Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 22/01/2024 14:57

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:20

Witness, they took safety advice from the police and don't consider that to be hysterical.

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:22

MW makes AB aware that AB can make a formal complaint

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:22

MW was trying to build a case against Roz?

I don't agree!!

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:23

Doesn't agree there was an attempt to stir up anything against the claimant

Mmmnotsure · 23/01/2024 12:24

[KM could have a card at this point, to raise to every one of NC's qs, with 'I disagree' written on it.]

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:24

witness MW comments are about actions not the individual

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/01/2024 12:25

KM could have a card at this point, to raise to every one of NC's qs, with 'I disagree' written on it.]

Reminds me of Dr Downes in JP case!

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:25

NC all MW comments are to the claimants detriment

Appalonia · 23/01/2024 12:25

NC is giving more evidence than the witness!

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:25

Witness I understand how it may feel for the claimant

Mmmnotsure · 23/01/2024 12:25

NC To have CEO line up so clearly on side of one colleagues and agree what other colleague has done is humiliating, is to claimant's detriment.

KM [- guess what -] I don't agree

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:25

NC no investigation into MW? No

nauticant · 23/01/2024 12:26

NC: There wasn't an investigation into MW about them making an unwelcome approach to AB to discuss something that AB found distressing was there?

KM: No.

OP posts:
pronounsbundlebundle · 23/01/2024 12:27

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/01/2024 12:20

I think this means that if a client asked for an AFAB person, they would be assigned one, without outing other staff members. Is that right? I find it tricky to parse.

The witness has been clear that she regards MW (a male without a GRC) as a "biological woman". So no. They claim there is an opportunity to change their worker if not happy. They're playing language games to the detriment of women and girls.

I think this is absolutely correct. They've been clear that a woman would have to be confronted, on her own, by a biological male first before she had the opportunity to change counsellor, all whilst having been told that 'there will only be women counsellors'.

The problem is that KW and ERCC in general consider 'women' to include people like MW including male bodied people with penises if they id as women.

It's pretty crystal clear.

Mmmnotsure · 23/01/2024 12:27

NC MW should not jump to conclusions and express views to a junior colleague.

NC If MW is found to have discriminated agst RA on grounds of protected belief, discip proceedings should be taken against MW?

ickky · 23/01/2024 12:28

I do feel sorry for this sacrificial witness

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:28

NC is asking of its found that claimant discriminated against by a colleague that that person will be disciplined!

Witness if there was a finding then that would have tho be acted on

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:29

NC take it there's been no investigation into whether anyone had discriminated against the claimant

Witness no as don't think that was the case

Mmmnotsure · 23/01/2024 12:29

NC There has been no investigation by ercc into if RA has been discrim agst cos of her protected belief?

KM No, cos we don't think that happened.

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:30

Bundle issue.

Shit that's three times

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/01/2024 12:30

The problem is that KW and ERCC in general consider 'women' to include people like MW including male bodied people with penises if they id as women.

That's the inevitable outcome of the ideology that poster, without wishing to derail, supports. It's why it's so damaging to our rights.

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:32

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/01/2024 12:30

The problem is that KW and ERCC in general consider 'women' to include people like MW including male bodied people with penises if they id as women.

That's the inevitable outcome of the ideology that poster, without wishing to derail, supports. It's why it's so damaging to our rights.

Quite!

From yesterday

Another GC employment tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #3
Another GC employment tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #3
RedToothBrush · 23/01/2024 12:32

pronounsbundlebundle · 23/01/2024 11:12

Yes. I feel great weariness listening today. Ultimately the witness is using English words in a way which is totally alien to the majority of English speakers. Specifically the words 'women' and 'man', and 'sex'. It's like arguing with a toddler who's standing in front of a broken vase and is trying to claim it's not broken.

That service user email was heartbreaking - any organisation that responds to that with word salad and something about them 'not engaging with the service' if they can't get a clear answer to their question is essentially saying 'fuck you' to service users. Not fit for purpose and should not get public money.

The bandying about of a slur against women - terf- is also incredibly unprofessional. I am now convinced ERCC is a TRA propaganda organisation in which they're abusing vulnerable women to further their agenda. I'd vote for all public monies to immediately be transferred to Beira's place and a new organisation to be set up to provide for biologically male and gender ideology-based specific services too (where the funding will only need to be tiny as I can't imagine much demand). If there was just a trans rape crisis centre I wonder how many biological women would use it?

Does anyone know what happened to those pushing McCarthyism when it all crashed down - did any get held accountable for the witch hunts and the harms done?

Edited

Bit of a dive into McCarthyism from the high powers of the authority that is wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

The US Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren made a series of rulings on civil and political rights that overturned several key laws and legislative directives, and helped bring an end to the Second Red Scare.

Hmm. Interesting.

After the mid-1950s, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, who had spearheaded the campaign, gradually lost his public popularity and credibility after several of his accusations were found to be false.

