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?

confused - has sandy Brindley resigned?

Any link to confirmation please?

Sorry just caught the end of it, cannot verify.

Cants see anything on Twitter but did see this from For women Scotland:

We have been sent the following email (with permission to share) of a complaint about Sandy Brindley to RCS. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of it!

x.com/forwomenscot/status/1835389612908294487?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I can't find anything that confirms the resignation.

Perhaps it said 'call for resignation' rather than 'has resigned'.

Why would service users of RCS know the CEO personally and make such an effort to defend her? They read like they know her personally.

It almost strikes me as a coordinated thing by a group who have their own separate agenda...

On Twitter it seems some of them have also worked at RCS, some seem to be the same person. Not a word of it rings true.

It looks like a coordinated TRA campaign.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2edeyzz0xmo

Partner of Sandy Brindley is an academic.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=112169

i can’t see anything about sandy Brindley resigning. It sounds as if GB news are covering MW resigning

It looks like a coordinated TRA campaign.

I really hope it is because the alternative is really not good. Did Sandy Brindley behave so unprofessionally to maintain personal relationships with so many service users outside of RCS?

Here’s the abstract from one of her papers.

“The Pain of Pleasure: Consent and the Criminalisation of Sado Masochistic 'Assaults'
^^
“This essay offers an analysis of the criminalisation of certain sexual practices that have been (wrongly) labelled as assaults. It discusses the criminal cases in Scotland and in England and Wales that address the question of whether sado-masochism (SM) counts as sex or violence, and thus whether consent can work its “moral magic” to render SM lawful. The essay examines the legal approach to SM in both jurisdictions, and the (hetero)normative construction of certain kinds of sexual subjects as perverted and “risky”, before moving to inquire as to the possibility of Scots law offering a discursive and legal space for SM sex. In doing so, it will be argued that while both jurisdictions have criminalised consensual assaults, thus marking out pleasurable pain as both wrong and harmful, there may ultimately be room for the Scottish courts to interpret the existing law in a way that is more open to allowing consensual SM sexual interactions.”

Someone tweeted this about her partner. Tbh if it's true she might actually be ahead of the curve.

https://thecritic.co.uk/edi-corrodes-the-rule-of-law/

it will be argued that while both jurisdictions have criminalised consensual assaults, thus marking out pleasurable pain as both wrong and harmful, there may ultimately be room for the Scottish courts to interpret the existing law in a way that is more open to allowing consensual SM sexual interactions.

What the fucking fuck?!?? 🚩 🚩

"P r o g r e s s I v e"

Maybe her whole career is an extended exercise in submission.

So to recap, the boss of the rape crisis centre is shacked up with an academic who writes rambling papers with "quote marks" round references to sexual assaults. And thinks by extension that there are unwarranted prosecutions for these. What with the prosecution rate for this being so very very high already [/ snark]

In that infamous documentary about how Thames Valley police handled rape cases in the 80's they had the male coppers leering at the testimonies of women for kicks. Now there's a known BDSM link how do we know CEO isn't doing the same.

Sharon Cowan believes that Forstater etc is wrong and will be overturned.

https://academic.oup.com/ilj/article/51/1/1/6536993

...In contrast, the EAT’s decision in the Forstater appeal, in our view, risks making it more difficult in practice for employers to create diverse and inclusive workplaces. We conclude that, while the approach of the courts should be flexible and fact-sensitive, it should be founded upon coherent principles that are applied consistently, balancing and reconciling conflicting rights in line with the values of the EqA. This is especially important in the current context in which there is an ongoing debate, particularly in the discrimination and human rights context, about the extent to which trans people’s rights are adequately protected and whether and to what degree protecting such rights harms or infringes the rights and freedoms of others.6...

This aged well

....Therefore, even if, as the EAT decided in Forstater, some gender critical views are protected, it may be that Ms Forstater’s unlawful discrimination claims will not succeed once the facts are considered by a Tribunal...

Oh dear, how inconvenient that you can't discriminate and harass women who know what a woman is with impunity:

....But the EAT’s new approach will likely be most problematic for those tasked with practical application of the EqA in the workplace. Taking as an example homophobic or sexist views, businesses requiring staff to work within the parameters of its equality policy, whether to respect colleagues in the workplace or to help ensure non-discriminatory practices towards customers, are more likely to encounter resistance on the basis that individuals do not personally endorse such views, and that their alternative beliefs are protected now. Inevitably, businesses are likely to find themselves defending claims of unlawful discrimination brought by such individuals. Given the widened definition of a protected belief, it may not be difficult for any disgruntled worker to identify a belief for which she or he can allege less favourable treatment.

As a consequence of this new approach, several concerns arise. First, consideration as a preliminary issue of whether gender critical beliefs are protected is unlikely to prevent such claims progressing to a full hearing, and it will prove time consuming and costly for businesses to defend those claims. Secondly, where those who have manifested gender critical views claim unfavourable treatment, businesses may have to defend those claims by asking already vulnerable individuals, who have been subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or harassment by Claimants, to give evidence at a Tribunal....

