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?

Yet we’re told of for referring to “head girls”.

Yes, using their strengths. If you just offer grassroots orgs you will not tap in to all the women who don't work well that way. The very fact that you want to do a pointy finger "oh look, she said 'using'" means that you are exactly the sort of woman I could never achieve anything with. And I'm sure you feel the same about me.

That’s alright then isn’t it? No concern for how your fine leader is treating women elsewhere?

I suppose all the other members of WRN will be reassured to see that you can be booted out for belonging to a particular geographic group, and nothing else, but if you want to rejoin you can. As long as you can demonstrate that you had nothing to do with the thing you're accused of, even when it isn't really clear what that is. I'm sure this will keep the little wimmin in line. It speaks of the fragile egos of those in charge.

Anyways, I'm off. I got what I wanted, which is the other side of the story. So thanks to Jean for posting that. I shall leave you all to your inexplicable efforts to get WRN to implode.
Let's hope we can co-operate enough to win the war and not just the battle.😘

show the rest of us how to do that without leadership, structure or discipline.

I think this is the risk and peril of grass roots organisations with high ideals (as they should have, of course) and a commitment to collective action (ie feminist and often leftist organisations).

There is an element of being a victim of your own success. When an organisation gets large & popular and brings togerher many different people, of different broad political persuasions as the WRN does, the establishment of structure and order and - yes, leadership - is where such groups can disintegrate.

I see a lot of talk on FWR and Twitter about "head girls." Sexist language I find really problematic.

But that aside, the problem is that a national network does need structure, organisation, and leadership, but people often resent this. Yet a large organisation can't work without it.

I do love a passive aggressive flounce. So embarrassed for you tho.

Having had this experience, the fact that Heather writes a long letter making unfounded accusations, then kicks out a WHOLE GROUP without any investigation, is not going to convince anyone she was justified.
Jean is here under her own name, so is Lily. If you’re going to speak for WRN, have the guts to do that openly.

From what I have seen, the Bucks women made many attempts to engage WRN in discussion to resolve this, and were ignored. Now over 80 women have been kicked out without any reason or evidence they did anything wrong. I’ve seen some of their responses and it seems to have come totally out of the blue, and every ordinary member has got swept up in mass expulsion action. Whatever any of the individual women may or may not have done wrong, this is no way to operate.

Picture of Heather taking a fair and collaborative approach to issues raised by women in Bucks:

I was booted this morning despite not being in Bucks but a supportive member elsewhere. There has been no involvement of structure, procedure or discipline. None. No communication from HQ whatsoever until my copy of that letter arrived. This isn’t about organisation, or jealousy, or any of the other nonsense in the reply. Which is the very first reply any of us have had.

And need to beg to be let back in. I’d be ashamed to beg. Stand tall.

It would not surprise me in the least if it was the WRN themselves who have tactically leaked this to create both the fire and smoke they require to try and justify their actions.

Not accepting or responding to any communication from those accused isn’t how any organisation should work.

Members wanted to reach a point of understanding and to move forward, the WRN has not allowed this; for members it has always been about co-operating to protect women’s rights, but for the WRN leadership it appears to be about ego.

Haha!

When I was removed from WRN Scotland last year with no warning, I didn't receive the email explanation until after I'd been removed from all the groups (a screenshot of this letter was provided in this thread a good few pages back). The email didn't make sense to me as I'd not breached any security or been involved in the chat. I was told I could apply to come back in after an interview with the leadership but I just decided not to, and I also left the unofficial chat as well, it seemed pointless to remain and the whole situation has just made me wary generally of joining groups.

You didn't say, using all the strengths of GC women.

You said, "using all of GC women in a variety of ways".

Who is doing the "pointy finger" here?

"The very fact that you want to do a pointy finger "oh look, she said 'using'" means that you are exactly the sort of woman I could never achieve anything with."

You just keep digging yourself in deeper every time you post.

There is no, "what we could achieve" or "what WRN could achieve".

Just what you personally could achieve . . . by "using" other GC women.

I don't want to assume that you are Heather but the way you are speaking makes it sound that way.

Whether or not you are Heather, it must be acknowledged that Heather "used" and continues to use the women in the network that another woman (Shirley) set up, ie. by covertly setting up a Private Ltd Company in order to take personal ownership of WRN and the work of members of WRN.

So far, you have had nothing to say about a number of issues raised in this thread about financial transparency, how donations have been "used" and payment of donations into a Director's personal bank account.

Would you care to clarify those issues, rather than insulting women posting on this thread?

Before the “night of the long knives” in June last year when WRN Scotland threw 62 members out, the leader & her chosen few told everyone that they were “restructuring” the special interest subgroups.

They said that everyone had to reapply to join the subgroups they were interested in but WRNS ignored requests to join subgroups from people who perhaps might have challenged their own opinions.

One subgroup vaporised because the admins in that group refused to take advice from those in that group who actually had working experience in that field.

When someone mentioned an event that WRN should have been represented at, the leader replied that she “didn’t know anyone who was able to go”. No request to the membership for a representative who was able to attend. No one in the inner circle was available so end of discussion. Not a good look.

