Another GC employment tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #3

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gener Critical (GC) beliefs. The CEO of ERCC is a well known transwoman known for, among other things, controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There's live tweeting from https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets. There's an informative substack here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

This post explains how to get access to watch the hearing: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?page=24&reply=132419912

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
ERCC or R: Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the respondent
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

RA gave evidence over 15-18 January 2024.

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024 (on behalf of RA)
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katy McTernan (referred to both as KT and KM): 22 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis
Thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2

I'd need to scramble in and sit on the freezer but I'm willing to do it for virtual FWR viperhood.

MW has kids?

gosh. There’s a curveball

How the fuck do they all know what their boss’ passport says?

I wonder how much influence Maggie Chapman as CEO had on MW appointment? Self righteous isn’t the half of it, her illuminating bio….
https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,getting-to-know-you-maggie-chapman

Brilliant thread again, thank you all

Re the absence of MW and AB from having to answer questions: I kind of assumed it was to do with using a "cis" woman as a shield, because the questions might be experienced as "violence" by those with special identities.

MW knows that under cross examination they would be asked questions about their belief that TWAW and like everyone else will struggle to answer coherently.

Additionally, they will be cross examined why they believe as head of ERCC that victims need to reframe their trauma. The responses to this would be dynamite.

It must be a hard call for MW & counsel. (MW must be driving the ERCC case, a dominant chief executive with a fan board). MW's failure to give evidence means NC can ask leading and difficult questions that others must fail to answer or give unimpressive answers. It undermines the credibility of the respondents case. And it must be difficult for MW to sit by, obvious that MW loves the spotlight (speeches, podcasts, failed political candidate). It's a lost opportunity for any narcissist - MW would believe that MW could 'outwit' the opposition barrister.

I suspect there is strong reluctance on the part of the legal team to take the lid off MW's views and insights on the stand. Personally I'd be all for it.

God. I hadn’t even thought about that but of course women would be expected to use their rapists’ chosen pronouns.

And obvs from yesterday's evidence, they would be required to frame it and discuss it as a 'woman on woman' assault. Considering there is political belief in the lobby that a male with a TQ+ identity cannot commit rape as rape is an act of power and TQ+ people are oppressed, they may even be required to participate in games such as 'this was just unwanted sex (which was unfortunate)'. There is no telling, but it would seem likely that this would significantly further the abuse of an already abused woman rather than challenge or upset the apple cart of the highly political and prioritised gender based belief system of the organisation.

Just in case this is a part of the political rhetoric anyone's unfamiliar with.

Our shed is full of firewood,I'll have to stand in the garage.

😱 insane! Bloody insane!

The legal team know you can't polish a turd. They know it would be suicidal to allow MW to testify. Instead it looks a lot like a few actual women have been set up to fail to protect a man in a damage limitation exercise.

Close enough!!

Does anyone actually have a shed that they can currently actually get into?

MWs kids are adopted

I have a donkey in my shed with zero social skills and a habit of hitting you with his ears.
I'll stand in a field.

There was an article about a trans-woman in court yesterday who exposed themselves to a couple of primary aged girls. Apparently they are just a nudist (so much for dysphoria) and just like walking around their house nude. By the windows. Whilst rubbing themselves. But they definitely were not flashing and exposing themselves on two separate occasions... Oh no.

I think the root of the issue here is that jobs at rape crisis centres use the equality act exemption where you can only apply for jobs and work there if you are female.

because this is not being used and adhered to in reality, ie self ID is instead the norm despite not being the law, this means trans people and non binary people can apply for these roles and work in these places. Service users would not need to ask to only see a female worker if these services were only staffed by females.

then there’s the issue of people who transition once they are in these roles

the law should be adhered to.

@Boiledbeetle Does anyone actually have a shed that they can currently actually get into?

I do but only because I gave up growing vegetables. So I have both a partially empty shed and an unused greenhouse. In Surrey, and I reckon at least 6 of us, with tea and cake.

@Justabaker fair point it is more likely ERCC’s legal team know how bad MW would be as a witness.

Quite!

Probably,rolling your eyes at their bullshit is violence so god knows what damage would be inflicted by actually questioning it.

The law does not say that rape crisis centres MUST only be staffed by females. Only that they CAN use these exemptions if they wish. The problem is they are applying to law incorrectly and thus in practice only discriminating against some males unfairly (which arguably is illegal in its own right).

But there is nothing in law to say that they MUST be a single sex service.