Another GC Employment Tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #5

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gender 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): 22-23 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Miren Sagues (MS): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katie Horburgh (KH): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)

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
Thread #3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4990903-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-3
Thread #4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4991883-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-4

I had a quick poke in CGD Europe accounts, and they reported 10 million in income for 2022—a much bigger employer. I wonder what (if any) changes got made after Maya's judgement?

WallaceinAnderland · Today 16:05

TRA take on the Jo Phoenix judgement. Clearly not read it. So much for journalism.

I'm unable to leave a scornful reply on Willyby's page.

Any accountants or lawyers with charity expertise who know whether there are limitations on what funds a charity can use to (a) pay its own legal fees in defending a case and (b) pay an award of damages? Are there for example limitations on payments out of capital if income is insufficient? Or does it all depend on the constitution? It doesn't sound as though this is going to be an issue for ERCC and a costs order is a very rare thing in ETs but I'm interested nonetheless.

I think you should do the grown up equivalent of the naughty step.

Go and sit in the pub for 30 minutes and think about what you did!

Can you bring me back a packet of pork scratchings!

Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform would explain that IW and people in that position cannot read the unclean thing (in the same way as the witnesses in that tribunal could neither read the letter JP signed nor actually listen to the Savage Minds podcast that they all knew to be transphobic).

Something has gone wrong with the flow of information. It’s not just that different people are drawing subtly different conclusions from the same evidence. It seems like different intellectual communities no longer share basic foundational beliefs. Maybe nobody cares about the truth anymore, as some have started to worry. Maybe political allegiance has replaced basic reasoning skills. Maybe we’ve all become trapped in echo chambers of our own making – wrapping ourselves in an intellectually impenetrable layer of likeminded friends and web pages and social media feeds.
…
But there are two very different phenomena at play here, each of which subvert the flow of information in very distinct ways. Let’s call them echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Both are social structures that systematically exclude sources of information. Both exaggerate their members’ confidence in their beliefs. But they work in entirely different ways, and they require very different modes of intervention. An epistemic bubble is when you don’t hear people from the other side. An echo chamber is what happens when you don’t trust people from the other side."

Their worldview can survive exposure to those outside voices because their belief system has prepared them for such intellectual onslaught.

In fact, exposure to contrary views could actually reinforce their views…

https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult

My MSP is TWAW through and through and when I write to him, I will undoubtedly receive yet another screed about how marginalised trans people are. It doesn't matter the subject matter of the correspondence - it could be about traffic controlling measures - but he'll find some way of working it in.

It sounds like the Forstater judgment was also an 'unclean' thing that noone at ERCC could bear to read.

@Justabaker can you confirm Peter Daly's tweet?

😂

Peter Daly is droll, appropriately generous, and highly skilled.

Most of the income received by ERCC is restricted which means that it can only be used for the purpose specified by the donor.
At 31 March 2023 the ERCC had reserves of £907,285 of which £641,881 were restricted funds and £265,504 unrestricted funds. None of the restricted funds listed are for payment of legal costs so only the unrestricted funds could be used to pay legal costs and compensation.

Scottish law may differ, but they probably can only use unrestricted reserves to pay for this proceeding and award.

Had a butchers at the accounts, but not drilled down as they are SORP accounts therefore quite long.

As a 2023 accounts they had £195,000 reserves available. (Noted they had a high increase in legal/ professional costs not associated with direct services Of £15,574)

So at a glance they may not have sufficient reserves to cover their costs.

They may be entitled to dip into other headings that would be something the charities regulator should look at so someone in Scotland needs to query that once we know what award has been made.

By the way the judges follow strict rules on calculating awards, and do not take account of size or income of said charity.

They can presumably go into debt? And does a court payment come before other bills?

They could borrow from restricted reserves and pay it back over time i do believe. But if i recall their overall reserves were about £240, 000 but some of that is earmarked for a pension liability so overall they may actually not have sufficient funds at all.

They could borrow money but they could only use unrestricted income to pay of any loan (such as donations)

This may well be their undoing…

I've got to go on a call but, essentially, all bar about £70k per annum is ring-fenced grants. What this ring-fenced ("restricted") funding can be used for will be set out in the grant agreement from the funder.

It is quite common, for example, for the funder to specify that their monies can't be used for redundancy costs. I thought it interesting the City of Edinburgh Council specifically pays for the premises and CEO (list of funding is on pg 23), but that might be a Scottish thing.

The trouble is, women are not seen as individuals in the same way as men. So a 'bad' woman in politics (or any field) does damage to all women who want to go into politics (and to an extent, to all women) in a way that a 'bad' man does not.

It's not fair, and it shouldn't happen, but it does.

Many thanks for the insight into charity accounts. Fascinating!

I shall turn to Sgt Major Williams for a response there, as I couldn't possibly comment.

It is yet to unravel we are all just speculating truth be told.

Am currently going back over the tweets on open justice to draw myself the line of command and who got involved and when, as it seems quite chaotic, and lacks clear process.

will report back for what it is worth ….

Can trustees/directors be held personally liable at all even where there is limited liability?

That is a perfect answer to something I've been grappling with. I mean through all of this - pain, turmoil, potentially hundreds of rhousanda of pounds to lawyers that could have been spent on survivors of sexual violence - she decided to copy AB in an email about how to describe herself.

Literally - that's it. That's the worse that anyone has said. What a fucking g waste of skill and time and money and goodwill. And i have not been able to understand wtf went on until your point about the metaphorical hate folder.

Apologies for typos and inadvertent misgendering of AB

And we all know the song and dance AB would have made if Roz didn't cc in AB in that email.

It would have been othering, something, transphobic, something, dehumanising, etc, etc.

😂

It could have been a tea snorting moment. When you take a quick slurp of the mug of tea that has gone cold and are so startled by what is said that you snort it out your nose all over the keyboard and your desk.

I've heard this happens. To other people. Not me. Never to me.