Text of letter from WRN Directors to members of WRN North Bucks & South Bucks (and members of some other Groups according to PP):

26 February 2026

Dear Member

This letter is to inform you that there have been a series of breaches of our guidelines mainly that of sharing WRN Information in groups that are not part of the WR network. As you know. we as an organisation take privacy very seriously for good reasons. and our member guidelines specifically forbid such information sharing.

After investigation we have identified that these breaches are most likely to have originated with members of the North and South Bucks local groups. Furthermore, a statement in a recent communication said that members of these groups were acting as a group.

Unfortunately, due to these breaches and the implication that the actions were collective, we are left with no choice now but to remove all members of these two groups from WRN.

This means that your WRN log-in(s) will be deactivated, you will no longer receive member emails, and you will no longer be permitted to attend WRN-only events. If you feel that you have been removed in error and would like to re-activate your membership please email [email protected] and your membership will be reconsidered.

We would like to take this opportunity to highlight to you some inaccuracies contained in a series of anonymous communications received by the Directors which purported to be from all members of North and South Bucks.

1 The following statement is incorrect: ". . . the local coordinator was instructed by Heather to remove M from the Buckinghamshire network as a sanction for having challenged he grievance process and is decision"

It is correct that the local coordinator was asked to remove M from the Buckinghamshire group, but this was as a result of M's resignation from WR. M submitted a strongly worded resignation letter, received on 9 July 2025, in response to the outcome of a grievance procedure.

(A rescindment of this resignation was made after 6 weeks, an apology made after 3 months, and M was subsequently reinstated in her coordinator role.)

2 The following statement is a misrepresentation of fact: 'During a subsequent meeting, another member (M) challenged the basis on which these decisions were made. As a result of this challenge, M was shocked to find that a grievance was raised against her, without the WRN's written grievance procedure being followed in full!'

The grievance was raised due to the nature of M's challenge, which took the form of an inappropriate verbal attack on other {non-director) members of WRN resulting in a formal complaint about her conduct. M had previously raised her objection and had a discussion lasting over an hour with Heather Binning. She had been listened to and her objections noted. There is no situation in which a verbal attack is acceptable, particularly when directed at fellow WRN members.

WRN’s written grievance procedure was followed in full, and despite claims that the procedure had not been followed no formal complaint, nor appeal was submitted at the time.

3 The following statement is a misrepresentation of fact: '(X) was instructed by Heather to step down from her role as a director.’

No woman has the right to be a director of WRN, but key requirements are to work as a team member, maintain open and honest dialogue with fellow board members and to take collective responsibility for decisions. This is true for all organisations.

Having lost the confidence of her fellow board members, and as a courtesy to her, the director in question was twice given the opportunity to voluntarily stand down before formal proceedings were initiated.

This issue first arose in early June 2025 and we have spent many months trying to achieve a satisfactory resolution to these disagreements.

In closing we would like to thank you for your contribution — along with the contributions of so many women in the network — to making WRN the credible body it now is. On a personal note we are sad that a small number of individuals have seen fit to be so critical of their fellow members, who are entirely unpaid, but work (some full-time) to make WRN successful, and that this has resulted in us having to take these steps.

Yours sincerely

WRN Directors
Heather Binning
Claire Loneragan
Mary Howden
Cathy Larkman
Marianne Stewart

The breaches are “most likely to have originated” with over 80 members, who all had to be kicked out? What standard of evidence is that, ‘I saw Goody Buckinghamshire consorting with the devil?’

Oh, that’s OK, then. Your coordinator say it’s all hearsay, so it must be. 🤡

Discipline? Dictatorship, more like. I’ve no interest in being part of an organisation that uses and discards women in the way that WRN does. ‘The directors’ need to take an honest look at what they are supporting.

There has been no investigation. Just saying.

I can't say that HasItImplodedYet's bad-tempered, insulting and unintentionally revealing interventions before flouncing have reassured me about the objectivity of WRN processes.

Pity she could not hang around long enough to let us know if there has been any investigation into one of the Directors requiring members to pay WRN donations into her personal bank account.

From the way HasItImplodedYet spoke, content not tone (though maybe both?) it did seem as if HasItImplodedYet was outing herself as Heather Binning.

If she is Heather, that also explains why she doesn’t address the question of whether Heather gets paid as a consultant, whilst claiming that everything done for WRN is voluntary.

”television interviews being restricted to a handful of women from the leadership team”

Interesting comment, I haven’t seen anyone mention tv interviews in this thread, so I guess you are referencing internal WRN discussions. Everyone with any experience of media acknowledges that Cathy Larkman is the only WRN spokeswoman who has the skills for the role. No one I know has ever complained about Cathy being on tv, only expressed embarrassment when other women insist on being in the limelight. Thats not jealousy @WittyLimeBiscuit, that’s recognition of who should be a figurehead and who should not. Another thing that MiUST NOT BE SAID openly in WRN for fear of offending egos.