New CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

I struggled to even come up with a title for this thread as I am so enraged I know I will get deleted and even banned if I say what I really think.

twitter.com/EdinRapeCrisis/status/1389112490215288832?s=20

*the poll, not "three"

50% income from government bodies and 50% from other very big charities.

That explains the lobbying and selfie with Sturgeon.

The point I was making about the new appointment to Rape Crisis England - which is the federation of rape crisis centres it is exceedingly odd not to mention women. This is because the federation was formed out of the need for women's services, that currenlty women's services are under attack. It is not "just management". It is absolutely vital that this organisation (as with Women's Aid England) has a clear and principled stand on women only services. And should not be frightened to say so.

It is shameful. Part of their role will be to comment on issues eg the appointment of a self identifying trans woman to a rape crisis centre offering women only services.

Seriously disturbing not to understand that.

Why would anyone think it is just "management".

@stumbledin
But the ERCC doesn’t offer women only services...

“We offer free and confidential emotional and practical support, information and advocacy to women, all members of the trans community, non-binary people and young people aged 12-18 in Edinburgh, East and Midlothian, who have experienced sexual violence at any time in their lives. This includes, rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse and commercial sexual exploitation.”

This is absolutely unbelievable to me. So, so depressing.

PlanDeRaccordement - if you are replying about my most recent post please re-read. I have spelt it out a number of times. I am talking about the appointment of the new CEO of Rape Crisis in ENGLAND, ie the coordinating group for the network of Rape crisis centres and helplines in ENGLAND.

Although for both appointments the relevance about it being women is because the majority of services are for women. they are women's organisation who have taken up the work load that dozy lazy men didn't get of their backsides to arrange for men who have been raped. Ditto trans women.

It is outrageous that yet again women are expected to put their needs aside and instead of having a service based on mutual experience and having to expend their energy to adapt and take on men.

This is part of eroding the right of women to organise autonomously and of course tying women down to always be the support for others, never for themselves.

Bad enough that the trans community, men and funders disregard women's expressed preferences, but deeply saddened when other women join in with the WATM mantra.

Yes indeed. What about the men who never ever do anything positive or proactive but moan on and on about how women aren't supporting them.

@stumbledin
Part of their role will be to comment on issues eg the appointment of a self identifying trans woman to a rape crisis centre offering women only services.

Is what I was responding to. I thought that was a reference to MWs appointment at ERCC? Or did Rape Crisis in England also just appoint a self-identifying transwoman as CEO? Wow. Mind blown.

I don't get how it's okay that they very specifically refuse service to non-trans men and only non-trans men. They're a small minority of victims of rape, but how can you justify excluding them if you'll happily provide support to other people who you define as men (though they may not be biologically male) and other people who are biologically male (though they may not want to be considered men)?

The thing that bothers me here I think that has been alluded to is about the nature of the service and the people they want to help.

There's a lot of trust in there. Rape crisis is a well known and trusted org. When you're looking for help and may have taken time to get yourself to take the step, you want an org that you trust to look after you.

Most rape victims are women. Even where services are open to men and children as well, I would put money on most of them wanting to talk to a woman. Firstly because they are overwhelmingly likely to have been the victim of a man, and also because women are seen as kinder more understanding etc. Also there's the aspect for women and girls that many feel a strong preference to see a female for anything personal.

This centre knew that this would contraversial. They knew that a lot of people wouldn't like it and would make that known. That as a TW this appointment would attract press coverage etc.

This surely would make victims think twice about going there? Just because of all this noise? Which is nothing to do with their core purpose. Which they should be avoiding distraction from.

I think it's reasonable for orgs to avoid a contraversial person even if they are qualified because that takes over from what they want to do which presumably is give the message they are all about victims of sexual violence.

So even before you get onto the other points raised on this thread, it seems like a strange decision.

My conclusion is this is a political/ pointed move and nothing to do with anything else. They wanted this to be a move that caused friction, arguments etc. But why? Why would a rape crisis centre be in the business of courting controversy like this?

@TommyBrock

Is anyone else worried at how quickly this ideology is taking over every aspect of life?

I started uni less than a decade ago. Even as recently as that, none of this was a thing. It's all so sudden.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

MW was also put on an SNP all-women's shortlist last year (as mentioned in the Wings over Scotland piece I linked to above). Not selected as candidate, but did become Women's Officer for an SNP branch in Edinburgh, apparently.

