Another GC employment tribunal. Adam's vs Edinburgh Rape Crsis

[Rainbowshit]

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1746830866020442400?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Claiming constructive dismissal for GC beliefs.

ERC CEO is a well known transwoman know for controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

I've just checked and my post from last night which correctly sexes the CEO of ERCC and points out the horrific institutional capture of rape crisis services in Scotland has been deleted. What the actual fuck.

So, for anyone who hasn't seen this article before -

Edinburgh Rape Crisis/Mridul Wadhwa and the Forensic Medical Services Bill -

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/

'Wadhwa claimed in the podcast that those worried about policy at local centres should “reach out to them and ask those questions”. Yet, what happens when the women are told that they cannot be guaranteed female support? In advance of the Forensic Medical Services (FMS) Bill debate and Johann Lamont’s amendment to ensure that survivors could request the sex of the examiner, Mandy Rhodes of Holyrood Magazine wrote “Last night I spent an hour on the phone with a heartbroken mother of a girl who was raped by a number of teenage boys and who did not get the support she needed because she was told that a woman counsellor could not be guaranteed. She developed PTSD.” As one woman who attended a meeting with the CEO of RCS wrote: “We reached out to be told that TW are not only women, but female too. The damage that meeting caused us. For so very long. The woman who should have helped us rode all over us. For men. And a fucked up belief in queer theory. What utter bastards. The lot of them.” Why is it so difficult in services that, according to Wadhwa, were “set up with the blood, sweat, and tears of women” and whose “workforce is reserved for women only” to guarantee that a female will be a counsellor if needed?

The reaction of the service to the FMS Bill amendment explained much. The amendment was so small, yet so significant. It was born from the single most important request of the survivors, that they be allowed to request (in the understanding that it might not be guaranteed) the sex of a medical examiner. Surely, we thought, this was such an easy but important way to grant survivors a measure of autonomy and a reassertion of control over their bodies? The reaction of RCS was to fight it. They claimed it was irrelevant, that no examiners were trans so it was immaterial, that it would never be an issue, that more important things were at stake. Perhaps. But if so irrelevant, why not concede a small but vital piece of reassurance? Because, of course, it wasn’t. Because to campaigners like Wadhwa this was, again, a denial of womanhood of those who chose to self-identify into it. Wadhwa’s reaction to the passing of the amendment was to leave the SNP and join Patrick Harvie’s Scottish Greens, a party who – with the honourable exception of Andy Wighman – had refused to sign motions condemning violence against women.'

From this piece - forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/

www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,six-little-words-for-the-word-gender-substitute-sex

www.sundaypost.com/fp/six-small-words-should-not-carry-such-weight-in-rancorous-debate-about-sex-and-gender/

Sad thing is growing numbers of vulnerable women/girls are now excluded from any support whatsoever if they need single sex services- it's not just Scotland.
Locally (I am in England) there are NO abuse support orgs (including those who state on their websites they are 'by women for women' and raise funds accordingly), who do not, in their own words, include 'anyone who identifies as a woman, including transwomen and those with non - binary indentities'.
So if you are a woman experiencing male abuse and need same sex support, you have no where to go. And this is a Labour council, so it won't get better after the election.

They were spectacularly awful as witnesses. They assumed they were there to teach the tribunal about right and wrong. That's not what they were there for as witnesses. They assumed that because they fight for the underdog, their beliefs must be correct. They assumed that as "top barristers" their word should count more highly than others'. Essentially, what they did wrong was thinking they were going in to the tribunal as barristers rather than as witnesses.

Anyone in? It’s my first time logging on. Just got a black screen.

@Ereshkigalangcleg I think the right response in that scenario would be that it was irrelevant. But it is a good point because as shown in the Meade case one cannot draw any comparator between gender ideology and racism.

As the TRA’s try to do.

Re the barrister witnesses in the bailey case, barristers will be disbarred if they lie in court that is why they were so evasive.

Go out and come back in with your settings on the first log-in set to 'video and microphone' - you can turn them off as soon as you get in. You should hear 'waiting for the conference host to join' when you come in.

