Surely Mridul Wadhwa has to go now? Report into ERCC out.

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13842189/Edinburgh-Crisis-Centre-designed-protect-women-suffered-sexual-violence-condemned-failing-damning-report.html

Pretty scathing. Wadhwa cannot stay surely?

Basically it says Sarah's request for single sex services isn't an unreasonable one and that someone else in the sector has identified that a failure to do so is potentially harmful.

Harms to vulnerable persons by a charity is a legal no no.

There's the concept of persuasive, as opposed to binding, precedent:

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-509-2489

there is no rape crisis service in Brighton

As I never said this it seems you've spent ages arguing over something that never happened.

As I quoted from their own web site they are funded to povide services.

And in doing that as a non specialised unaffiliated organisation it is inappropriate to say it is a rape crisis centre.

That is just their sleight of hand and something Brighton council is happy to turn a blind eye to, just as they when taking support from DV services from a specialist organisation to a general purpose housing organisation.

It would be more productive and help the awareness to the public who remain unaware of the trickery behind political funding not to collaborate with this deceit.

If that's the legal arguement then Survivors Network can say they weren't funded to do this.

And in which case the legal challenge should be against Brighton Council.

This comes back to the problem that because a council through is financial control can arbitrarily designate anyone whose financial bid they like to take on a service that isn't regulated by the known regulator, you cant then tell the funded service provider you must observe the regulator's standard if the funder didn't write that into the funding agreement.

This isn't because I believe it is right, but is about the financial contract between the funder and the service.

I am not sure that a court has the ability to say both the funder and the provider are in the wrong legally. But maybe the court can make some moral statement.

Unfortunately there is no one with political clout to take this up as an issue, and both Women's Aid and Rape Crisis seem to be rish averse in terms of standing up publicly for the standards they expect of their members, but seem to be shy about saying to the public and potential users, federated groups operate under these agreed standards.

And in doing that as a non specialised unaffiliated organisation it is inappropriate to say it is a rape crisis centre.

Rape Crisis England and Wales say it is a rape crisis centre. Sussex Rape Crisis Centre. On their website. I'm not wasting any more time on this nonsense.

•   <strong><a class="break-all" href="https://rapecrisis.org.uk/find-a-centre/survivors-network-sussex-rape-crisis-centre/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Survivors&#039; Network (Sussex Rape Crisis Centre)</a>)</strong><strong>
</strong><strong>Website:</strong> 
<a class="break-all" href="http://www.survivorsnetwork.org.uk/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.survivorsnetwork.org.uk</a>uk<strong><span class="underline">

</strong>Email address:<strong> 
<a class="break-all" href="//mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[email protected]</a>uk</strong></span>

<strong>Areas covered:</strong>
Counselling: Brighton only. All other services: the whole of Sussex.



    
<a class="break-all" href="https://rapecrisis.org.uk/find-a-centre/survivors-network-sussex-rape-crisis-centre/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">See more about Survivors&#039; Network (Sussex Rape Crisis Centre)</a>e)<strong><span class="underline"><a class="break-all" href="https://rapecrisis.org.uk/find-a-centre/survivors-network-sussex-rape-crisis-centre/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
</a>
</strong></span><strong>
</strong>_0.1 miles
  

This is Wikipedia, the bolded passage (my bold( has been added today, they weren't exactly quick on the draw and it was this afternoon when it was edited to include MW's departure. This may be because most people didn't have the permissions to edit it after it was locked by genderists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mridul_Wadhwa&action=history

The review found that the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had not protected women-only spaces, had not put survivors first, and had not followed national service standards. This was due primarily to the service not clarifying the birth sex of every staff member, and requiring survivors to request if they wanted to be seen by a cisgender staff member specifically

Cisgender people are both sexes, no? It just demonstrates that they know a "cisgender" woman is just another name for a woman.

