Women’s Rights Network imploding

[NameChangedWren]

WTF is going on? There are letters circulating with members alleging bullying, and anyone who asks a question is suspended and comments deleted. The leader calling everyone to urgent meetings with bizarre messaging: ‘there is no letter, and if there is it’s full of lies, and you can’t see the letter just trust us, and ooh look, something shiny!’ Should I cut my losses, cancel my standing order and just follow Let Women Speak?

Mmmm . . . you haven't read the thread, have you.

Many of the points made by WorriedFeminist are issues that I and others have already raised in this thread or are based on information that I and others have already posted in this thread.

To me, WorriedFeminists's post looked suspiciously like she had asked an AI bot to summarise all the concerns and information posted in the thread. My sincere apologies to WorriedFeminist if my AI RADAR is over-sensitive or has blown a fuse 🙏

halfpastten Try reading these posts because I am sure as hell not going to write it all out again for you:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150352971

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150359649

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150360339

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150361923

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150369554

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150378943

halfpastten: "how the WRN leadership appears to be operating: distraction, vagueness, and smearing of anyone who wants transparency and due process."

Can't disagree with you there.

(Edit: typo corrected)

Weird! All those URLs are malformed. Trying again for you halfpastten:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150352971

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150359649

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150360339

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150361923

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150369554

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5485117-womens-rights-network-imploding?page=2&reply=150378943

Interesting, if vitriolic, thread. My take…

1. Why was a private letter about a grievance procedure that only a handful of women could possibly be involved in leaked in the first place? What are their reasons? They can’t be wanting to build bridges. Pure spite?
2. If a situation in an organisation has reached the stage of grievance procedure then perhaps the women who are leaking this letter aren’t as blameless as they’d like you to believe. Grievances don’t come out of nowhere. What was the original cause of the problem? In my experience, grievances in a volunteer organisation could be one or more of a number of things: safeguarding, unacceptable behaviour, breach of safety / confidence … etc I have no idea what it was but it must have been serious to get to this stage?

WRN has, rightly, maintained silence about a confidential matter while the slighted party has decided on a public whinge and the MumsNet Trolls have, predictably, risen to the bait. Nice one ladies.

Nice try @GreenEyedFeminist, but enough of us have been where these women are, to know that ejection from WRN is far more likely to be down to having displeased the head girls at the “top”, than any actual misconduct.

Ugh the “head girls” term of abuse has arrived. Why can’t people who are not very good at organising things be respectful of those who are? Clearly wrn is very effective under the stewardship of Heather. Why not appreciate this rather than kidding urselves that you could do better? Or else go and do better- create your own organisation

You raise some interesting points, although I suspect not in good faith given your use of language such as "spite", "public whinge" and "Mumsnet trolls".

"Why was a private letter about a grievance procedure that only a handful of women could possibly be involved in leaked in the first place? What are their reasons? They can’t be wanting to build bridges. Pure spite?"

The letter was about much more than a grievance procedure, yet you focus on that aspect and use it to smear the anonymous person (M) against whom a grievance had been raised.

You seem pretty close to the case to be able to claim that "only a handful of women could possibly be involved" - or are you just speculating wildly?

There are several posts in this thread along these lines which suggest a pattern of behaviour by WRN Ltd. Directors that has affected hundreds of members, eg.

WorriedFeminist says, "There have been several letters highlighting their poor practices and those who are challenging are trying to get the facts out to the rest of the membership."

Delilahnotinboots says, "There is a depressing history of overly controlling behaviour from WRN HQ which has already resulted in several groups leaving en masse. Serious governance issues which they won't address."

"Women of Wessex were a WRN group that left en masses for reasons very similar to what is happening now. And they weren't the only ones (Women of Surrey too)"

TipsyKhakiJoker says, "In my group, the group administrator got on the wrong side of the leadership, she is a strong woman who inspires confidence, and I think there was a lot of jealousy. She got kicked out of WRN, and the rest of the group left in protest. We are better as a local group, without that control from an unelected group."

