Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

976 replies

nauticant · 24/01/2024 15:43

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
32
LondonLass91 · 24/01/2024 17:05

I actually cannot believe people think like this. I thought only men and a few be kind women did (but not really). Turns out they actually do. They actually believe it is transphobic to say that the bearded 6ft6 man who still presents as male is really a man. Any dissent is met with rage, a scare tactic. Horrific really. Although i have found out I might be a lesbian because I have the hots for 'NC'. What a day!

Rainbowshit · 24/01/2024 17:08

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2024 17:03

For me whats glaringly obvious is the following:

It is actually somewhat irrelevant that we are talking about trans inclusivity or a trans CEO.

Off the top of my head (and I've probably missed a few here) issues in this organisation lie with:
proceedural failings (admin errors of this magnitude should be 'never' events),
a lack of proper awareness and understanding of the law,
a culture of fear,
a culture of bullying,
a culture of abdication of responsibility,
seeing training sessions for staff as the be all an end all,
a total lack of understanding of service users vulnerabilities,
no understanding of the balancing of needs (with regards to the EA) and instead some pomo bollocks about heirachy of needs with trans people always at the bottom,
policies being all over the place with some in existance and some merely abstract 'cultural values' that are actually undefined,
a massive load of hyprocritical nonsense which is used as it suits those with power,
a lack of ability to challenge senior staff or an ability to clarify difficult issue - there was an avoidance of difficult issues,
staff being treated completely differently with some given clear favouritism,
a lack of understanding of the aims and objectives of the disciplinary process and how it should be for BOTH the subject and the organisation,
a board which doesn't seem to fully understand its role,
no awareness of new issues and rules that directly affect the service (eg the implications of forstater) - there should always be someone with a responsibility to keep an eye on sector developments and update the organisation in a prompt and timely way as appropriate,
process being used a punishment rather than it being a fair process which was done to cause as little distress to all parties as possible,
extremely inexperienced board members and a lack of balance on the board,
board members having a lack of diversity of opinion politically,
extremely inexperienced board members not checked up on and left to deal with significant issues alone.
the CEO being untouchable in the eyes of staff despite glaring issues over their conduct / beliefs (being removed from a disciplinary process should have had a follow up if nothing else).
policies that put staff before vulnerable service users,
no grassroots level understanding of service users - this is a top down led organisation for a service that should be lead by the issues and needs of users
an assumption that service users would read policy before engaging with the service and would have higher educational needs than is likely with because board and staff are too privileged too see the reality of the lives of services users,
an arrogance that they were 'right' and everyone else is therefore 'wrong' and should be treated accordingly
the failure of senior staff to put themselves forward as witness, instead throwing others firmly under the bus

You can strip back SOOOO much of this case to these issues.

When you add in biological reality and the fact that this is a Rape Service it just makes it 10 times worse.

NC was absoluetely right in saying MW isn't fit to be CEO. Their sex and gender actually, ultimately come secondary to ALLLLLLL the above points - because even if you do say TWAW is a legitimate belief the above all still applies.

Even if Roz WAS transphobic (she's not) those things would STILL all apply and they'd STILL be cause for concern about how this charity was run.

THATS the really scary thing.

Great post!

SinnerBoy · 24/01/2024 17:16

Did Katie Horburgh actually say the words "sex realist"?

It's been a bit of a chore trying to keep up today, I'm feeling a bit ropey and my daughter is a bit pukey. Lots of odd jobs to be done as well, all sorted now and ploughed through most of thread 3, all of 4 and now 5.

Well done and thanks to all who posted the proceedings.

Boiledbeetle · 24/01/2024 17:16

LondonLass91 · 24/01/2024 17:05

I actually cannot believe people think like this. I thought only men and a few be kind women did (but not really). Turns out they actually do. They actually believe it is transphobic to say that the bearded 6ft6 man who still presents as male is really a man. Any dissent is met with rage, a scare tactic. Horrific really. Although i have found out I might be a lesbian because I have the hots for 'NC'. What a day!

I think we have all got the hots for NC after the last few days regardless of sexual preference!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/01/2024 17:17

It's how Roz has characterised her belief in the importance of biological sex.

OhBuggerandArse · 24/01/2024 17:19

nauticant · 24/01/2024 16:41

I wonder if this is a culture thing, that an English barrister will have a strong preference for oral submissions, while a Scottish barrister is happy to do it in writing. Or maybe there's something particular about this case to explain NC's preference.

There are two audiences for this tribunal, aren't there? One is the judges, the other is all of us and hopefully the world beyond. Oral arguments must be infinitely more effective at reaching the latter, via TT, blogs, journalists who otherwise might not engage (and if I was funding the case and had good reason and motivation to want to expose injustice and bad practice I might well want to get the most bang possible for my buck 😜).