Because trans rights trump everything else. Trans has become a shield, a protected status beyond any other group. And some people seek to exploit that especially when you can just self id

Interesting post thread on Twitter from FWS - Katie Horsburgh, formally of ERCC, who during the EA was shown to be one of the most fanatical adherents of gender ideology there, has moved onto another role -

'In the merry-go-round of Scottish civil society, Katie Horsburgh has moved to a plum role as Policy and Practice officer for Children and young people at @ZTScotland'

x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1834709837629788498
.

That's wilfully incorrect, as usual.
As women have been saying for literally years - no-one cares if the person identifies as trans, "cis", non-binary. No-one can even provide a coherent definition of what those even mean.

Service users wanted to be seen by a female member of staff. They know this and they have deliberately misrepresented it.

And this is the log and Talk discussion for Beira's Place, which the TRAs are all over:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beira%27s_Place&action=history

A sample from the discussion

"FWIW I don't think that's anywhere near "maximally other side" or that it's going too far at all. I don't even think YFNS's version is maximally anti-Rowling (and support something like it). Maximally anti-Rowling would be something like:
“Beira's Place is a transphobic organization founded and exclusively funded by well-known TERF J.K. Rowling. It falsely describes itself as a "woman only service" but does not hire or provide services to transgender women. While it was allegedly founded to support survivors of sexual violence, Rowling has admitted it was in fact founded out of spite against remarks critical of transphobia by Edinburgh Rape Crisis CEO Mridul Wadhwa.”
That's the actual other end of the scale. (And that's only sticking roughly to the facts and a mostly-Wikipedia-compatible tone. Absent those restrictions I could have done even worse.) Comparatively speaking, what you've written as the other end of the scale is extremely tame."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beira%27s_Place

Another gem, where the other guy realises he hasn't trashed JKR enough:

You have a fair point. I guess I'm holding back a bit because it's one of those things where Rowling has to some extent insulated herself: Saying that she's bad for funding a rape crisis centre looks bad, but she also makes it clear this is for very bad reasons

'Saying she's bad for funding a rape crisis centre looks bad' - well, yes. It makes you look like the angry woman-hater that you are, mate. And since your 'very bad reasons' are actually the exclusion of other angry woman-haters from a place where raped women go to be protected, supported, listened to, understood and cared for you can just fuck the fuck off.

I watched a cinema screening of Prima Facie with Jodie Comer this week, so my tolerance for this misogynist shitshow is just fucking fumes now. If you get a chance to see it and you feel you could withstand the emotional onslaught (I'd say not for survivors of serious sexual assault - my own SA experience is lesser) and process the rage, I'd recommend you go.

Thanks for the recommendation @WinterTrees I will check that out. I am a survivor and will bear your comment in mind but generally ok with drama around these issues.

What gets me, is these men would happily enable a woman to go without trauma support if they could force it.

It's a useful lesson.

Human rights are about always enabling rights and access to health care without prejudice and discrimination. In the UK were forged out of the ashes of atrocities and scandals that allowed abuse and death due to ideological beliefs.

We are seeing calls for this to be overturned in the name of 'progress'.

I'm sick of baseless JKR bashing by brain dead halfwits. As much as I don't want to give it oxygen, this gem (from a male regular on this site) on another thread yesterday just makes me wonder do they actually believe what they post, is it 'fashionable' to go along with the TRA party line? They can never articulate what is it that she's actually said and done that's so heinous apart from not allowing men into women's spaces. One resident TRA admitted not reading ANY of her essays FFS -

'Ah yes, JKR who pretends to promote womens rights, yet reliably stays quiet when women are attacked, raped or murdered, very quiet on abortion and the reduction of women rights in the ME too'.

Of course this 'gentleman' didn't return when presented with quite a few things Joanne has done to help attacked and raped women. Because you know, she's got to comment on every instance of VAWG to the twats on Twitter 🙄.

