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?

This. Everyone in this field should have supervision. Everyone has blind spots.

I agree. She uses women for her own gain.

there’s a word for people who do that.

I would think any supervisor with a grip on reality and the capacity to say 'this isn't right' was witch hunted and chased away a long time ago.

She repeating that racist TA trope

https://archive.ph/4ZxVt paywall bypass

www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/jk-rowling-wants-me-fired-i-just-want-to-help-survivors-of-rape-g2thm7hnr

Thanks for sharing that @IcakethereforeIam There are not enough eye rolls in the world for those opening four paragraphs 🙄

To a large extent I agree with this bit though: 'The issue at Edinburgh was an issue of management, governance, and not following standards. It wasn’t about somebody being trans.' As in, MW was shit at the job regardless of being trans and the Board did not properly hold MW to account. However, I don't think you can say it wasn't at all related to MW's trans status as that was clearly a key factor in driving the ideology and likely in the Board's lack of challenge. Plus MW wasn't actually eligible for the role and had they not been falling over themselves to look progressive over that appointment, someone competent might have got the job instead, avoiding all of this. RCS were not responsible for that appointment but they did help create the culture and conditions at the time.

Had MW being a boring bog standard actual woman who’d been shit at their job I’ve no doubt the trustees would have had no trouble holding them to account. However it was clear that MW sacred caste status hugely influenced the trustees. They were nearly all young, inexperienced and true believers. They had no idea how to handle his poor performance (probably because they were scared of being seen as transphobic and racist if they made any critical comments)

Thanks for the Times article. It could hardly be more nauseating.

It absolutely was about someone being trans, it was about the most key aspect of trans ideology! That a man was set in a position of power under the illusion of being a woman, and everyone was compelled to maintain this illusion under coercion and punishment for not placing his needs and wishes above everything. It was exactly about gender ideology. And the mad desire of gender ideology to own all women's services, control them to centre men who identify as women, and force all women to submit and obey or be punished. It's the GI political wet dream.

What harms are left if you take away the forcing of a male into this position reserved for a woman, the requirement for abused women to gratify this man by playing along and subordinating their needs to his, submitting to the 'reframing of trauma', losing access to any help at all, the staff who were forced out for not bending the knee to him and the ideology that put him in power, the active prejudice and discrimination to anyone who would not submit to and participate in his belief system? And all that is still putting a very nice spin on what happens that shelters the man and the political system involved while not centering the women and their experience.

Oh my God that Times article was terrible. It was so "poor me". There is no focus on the women rape crisis survivors that she has failed by letting these injustices happen.

Great article in the Scotsman. God I'm so sick of our Scottish politicians. I disagree with the one quoted. I don't think admitting they were wrong makes them look stupid. Wes Streeting admitted he was wrong and it made me admire him. It's very difficult to admit you're wrong.

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scots-politicians-would-like-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-scandal-to-simply-vanish-4791974

Euan McColm has written several cracking articles about this stuff.

The Sunday Mail is pretty much all about Sandy offering up rape survivors to protect her own skin. This is some read!!

x.com/scot_feminists/status/1837763016722464995?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

She offered the phone numbers of rape survivors to the reporter 😡

It's extraordinary that a woman who works with traumatised women consistently puts her own needs ahead of theirs without even thinking. And can't see it.

Fucking he'll

She says that she does not expect to be in her post by this time next year.

Yeah. I'm going to predict that this is wildly over optimistic.

The first article was nauseating but the second one is excellent. Julie Bindel's column is fantastic.
However, the fact that Brindley offered the reporter the telephone numbers of rape survivors who supported her is a revelation and enough on its own to make her position untenable.

Edited for typo.

Brindley used her own daughter in the Times interview so why not survivors as well? No boundaries.

When you're in a hole the answer is usually to stop digging. Brindley seems to be making sure no-one will ever offer her another job in the sector. Maybe she's planning a move into politics.

Sadly true.

I assumed she'd contacted the survivors and asked them to contact the reporter! I'm still going to assume she did that, but that she gave out their 'phone numbers too! Grim.

I assume she got their consent. She'd have to have done in order to secure their cooperation.

Brindley said: “I didn’t see growing calls. Are you going to speak to some rape survivors, I think that would be an important voice if you are talking about me resigning from Rape Crisis Scotland, to include them?”

Within half an hour, the Sunday Mail had received multiple emails from survivors backing Brindley.

I'm guessing she's just an unable to grasp the lack of morality in asking multiple vulnerable women to talk to the press about their experience in a rape crisis centre just to back up her opinion.

What does she expect to happen next? A whole bunch of other rape survivors contradicting the first lot?

Ugh.

It's quite something that the Sunday Mail behaves more ethically in refusing to contact the survivors than the CEO of RCS in giving out their phone numbers.

Even if she did get their consent she'd have had to use their phone numbers gained because they used RCS services. That is not a GDPR compliant use of personal data.

Even if the rape survivors gave their numbers willingly it is still not ethical for Sandy to have such relationships with service users.

No, I agree.

I'm just wondering, in her head, what she expects to happen next.

I agree. Had MW said from the start: it is essential that all women who come to us feel completely at ease with their support worker. They need to feel in control and safe, so we must ensure we have a range of workers so that if they need a biological woman or a woman of their own race, religion or sexual preference, they have that need met with respect and they are reassured it is a right we feel they deserve.

If MW could grasp this, I wouldn't give a damn about their self ID. It's the blatantly male behaviour I have issue with: entitled, bullying, ego-driven, me-first, ladies-be-kind posturing that is so staggeringly obvious and inappropriate anywhere, let alone at a rape crisis centre of all places. It is 1970s MCP misogyny in its new lease of TA life. I grew up with it and I can smell it a mile off. It is no different in its fundamental mindset now than it was then and I fucking despise it with all my heart.