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

As I’ve been reading this thread I’ve been thinking about counselling as a profession and how its idealogical capture is failing women. I recently completed a counselling MSc and I was really shocked at the erasure of language to describe women’s experiences. I think it could be tricky to recruit enough (recently) qualified counsellors with women centred values to staff a whole service. People with GC values are potential pariahs on a counselling course. So even if you recruit and then pay for their training they’ll need a lot of support to make it to the end of the course.There is a loss of skills, wisdom and knowledge happening in this area especially as experienced workers begin to get to retirement age.

It doesn't, no.

And I think it's completely inappropriate for a man to call attention to having fun in his job in a rape refuge.

No one is daft enough to think that people, wherever they work, don't need a little levity. It's just the oddest aspect to focus on in an interview.

In fact are there any quotes from him where the balance is tipped in favour of the actual women survivors? Rather than the entire me, me, me narrative? And the really fucking creepy prioritisation of the concept of orgasm for rape victims.

Dear God.

A horribly ego centric man who would appear to have landed his job at best through misrepresentation, totally unqualified, listening to women talk about their rape, and focusing on an aspect that really makes him look like a perv.

I am hoping MW is today’s witness. I’m WFH because of the storm so will log into the live stream and probably get nothing done at all

Cutting and pasting from Friday:

nauticant · 19/01/2024 16:12

That's us done for the day. Witnesses for Monday, Katy McTernan and then, I think Miren Sagues. Altough KM might take the whole day.

interesying, thanks

Anyone reading who wants to watch as well:

Email: [email protected]

Ask for

Public access request RAdam v ERCC 4102236/2023

Mention you want video access, otherwise they'll email you to ask if you want video or attending in person access.

They'll send you an email with a link and a code and with 2 pdfs, one for watching on computer, one for tablets and phones.

Mridul Wadhwa's wikipedia entry continues to be one sided, with pages on supposed harassment but nothing on their abuse of trauma victims. The page is rewritten by TRAs every time anyone adds any critical information, it is truly biased and misrepresentative - as well as being the first thing people see when they google the name. If you can spare time to edit the page and keep it edited please do - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MridulWadhwa

MW isn't giving evidence. Make of that what you will.

MW is not appearing as a witness make of that what you will

Twins @GCITC!!

Sorry, am still catching up with Friday's posts. Am I correct in thinking the argument is as follows?

1. RA may not discuss AB with another member of staff, because that is revealing personal information. So emailing line manager with question was wrong.

1. RA may not ask AB what AB prefers, because AB finds that upsetting. So emailing AB was wrong.

1. What RA should have done, if following correct process, was to email line manager. Which is in contravention of 1.

1. And if service user still had questions after 3, the correct process would have been to ask AB. Which is in contravention of 2.

1. So RA's fault was to do follow correct process (admitttedly skipping a step) when the correct process was to do things that are forbidden.

Yes, basically. Good summary.

RA did nothing wrong except point out that sex matters to rape victims and ask how to convey relevant information for a survivor to safeguard herself from re-traumatisation, to show the survivor there is some degree of concern and care involved in the counselling process. A safeguarding concern. She was disciplined for raising a safeguarding concern.

This is why I think gender ideology kills safeguarding stone cold dead. It's not compatible with safeguarding and belongs nowhere near vulnerable adults or children (or indeed anybody). It renders safeguarding impossible as shown in both this case and Rachel Meade's case, and should therefore definitely not be in schools or rape crisis centres, or social services - in all three of these places the wants of a tiny, tiny vocal minority of activists have been allowed to override basic safeguarding for service users / pupils.

And, don't forget, this absolutely nothing issue, was characterised as gross misconduct.

It's difficult to believe that they wouldn't have done everything in their power to avoid going to court, in my opinion.

Does anyone know if they tried to settle?

Absolutely pissing myself if they did, and JKR is involved in the financing.

Because that would be not just pissing in the wind, but in a fearful gale, inside a tornado, enveloped by a hurricane, surrounded by a tempest.

Do we know what time it'll start today?

Can i ask those who have attended online, how does your identity show up? Can you pick a name or is it your e mail address?

You just type your name in in one of the log-in forms and it'll show as you typed it. Some just go by initials, some by pseudonyms, some full name. They've been quite strict about it in previous tribunals but this one seems quite laissez-faire.

10am start today I think.

You pick your name and they let me be Boiledbeetle so presume you can make up any name as long as it's not insulting or 'Rozisinnocent.'

@Datun Yes, I had been thinking along those lines too and wondering if they did actually try to settle.

Sanity would suggest they must have tried to.

However also worth remembering a suggestion a long way up thread that an apology may have been required for settling, which would have required admission of wrong doing.

And the storms and issues internally that this may have caused were viewed as scarier than being made to look absolute muppets in court and paying the resultant costs. Sanity hasn't played much of a part in this organisation.

I also strongly believe the process is the punishment for women and they probably didn't want to miss an opportunity to drag out RA's stress. The evidence so far suggests this could be a motivation.

In general in these trials I think the massive institutions backed by taxpayer's money hope that the woman will run out of money but that doesn't seem to be an issue here.

I think there's also a firm belief that they are the Righteous and Stonewall interpretation of the law blinds them to the idea that they might actually be in the wrong.

I too think this is an accurate representation of matters.

Our experience from TT observation is that many of these cases seem unwinnable, especially since Forstater. Even if an org wins on a technicality - out of time, not an employee, resigned but doesn't meet the criteria for constructive dismissal - if they go through tribunal there is so much damage and cost.
But the capture by gender ideology makes it impossible for anyone inside the org to advocate for settling - because they will make themselves the next target for the mob by 'denying the existence of trans peoples lived experience'.
The respondents leave what I would call 'smoking guns' everywhere. In my professional life, we could get people to leave without sharpening pitchforks, lighting torches, baying for blood on internal chat boards and leaving evidence for the tribunal in plain sight. They don't seem to be able to pretend to be fair, to care about the gender critical employee, to find some fig leaf for their dismissal.
It is a perfect combination of purity spiral and virtue signalling. They cannot help themselves.
My opinion (I have no data) is that they did not try and settle.

As Lipbalm says above, part of the selling of this ideology is that the law is wrong, and they are righteous for transgressing it. It will never be possible to convince the proponents of this belief system otherwise: the necessary part is the communication to those with a more balanced and objective view, that again and again and again the law does not uphold this behaviour, and names it for what it is. And public opinion shifts. And hopefully, insurers become more reluctant to be righteous but broke.

Morning all.

From TT

We expect proceedings to begin at 10:00am and also expect a delay while the court hears applications from the parties in private.