling (when Wadhwa doesn’t seem to have any qualifications in trauma counseling), telling women to reframe their trauma to accept male people when they want single sex, the political tantrum about the same sex medical examiners, the whole power trip Wadhwa had about the US food voucher role, and on and on and on.

YY, totally.

You've got to love people that dive in on page 23, happily admit they can't be bothered to read what has been said, refuse to engage with the actual topic and then seem proud not to be bothered.

Oh wait, you don't.

Also, I use the app, have no idea where "page 23" is.

And I'm on 100 posts per page, so nor do I! But the poster blithely claimed that was their entry point. They should have done some reading around the case before posting their entitled views.

Quite.

"I have no idea of the work issues"

It really is quite remarkable how many people who have - and freely admit they have - no idea of the issues are nonetheless willing to wade right into telling women they're wrong. And often spend significant amounts of time arguing over this unknown issue they don't care about at all.

Most odd.

By this stage, we have seen just how many people feel they have the luxury of choosing who to believe in their state of confident ignorance. While others choose to do the work and search deeper to understand what is the truth and what is false.

When did truth become so entangled with kindness in this era of overwhelming information? There is so much information out there to process, I cannot conceive that the tone used to present it is the deciding factor of whether it is consumed, understood and analysed for integrity. To me, the filter is ‘could this have true information that can help me to understand a situation I don’t have deep knowledge about’? But I have been called naive in my expectations of humans before too.

Some people seem to say things like ‘if you said things more nicely, maybe I would have listened to you and believed you, but you are mean. So I believed the people who were speaking nicely. I am the reasonable one and you are just passionate and angry. In additiion, I want to be able to denigrate you while insisting you all still welcome my opinion’ . However, this is not that unique a prospective, because we have seen it enough on MN to consider this disconnected thinking is a quite regular position.

If you are a person who can only process information said nicely, what does that say about you and how informed you really are? This is a general comment and not aimed at specific posters.

Mind you, if you are someone who also declares that we should be kind and well mannered above all else, while denigrating others at the same time, surely shows a rather significant inconsistency. Obviously, some people are more prone to detect it after spending time arguing with others on the internet.

To me it shows that some people’s proudly declared kindness can only be performative.

“There is so much information out there to process, I cannot conceive that the tone used to present it is the deciding factor of whether it is consumed, understood and analysed for integrity.”

If some people genuinely use this to filter information, how much of what they believe to be true is simply nicely toned propaganda? I was always cynical, even as a child. But maybe because I have been in marketing and comms for decades, I reject this type of filtering instinctively.

Yes the worst thing about the ERCS debacle is the correct sexing misgendering of the man who caused raped women to be denied support. And accused those who objected of being racist and 'less marginalised' (than men with special feelings).

Nasty women, not speaking respectfully when our rights and even the very words used to describe us are taken from us and those in authority not only do nothing, but cheer on the thieves. Why must we be so shrill, and unkind?

Your reminder that campaigner of the year was so incompetent that the data protection policy was 7 years out of date and didn't include GDPR and that there was no employee handbook to help staff.

Never mind all the abusive stuff and illegal stuff.

He wasn't up to the job on a basic level.

I cannot conceive that the tone used to present it is the deciding factor of whether it is consumed, understood and analysed for integrity.

I've seen this many times before.

It feels like 'tone' is the last bastion of people expecting GC's to be in the wrong, but ultimately unable to conclude that based on the arguments presented. When people can't find fault with what we're saying, they criticise the way it is said.

The question I have is - how did it become so embedded that the side proclaiming TWAW were the 'good' or 'right' side? With zero scrutiny of their position.

Yeah but he ticked all the DEI boxes, right?

You may find it interesting to link this excellent point with posts of Lang Clegg (late of this parish, banned for inconvenient speaking of uncomfortable truths), and their description of the sacred caste concept. Along with the history of safeguarding disasters when sacred castes become involved.

It feels like 'tone' is the last bastion of people expecting GC's to be in the wrong, but ultimately unable to conclude that based on the arguments presented. When people can't find fault with what we're saying, they criticise the way it is said.

Yep.

But maybe because I have been in marketing and comms for decades, I reject this type of filtering instinctively.

Same.

By them aligning it with previous human rights campaigns such as racism and gay rights.

Nobody was paying proper attention, so between 2012 ish and 2019 - it accelerated, clearly very fast, and now the bounce back has been happening for 5 years