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

Rant away

Rant away, @Karensalright!

Okay next rant, there is one kinda assumption that survivors lay on a couch recounting a blow by blow account of the events of rape or SV, and ergo the police and CPS prohibit counselling during the legal process of a dragged out prosecution.

Survivors dont need to describe the details of the happenings, to anyone else, because they live that vividly every day of their fucking lives.

So the survivor has reported but has no help from the very emotional impact of reporting. Shouting it out makes it real and can send a survivor down.

in my experience when a survivor speaks out that is the very time they need therapy, and emotional support. To keep them sane, to stop fear and self blame and manage panic attacks.

Reframe your trauma tells me that anybody who should say such a thing in the context that they said it

has firstly no concept of what that actually means and secondly has no fucking right whatsoever to counsel a victim of SV

Because it is then about them not the survivor

Rant three how very dare the moderators at MNHQ delete my post because i made a joke about a biological male. Who should, according to them be afforded some respect for their gender identity, given what they say and do how so.

am going to take this up directly with Justin because MNHQ are running very close to GC discrimination.

I hear you, it's depressing that on Mumsnet; a site aimed at women, on the Feminist board, we still have to pander to this crap. It's infuriating.

Unfortunately they don't seem to care...

Ironic - that a year ago you would not be able to put it on Twitter, now you can post reality on X but not on here

Go Karen!!!

MNHQ has one reason to be hot on the delete button and that is because they don’t want to be subjected to any more vexatious law suits because a transgender person has hurt feelings. It’s happened at least once, and they handed over the user details of the person who made the post(s). We could debate whether it’s better to be deleted than outed?

not saying it’s right, but I can see the logic behind it. They don’t want the cost, the reputational damage of a court case, and the loss of posters who don’t trust that they won’t be next.

If you leave mimsnt properly and delete your account, all your personal data is deleted. Have a look at the information on your account. I expect that is a work around.

Thanks for those long posts, @Karensalright , you've
I've been so angered by Wadhwa's involvement, and the staff special identities nonsense, I haven't thought about how much else is evidently going wrong with the centre.
I wonder if they just got used to shouting "transphobe!" whenever they got critical feedback or quality review processes highlighted room for improvement?
Is it the result of decreased funding?
Or the new crop of activists desperate to be involved in endeavours set up by previous generations but convinced they need to be decolonised or whatever it is they think they're doing?

I can't think of a more pertinent contribution. That's not ranting, that's clearly laying out the issues. Thank you.

As far as deletion- that means that this thread is being monitored and read by trans activists, who are not commenting, but making reports at any post they have a chance of getting deleted.

That's quite common on threads when the subject is important and potentially damages the genderists cause. They don't want to draw attention by commenting - they save that for harmless threads they can derail and keep at the top of the board.

Deletion is frustrating, but it's also a useful sign that one is saying something effective.

True story.

If anyone (cough a certain wee Stone Cold Legend with blonde hair) is generating huge frothy threads full of rather desperate and embarrassing smear attempts, it shows they are winning ALL THE ARGUMENTS.

They stepped over that line when Maya won her case.

Karensalright · Yesterday 20:13

It was reported in the telegraph that the Equalities commission have been alerted to single sex exemptions being illegally used by rape crisis centres. I think that this relates to this particular case.

Well, I really hope that that will result in MW getting the boot.

I fully respect the "you do you" principle of internets posting.

Sometimes it is a hill worth (your user account) dying on, sometimes it isn't.

I just initial the ones that I think are very sensitive about sex-based pronouns *, because I don't want to get hung up my choices on the pronoun stuff, when I'm more interested in discussing something that isn't pronouns.

*(and/or seem to have some kind of self-appointed internet forum pronoun bodyguard cadre)

If anyone (cough a certain wee Stone Cold Legend with blonde hair) is generating huge frothy threads full of rather desperate and embarrassing smear attempts, it shows they are winning ALL THE ARGUMENTS

And, if you're not able to win all the arguments or suppress all the arguments, then it's so far been possible to persuade people (including the police) that such arguments are a CRIME (or to be deleted).

There have been several instances of the police serving as Useful Idiots to an Aggravating Gender Person. That is or should be a matter for the respective PCCs and perhaps ACPO.

You can't have policing by consent if people are getting hauled around the country to answer for hurt feelings.

I know this is where the courtroom junkies hang .....

We are hoping to have coverage of Tickle vs Giggle on Tribunal Tweets 2 from Tuesday.

Fantastic news @Justabaker

Presumably it's going to be live in the middle of the night here, but good that we can catch up the following morning!

Thanks Justabaker - well done to you and your TT colleagues for organising that. You're going global!

Great thank you @Justabaker and all the TT team!

Whereas I simply thought "what a shame TT isn't in Oz", you lot went and sorted it. Good luck; this case deserves publicity.

A bit off the main topic but as part of the discussion about provision of services did anyone see this:

Leading Violence Against Women and Girls organisations issue urgent joint letter to Government highlighting the ongoing recruitment and retention crisis in the sector
https://www.womensaid.org.uk/leading-violence-against-women-and-girls-organisations-issue-urgent-joint-letter-to-government-highlighting-the-ongoing-recruitment-and-retention-crisis-in-the-sector/

And it is worth remembering that long before the TRAs started invading women's services, most were battling to convince local and central governent that women do need women only services. Some local councils have cut funding to women's aid projects and insisted the homeless hostels are adequate for women forced from their home because of partner violence.

The sucess of the TRA agenda is the far longer standing and untouched agenda of MRAs.

When women's refuges were first funded because many local councilors etc., did not believe in male violence the only way round it was to present it as a housing issue so that in the early days and still continues housing benefit was used to indirectly fund women's refuges. ie council money was not shown to be going to projects about VAW but as a homelessness issue. With the added benefit that quite often the actual premises were council buildings so that money left the council only to be returned as rent. This political sleight of hand has led to WA groups having to endlessly apply for different strands of funding rather than receiving adequate funding to cover all parts of the service they provide.

So before jumping in with comments about TW, might be worth checking with the refuge nearest to you whether they are being threatened with cuts as the new financial year starts because the council doesn't think women need women only services.

Amazing. Again, thank you.