RhiannonKPSS explains what happened in Scotland, "In Scotland 62 women were dumped because they wanted to meet up in person to “ network “ not just have zoom meetings. The WRN Scotland coordinators decided, without any consideration or consent to break uo the long running Scotland wide group, and split up into 3 regional groups, which did not suit everyone."

HagsRule replies to RhiannonKPSS saying, "Yep, I was one of them. It came out the blue and was a total shock to me. I just don't have any engagement with any women's groups now since that happened last year, which is a shame as I enjoyed being part of it at the time. There were a few vocal women in Scotland the leadership didn't agree with regarding certain topics but I and many others were on the sidelines but got binned as we joined another networking group, not realising it wasn't "allowed". I didn't even contribute to the group or anything, just one day checked my emails and I was no longer a member of wrn Scotland."

emwithme explains what happened in the South West, "Heather's gonna Heather. She booted many of us out in June of 2023 for not agreeing to relax our "intake" vetting - just after a similar group had had a virulent TRA join and doxx members. This included some of us who had been in the WRN since before it was actually the WRN, which grew out of a "shoppers" network dealing with changing rooms in eg M&S and Primark. Many of us in the South West put our foot down and left/were kicked out rather than relax our security and safeguarding. It was a rather tense morning (!) out of which sprang the Women of Wessex."

halfpastten says, "Whatever is happening, HQ saying trust us it's all lies is also unhelpful and creates distrust."

Those are just some examples from this thread.

You say, "They can’t be wanting to build bridges. Pure spite?"

The letter from Members of North & South Buckinghamshire WRN to WRN Ltd Directors appears to have been a private attempt to "build bridges" with the Directors of WRN Ltd. about issues that appear to have started, at latest, in May 2025. They ask for a response "no later than close of business on Thursday 29 January."

This thread was started on 2nd Feb 2026 and, unless I have missed something, no one has posted saying or suggesting that a written response was received by 29 January.

On 2nd Feb the OP summarises the response from WRN Leadership as:

"anyone who asks a question is suspended and comments deleted. The leader calling everyone to urgent meetings with bizarre messaging: ‘there is no letter, and if there is it’s full of lies, and you can’t see the letter just trust us, and ooh look, something shiny!’"

This does not sound like a constructive response to the Letter. So who is it who has been burning their bridges and perhaps, as you suggest, acting out of "pure spite"?

You refer to the "Grievance Procedure".

• The Letter, and most comments in this thread that mention it, claim that it was not followed as written.

The Letter also mentions "WRN's written disciplinary procedure",

• which the letter claims was not followed at all.

Perhaps one of the "company law experts" who has been posting on this thread could comment on this?

Unpaid volunteers or employees? Why businesses must be careful
HR Magazine 29 October 2025

"the distinction between a volunteer and an employee can become unclear when the nature of the relationship begins to resemble formal employment. This includes situations where volunteers are expected to work fixed hours, perform duties under supervision or are subject to disciplinary procedures.

Creating a distinction between volunteers and employees

Businesses must tread carefully to avoid inadvertently creating employment relationships with volunteers. If a volunteer is found to be effectively working under employment-like conditions, they may be legally recognised as an employee or worker."

"businesses must ensure volunteers are covered by appropriate insurance, including public liability and, where relevant, personal accident cover. This ensures protection in case of injury or damage during volunteering activities."

"An employment tribunal will look at the reality of the relationship and may find that someone labelled a volunteer is in fact a worker or employee. If so, organisations can be found liable for arrears of financial entitlements, such as national minimum wage and holiday pay; and compensation for unfair dismissal where a ‘volunteer’ is dismissed but employee status and qualifying service are established before the tribunal."

