Times article Mridul Wadhwa placed on 'leave' in May.

[Mollyollydolly]

Well they kept that quiet.

Archive version of The Times article below.

"The chief executive of a rape crisis support centre has been put on leave pending an investigation into its “Kafkaesque” treatment of staff.

Mridul Wadhwa, a man who identifies as a woman, was sent home in May by the board of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) after being identified as the “invisible hand” behind a “heresy hunt” designed to force out Roz Adams, a counsellor with gender-critical views.

The outcry over Wadhwa’s behaviour intensified following the sentencing this week of Cameron Downing, a coercive and manipulative male sex offender, who identified as non-binary and claimed to have received extensive support from ERCC."

archive.ph/y5f2L#selection-2217.0-2225.235

https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=SC006208

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC291742

'Termination of appointment of Katie Horsburgh as a director on 8 May 2024 '

Very much agreed! I'm so over corrupt management just being relocated to another position of influence to create havoc in.

Too much of a good thing 😂

Thanks - interested to see MW is the company secretary.

Apparently one of the roles of Company Secretary is:

Advising directors on their duties, and ensuring that they comply with corporate legislation and the articles of association of the company.

I wonder what the articles of association say the purpose of ERCC is.

Exactly. If you want something badly enough you'll get it and obtaining British citizenship isn’t that hard. Dh is French. Dd is dual. Pre Brexit this was never an issue. However, we then decided to all get dual nationality so dh and I both applied for French and British nationality respectively. Expensive and laborious process but priorities etc.

In order to get British citizenship you need to give up Indian citizenship as they don't allow dual citizenship. I wonder why he doesn't want to give up his Indian citizenship if he is so sure he is a woman? Is his family wealthy? Could be something to do with inheritance or property. I'm not sure what the law is now in India but for my dad's generation, only males inherited property.

Thats very interesting, thank you.
I had no idea India didnt allow dual nationality.
Tbf I assumed most countries allowed it outside of the usual suspects.

I'm not sure about Wadhwa's circumstances but regarding whether obtaining British citizenship would be considered relatively easy -- that would depend on variables like country of birth, visa classification (one might have less trouble if married to a British citizen and thus has a family visa), etc.

From ERCC listing on Scottish Chaarity Register their listing says:

In particular the Objects shall be:

5.1 to relieve the distress of women, men, boys and girls aged over 12 years who have been raped or who have experienced sexual violence and of their partners, friends and families through the provision of emotional and practical support, information, advice and advocacy; and

5.2 to advance education, through the provision of information, advice and advocacy, among professional bodies and the general public about the causes, nature, extent and effects of rape and sexual violence against women, men, boys and girls aged over 12 years, and ways of preventing or relieving the suffering it causes.

https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=SC006208

So if this is the original version of the Aims, ie not lately altered to fit events, then effectively they have not been in breach of their constitution.

So they have never claimed to be women only. So it might depend on what they have advertised as how services are provided.

But yes, are still guilty of falsely advertising the vacancy for CEO as being for women only as per SSE.

And also, as the tribunal found discriminated against an employee.

ERCC say they made a public statement about being trans inclusive in 2008 https://www.ercc.scot/trans-inclusion-statement/

Their services page makes no reference to women only services being available https://www.ercc.scot/who-we-support-and-our-services/

Neither of these 2 pages have dates on them.

I wonder what the women who set up the service 40 years ago would think about this.

It was mentioned in the tribunal during ERCC's cross examination which many of us watched, and which you can read from when it was live both on Tribunal Tweets and here. They were "women only"' until fairly recently. But they say that was inclusive of MTFs.

So the company statement saying their services are available to both males and females over the age of 12, is a recent change in their aims and objectives?

Wouldn't there be an indiciation on the charity register web site, that this was a recent change in policy.

Not forgetting that the say on their web site that this statement was issued in 2008:

We offer specialist trauma-informed, survivor-led support to: women; trans women; trans men; non binary people; and young people of all genders aged 12-21.

