A reminder about audiences.
One of the audiences was a judge.
Judges are not known for their love of politicians and the evasiveness of politicians and the way they manipulate.
Even planting the comparison in a judges head - which I don't think anyone can really disagree with - is canny. It plays to how judges feel and response.
Also you are a trustee of a rape crisis organisation. What happens if someone from the public makes a complaint? A victim. Are you going to reply in similar fashion to protect the charity rather than answer a question frankly and honestly.
There are certain organisations we expect higher standards from than perhaps we might from others. A politician answer we might expect from a corporate workplace. But a rape charity who deal with very vulnerable women?
This comes back to the concept of Trust.
A rape charity has to have the very highest levels of understanding of trust and demonstrate it at all times at every level. Otherwise it harms the relationship with the women it serves.
You can't have people giving politician style answers at a rape charity without undermining trust and thus harming the relationship you have with women.
Think about it.
The manner in which these people respond isn't irrelevant. Would they respond in a similar way to service users? Is it appropriate?
Not only that but if you are found liable for employment issues, who suffers most? The women you serve. If they charity end up paying out that's straight out of money that could have been spent on women. It could kill the charity financially both due to it's current finances but also it's future one. But arguably if it is so badly run, it was prepared to take that risk, it might be better to start over from the ground up or for other alternative existing services to ultimately take over because I'm not sure I'd have faith or trust that this lot can sort their shit out with just how religiously they continue to repeat mantras or 'it wasn't my fault/responsibility'.