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.

We still don't know if the mean women only services as in females only or women only as in "well we say women only but... [redacted] "

In the Guardian! 👊

www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/06/woman-unfairly-dismissed-over-gender-critical-views-to-get-69000-payout

We want to publicly apologise

Want to?

including our women only services

Is it though?

Inclusive is still coming before women only, women needing single sex services will be in the majority and must be prioritised.

We are committed to balancing the views, needs and wants of all our service users, staff and volunteers.

Why would you balance what rape survivors need against the staff who are meant to be helping them?

And their views? What views? Why would the views of the staff need to be balanced against those of rape survivors?

They're still talking about the bloody ideology.

Womens rape crisis centres should do what they say on the tin and centres women in rape crisis.

Balancing needs misses the point here - its not about the staffs 'needs' (these are actually desires because the staff do not NEED to work there).

Nor is it about putting women into a position where the default is they have to speak up if they want single sex because they are not necessarily in the mind set to assert themselves in this situation; they will automatically self exclude at the sight of a man.

It just hightlights a need for separate service provision - perhaps run by the same service but clearly removed.

Validation should not be part of the service in any scenario because it relies on the use of others. And it relies on proper consent, which arguably women in rape crisis may not feel able to properly give for a vary of reasons. You know cos of patterns of coercion, difficulting asserting themselves etc.

We are committed to balancing the views, needs and wants of all our service users, staff and volunteers.

FFS. Rape centres don't exist to provide employment, or safe spaces for volunteers. What astounding arrogance.

Why would you balance what rape survivors need against the staff who are meant to be helping them?

This.

It's bizarre. It's like some people have got it into their heads that "inclusivity" and "everyone" feeling "safe" is always good, whatever the cost - totally failing to notice that they exclude people like Roz from this (i.e. people with perfectly reasonable questions/an understanding of reality), so they're not actually inclusive - and also that including everyone and their feelings, all the time, in everything, is not actually inherently good practice just because you say the word "inclusive".

A rape crisis centre is for rape victims and should be about them to the exclusion of others, including providing single-sex services when that is what they need. You shouldn't go to work in one to have your views validated and "balanced" with the needs of the clients, any more than I should barge into one demanding fish and chips on a Friday night and wanting to know why my feelings aren't being "included". Because that's not what it's for!

The daft thing is these people can understand and defend other exclusive categories, like ethnicities or disabilities, and of course TW. But when it comes to sex they're too brainwashed. It's actually really fascinating to see them being made to confront basic reality and trying to wriggle out of it - for what?

It's actually quite a refreshing truth. This is what they believe

Hear hear

It's also very revealing that they use "view, needs and wants" to describe this situation - what Roz did was not at all about her views, needs or wants. It was about her doing her job and trying to prioritise the needs of the service user and clarify an unclear situation for the user.

The statement is spinning that as if Roz did what she did because of her wacky old bigoted beliefs which they have now been forced to take into account. In fact, what they need to do is recognise reality themselves and proceed on that basis, not be inclusive to all "views, needs and wants" for the sake of it. Certainly not the highly unprofessional "wants" of the likes of MW.

When we talk about rights of all kinds, there isn't a hierarchy based on identity but there is a hierarchy based on needs.

This means the most vulnerable is society have their needs put before other considerations. They don't have to be balanced if you can demonstrate a) that it would cause greater harm to the vulnerable group if you tried to 'balance' things b) the allowance for this is reasonable and justifiable and b) you have to demonstrate the harm done to other parties to be significant.

If you can demonstrate that single sex provision and protection is central to those who have been sexually abused then any belief that sex can be replaced by gender then in law where sex is a protected characteristic isn't going to wash.

It really is. Rape survivors exist to validate the people who are employed to help them.

In law this doesn't wash. But who will take them to court to demonstrate this?

Rape centres don't exist to provide employment, or safe spaces for volunteers.

However, if the proposed (and welcome) workplace changes are introduced, then that is effectively what workplaces are for. Cue the discussion about "safe" and for whom, and if volunteers are included within that. Much may depend upon interpretation.

• Nothing in the ERB alters the immediate scope or extent of the new employer duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, which comes into force on 26 October 2024. This duty will be enforceable by the EHRC, which has indicated that it will also consider sexual harassment by third parties.
• The ERB will, however, extend the duty to one requiring employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. This is not expected to take effect until 2026.
• Separately, the ERB will create a new protection from third party harassment, which will apply to all types of harassment. This is also not expected to take effect until 2026.
• Third parties will include customers, clients, suppliers, workplace visitors and members of the public.
• Employers will be liable for any third party harassment unless they can show they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent this. This will be enforceable by employees via a claim to the employment tribunal (not by the EHRC).
• There will clearly be a crossover between the steps required under the specific duty to take (all) reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and the new protection from third party harassment.
• What this will entail will vary according to the nature of an employer’s business but, as a minimum, employers will need to carry out a detailed risk assessment to identify the various risks in their business including the risks of third party harassment occurring and outline how it will avoid or mitigate those risks.
• Compliance with this obligation is likely to have a material impact on relations with customers, contractors and suppliers and will require review of policies, procedures and reporting mechanisms to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Employers will also need to consider the risk of situations arising in the course of employment where employees may experience harassment by third parties that is inadvertent and unexpected.

insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/employment-compensation/united-kingdom-what-employers-should-know-about-the-third-party-harassment-duty#:~:text=Separately%2C%20the%20ERB%20will%20create,and%20members%20of%20the%20public.

How does that work with anyone who is mentally disturbed to a significant level?!

All that results is a systematic process of working with people in this group for a number of years, making a claim and then getting a pay out, in this scenario despite knowing from the outset that's the likely outcome!

It will inevitably invite people on the grift once this becomes known too!

Nothing in that says that the job of employers is to provide employment. Nor to validate their staff. Protection from harassment does not mean a 'safe space' where no ideological opinions are questioned and egos are massaged.

Finally !

Someone gets it.

Well yes, when you employing people you should be weeding out fuckwuts who put their own beliefs first. But RCS actively encouraged the employment of exactly the wrong type of person because of their own ideological beliefs...

Byjimminy · Today 06:00

In the Guardian!

I'm rather surprised at what was quite a decent article, for them. I thought that they might have simply ignored it, or put a bizarre spin on it, as they have done with related stories.

Why the Guardian now exists for an American audience not a British one.

This is a reality for America that they are going to have to come to terms with to survive.

Just posting to show that Roz Adams starting an employment tribunal has been a very positive way of throwing light on what has been going on as a result of trans intrusion into women only services
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/inside-the-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-scandal/

Also available to read via https://archive.is/CB8Gm

Resurrecting this thread because it seems that they've learned nothing, they've only gone and hired Allison Thewliss

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/staggering-ministers-didnt-know-rape-35279274?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Scotland is just trolling women at this point