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2024 17:19

Btw if you think that the last witness performed well, take into consideration my last post and how the best she could come up with was comments about not knowing what was in someone's head and a 'lack of nuance'.

She hasn't a fucking clue.

Hopefully that last witness will piss off the judge more than the jaw dropping stupidity of previous ones.

Mmmnotsure · 24/01/2024 17:19

ArabellaScott · 24/01/2024 15:51

She acutally said that?

Show quote history

Yup. (Or yep.)

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2024 17:21

OhBuggerandArse · 24/01/2024 17:19

There are two audiences for this tribunal, aren't there? One is the judges, the other is all of us and hopefully the world beyond. Oral arguments must be infinitely more effective at reaching the latter, via TT, blogs, journalists who otherwise might not engage (and if I was funding the case and had good reason and motivation to want to expose injustice and bad practice I might well want to get the most bang possible for my buck 😜).

Show quote history

Yes. Definitely.

The last witness was given a golden bridge. Instead she's managed to position herself as someone who actually perhaps should know better and is breathtakingly arrogant.

SaffronSpice · 24/01/2024 17:24

SelfPortraitWithHagstone · 24/01/2024 16:05

"Our service users can absolutely ask for what they need."

OH FUCK OFF, WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE LAST FEW DAYS, YOU KNOW.

To be fair - she shouldn’t have been. In Scotland witnesses are not allowed to see the other witnesses submissions, and must not read about them (including on social media) until after they have given evidence.

Mmmnotsure · 24/01/2024 17:24

SelfPortraitWithHagstone · 24/01/2024 15:55

(Sorry @Mmmnotsure you're doing a much better job, just can't help myself!)

I'm just reading back (cos I haven't spent enough of my day already avoiding work) and saw this. Why sorry? It's really good to get as many takes as possible - between us all hopefully we get to pretty much everything that is important that was said. It also lets some people stop typing for a bit while they rearrange their dropped jaws and sense of reality...

similarminimer · 24/01/2024 17:24

I watched this afternoon and was really impressed with KH. I don't agree with her world view but she seemed to hold and express it coherently. She has taken on a tough role and seems to have applied herself to it diligently. She ignored all of the wrongthink bullshit in Nico's 'fact finding'. I think NC was pointing out that KH should have realised the report was biased and therefore unfit as a basis for any determination and of course agree, I think KH answered that reasonably well - it was in there as people had said it, but she foundit 'inadmissible'. She centred the users of the centre in her answers. She was confident, took her time, asked for clarification and never contradicted herself.

I dislike the sniping about 'cockiness' or a possible private school education. Play the ball, not the woman.

SinnerBoy · 24/01/2024 17:30

SelfPortraitWithHagstone · Today 16:05

"Our service users can absolutely ask for what they need."

OH FUCK OFF, WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE LAST FEW DAYS, YOU KNOW.

Well, to be fair, they can ask. It's just that if they ask the wrong thing, they'll be kicked out into the void, without a parachute.

rogdmum · 24/01/2024 17:31

According to KH’s LinkedIn she went to Firrhill, not one of the private schools. Academically she has done very well- straight As and a first from Edinburgh. Clearly very bright and an ambitious young achiever.

Froodwithatowel · 24/01/2024 17:38

Just caught up. Have retrieved jaw off the floor.

Main first impressions is to be staggered that the CEO of a rape crisis service has such extreme political bias related to their personal situation that they opt out of attending training or situations in which they may be exposed to other views.

Uhm, conflict of interest for post. Massive. Huge. Inability to carry out job properly. Unaddressed enormous prejudice proven, that the service in fact only serves those service users (in their limited free time left over from nursing each other's identity related needs obvs) who are compliant to their politics and wishes.

Second is that this lobby really has successfully demonstrated here that it is not possible to run a 'trans inclusive' organisation because the needs and requirements of the agenda, involved staff and clients preclude any capacity to meet the needs of any other group at the same time.

There are going to have to be trans specific resources and facilities that can run in the very special and unique ways demonstrated by today's team, and resources and facilities that actually have time, impartial professional ethics, mental capacity and emotional availability to be able to meet the needs of all other service users.

Shocking.

Original poster
nauticant · 24/01/2024 17:38

I think similarminimer has a point.

OP posts:
BoreOfWhabylon · 24/01/2024 17:42

PMK
Back when I've finished previous thread

EwwSprouts · 24/01/2024 17:43

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 24/01/2024 16:03

As a board member main thing is to make sure we adhere to our policies.

It's a long time since I was a board member but don't the board share some responsibility for the policies and how they are implemented? You don't blindly adhere to them.

The main thing is to ensure as a charity you deliver on your charitable objectives - ERCC focus should be on service users.

