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.

She was seen with the devil......

In other words, she's 'known to' famous gender critical feminists, as is actually employed by a thought criminal - Maya Forstater.

He's going to say she's partisan - that's why the tweets by Lighthouse are so important.

Thanks @Justabaker that's really helpful.

Both the screenshots of the FVRCC and ERCC advertised posts, invoking Schedule 9., are included in this -

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-fox-in-the-hen-house

So where was the whistleblower option at ERCC? Entirely absent, seemingly.

What RA was raising was a safeguarding concern - a rape survivor who was raped by the penis of a male sexed person who would be retraumatised by being duped into (alone presumably) a counselling session with someone they've been told is a 'woman' but is in fact a male sexed person and they could reasonably be anticipated to read as male sexed. That's actual harm. The opposite of what a rape counsellor should be doing.

It's so clearly a safeguarding concern.

Has safeguarding been mentioned at all yet?

What Red says is so true:

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

If you have safeguarding loopholes this big then you don't have safeguarding.

Witnesses are not allowed to see the evidence of other witnesses in advance of giving their own evidence. And the judge gave all witnesses instruction not to read Tribunal Tweets or to follow press reports to closely.

He wanted to see if he could boot her evidence on the grounds that she'd been following the tribunal.

@pronounsbundlebundle none of us have access to all the documents and policies and I am following on TT.

I must have missed the evidence that it was a male counsellor being offered to the client. I understood RA wanted to tell the client AB was NB but AFAB so a female.

@RethinkingLife of course! a Beware of the Leopard situation, why didn't i think of that!

Does anyone have a link to today's tribunal tweets?

Page there is a bitter link to the tweets

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

The first thing that came to my mind was 'Nice idea but in reality it'll be shit'

I mean page 1 on this thread there is a nitter link to the tweets

A belief is fine but if this means there is a conflict of interest with regards to their sex then there's still a problem.

It's a bit like saying it's ok to have a very pro-life activist Catholic in charge of abortion referrals.

They are entitled to their beliefs but if their beliefs cause a conflict which may be to the detriment of service users who are unaware of this conflict then that's really not ok.

Belief only goes so far when it comes to positions of authority - conflicts of interest remain relevant and safeguarding remains relevant.

It's all about accountability and transparency.

Thank you.

Alternate realities, ideologies and sets of belief have a substantial overlap with Sovereign Citizens.

I watch these hearings whenever I think I've had a trying day in which I've had to exert a mass of patience. I've no idea how such hearings fare in the UK but watching livestreaming from US courts has taught me a lot about laws throughout the various states and just how much patience the US judiciary exert on a daily basis.

@InvisibleBuffy you are missing the point a NB person does not wish to be defined by their sex. This is a philosophical belief and it is likely they could demonstrate it met the criteria to be protected belief, just like GC beliefs

Okay, but can you invoke a philosophical belief at this stage in the game that has not already been demonstrated to meet that criteria?

And being defined by your sex, and being judged by your sex are two completely different things. Judged by your sex would come under sex discrimination, wouldn't it?

Defined by your sex is something completely different.

Would it really be worthy of respect to say you can't tell anyone what sex I am? Wouldn't that run into a whole shaft of conflict?

Wouldn't that have to be hammered out, in great detail, to decide where and when it would be an appropriate thing to disclose and where and when it wouldn't?

I realise I'm at sea about how this is all working, but it seems, at the 11th hour, at a tribunal, it isn't something that you can just invoke, as tho it's all been settled previously.

It does look as if all this is yet another consequence of the Denton's model. Everything arranged between influential men behind closed doors deliberately avoiding all democratic scrutiny. The power and influence that's been granted to Gendered Intelligence, Press for Change, Stonewall, Gires, Mermaids, Global Butterflies and countless other trans lobby groups has enabled them to disempower women, blow apart the social contract and (worst of all in my opinion) negate safeguarding children and the vulnerable in order to satisfy their very particular demands.
Much of which is being played out in front of us with this case.

Do we know why Dentons did this? Did someone commission this or was it a case of smug lawyers wanting to show how brainy they are and how they can manipulate society and the law just because they can?

Oh, what a surprise....

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/maggie-chapman-suspended-after-breaking-29952946

General links about Dentons rather than specific wrt this ET.

stilltish has done a "deep dive" on the infamous Dentons document, published on Graham Linehan's website.

Part 1 grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document

Part 2 grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document-78d

Part 3 grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document-part-3

Mumsnet discussions here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3756354-RollOnFriday-law-firm-writes-report-called-Only-adults-Good-practices-in-legal-gender-recognition-for-youth?

Discussion on Dentons

www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/dentons-campaigns-kids-switch-gender-without-parental-approval

James Kirkup in The Spectator

www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp

From @Waitwhat23 link from last year:

Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman has been SUSPENDED from one committee meeting after being found guilty of a "serious" breach of the MSPs code of conduct.

The controversial politician failed to declare a financial interest during an Equalities Committee's hearing into the Gender Recognition Reform Bill.

She asked a question of the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland but failed to say that she was being paid remuneration as Chief Operating Officer of Rape Crisis Edinburgh. She did end her employment with them in 2021, but it remains on the ministerial register of interests until 2026

Describing someone's sex is not 'defining them by their sex'. No-one thinks that being male or female says everything about them.

If we accept that anyone NB don't have a sex, then the default position therefore has they can't do anything which might pose a safeguarding risk to EITHER sex. Or we inevitability allow all safeguarding on the basis of sex to effectively cease to exist by legitimising a truck sized loophole for abusers.

Weirdly this means they would be judged AND defined by their lack of sex!

And we'd have to hope that not too many people decide to be non-binary or they'd be too few people available for these type of roles which involve safeguarding for those who aren't non-binary.

Unless the main reason that they do not want their sex mentioned is cause it will define whether or not a traumatised woman might say no to them.

Quite.