Reports Roz Adams successful in her action against Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

[LargeSquareRock]

https://x.com/journalismseen/status/1792305714595012730?s=46&t=f8U9xaap9RM6pcBCdpsFIA

Excellent news and looking forward to seeing the judgement.

Their usual action of putting online in the afternoon then they can't be said not to have reported it, but few people will read it. The Guardian always does it for GC 'victories'.

Paragraph 166 of the judgement shows that MW is entirely unsuited to being figurehead of any organisation or in any leadership role. Purely on professionalism grounds, that language and behaviour is appalling. Add in the extremist stance, bullying and discriminatory behaviour, they should be dismissed asap. Now it’s evident why having a board stacked with inexperienced members is so beneficial for MW. I should be surprised by the cynicism of it but I’m not remotely surprised.

The organisations being taken to court can make it not happen. For most, if not all, of the big cases there would have been a very simple solution, one that would have saved huge amounts of money and time resources of employees.

All they would have had to have done was to have made a public statement along the lines that the claimant was right and the organisation got it wrong, and treated the claimant badly.

But captured organisations cannot do this. They think it would be better to go into court, to waste considerable resources, to have the poor saps put up as witnesses humiliated, and then to lose, because they value, above everything else, displaying their absolute adherence to gender identity ideology.

@IwantToRetire Whether there needs to be a law or Government guidance that all councils should provide single sex services for survivors of sexual abuse and rape is something totally different. And I suspect not likely to happen.

This will be the next battleground won't it?

Thirty years ago, strict sex segregation wasn't the law except in certain settings (school and workplace toilets, prisons etc), but it was popular, widespread, and taken for granted.

Because of the rise of gender ideology, institutions started trying to avoid trouble by either reading sex as gender, or moving to gender neutral, unisex, trans-inclusive, or mixed provision.

So now everything is mixed, which disadvantages women more than men, so it's sex discrimination. And excludes Orthodox Jews and Muslims, so it's religious discrimination.

We can't just go back, because TRAs will still be demanding trans-inclusion, and pointing out that the EA2010 only allows women-only provision: it's not compulsory. So we need to lobby for compulsory women-only provision where appropriate, which would be new. I'm sure a select committee could hammer out the details!

My idea is that any organisation that provides a service to a range of users based on sex and/or gender (let's say, yoga for men/mixed/trans/women) should be forced to include at least one women-only session. For important services, provision should be proportionate to demand.

(I've had this conversation with TW friends, and they rather annoyingly pretend to take me seriously, then start havering about the expense and drain on resources ('we can't give everyone what they would ideally like to have'), as if women wanting women-only provision was some niche group 😡)

Does anyone know if this will help Sarah in Brighton?

Unlikely unless they actively advertised having a women only support service and didn't.

See previous posts just before yours.

Even if it can be proved they treated her really badly (which based on Sarah's own posts they did) they weren't funded to provide women only services, and didn't advertise that they did.

The problem is that none of the funders to Survivors Network in Brightone made it a condition of their funding that they provided women only services.

I am not sure that even quoting the EA that says organisations can use the Single Sex Exceptions, it doesn't say they have to.

But I am sure the legal arguement will be on some more sophisticated arguement than this.

So refreshing to read an article using sex based correct pronouns for MW.

archive.ph/U59OE

For anyone wondering if MW will resign this thread will give you an idea of the mindset of someone like MW.

https://x.com/MxVivianWulf/status/1792492516006080853

They honestly believe that the Judges were "biased" because they judged the claimant's belief on what she actually said and did rather than what Mx Wulf thinks are her beliefs. And they were also biased in thinking MW was a biological male apparently.

Time reporting on demands MW must resign. Remember we know MW was turning raped women away if they requested female only support, he was refusing to signpost them to Beira’s Place

Trans rape crisis centre boss under pressure to resign
Critics claim that Mridul Wadhwa’s position is untenable as two board members step down after losing a tribunal against a ‘gender critical’ former worker
https://archive.is/5N3kS#selection-2661.0-2661.153

Hopefully pressure will build. Keep it up folks! Write letters etc.

Who is responsible for appointing the trustees of a charity?

Does the charity do so itself or is there some over-arching body like the Charity Commission or OSCR?

Who is responsible for deciding that appointees are "fit and proper people to do the job"?