All of this political appointing to charities sounds rather grubby to me.

Male bodied people in women’s prisons.

Lesbians being told they must sleep with male bodied people.

Children having surgery.

Women being told not to talk about it or a) accuse them of hate crime, b) rape threat, c) death threat.

Remove women’s services at rape suppprt centers.

Of all the jobs in the world this is the one they have chosen to apply for.

How is no one questioning the motivation of someone born male deliberately targeting working at a senior level in a charity whose sole purpose is to help women at the most vulnerable time in their life? Women who above all want to be protected from men. How is no one questioning the motivation of someone who just in the act of applying for the job has shown that they consider themselves to be more important than their service users?

@Sittinonthesand

Of all the jobs in the world this is the one they have chosen to apply for.

How is no one questioning the motivation of someone born male deliberately targeting working at a senior level in a charity whose sole purpose is to help women at the most vulnerable time in their life? Women who above all want to be protected from men. How is no one questioning the motivation of someone who just in the act of applying for the job has shown that they consider themselves to be more important than their service users?

The general ethos seems to be, "we must be kind and accept whatever someone wants, or they'll kill themselves and its all our fault".

Abuser tactics 101.

And then we have Nicola Sturgeon announcing single sex services are not at risk...

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@stumbledin
Part of their role will be to comment on issues eg the appointment of a self identifying trans woman to a rape crisis centre offering women only services.

Is what I was responding to. I thought that was a reference to MWs appointment at ERCC? Or did Rape Crisis in England also just appoint a self-identifying transwoman as CEO? Wow. Mind blown.[/quote]
No, they didn't.

@DdraigGoch, since posting about MW and the SNP, I've since seen posts reminding me what I'd forgotten, that MW has since resigned from the SNP over the five little words furore (Scottish Parliament shamed into agreeing women can ask for a female forensic examiner when reporting rape or sexual assault and female will mean biological female, not someone whose gender identity is female). MW now in the Green Party, apparently. What a surprise. Scottish Greens appear to be the most toxic of the lot on this issue.

@Tibtom

And then we have Nicola Sturgeon announcing single sex services are not at risk...

Yea but her and the truth are not exactly bedfellows are they?

This centre knew that this would contraversial. They knew that a lot of people wouldn't like it and would make that known. That as a TW this appointment would attract press coverage etc.

This surely would make victims think twice about going there? Just because of all this noise? Which is nothing to do with their core purpose. Which they should be avoiding distraction from.

It demonstrates that those with responsibility within the organisation do not understand Safeguarding, nor do they have sufficient awareness and priority of the needs of service users. This makes them not fit for purpose.

Or that some people are feart to say no to some people?

I'm still interested in R0's point about recruiting (and presumably replacing) 6 directors and a secretary in April - so a month before they announced this appointment. Is it overreaching to think that's a high turnover for a small organisation, and kind of curious, even in these strange times?

And also Hereward's point about nearly all their funding over the last year being from grants. Presumably to get these grants you have to bid and show you meet certain critieria?

Grant makers tend to look at how many trustees and ensure they're not related, they'd also check that filing with companies house and the charity commission was in order but they don't have the capacity to dig much further. Local authority funders might get more involved. However, the grant making process can take 6+ months, so their current funding would have been made before the changeover.

I'm still interested in R0's point about recruiting (and presumably replacing) 6 directors and a secretary in April - so a month before they announced this appointment. Is it overreaching to think that's a high turnover for a small organisation, and kind of curious, even in these strange times?

2 directors left in October 2020
2 directors left in February 2021
2 directors and the secretary left in April 2021

These positions were filled April 2021
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC291742/filing-history?page=1

Thanks Tabby I've had a bit of involvement with bidding for project funding and you had to jump through all kinds of hoops to even get a look in. Does it work differently for grant funding?

It’s not really flosime. The directors arent paid, they’re trustees and the company Secretary is usually a trustee

Most charities have a time limit to how long you can be a trustee usually up to 3 terms of 3 or 5 years. It’s not uncommon for a whole load to go at once

Interestingly the Scottish register of charities doesn’t seem to contain as much info as the charity commission about organisations governing documents

Its also possible that with a significant contraversial decision by the board of trustees, those who took the opposing position would leave.