@Waitwhat23

I posted this further up the thread. It confirms that in 2016 ERCC understood the importance of female support after rape.

www.ercc.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Edinburgh-Rape-Crisis-Centre-A-Womans-Story-230516.pdf

I've spent sequential days live tweeting proceedings and I've experience as an expert witness in commercial matters.

I do understand.

But it was meant to be a joke.

RA is an absolutely magnificent woman that I would very much like to have around at any time of crisis. She is intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate and calm under incredible pressure. Shame on ERCC for what they've put her through and it really is their loss that she is no longer an employee (well I suppose this is only true if their aim was to help people, but I suppose since it's clearly not, they don't care). I too would either be a gibbering wreck or having an identifies-as-teen strop by now.

I am interested in the interplay of safeguarding and GDPR law. In safeguarding guidance for schools it's clear that safeguarding - and the need to share information to safeguard - takes precedence over GDPR and GDPR cannot be used as a reason not to fulfil legal safeguarding obligations.

Surely the same is true of a rape crisis centre? Don't know much about safeguarding law as it applies to vulnerable adults though - any experts? Sex matters in safeguarding. It bothers me that safeguarding is so casually dismissed all the time.

Essentially RA's questions about single sex support were about safeguarding a vulnerable person.

Back in the room now.

Thanks @LipbalmOrKnickers
It’s now working on my phone. Got WFTCHTJ

@pronounsbundlebundle I agree safeguarding takes precedence over GDPR. I also agree that a rape crisis centre is in the same category.

However, it should be possible to reassure a client without having to disclose personal data. For example I can confirm all our support workers are female or you will be allocated a female support worker.

However, it was ERCC’s insistence that TWAW that meant RA had to ask how to address this.

Agree that the barrister witnesses in Allison Bailey's case were seriously bad. Iirc Ben Cooper had occasion to say to one of them, who was attempting to ask questions instead of answering the ones put to him, 'you know how this goes. I ask the questions and you answer them '.

Beautiful.

Good grief he's grasping at straws.

This man is being as clear as mud right now.

"form of words"?

Is this an English Lit exam?

This might be the dullest day. Essentially, it's the ERCC counsel (DH) saying that there were these policies and RA didn't closely adhere to them and that she overreacted in feeling threatened by the proceedings that she went through because the threats against her were lessened as time went on.

Although I'm not saying that this line of cross-examination won't be helpful to ERCC.

Things should get far more lively when witnesses put up by ERCC are cross-examined.

I feel rather sorry for him. His clients identify as having a case and being virtuous and right the entire time whilst in reality having behaved terribly towards their own employee and vulnerable service users.

It's deliberate too. They know 99% of the population thinks the words men and women mean sex. It's deliberate abuse of rape victims.

However, it should be possible to reassure a client without having to disclose personal data. For example I can confirm all our support workers are female or you will be allocated a female support worker.

However, it was ERCC’s insistence that TWAW that meant RA had to ask how to address this.

Yes, that is the issue here and if she had known she could say "female" there wouldn't have been any problem. This should have been made clear in their policy given that they were purporting to run a women only service. Only a GRC would change sex for the purposes of a single sex exception.

Why is RA being asked about ERCC's process order? It wasn't her process!

I'll add to this, having read through the tweets
'What you did by leaving an email in a sent item folder outing someone as NB (even though this had been announced to the whole company anyway) was a henious breach of GDPR and everything that happened after that point was justified as a result.'

Just a sense I'm getting from the direction of the questions this morning re employment policy.

Am I right in understanding that the claimant was threatened with gross misconduct for basically asking if service users should be able to know the sex of the people supporting them? It's truly kafka-esque.

Is he honestly trying to blame her for being off sick because she was stressed over the way they were treating her?

Like to think the info provided by@Waitwhat23 was something that JKR was well aware of, and was waiting for an unspeakable person to trip over their own tie

This bit is fascinating. To what extent does an organisation like ERCC have a responsibility to make clear its rationale around being or not being transparent about the sex of ERCC counsellors?