Trustees must abide by charity law and be a fit & proper person eg.not be disqualified through bankruptcy. The charity has to operate according to its constitution @Manxexile which sets out how trustees are appointed. They are usually voted in at the agm but in reality that’s just a rubber stamping exercise as the membership hasn’t a clue about the suitability of the ppl put forward. All they get is a pen portrait outline

in reality it’s nearly always word of mouth & people who know people so you often end up with Boards that are not Particularly diverse in outlook or opinion

The problem is that the OSCR has apparently also been captured.

When MW was first appointed many contacted MSPs, OSCR, etc., bringing up the issue that ERCC had breached employment law re advertising under SSE and then appointing someone who is biologically male.

So many of questions like how should this be done, who has overarching responsibility, should be straight forward and part of an agreed set of principles. The problem is that so many institutions, politicians (in Scotland) have all been captured.

And all seem to buy into the theory that because trans people are special normal, basic procedures dont matter, and can be pushed aside.

The only time this institutional capture was challenedge was the UK Government legal action against the newly passed Scottish GRR.

And this doesn't seem to have stopped the fervour of many in Scotland, let alone the Labour Party in England.

Its endless and tiring.

Can anyone explain to me how MW was able to get a prestigious management job described as "women-only" when MW is a transwoman with no Gender Recognition Certificate? So is legally a man?

Isn't it a massive red flag for a man to apply for a woman-only job at a rape crisis centre?

Oops, possibly could have read the post immediately above this one

I was about to ask at what point does someone go after IW for defamation?

great judgment. Wonder what this is going to cost them? I can't imagine working somewhere like that, even working with likes of AB must be totally exhausting.

even working with likes of AB must be totally exhausting.

From the judgement:

... at this stage it is sufficient to say that we considered AB’s later reaction to be completely overblown

Still haven't found a plain text version so have typed it up in full:

“With relief, I welcome the ruling of the Employment Tribunal. They unanimously found that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) unlawfully discriminated against me on the grounds of my sex-realist belief and constructively unfairly dismissed me. This is a victory for all people who have been subjected to sexual violence who need a choice of worker, and group support on the basis of sex in order to feel safe.”

For me it validates and makes whorthwhile three years of struggle. I am grateful beyond words to to all those who have supported me emontionall and practically to keep finding my feet and speaking my truth; family, friends, my Nonviolent Communication and work colleagues, supporters, Unite Union and the best legal team I could imagine.

I hope Scottish Government, OSCR, Rape Crisis Scotland and those in the sector fell emboldened by this judgement to safeguard this important choice for survivors, as part of ensuring services are welcoming to all who need them. It is tragic to me that this ended in Tribunal. For three years I consistently offered to enable discussion and I firmly believe that we will only find solutions that work for everyone through fearless, respectful, well-informed dialogue. I hope this ruling supports that to happen wherever it is needed.”
.

Not sure where this statement was released.

I find it really strange that there has been no press release or statement from the solicitors, barristers or indeed Unite Union.

You would think they would want to celebrate this.

Also, would like something to share that isn't as long (however intriguing FWRers find it) the lengthy judgement , and presents facts in a short clear way!

What is the relationship of Edinburgh Rape Crisis with Scottish Rape Crisis?

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

Ah they are distancing themselves - but how can they?

That's because Roz is perfectly reasonable. Only people as batshit as India Willoughby could read the judgment and think otherwise.

Scottish Rape Crisis is the coordinating group of the federation of independent RCCs in Scotland (that choose to federate). And I think run the national helpline for Scotland https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/

Just as Rape Crisis (E&W) is the coordinating group of the federation of independent RCC in Englans (and sometimes Wales). https://rapecrisis.org.uk/ and have only recently started running the National Helpline in England because believe it or not no one would fund it. Prior to this a local RCC is South London ran a national helpline with the funding of a charitable trust.

Neither group sets policy, but is supposed to set standards etc., so that being a member of either federation is seen as some sort of indication that a service has "standards". (Edited to add this is why RCS can distance themselves from ERCC - but not sure if they could or would expel them from the federation.)

However, RCCs are independent, ie run via a management committee etc.. I dont think there are any RRCs that are collectives, which in the early days many were.

Article in the Times today about Wadhwa and how Wadhwa became CEO of the ERC:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4f31527e-14f1-4ab0-9b36-6cd83fa3e00e?shareToken=de7472ce83015f22f9c4a976e77bc449

x.com/cat_headley/status/1792634081911414990?s=46

The questions that Trustees were asked on their application form.

Eye opening and also read the comments.