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’d like to invoke KJK , I’m not a vet but I know what a dog is.
These intellectual arguments are what got us into this mess. Bloody hell, they’re either male or female. Every thing else is a confection.

I am also here for the ET. I commented on DHs defence tactic about evidence given by RA at the ET.

I have then spent a lot of time trying to explain the nuance of why RA was right to refer to advice and if she had disclosed to a client ABs sex it would have been a breach.

That event at the bookshop. What does "inclusion is beautiful but including is ugly" even mean?

I wish that would happen but sadly I think the Trans Teflon will work its magic.

This was my original comment.

Not everyone agrees with you on everything you say about the DPA SisterPita, whether you think they are wrong or not, so it's just derailing the thread arguing about it. I think a side conversation would maybe be better for people who just want to follow the case. Just my opinion.

Been thinking about this. DH line of questioning of NJ. He did not challenge the truth of what she had heard, at the unmentionable persons speech about sacking peeps.

He probed how she came forward and what her beliefs and work was, assume as he didn’t know, and it seems to me got nothing useful for his defence out of her, since she did not know the claimant.

So i dont see how DH could argue she is partisan witness.

That's the bookshop in the Southside - fucks sake, it used to be an thought provoking and eclectic place to browse. Another institution falls....

Sweet FA

That event at the bookshop. What does "inclusion is beautiful but including is ugly" even mean?

Yes I don't understand that either!

Happy to take it to another discussion if you want to start it.

Im happy to start a thread if other people will post on it. I think the wider issue is very important as to where the limits are of conflicting legislation around sex and gender, such as the "privacy" expectation of people who have special gender identities and how that may affect the rights of others.

I will engage with you.

Im not sure I have a lot more to say myself on this than I've already said, it's really whether anyone else does.

Brefugee · Today 16:51

That event at the bookshop. What does "inclusion is beautiful but including is ugly" even mean?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's meaningless and contradictory.

I'm also interested in why DH asked the witness (FJ?) how she'd heard about the ET and how she came to be a witness. Did anyone else find that odd? as though this whole ET is a massive secret and it's a shame that there are any witnesses at all.

It means "trans is beautiful and terfs is ugly"
because that's what mattrrs to the TRAs. I get told all the time online that I am too old, fat, unkempt, badly dressed, unfuckable.

All of which might be true. Still a woman though.

It was inviting the tribunal panel to draw the inference of partisanship without spelling it out. It was the best counsel for ERCC (DH) could do in the circumstances.

I started a thread if anyone interested www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4988099-privacy-in-law-and-how-it-relates-to-womens-rights

Taking a leaf from Douglas Adams,

[This matter of public interest] was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, or that people would hear about the ET and be willing to act as a witness.

But this is essentially saying you should stay silent about safeguarding concerns.

Yes, people are staying silent about safeguarding concerns, but it's not right - it means vulnerable people are being harmed. And will keep being harmed because of the silencing. It makes you - as an individual, if you're staying silent- complicit in the abuse of vulnerable people.

That's the truth. I do understand staying silent and - for example - needing a salary and it being the least worst option but it does make you complicit in abuse.

Safeguarding SHOULD come first. But it doesn't.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that gender ideology and the compelling others to believe element of that and the farcical 'secrecy over someone's sex' (but in reality only if they're in a box that they can't see or hear out of) is fundamentally anti-safeguarding.

It wouldn't be surprising if there's an attempt by counsel for ERCC (DH) to use the NJ evidence to run an argument along the lines that intemperate comments made by staff of ERCC should be viewed in the context of feeling they're being monitored by GC groups looking for the opportunity to go on the attack and so some exasperation is understandable.

This.

'Legitimate reasons' is always relevant when it comes to safeguarding.

Example: A worker in a nursery is a transwoman. They keep helping enthusatically with the girls when they go to the toilet but is very inattentive to the boys. Another worker notices this and goes to a line manager in good faith to express concern. The line manager phobes her off as unimportant so the second worker reports it to an outside agency disclosing that the worker is trans. Should the nursery owner (the line manager's boss) sack the second worker for transphobia and breaching GDPR or recognise that they are acting in good faith because of a legitimate concern that the second worker had and congratulate them for their due diligence?

Some might argue that the transwoman is being looked at with unfair suspicion in this situation and 'being harassed' - but the problem is they are still male and thus still present a risk to the girls. There wouldn't be the same concerns present if the nursery policy was single sex to begin with. Its effectively putting a member of staff in an inappropriate position which leaves them vulnerable to legitimate concerns being raised. You would tell a male member of nursery staff to stay out of the girls toilets for exactly the same reason. Thus, you are treating all male members of staff in a similar way (and therefore not discriminating).

As soon as you replace sex with gender, you effectively put both service users AND staff at risk because you CAN NOT protect the interests of either party. It is just inappropriate. Thats not discriminatory.

Staff being unable to ask these type of questions AHEAD of a potential problem IS a massive failure. A staff member asking legitimate questions to clarify how you navigate these issues is acting in good faith and is following due diligence because the whole point is that the first line to stop harm is through a good prevention policy.

How this has EVER got to this stage with this case, is beyond my comprehension, because if its found that you can't ask legitimate safeguarding questions in good faith even if it raises privacy issues you have a ticking time bomb on your hands because you create a legal loophole you can drive a truck through for abusers.

Yes.
I'm wondering if there is going to be a claim that this E.T. is politically motivated against the Great Leader - who is too unwell to attend due to the nasty Terfs. All organised and funded by a Wealthy Terf determined to bring them down for nefarious reasons.

@pronounsbundlebundle It is a judgement call depending on the subject. In safeguarding situations, there should always be a whistleblowing option - and I have used that before.