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).