Edinburgh rape crisis centre “doubled down” on defence of trans boss after damning tribunal ruling

[IwantToRetire]

Newly-released documents show that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) privately claimed that the conduct of Mridul Wadhwa had been “misrepresented” at an employment tribunal.

A ruling had found that Ms Wadhwa, a biological male who identified as female, had been the “invisible hand” behind a “heresy hunt” against support worker Roz Adams, who was hounded out of the organisation due to her gender-critical beliefs.

Correspondence released under Freedom of Information laws shows that Ms Wadhwa briefed officials in the Scottish Government, which ERCC relies upon for funding, about the outcome of the case.

It shows that the centre claimed the chief executive’s conduct at a University of Edinburgh event, in which she allegedly said “firing can be as important as hiring” to create “inclusive” spaces, “was misrepresented at the tribunal”.

The centre added that it was looking into launching an appeal despite comprehensively losing the case.

Article continues at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/28/edinburgh-rape-crisis-doubled-down-on-trans-boss-foi/

(Sorry to start another thread but there are so many I didn't know which one to add it to - well not when its late and I'm tired)

In case it disappears behind a pay wall also can be read at https://archive.is/ziJVg

@Igmum

Having re-read the bit about the appeal, I think those docs were obtained by FOA but date to just after the court judgment was released, when they still would have had time to appeal. They have reached the remedy stage now so I imagine it is too late for them to do it now.

This keeps coming up on threads.

I meant that misinformation that keeps being posted about how the SSE work.

The SSE are obviously horribly limited, but they do exist.

The problem is the people who are left to implement them, or in the case of ERCC, go out of their way to abuse to promote their personal political agenda.

Just posting the section of Tribunal Tweets in the recent remedy hearing where I think the communication referred to in the article is the same one:

C no evidence of Ix. In faact MR, tried to dismiss the findings. MW was allowed to take leave and by mutual agreement was "time for a change of leadership". No sense of MW having to take responsibility or risl reputational damage. Feels like a huge misjustice and treats

C employees differently based on belief. This email from MW and MR, who gave evidence and headed disc hearing, who has then been promoted to convener. MR wrote to main funders [reads regretfully unsuccessful in tribunal, board received it w sadness and humility and considering

C an appeal. The alleged conduct of CEO at uni may have been appropriate. They contacted re the event and are satisfied this event was misrepresented at the tribunal. They went out of their way to clear MW's name - by MW or MR. Rather than Ix the tribunal findings. ERCC say have

C insurance that fully covers the compensation.
NC What does this say that ERCC will make necessary changes?
C Before that, want to highlight p239 says whilst scope was widened they say the C wasnt disciplined, but I was disciplined and findings were upheld at appeal

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1845757227954516353

Roz has apparently been awarded damages - as per this article in The Times: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/counsellor-wins-70000-after-trans-heresy-hunt-at-rape-charity-d2w5ldf6m

Will the remedy hearing judgment be published? I’ve checked the tribunal judgments page and the only relevant document at the moment is the original tribunal judgment.

I think TT said it's coming soon.