But we hope to be able to again one day

...Our hope is that when the occasion arises, a higher court will overrule the Forstater EAT decision and approach to applying the fifth Grainger criteria: not all beliefs are equal, and not all ought to be privileged by receiving the additional protections available under the EqA, an objective of which is to increase equality of opportunity and more generally to eliminate discrimination.155...

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 00:22

Sharon Cowan believes that Forstater etc is wrong and will be overturned.

Hmm. Does she need help to tie her shoe laces?

First, consideration as a preliminary issue of whether gender critical beliefs are protected is unlikely to prevent such claims progressing to a full hearing, and it will prove time consuming and costly for businesses to defend those claims.

I read that as:

Waaah! WAAAH! WAAAAH! It sooooo unfaaair! Why is it so difficult to bully rational women these days?

Yes me too @SinnerBoy

I'm glad you said it like this because I thought I was misreading this.

The head of a rape charity, who has a partner who works at Edinburgh Uni.

There was a conference about discussing and tackling the huge rates of sexual abuse occurring on all Edinburgh Uni Campuses. On the panel was this partner.

Despite the nature of the issue and this conference's stated aim this woman however lectures to Edinburgh Uni students and writes papers about how some of these sexual assaults shouldn't be criminalised and are unfair.

The also turns up at a meeting to discuss problems with self ID and wanting single sex services unannounced and massively inappropriately because her girlfriend who is the head of RCS is hugely unprofessional.

At this meeting the survivors are belittled and lectured. This woman had absolutely no business to be at this meeting other than nepotism. She sort to use the meeting to crush any possible questions and to make it clear that RCS would not support them. Despite the fact she's fuck all to do with RCS.

This lecturer also expects students to take a 'progressive in their interpretation' of the law or 'she isn't interested' rather than reflective of the actual law. This sounds like she's holding students hostage here. If they don't right what she likes they risk losing marks. So best agree with her and stroke her ego.

This woman actively campaigns against the interests of raped women in terms of weakening the law on their side and she actively campaigns to remove single sex services.

Yet she has access to these survivors. Sandy Brindley has mixed her personal interests with professional and has a massive conflict of interest and is allowing her partner wholly inappropriate access to vulnerable women without their prior consent.

The report into ERCC comes out and it's damning any it asked big questions about why, despite a huge amount of red flags and incompetence, was a male who openly was saying 'therapy is political' and using the service to further Transactivism rather than centre survivors needs. Why was he appointed and why when it became clear he was both incompetent and acting unlawfully was he not removed by those who had the power to do so.

Keep in mind Wadhwa has publicly said he's counselled survivors despite it being apparent he has absolutely no experience, training or qualifications to do so. Which begs the question why did he have this type of access.

Brindley then publicly denies all knowledge of concerns about single sex services pretending this meeting never happened, to dig herself out of a hole. Well she might because if she admits it did then she admits to gross misconduct in her role by allowing her partner to be there.

Then a bunch of apparent service users who seem to have somewhat inappropriate and overly personal relationships with the head of RCS pop up to tell the media how wonderful she is, how she should keep her job and how everything is perfectly ok and everyone is happy. Without regard to issues over boundaries and consent of others.

Throughout this story we have a pattern of people overstepping their roles, domineering, abusing their positions, having access to individuals who are particularly vulnerable women at one of the worst times of their life. All seem to be using their connections and access to further their political and ideological aims without regard to the women they are supposed to be helping and serving.

I swear, just when you think it can't get worse, it ramps up yet another level.

This lecturer literally does everything she can to silence victims and make out they shouldn't be believed and that their trauma over their experiences with males should just be ignored and they should suck up her ideology.

She's on a complete and utter power trip and she's enabled by the very person who is supposed to be most on the side of rape victims.

This is exploitation. This is just mind-blowing in just how many totally unethical it is and how many professional standards have been broken.

Wadhwa appointment starts to make perfect sense. It was never about helping raped women. It was about using them and abusing them. By design. The epitomy of gaslighting.

This lot should be sacked immediately and there being some serious conversations about whether laws have been broken here (there are legal duties within responsibilities for charities to protect vulnerable person if nothing else).

Sharon Cowan is doing a lot of hard work to help along the argument that gender ideology is not WORIADS.

Several women spoke up in defence of SB on X in the past few days.

All to say they'd heard that there was going to be an article written on Brindley in the wake of the RCS issues, and had then emailed.the journalist to support.

None of them would respond to answer how they'd heard.

The only logical explanation is that Brindley told them.

If so, then Brindley has used these women, who are all survivors. This is not how you put the survivors first.

I hope all.of these women have access to good support that is not connected to RCS. They've all been treated very poorly.

So lecturer grooms law students to 'get ahead of the law' in a way that better enables male sexual abuse of women without consequences?

Please tell me I've misunderstood this.

Sympathy and a cuppa for the poor poppet having a meltdown that other people have rights too.

Jesus. Just catching up with this thread.

Red nails it.

It seems as though these rape survivors were deliberately targeted to promote the ideology.

I kept thinking how could the powers that be not recognise the creepiness of an unqualified man in charge of raped women.

But now I think they did, they do, and they're complicit.