Boiledbeetle · 24/01/2024 17:44

Clip of MW talking about their passing privilege basically

https://twitter.com/Ayrshirelass13/status/1750200780185866556?s=19

https://twitter.com/Ayrshirelass13/status/1750200780185866556?s=19

MinervaBoudicca · 24/01/2024 17:45

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2024 17:03

For me whats glaringly obvious is the following:

It is actually somewhat irrelevant that we are talking about trans inclusivity or a trans CEO.

Off the top of my head (and I've probably missed a few here) issues in this organisation lie with:
proceedural failings (admin errors of this magnitude should be 'never' events),
a lack of proper awareness and understanding of the law,
a culture of fear,
a culture of bullying,
a culture of abdication of responsibility,
seeing training sessions for staff as the be all an end all,
a total lack of understanding of service users vulnerabilities,
no understanding of the balancing of needs (with regards to the EA) and instead some pomo bollocks about heirachy of needs with trans people always at the bottom,
policies being all over the place with some in existance and some merely abstract 'cultural values' that are actually undefined,
a massive load of hyprocritical nonsense which is used as it suits those with power,
a lack of ability to challenge senior staff or an ability to clarify difficult issue - there was an avoidance of difficult issues,
staff being treated completely differently with some given clear favouritism,
a lack of understanding of the aims and objectives of the disciplinary process and how it should be for BOTH the subject and the organisation,
a board which doesn't seem to fully understand its role,
no awareness of new issues and rules that directly affect the service (eg the implications of forstater) - there should always be someone with a responsibility to keep an eye on sector developments and update the organisation in a prompt and timely way as appropriate,
process being used a punishment rather than it being a fair process which was done to cause as little distress to all parties as possible,
extremely inexperienced board members and a lack of balance on the board,
board members having a lack of diversity of opinion politically,
extremely inexperienced board members not checked up on and left to deal with significant issues alone.
the CEO being untouchable in the eyes of staff despite glaring issues over their conduct / beliefs (being removed from a disciplinary process should have had a follow up if nothing else).
policies that put staff before vulnerable service users,
no grassroots level understanding of service users - this is a top down led organisation for a service that should be lead by the issues and needs of users
an assumption that service users would read policy before engaging with the service and would have higher educational needs than is likely with because board and staff are too privileged too see the reality of the lives of services users,
an arrogance that they were 'right' and everyone else is therefore 'wrong' and should be treated accordingly
the failure of senior staff to put themselves forward as witness, instead throwing others firmly under the bus

You can strip back SOOOO much of this case to these issues.

When you add in biological reality and the fact that this is a Rape Service it just makes it 10 times worse.

NC was absoluetely right in saying MW isn't fit to be CEO. Their sex and gender actually, ultimately come secondary to ALLLLLLL the above points - because even if you do say TWAW is a legitimate belief the above all still applies.

Even if Roz WAS transphobic (she's not) those things would STILL all apply and they'd STILL be cause for concern about how this charity was run.

THATS the really scary thing.

yes to all these points

murasaki · 24/01/2024 17:47

KH sees herself as the new Mhairi Black.

And what a delight she is.

GrumpyMenopausalScathingWombWielder · 24/01/2024 17:51

The clip in this tweet was retweeted into my timeline making the point that the witnesses put up by ERCC are either in this clip, or exactly like those either looking at their feet or smirking about a woman having the courage to call Sturgeon out on the culture she's fomented that smears women as bigots for standing up for their rights.

Link to tweet & video clip

From the person who posted it:

"These 👇 are women from Scotland's third sector, looking at their shoes, the type of women recruited as trustees in Edinburgh's Rape Crisis Centre (the CEO, a man, is in the audience)."

SinnerBoy · 24/01/2024 17:51

Froodwithatowel · Today 17:38

Main first impressions is to be staggered that the CEO of a rape crisis service has such extreme political bias related to their personal situation that they opt out of attending training or situations in which they may be exposed to other views.

Yes, it's staggering that ERCC isn't a counselling service for women who've been the victims of sexual violence, but is actually HMS Mrida's Ego Trip.

Karensalright · 24/01/2024 17:57

Could not give a flying fuck about KH presentation of herself is totally irrelevant to this proceeding.

We do not know what the particulars of the claim are, as it was not a crowd funded case where they tell you what the application to the tribunal amounts to.

IMO NC has so effectively homed in on the services failures to meet the needs of its SU, to demonstrate what motivated RA.

And flowing from that how the charity was unable to deal with valid concerns of RA because of the collective ideology.

She further infers quite a lot that MW had his hands all over it, that instead of dealing with RA concerns, they harassed and discriminated against her, because TI cannot contemplate that biology is an issue.

The fact that all the respondent witnesses trolled out the exact same line demonstrates there is as a matter of fact a puppeteer and that is MW.

EwwSprouts · 24/01/2024 17:59

Rainbowshit · 24/01/2024 17:08

Great post!

Show quote history

Totally agree.