Astonishingly, there isn’t a single word of apology anywhere in this statement.
There isn’t a scintilla of contrition, not the tiniest glimmer of admission of culpability or responsibility. There isn’t even a weasel-worded expression of “regret”.
Rape Crisis Scotland is unfit for purpose, and its CEO must resign.
She won’t, of course, because nobody in Scotland has been accountable for anything for the last decade. The Lord Advocate presided over a malicious prosecution that will cost taxpayers upwards of £100m and didn’t have to quit over it.
And the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government presided over an unlawful, biased investigation that led to the persecution of an innocent man at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer (and hundreds of thousands to the man himself), and not only didn’t resign or get the sack, but was rewarded with a contract extension and a five-figure discretionary “compensation” payment, decisions which horrified even the Unionist media.
Nobody who was ever once favoured by Nicola Sturgeon has to answer for anything in Scotland, and Sandy Brindley – perhaps the most loyal of all her acolytes – will be no exception. And yet the report quietly published yesterday ought to demand a whole basket of rolling heads, because it will outrage anyone who reads it.
Vicky Ling’s report into the conduct of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre – run under the auspices and ultimate control of Rape Crisis Scotland – following a brutal, excoriating tribunal judgement against ERCC’s male transactivist CEO Mridul Wadhwa, contains paragraph after paragraph of horrifying findings.
The two-sentence summary is bad enough.
But it gets much worse in detail.
Let’s just linger over those highlighted lines for a moment. Women who’d been raped turned up at a rape crisis centre in the hope of support, and were made to feel WORSE. Indeed, so bad was it that some felt UNSAFE at a rape crisis centre, to the point where they avoided it entirely as a result.
That shouldn’t come as a surprise, though, because mind-bogglingly, the welfare of rape survivors was not ERCC’s first priority.
The monstrous Mridul Wadhwa treated a rape survivor in an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive” way because she did not conform to his belief in transgender ideology – a stance he had openly advertised for years.
But when countless people, including this site almost four years ago, raised the alarm about his behaviour, Sandy Brindley and Rape Crisis Scotland backed him all the way, accusing objectors of “misinformation” and “harassment”.
Despite the fact that Wadhwa had admitted obtaining the role by deception.
Ling’s report orders both ERCC and RCS to institute changes which would put survivors first and clearly define what a woman is – an utterly extraordinary thing for a rape crisis centre not to know.
It also demands that ERCC changes its culture to ensure people with gender-critical beliefs are treated with equal courtesy and respect. But anyone with the tiniest knowledge of either Mridul Wadhwa or Sandy Brindley knows that neither is capable of such behaviour.
Both are fully signed up to the gender cult and have made that fact abundantly plain, and so toxic and polarised is the debate that there is no credible possibility of either making such a shift of position. The issue of whether men can ever be women is, fittingly enough, a binary one. They either can or they can’t, and nobody holding the former belief can possibly be trusted to ensure that women’s single-sex spaces are protected.
It is astonishing that Wadhwa still remains formally in post as CEO – it’s not known whether he’s been getting paid since going on “leave” in June after the tribunal judgement. He is yet to issue any sort of statement, far less an apology, in the wake of its ruling.
It was not for Vicky Ling to demand the dismissal of any individuals, but her report is just about as explicit as it was possible for her to be.
The ONLY way to change the culture of ERCC “in the light of the Tribunal findings” is for Wadhwa to be removed. He is a fundamentalist ideologue, and the impossibility of changing the organisation’s culture while he remains its head is perhaps illustrated by the remarkable level of turnover in its board of Trustees since his appointment.
But he didn’t reach the position in which he was able to wreak so much harm alone.
He was selected for the role under the auspices of Brindley, in full knowledge of his character and beliefs, but also with the enthusiastic backing of Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman, who was also the Chief Operating Officer of ERCC at the time, who had been acting CEO when Wadhwa was given the position, and who stridently lambasted those voicing concerns about him with accusations of “ignorance, bigotry and hatred”.
(Ironically claiming that they might “damage survivors”, the very thing that Wadhwa has now been found guilty of by both the tribunal and Ling’s report.)
He was lionised by the “progressive” media, he was – naturally – beloved of Nicola Sturgeon and was allowed to stand as a candidate for the SNP on women-only shortlists despite having no Gender Recognition Certificate and being both legally and biologically male.
(Information you won’t find on his heavily-censored Wikipedia entry, and on which any attempt to place those facts will result in your immediate banning by the hardline transactivist editors with which the site is infested.)
All of these people share the responsibility for the harm Wadhwa was allowed to perpetrate on women at their most vulnerable moments. But Wings confidently predicts that none of them will face any consequences for it, nor even admit that they did anything wrong. Because this is Scotland in 2024, and consequences are only for little people.
