Another GC employment tribunal. Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #2

[nauticant]

Claiming constructive dismissal for GC beliefs.

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

There was live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
R or ERCC: the Respondent, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
DH: David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent
KM: Katy McTernan, ERCC Senior management
MR: Mairi Rosko, ERCC Board Member
MS: Miren Sagues, ERCC Board Member
KH: Katie Horburgh, ERCC Board Member
AB: ERCC staff member (name redacted)
NCi: Nico Ciubotariu, COO of ERCC
MW: Mridul Wadhwa, CEO of ERCC
BP: Beira's Place

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis

I added it to the archive - https://archive.ph/vpzan

@AnotherAngryAcademic, I only see the tweet on the screenshot (not the article).

Top sleuthing!

I so wish I could watch this, bloody computer won't let me connect.

TT's thread

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1748344559921168539.html Afternoon

Nicely timed piece by Julie Burchill.

"nonbins"

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/19/the-luxury-of-being-nonbinary/

Certainly, though I think it speaks volumes when an obvious witness isn't put forward.

I just don't understand why companies would take it all this way and not call all relevant witness, if they truly believe what they have done is right and proper.

You can watch it on tablets and phones as well if they are options

I wonder who actually makes the choice? I have visions of the lawyers speaking to each witness, crying for a while over what they have to work with and then picking the scapegoat and the less insulting of the useful idiots.

@ickky I could not get it to work on the computer but it works on my phone (although dumps me out occasionally)

That's because the archive will only archive a specific URL - and the tweet has its own URL. (So the tweet with the article is archived separately.)

I don't think there's a way to archive them together, other than with a screenshot (and there are plenty of those!)

ETA link archive.ph/yHrVk

I just don't understand why companies would take it all this way and not call all relevant witness, if they truly believe what they have done is right and proper.

I assume it's because trying to win takes second place to showing ideological compliance. They're willing to soak up the loss, the expense, and the huge effort involved so long as they signal in the right way.

Thanks for the updates, everyone

That tweet is prior to the tribunal ruling so may not show Rosko is lying.

This has been fascinating but horrifying. The infiltration of men into key positions in organisations like the ERCC and the fact that the blinkered gender ideologies of its staff appears to be more important than the needs of women who want to use the service defies belief.

Am I being slow on the uptake? Or conspiratorial?
Its just struck me! Has the massive interest in women's health and social areas ('sex work', period poverty, endometriosis- eg Steph R), and the push into women's sector prominent roles (are there others apart from MW?) by TW, been done with the aim to use these groups to give the impression that women's organisations support self ID?

I'm still trying to grasp the bigger picture. Is it bigger than just personal validation?
I get pulled into all the individuals and events, but then this link, (and this thread) had me remembering all the 'support from women's orgs' during the GRR debate and that just made me pan out again.

I agree ItsAllGoingToBeFine. It's noteworthy but not that significant. I wrote this at the time of MR's testimony:

Ahh, MR clarified that she was aware of the Forstater case but unfamiliar with the name.

I imagine it's because they don't truly believe what they have done is right and proper and they know that what MW and AB would have to say would make their situation x10 worse.

I'm so naive and gullible. I thought she came across as genuinely ignorant.

Forstater left MR “shaking with horror”? Really? These ppl should be nowhere near traumatised rape survivors if reading about a case they don’t agree with upsets them so much

Thank you everyone for the updates and reporting.

also tbf i would hope an organisation looked after their staff.

Have we all seen this on Twitter

But... You would remember the name of someone who left you shaking with such horror it pushed you to support a cause

Am amused at "shaking with horror". It reminds me of that comedian who was "angry crying" because some women had lunch.

Sensitive souls, aren't they.

Yes indeed!
Do you know to whom MR's tweet was addressed, @DerekFaker ? It doesn't show in the screenshot.

She lied to the tribunal. Are there penalties for that?

Its just struck me! Has the massive interest in women's health and social areas ('sex work', period poverty, endometriosis- eg Steph R), and the push into women's sector prominent roles (are there others apart from MW?) by TW, been done with the aim to use these groups to give the impression that women's organisations support self ID?

Yes and they've admitted it before in meetings which they weren't aware would be made public.