Maybe those giving evidence dont even know what was previously decided as policy.

Which of course is another indication that they were happy to let MW as an individual set policy, if those giving evidence really weren't aware of what has previously been public statements about who ERCC provides services.

Will be really interesting to see what the internal review comes up with. As it seems that anyone at ERCC can say what they think is policy without checking with anyone else, nor the information published of the Scottish Charities web site!

Maybe those giving evidence dont even know what was previously decided as policy.

Quite possible, they were pretty shambolic.

Although on re-reading Roz Adams claims, all she was saying is that users had the right to be told whether whoever was to be their support worker was male, female, or trans male or female, or non binary. She had known when she first started working there that the organisation was trans inclusive and was "excited" to be part of ERCC.

Management decided potential users couldn't be told the sex or gender identity of a support worker as this would be breach their privacy.

That's when it al kicked of because Roz Adams said the service users needs should be primary.

This is Katie Horsburgh, she resigned shortly afterwards, as did Miren Sague

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1749448635689869732?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

KM - no, we use the exemption and only employ women.
NC - but you accept that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman
KM - we need to properly apply the exemption, we would need to see their passport for example.
NC - moving on - C's email to AB, asking about how to

As she believed, they were relying on the SSE exception in their hiring practices.

Katie and Miren were clearly used to shield MW from giving evidence, and iirc didn't cover themselves in glory during proceedings. They were given the task of defending the indefensible.

YY. But it's clear from what Roz said which can be read in Tribunal Tweets that they were running it as a "women plus" organisation and claimed to employ "no men in their staff or volunteers". That was the reply Wadhwa directed to be given to the woman that wanted to know the sex of her counsellor.

It's more recently been changed to "all survivors" so taking in all men and this is what I mentioned that was brought up in court. I imagine at that point they had to change both their charity registration and their website. They ran a project for young survivors of both sexes (since 2014, before it was just women and girls) but that seems to have been separate.

This idea that the woman category includes all trans and non binary people of both sexes (based on self ID) is not exclusive to them. It's the same approach the Green Party takes.

Thank you for that. It was as I suspected.

Not foregtting the other group that claims to represent women's services in the charity sector in Scotland (sorry again name doesnt come to mind)

Engender?

Thank you for that. It was as I suspected.

Please dont take this as "fact". This is what i understood about charity and community groups.

But as we are finding out over and over again, those who should be enforcing regulations seem more than willing to not intervene when it suits their personal agenda, or the agenda of a pressure group.

I think this is why we are seeing so many issues going to court / tribunal to say by the rules you the employer set up you are in the wrong.

And as we know its not just in the charity sector.

Its happens in news providers, sports, and so on.

The issue that ERCC had to deal with of balancing user's rights over employee rights is exactly the sort of think that Rape Crisis Scotland as the co-ordinator of the federation of rape crisis services in Scotland should have instigated some sort of consultation.

Not sure that any of the different federations of Rape Crisis Services and Domestic Violence services in any of the 4 nations in the UK have provided guidance on.

And in fact it is interesting, when so many of them are prepared to issue statements about all sorts of other things, eg the police, footballers, social media, that none of them have as far as I know responded to the recent guidance from the EHRC as to when the SSE exemptions really are about sex, and not just about being "female"!

ERCC was Edinburgh Women’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre in 2005 when it was registered as a company at Companies House.

The Objects were

They've certainly been in breach of the "relieve the distress" part. "Bigot! Reframe your trauma!"

In 2014 Edinburgh Women’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, as ERCC was then, changed its Objects to include men and boys:

In 2015 Edinburgh Women’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, as ERCC was then, changed its name to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre Ltd. A few months later it dropped the Ltd.

In 2022 ERCC changed their articles by a special resolution to stop having members as well as directors. The directors became the only members. Consequently there was no longer a wider membership to control the directors or hold them to account.