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.

I hope she is OK.

MW used AB to punish Roz, and now the world and it's support dog know AB is a woman who has declared she is non binary. Which was exactly the thing AB didn't want!

I feel quite sorry for her. She seems to have been coached by the organisational ethos into believing she could adopt an identity that was plainly going to cause confusion to service users. And then she also appears to have been given the impression that she could insist on being insulated from any of the ensuing organisational attempts to deal with this confusion.
She asked to be kept out of an email chain and was instead copied into an employment tribunal!
Must have been extremely distressing for her and I wonder whether, if she had not been part of such a strange organisation, she would actually have been a perfectly reasonable and lovely colleague

I don't feel sorry for her at all. AB adopted the nonsense identity non binary knowing full well what the implications of her new male sounding name would be and then did the whole drama of I'll be so traumatised if anyone mentions this or tells the service users, those service users who are traumatised rape victims who should be the first consideration in a Rape Crisis organisation,. Instead we have/had the service providers and the insidious, dangerous GI ideology being put front and centre. What kind of person are you that does that?

Secondly AB was the one who started the hate fest on Slack about JKR and the opening of Biera's Place, again what kind of person are you that does that?

How low can the proponents of GI ideology go?

AB is utterly pathetic. I don’t feel in the slightest bit sorry for her. She put herself and her performative nonsense over the needs of vulnerable women, and is too thin skinned and over dramatic to work in that kind of environment.

Nope, I don't wish her any harm except to say AB should be feeling thoroughly ashamed of herself. She got a job in a place meant to be helping women, and some men, who've suffered one of the worst forms of trauma and made it all about herself. That's pretty low.

I dont think these questions are out of place. If you are an organisation saying you are feminist, and you are supporting victims of sexual violence you need to make sure you dont have some anti woman, its always women's fault person being part of directing the policies of the organisation.

It is only with hindsight that we can say / assume that it was used to filter out GC feminists.

The woman who tweeted who said she didn't applly because of having to put it in writing, clearly has no idea of what her obligations would be as a trustee.
...

Have just seen the tweeter is a solicitor!!!

This is exactly why the confusion that because someone is a professional they are somehow better qualified to be part of overseeing charities.

I know of one women's group that was thrown in to chaos because the senior staff felt it necessary to start a process against a member of staff that may just have led to some re-training etc.. When this start of the process was reported to the board, the member who was a practicing solicitor said she should just be sacked to ensure staff knew their place!

Honest this is a true story. Including "professionals" onto a board of trustee because you can use their expertise is a real danger. One they wont want to do unpaid work, and two they may well be reactionary racists and misogynists.

Trustees are mainly concerned with formulating the policies of the organisation (so yes you do need to know their views on male violence etc.), making sure that finances are being properly managed and the organisation doesn't become insolvent, and in the event of a staff dispute, are the last resort should there need to be a final decision re being sacked and the staff member wanting to appeal.

I would have thought that people should also contact OSRS.

They need to take some of the blame because they were alerted to the problems / deceit in the appointment of MW.

As far as I know they did not investigate. Even if it had only been a slight reprimand for wrongly advertising under the EA SSE, shows that they cant be trusted to oversee that charities in Scotland are legally complient in their practice.

re SNP - whether we like it or not, as we know not just in Scotland, but in Brighton and else where funders are no obliged to fund women only services. There is no law that tells funders you must always apportion a % of your funding to single sex services.

Sadly.

That is truly shocking @IwantToRetire

I do think professionals can be useful as part of a Board, but they need to be sensible, pay attention, and work as part of the collective for the good of the organisation, as all Trustees need to. Whether or not they'll want to work for free, they shouldn't be asked or expected to and I agree completely they definitely shouldn't be seen as better or deferred to in any way. So in your example, I would hope a legal professional would be able to highlight to Board the importance of following their own process, potentially taking legal advice, and so on rather than storming in to say what should happen and expecting everyone else to go along with it just because they're a lawyer. I think the best Boards are about the right mix and certainly it seems ERCC hasn't had that for quite a few years.

I've found (I think) the standards they mention but haven't read them yet. https://rapecrisis.org.uk/about-us/national-service-standards/

This is Rape Crisis England and Wales.

But I did see in the Rape Crisis Scotland statement that they referred to working with RCEW and had thought I would try and find whether RCS on statement on standards was different.

Now it looks like they didn't even have their own standards, but just somehow have borrowed the standards from England!

And whilst I am not that impressed by how much RCEW plays down single sex services and so on, there could be consequences if somehow they are seen to be in some way complicit with the absolute mission drift by RCS.

Who in effect have only said maybe ERCC's employment practices may need looking into.

I think I am right in saying that both Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid are totally TWAW.

Seems to me that you should quickly promote yourself as an independent trainer for future Trustees!

I think many many people just do not understand that it is primarilly about over seeing.

And of course this doesn't even start on the problems when the Chair and the CEO are close friends, and or the Chair thinks their role is never to undermine the CEO.

IANAL but surely the EA 2010 says that you can't discriminate against people on the grounds of sex. If you don't provide a women-only rape crisis service alongside a mixed sex service, you are discriminating unfairly against women. Direct discrimination if there are additional trans-only or men-only groups, (because the provision for women is inferior) and indirectly if all the groups are mixed (because the service users will be mostly women, who will need a single sex environment).