"tribunals will look at the reality of the relationship and consider factors such as scheduled hours and expectations to attend, the degree of control and supervision (including performance management), any benefits beyond reimbursement of expenses, the use of disciplinary or grievance procedures and how integrated the person is within the organisation."

www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/comment/unpaid-volunteers-or-employees-why-businesses-must-be-careful

Finally, you say, "WRN has, rightly, maintained silence about a confidential matter".

You apparently equate "Maintaining silence" with:

• "calling urgent meetings with bizarre messaging: ‘there is no letter, and if there is it’s full of lies, and you can’t see the letter just trust us"
• sending flying monkeys onto this thread to insult and smear women who have been loyal WRN members for years and have made significant contributions to the success and reputation of WRN and, thereby, to WRN Ltd.

Its quite disconcerting that on a feminist forum there are some who seem to thinks this behaviour is normal, and a business structure suitable for campaigning and networking.

And as for making an "internal"(?) letter public, that is because questions and requests for clarification where not answered.

Which is something that happens when such a situation arises.

Added to which if the public presentation of WRN is not what happens in public, then those who know this are quite likely to feel that need to let potential new participants what is going on.

And given the anger and distress the deceit has caused why would anyone praise Heather.

Unless of course the poster is Heather.

Tone policing does not address the issues at hand.
I agree HB did sterling work in getting WRN up and going, however she is clearly poor at group governance.
She has tentacles in every part of WRN, and the time has come for her step back from areas where she is causing more harm than good.
She has surrounded herself with yes-women who barely flinched at kicking out a fellow Director on spurious grounds.
Several women have suggested alternative methods of managing disagreements/issues which were later taken to the Directors, and ignored.
Yet again we find ourselves in a situation where active and motivated members are being treated as utterly disposable. It was a totally preventable situation, at every stage. Those at the top throwing their weight around is a major problem.
WRN can still be saved, but it would need HB to relinquish total control. What’s the chance of that?

’Go and create your own organisation’ implies that WRN is somehow the property of the current unelected leaders. Many of us DID create WRN, understanding it to be democratic grassroots local networks. The centralised control, needing ‘sign off’ for activities or letters, the kicking out of women from their own network, that’s all happened since it became WRN Ltd. It’s totally legitimate that women want their own organisation back from those who have hijacked it, rather than being told to go and make another one.

Is the Scottish Feminist Network active? What do they do?

What makes you think, @GreenEyedFeminist, that the group who wrote the original
letter leaked it? They didn’t, as I suspect you know. The second letter was addressed to members as well as directors and co ordinators,
precisely as noted, because there are a lot of members out there who have no idea
that the are not entitled to any grievance procedures despite the work they are putting in.

And as for the attitude that grievances don’t arise from nowhere, eh? Absolutely they don’t. They’ve arisen from HBs attitude and behaviour.

RinkleyRomaine there are TWO letters?

The letter uploaded several times in this thread starts:

26th January 2026
Dear WRN Directors,

Is there another letter that was addressed to Coordinators and WRN members as well as WRN Directors?

There is a second, addressed to
Directors, Co ordinators and Members.

Not my place to share, given that ‘security’ keeps being cited as a reason to kick members out without any process or notification, but I’m not surprised this one hasn’t been leaked. It’s not a good look for WRN leadership.

Another aspect of this that is sad as it has made me think about other GC groups that are relatively new.

For someone like me who is more used to groups that grow out of small groups networking and sharing and coordinating, I have been a bit uncomfortable with groups that appear to be the "product" (as there seems by some to want it all to be about a business model) of a few. But as far as I know women can sign up to be kept in touch with what that group is doing. eg Sex Matters, MBM and so on.

Just as some of us signed up to or participated in WPUK events, until basically they started telling us we weren't socialist enough for them to want to communicate with us, or put on events.

But in the instance of WRN this so clearly had a grass roots start, and out of nowhere, eg no consultation or informal discussion, it (or rather the name as "it" doesn't include members' rights) is a take over. In the past, informal networks have split between those who want some sort of formal group and those who want to continue in an automomous unstructured way. Usually this leads to a fight over who owns the name.

