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

??? Very odd

Is that in connection with a post that was deleted on here earlier of yours?

Pronouns wouldn't be enforcable but could be used by those who were arsed. Which raises a question for me.

Would people be as bothered about them?

That's quite a level to aspire to.

I was about to post something clever, witty and really funny about today's proceedings but this is very not funny.

It is not funny for Roz to have been treated like this and it is not funny for the rape survivors who have the misfortune to be directed to ERCC.

KM would be caught between a rock and a hard place.... offend MW (no) or hammer another nail into the coffin of ERCC's case (yes).

There's two lines of questioning (by NC) that I'm not sure about. Any ideas?

• that the gender identity beliefs are not woriads
• that mridul was employed as part of a strategic aim to get a tw into such a position.

I wonder how these help to show constructive dismissal? Is it trying to show that the organisation was so anti gc that it would be impossible for her to continue working there? They just seem a bit wide ranging - I worry that the second will sound conspiracy ish in the absence of evidence, and I doubt this panel will be ruling on whether the beliefs are woriads when arguments for and against haven't really been put. But we don't know what the written evidence snd other witnesses will bring.

Jane, same here.

Thanks all for the thread, I have been digesting reports today and synthesising extracted data, for my sins.

I wrote above expressing doubts about the second line of questioning. It seems odd to me, lawyers normally advance things they can prove, because to be asked for proof and not have any is risky.

Ah, no mention of anything being deleted of mine from MNHQ, so I'll look back upthread. Must have touched a nerve with someone.

MNHQ Definitely accusing me of having two accounts and seeking an undertaking etc. I won't derail this thread further but will update you by pm later BB. Cheers.

Just remembering NC's deliciously effective use of the looonng pause in response to KM's snippy 'correction' on AB's pronouns. Before moving on.

In contrast to KM's pause game which needs a lot of work.

In court, "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to"

LarkLane · Today 16:39

^Hmm. A message to me from MNHQ alleging that I have two accounts and breaking the rules and seeking an undertaking that I won't do it again.
Except I haven't got two accounts. How very odd.^

I wonder if someone, having taken offence over something you wrote, has emailed MNHQ and made such an allegation?

Just got to the end of the thread.

For those of us who haven't logged onto the proceedings, this is amazing.

A real page turner.

I feel exhausted, it's like watching a thriller.

And like everyone else, boy, am I grateful to Roz. What a warrior.

Listening to what Jo Phoenix had to say about being dragged through her tribunal, it's clearly absolutely torturous. it takes a lot of bloody courage. And determination.

Warriors.

Huge thanks to them all.

And massive appreciation to the women here with their fabulous summaries of every single minute.

They surely wouldn't just go on an allegation. They must get vexatious reports all the time.

It's probably some kind of misinterpretation, or misunderstanding.

But always useful to know that the monitors are desperately jabbing the report key.

there's no clearer indication of the effect we're having 😊

Many apologies if this has already been posted, but I just haven't been able to keep up with these threads (is there an abridged version?!)

Rape Crisis Scotland put out a press release in relation to this case a few days ago and it includes:

... All Rape Crisis Centres in Scotland are signed up to working within UK-wide national services standards. These set out that every Centre must provide and protect dedicated women only spaces. These standards also require Rape Crisis Centres to ensure that their services are informed by the needs of service users, with each service user being an active partner in the support they receive.

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/our-statement-on-the-ongoing-employment-tribunal-concerning-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre/

I can't help but think that the 1990's prudishness over the word sex has had a massive impact on this situation. If society hadn't ever started to use Gender instead of Sex we wouldn't be so far down this rabbit hole

This absolutely and it still goes on all the time when people and organisations use the word ‘gender’ and mean ‘sex’, I want to shout at them for adding to this sorry mess. Just bloody say sex!

If you can't see sex, how do you see sexism?

If you can’t (or not allowed) to see sex, how do you see sexual assault such as rape?

If you can demonstrate that the culture of the organisation is to treat gender critical views in the workplace as unacceptable you prove that they are not complying with the Forstater judgement. They then either have to accept that or challenge the Forstater ruling.

By demonstrating that the culture is deliberately prioritising gender ideology over sex based rights at a rape charity, you do make it looks strategic to undermine ALL sex based rights and to exploit vulnerable women. The nature of the organisation matters because you can apply the idea of what the 'reasonable basis expectations of an ordinary woman' might be of a rape service - and therefore whether Roz's actions can also be considered reasonable. The more batshit and ideologically driven they can make it look the better for Roz. Especially in the context of how this service is funded and accountable to other organisations.

Is the purpose of the organisation to bring abused women into line or to serve their needs at level which reflects their needs. The grassroots element is kinda important - is this someone who was parachuted in for political reasons or because they were genuinely the best person for the job who listens to service user needs (think about this in terms of politics and constituency candidates knowing fuck all about local issues as a comparison).

If you can’t (or not allowed) to see sex, how do you see sexual assault such as rape?

And if you can't say NO to someone, how do you say no to sexual assault?

How do you see sex based violence against women if you can't see sex?

They pretend it's gender based despite having no evidence for that assertion and despite the level of violence from TW being the same as other males.

It does seem odd that in such a highly sexualised and indeed porn-addled society, the use of the word “sex” is somehow seen as rude.

But if MW is understood as being a biological woman (or indeed any TW working there) then every Centre IS providing and protect dedicated women only spaces.

So I’m not sure what RCS is trying to say with this pointless statement?

Exactly.

Everything becomes meaningless if no one is allowed to see sex.