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 think she has just lied in court. That's my opinion.

I just don't see how it can be an 'admin error' it makes no logical sense. What 'admin' error can cause that change - it can't.

Poor lamb 'lost sleep' over this.

Witness now saying defensively she was very upset and lost sleep over this case.

NC: should have written and apologised to RA c this and say sorry

MR; [pause] it would have been a different approach. We were erring on the side of being really cautious and followed advice to the letter thinking it was correct

NC: But you agreed you take personal responsibility for fairness of process. This was a callous way to treat claimant.

MR: Not callous by intention. I lost sleep over this - I was upset for claimant and for organisation. My job was to help organisation.

She's buckling in places, I wonder if it is actually dawning on her in real time what a clusterfuck they made of it all.

I think she maybe didn't agree with the gross misconduct charge but doesn't want to admit that so is relying on being told it was an admin error

Her body language looks to me as if she has been skewered. Like the kid in the back of the class who has suddenly been found out and put on the spot.

She just sunk her own battleship. 😮

Is there anyone else who feels stressed and slightly physically sick every time an abusive male is referred to as 'she'? I can't imagine how I'd feel if I were the woman abused by that man. It's just dreadful.

Yes, I agree.

NC: That would have been a good answer if the letter had been dated then but it wasn't. Can you have another go at explaining.

MR: It was the letter I got back from my advisor.

NC: And you didn't check it.

MR: No, I couldn't have done. [she would rather be somewhere else just at this point]

That would have been a reasonable answer if.... is clearly NC's version of liar liar pants on fire

What a fucking shambles!

I wouldn't make a good lawyer because I'd just be saying 'it's an obvious lie - a change of gross misconduct to misconduct cannot be an admin error in any possible world! Argh, this is so ridiculous'

Impressed by NC's professionalism in the face of lying!

Why does MW get out of having to give evidence?

I realise I'm being hard on the Board I k ow most of them joined after these decisions were made and they are mainly young women with little experience/ but the Board chair should know better

NC: I suggest there was a tussle in the organisation and the decision was to send another letter with gross misconduct taken out.

MR: Not true. I only discussed it with my colleagues on the panel.

NC: Truth is that MW was in background driving this process to bring about claimant's dismissal.

MR: No

NC: MW view is that any member of staff not on board with MW own version of trans incl is that they should be fired?

MR: not seen any indication that that's the case

If I was this witnesses I'd have been in tears by now, and then this evening getting very drunk!

They pick their own witnesses so MW can't be forced to appear. I think the tribunal are free to make their own inferences from that

It looks like a lot of effort went in to insulating MW from the proceedings.

Worknest may be the traceable official source of advice. I suspect it is highly naive to believe that with MW involved with profile and contacts that there were not lobby based sources of advice involved.

Why are so many women willing to sacrifice themselves for abusive men?

Onto the specific charges of the disciplinary hearing

NC- What is your view on MW's statement 'fuck terfs'?
Witness -Unfortunate wording.

The same went on with the Maya case to keep the most toxic individual out of the proceedings.

NC: NJ gave evidence yesterday c MW saying best way getting staff on board with trans incl is to fire them. Can infer that MW was ready to fire?

MR: MW made those comments in a speech. Our panel was only working with each other and our legal advisors.

NC: your thoughts on MW's views I've just said.

MR: hard to comment without context of the discussion

NC: NJ said MW said 'fuck Terfs' Would you have a view on that without context.

MR: unfortunate wording.

NC: abusive language

MR at the risk of sounding like I'm from Harvard I think there is context missing but unfortunate wording.

[MR needn't worry about anyone thinking she is from Harvard]