Oh Really?! Hmm.

The term has since taken on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts to crack down on alleged "subversive" elements. In the early 21st century, the term is used more generally to describe reckless and unsubstantiated accusations of treason and far-left extremism, along with demamgoic personal attacks on the character and patriotism of political adversaries.

FASCINATING.

The primary targets for persecution were government employees, prominent figures in the entertainment industry, academics, left-wing politicians, and labor union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive and questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations and beliefs were often exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and the destruction of their careers and livelihoods as a result of the crackdowns on suspected communists, and some were outright imprisoned. Most of these reprisals were initiated by trial verdicts that were later overturned, laws that were later struck down as unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, and extra-judiciary procedures, such as informal blacklists by employers and public institutions, that would come into general disrepute, though by then many lives had been ruined.

Primary targets in the UK for accusations of transphobia are, drum roll... government employees, prominent figures in the entertainment industry, academics, left-wing politicians, and labor union activists. AND YET, we are told that being gender critical is association with the far right... How ODD....

Other forces encouraged the rise of McCarthyism. The more conservative politicians in the United States had historically referred to progressive reforms, such as child labor laws and women's suffrage, as "communist" or "Red plots", trying to raise fears against such changes.

And

One focus of popular McCarthyism concerned the provision of public health services, particularly vaccination, mental health care services, and fluridation, all of which were denounced by some to be communist plots to poison or brainwash the American people. Such viewpoints led to collisions between McCarthyite radicals and supporters of public-health programs.

Its that weird that fear of women and children having rights, fuelled a political witch hunt, isn't it? Odd that those who were interested in public health were at odds with McCarthism. Its almost as if theres a rational v ideological battle going on...

Moving on, heres an telling quote:
The nation was by no means united behind the policies and activities that have come to be associated with McCarthyism. The critics of various aspects of McCarthyism included many figures not generally noted for their liberalism. In his overridden veto of the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, President Truman wrote,
"In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have."

In 1953, after he left office, Truman criticized the current Eisenhower administration:
It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, for political advantage, McCarthyism. I am not referring to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is only important in that his name has taken on the dictionary meaning of the word. It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.

And

On June 1, 1950, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Maine Republican, delivered a speech to the Senate she called a "Declaration of Conscience". In a clear attack upon McCarthyism, she called for an end to "character assassinations" and named "some of the basic principles of Americanism: The right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right to protest; the right of independent thought". She said "freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America", and decried "cancerous tentacles of 'know nothing, suspect everything' attitudes".

What was said about the OU academics and letter writers who hounded Jo Phoenix again?

So how did it end?

In the mid and late 1950s, the attitudes and institutions of McCarthyism slowly weakened. Changing public sentiments heavily contributed to the decline of McCarthyism. Its decline may also be charted through a series of court decisions.

So a collaspe in populist support as people began to realise it was batshit nonsense and there was growing awareness of dubious implimentation of law. Funny eh?

It talks about Justice Warren's influence and other cases, but this one is particularly interesting:

A key figure in the end of the blacklisting of McCarthyism was John Henry Faulk . Host of an afternoon comedy radio show, Faulk was a leftist active in his union. He was scrutinized by AWARE, Inc., one of the private firms that examined individuals for signs of communist "disloyalty". Marked by AWARE as unfit, he was fired by CBS Radio. Almost uniquely among the many victims of blacklisting, Faulk decided to sue AWARE in 1957 and finally won the case in 1962.

With this court decision, the private blacklisters and those who used them were put on notice that they were legally liable for the professional and financial damage they caused. Although some informal blacklisting continued, the private "loyalty checking" agencies were soon a thing of the past.

If ever you wanted a historical precedence to why these employment court hearing matter and why they are not inconsequential, THATS the example.

Interestingly the wiki article doesn't have even a whisper about consequences for anyone who supported McCarthism. So we can conclude that its regarded as 'not important enough to make wiki' or it didn't happen at all.

McCarthy himself died in 1957 so never lived to see it all unravel in full. Wiki talks about how it was actually less about McCarthy and more about J Edgar Hoover making a power grab and it was about excesses of power and illegal FBI activity and nothing was ever done to Hoover. The FBI's power has been reigned in to a degree over the years by court rulings but thats so far as its really gone. No one accountable.

And no the victims of McCarthism who had their careers and lives wrecked were never acknowledged and given their dues.

Totally off topic I know and I apologise but also uniquely ON topic in its own way...

Boiledbeetle · 23/01/2024 12:33

A message exchange between witness and Kim about Roz and gender exchange?

RethinkingLife · 23/01/2024 12:34

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/01/2024 12:25

KM could have a card at this point, to raise to every one of NC's qs, with 'I disagree' written on it.]

Reminds me of Dr Downes in JP case!

Strategy worked so well for establishing Downes' probity that this is mentioned in the ET judgment for Phoenix vs OU…

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.