But if those who are part of this division have chosed to make it public, it certainly isn't anybody else's business to tell them not to. Nobody is making you read this thread.

I think it is positive that women feel able to use FWR to allow this above board out in the open exchange.

As a former member of Women’s Rights Network (WRN), I’m utterly disgusted by their descent into a tyrannical, unaccountable fiefdom. WRN operates with a ruthless top-down approach where any questions from members are dismissed as outright betrayal or disloyalty. Who are we, the members who helped to built this network, to dare challenge decisions handed down from on high?
They’ve slammed the door on real engagement—no sharing of ideas, no collaborative spirit. It became that members were no longer welcome to add any input, their expertise, or experiences. We were reduced to mere props to bolster the leaders, like some sort of cheerleading fan girls club. In Scotland, groups were even encouraged to pay for and wear T-shirts displaying a photo-edited picture of the Scottish WRN leader portrayed as some sort of saint!

WRN actively discouraged members from supporting Kellie-Jay Keen damning allegations against other (supposedly competitive) women’s groups like Let Women Speak (LWS), Scottish Feminists Network (SFN), and For Women Scotland (FWS). I felt this was all ego-driven—WRN leaders desperate to etch their names in history, on statues and in books, by drowning out or discrediting any rivals who might steal the spotlight. Coordinators giving orders to members: write to this MSP, show up here, do this, do that!. We were treated like disposable employees, with coordinators and directors lording over us as untouchable bosses. Question anything? You’re out.
This hypocrisy in a group claiming to champion women’s rights has triggered a mass exodus, including coordinators and even a director, all while WRN cowers in shameful public silence. In Scotland 62 women were callously purged after a non WRN chat group was set up. WRN claimed that members belong to WRN and must not be poached!
As someone astutely compared on here, it’s straight out of Animal Farm: the supposed liberators have become the oppressors, twisting “all animals are equal” into a farce where the elite pigs rule supreme. Just like the farm animals who rebelled against human tyranny for a vision of equality and self-determination, WRN members joined a grassroots movement to fight for women’s rights against patriarchal structures. But the leadership—much like the pigs—has seized power, rewriting the rules to suit themselves: “All members are equal, but coordinators and directors are more equal than others.” What started as collective action has devolved into a hierarchy where the “bosses” issue commandments from their ivory towers, silencing dissent, expelling the faithful for minor infractions, and hoarding control while the rest of us toil as mere foot soldiers. The pigs walked on two legs in the end; WRN’s elite now mimic the very oppressors they claimed to overthrow, betraying the revolution’s ideals for personal dominance.

I'm a "member" of my local WRN, and have had no email on this

I often say that women telling other women to shut up and not criticise “leaders” for the greater good, only benefits elite, and it’s the case again here.

I was invited to join the WRN about 3 years ago, by Heather, when I did a Zoom talk to their members about trans widows.

I declined for several reasons. I was given the impression that my work would be subsumed into a WRN “trans widows network”, of which I would only be a rank and file member, despite my expertise. Most of all though I was put off by the member “guidelines” which I was sent that said members “should” support other listed organisations (see extract). I knew this would not be of benefit to trans widows as I often need to disagree with these groups when they don’t act in trans widow’s interests. I also was perplexed as to why I should consider the leaders of these groups to automatically know better than me.

I know Kate Coleman felt similarly about their attitude to her work on prisons because we discussed it at the time.

While I enjoyed speaking to WRN members, I came away perplexed as to how the leadership I’d met with had emerged from a “grass roots” network, with no democratic process, and how this was different to any of the groups that I would be required to support. I said to my friend at the time, who was adjacent to the leadership and who had invited me to speak, that the organisation was led by an elite whilst purporting to be grassroots, and that for it truly to be a grassroots organisation it would need a democratic process similar to trade unions. She wasn’t able to give me a decent answer as to how the leadership situation had come about, and subsequently left for different reasons.