Maya Forstater succinctly sums it all up:

Gender ideology turns organisations that are meant to help women into organisations that allow and enable abuse.

Therapy being viewed as a political opportunity will tend to do that.

MW's wiki page seems to have been updated overnight with a long, detailed (and with comprehensive citations) explanation of the ERCC debacle.

I'm just reading it. It's a parallel universe.

Under the heading harassment it says:
On 13 August 2021, the Scottish Green Party issued a statement in solidarity with Mridul Wadhwa after the abuse, denouncing the spread of misinformation about the crisis centres and resulting abuse which posed a threat to survivors and workers at the centre.

This is somewhat useful as it puts in stone who was not paying attention.

Especially as it then later says:
In September 2024, Wadhwa resigned after a review commissioned by Rape Crisis Scotland found that she "did not understand the limits on her role's authority, when to refer decisions to trustees and failed to set professional standards of behaviour". The review found that the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had not protected women-only spaces, had not put survivors first, and had not followed national service standards.

They can't ignore the report and resignation and it's pretty glorious really. And really jars in contrast with the previous text.

When are they going to update their website.

How can they have this logo saying they adhere to rape crisis national service standards after THAT report, which says they are still not there?!

ERCC Accounts 2023

Just had a quick look at the last set of accounts for the year ending 31st March 2023. I'm going to stick a few bits up because when the next one goes up this current information might evaporate. This is for the MN memory bank and search facility. I think this is going to be worth checking up on, some months down the line from now to see just what the fall out has been.

Things of note:

1. Legal and professional fees.
   In 2022 these were £11,363. In 2023 they had risen to £41,897. I have a sneaking suspicion they may rise in 2024.

2. Most of the income the charity has is restricted in what it can be spent on. It had £68,815 from donations and £1250 from other income (not detailed in terms of what this actually is). This appears to be the only income they recieve that is not ringfenced for a specific purpose. In total the current unrestricted funds minus current liabilities is recorded as £195,339. I think this is the main (possibly the only) pot of money that legal fees and pay outs will be allowed to come out of.

I don't think thats a huge amount all things considered. I think its worth keeping a close eye on.

3. Staff costs 2022 - Salaries and wages: £844,648 2023 - Salaries and wages: £1,164,060 No employee has emoluments of more that £60,000 during either the current or previous year.

Again, eyes on this. Some things can't be hidden.

Good work Red.

Any legal people here able to answer a question for a layperson please?

Is there any behaviour so egregious that if committed by a person working for a charity they end up personally liable? e.g. They personally can be sued, held liable, bear any financial penalties, it's not the charity that ends up on the hook.
Put another way is there any behaviour so bad that it removes the shield of being protected by the organisation?

Same question for organisations like the police. Is there any behaviour so bad that the police officer ends up personally facing the consequences?

I think I know a part of the answer to the police question. In the USA the term is "qualified immunity", which when the rubber hits road some police officers in hot water like to pretend in court the word "qualified" isn't there and it's just "immunity". Police officers get tried in court and sentenced when their behaviour crosses the line too far. High profile example : Derek Chauvin murder conviction for killing George Floyd.

Julie Bindels take on this from the Spectator

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-trans-ideologues-corrupted-rape-crisis-centres/

Given the Scottish Government's continued funding to ERCC, I would suggest that anyone who lives in the Edinburgh and Lothians writes to their MSP's to ask what kind of inquiry will be taking place to ensure that such failings do not continue/happen again.

The website www.writetothem.com is a useful tool for contacting your elected representatives.

**
Is there any behaviour so egregious that if committed by a person working for a charity they end up personally liable? e.g. They personally can be sued, held liable, bear any financial penalties, it's not the charity that ends up on the hook.
Put another way is there any behaviour so bad that it removes the shield of being protected by the organisation?

interesting question! Trustees carry ultimate accountability in any charity and they have insurance (well if it’s a well run charity) but that doesn’t cover them if they’re negligent