The RCC might also be infringing the human rights to privacy and dignity of the women who did attend the mixed sex groups if they had to disclose abuse in that environment - if that was the only choice of group they had.

Just because the council or whoever is funding a RCC to offer "trans-inclusive" support doesn't mean the RCC has to have mixed sex groups or even provide the support the on the same premises, or at the same times. They could provide group therapy or 1-to-1 therapy in proportion to the cohorts of survivors. And men, with or without a GRC, can be excluded.
That's my take, anyway. We will see when IamSarah's case comes to court.

The provision of single sex services is after all only an exemption. ie it is not thought to be the norm (according to how the EA is drafted where "for all purposes" TW are "legal women").

So there is nothing to say either funders or service providers should cater for a "minority".

This is another unintended consequence of "being kind". Passing the GRA to allow for a minority to have a legal status, has led to the total reversal of what was always the norm.

That women's rights to be respected on the basis of their sex has now passed into some distant historical memory.

ie IRL facts have been reversed to make it appear like TWAW in the norm, and those saying women are a sex based biological reality, are now made out to be an ungrateful minority.

Moreover, RCCs like Refuges are set up by independent groups. If they all want to be trans inclusive it brings up the issue as to why all those who say there should be more women only services aren't setting them up.

I was wrong - sorry. should have clicked on the link where it clearly says:

The Rape Crisis National Service Standards (RCNSS) are a robust set of specialist quality standards, developed in partnership with Rape Crisis Scotland.

Thanks for those - very, very interesting.

I have just finished reading the judgement.

It's so damaging to ERCC's reputation: they not only have been found "guilty" of constructive dismissal and discrimination but they come across as incompetent, poorly informed and bigoted.

It's so damming of MW. How is MW still in post??? Have there been any more statements from ERCC?

The provision of single sex services is after all only an exemption. ie it is not thought to be the norm (according to how the EA is drafted where "for all purposes" TW are "legal women").

It is not ‘only an exemption’. It is an exemption - and one that is expected to be utilised as ‘the norm’ where necessary to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of women or where necessary to ensure women would not otherwise be discriminated against.

The EA makes no mention of TW, only those with a GRC and that they may also be excluded where necessary to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of women. Those without a GRC are counted as men as confirmed by FWR2.

The GRA says men with a GRC are treated as women subject to “provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.”

The EA makes no mention of TW, only those with a GRC and that they may also be excluded where necessary to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of women. Those without a GRC are counted as men as confirmed by FWR2.

This.

Please re-read making sure you understand the word "only" should be sarcastic.

Only men with GRC are "women" for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

Moreover, RCCs like Refuges are set up by independent groups. If they all want to be trans inclusive it brings up the issue as to why all those who say there should be more women only services aren't setting them up.

Women set up women only spaces —> Men take over women only spaces —> Women set up women only spaces —> Men take over women only spaces —> Women set up women only spaces —> Men take over women only spaces —>

Everybody keeps making statements about SSE that are as they think they should be.

Unfortunately they have to be justified as being "proportional" and if all those providing services are do not believe they are "proportional" then they dont provide them.

Its all well and good saying it should be this and it should be that, but we also have to reflect why over the years all those who are now so happy to state GC or sex based rights views, didn't bother to get involved in the provision of services for women.

If the only ones who could be bothered have a different ethos, then they are the ones there making the decisions.

This is one of the biggest factors.

Just as much as TRAs colonised women's spaces for ideological purposes, we have to acccept that all those saying they are GC couldn't be bothered to continue to ensure these services survived.

Not forgetting that the underlying culture of MRAs which pre-existed and continue to exist, are only too happy to use TRAs to under mine women's sex based rights.

(There have been many threads on FWR about how easily, apparently, trans ideology was able to network and insert itself into any number of sections of society. And ideally it is something we should learn from. Anymore that because we have some abortion rights, it would be totally wrong to think we will always have them.)

all those saying they are GC couldn't be bothered to continue to ensure these services survived.

That is quite some statement when you consider the whole point of this thread.

Women set up women only spaces —> Men take over women only spaces —> Women set up women only spaces —> Men take over women only spaces —> Women set up women only spaces —> Men take over women only spaces —>

So your message is that men will take over, so dont let's bother.

So you think For Women Scot, Sex Matters, etc., should just not bother because sooner or later men will take them over.

????????????????????

What this thread shows is that because GC women didn't stay involved a lone woman sticking to those principles was then left unsupported and harrassed.

If GC women had stayed involved they wouldn't have illegally advertised a post as women only, not would they have stacked the MC with TRAs.

And by the way as there are women only services that have survived I would like to say they owed respect and courage for continuing to hold the line for women, at a time when TRAs are being lionised by society.

Its all well and good saying it should be this and it should be that, but we also have to reflect why over the years all those who are now so happy to state GC or sex based rights views, didn't bother to get involved in the provision of services for women.

I thought that the situation was that there were women-only services, but that in recent years many of these have have been battling against a climate in which funders favour organisations that are 'trans inclusive' - so that women-only service providers faced a choice between changing their very nature or not having enough money to survive.

It isn't that no-one cared enough to set them up!! We had them. They were taken away.