Subsequent developments have made me sure I was right.

Whilst I respect Maya, and Helen Joyce I’ve never been a massive fan of the way Sex Matters want women’s direct debits but not their opinions, but WRN is doing something worse in having the smoke screen of grassroots legitimacy whist in reality being just as elite led as Sex Matters, FPFW, WPUK etc etc.

Thanks that's illuminating.

Makes me think we need a new category of feminism.

Stalinist!

Oh I recognise the 'treated like disposable employees'. Treated with contempt. And of course, no employer should treat an employee like that, but when we are volunteers doing our best in good faith, it is disgraceful behaviour, bordering on bullying.

Ask your local coordinator. I believe they will have been told to deny its existence, but my understanding is that it did go to them all.

No, I've asked, and I believe her when she has said no.

I agree with you Tinsel Angel, I also remember how you were treated by Filia last year.

Kate Coleman was sidelined, and it was so unfair & unjust. She had been working hard for years and to have others breeze in and sideline her was appalling.
I support MurrayBlackburnMackenzie, who are doing fantastic research and data collection, and For Women Scotland as they are really are “ for women “ everywhere, they don’t have members, as it’s just the three of them, but their supporters are legions of women turning up to support them at demos, and Holyrood and at prisons, writing emails , and lobbying, buying their badges and donating when able. They really are grassroots and met because of MUMSNET, I for one , will be forever grateful to Mumsnet, MBM and For Women Scotland

I think this shows how important it is that everyone is clear what the structure is.

eg signing up to be kept informed by Sex Matters is (as far as I know) just that.

But some others are a bit more obscure or open to misunderstanding.

eg WPUK, although notionally organising and campaigning on women's sex based rights, should as they were obviously committed to it said "from a left wing perspective".

FiLia is in a way the saddest but best example of lacking in clarity and / or being as much a personal project for an individual. And as such has no ground rules or shared politics. ie you could be disengaged and respond as a user / buyer to an event. But then it becomes subject to the vageries of individual interests ie although claiming to be about "women's liberation" reflect the interests of a few, and certainly not the entirity of Women's Liberation. But also in using that wide ranging and almost indefinable label you end up with someone feeling entitled to speak about an issue from her personal perspective and those attending taken by surprise at being editorialised by an organiser. (I think a good reminder that if your feminism is effectively being a consumer of someones private project you are subject to that individuals angle. )

Just as an aside, and very much dont want to be negative about an event that has grown over the years, but Million Women Rise who post extensively on facebook, and get positive "likes" etc., have consistently not replied to requests for clarification as to whether the event is women only or trans inclusive. Despite advice from both political and legal aspects that above anyone advertising an event by / for women should also be direct and open about who they want to include, provide a service to.

I've read the letter, it does exist.

I think the important thing is clarity about what an organisation is and what it does. Obviously sometimes people have an agenda whereby they say one thing and mean / do another, but it can also be just a lack of clarity of purpose.

I understand the criticisms of Sex Matters, but they are clear they are NOT grassroots. Honest and up front. Similarly, it's clear that anyone can turn up and speak at LWS events - you don't need to be vetted. It really is what it says on the tin. Most of the time women speaking are articulate, brave, intelligent but I have seen a few whose ideas I definitely don't agree with - but the access to the mic is equal. TRAs can even come and speak!

I've got to be honest, kicking 62 normal women out of a group for talking outside that group is not a good look whichever way you slice it. It seems very controlling.

We have enough of society treating us like lesser servants and trying to control us and use us. If it's women's groups doing it, IMO they're not really women's groups.

Interesting to hear TinselAngel's experience, as someone I've grown to respect for deeds and words (that don't contradict each other and are honest).

I wonder if the WRN women could somehow take back the organisation their work has built? Might have to call it something else given the business that's been set up (also slightly shady if members didn't know about it).