Womans Hour Wed 23rd April.

Listening again; so much time given for answers.

the clip online I interpret as someone on radio really concentrating on their questioning and the answers.

The important thing (imo) is that clear run at the answers. Those listeners who have never really grasped the detail of what this is all about are now actually hearing the GC side of the story properly. Also, our national broadcaster has effectively been forced to start airing properly the GC arguments. Otherwise it would just look absolutely ridiculous given the court ruling.

Same here. I am pleased Susan Smith was given a clear run at her answers. She’s brilliant.

The BBC.

Bias by whom? The interviewer, the sound engineer who recorded the interview, the producer who edited it? We just don't know and never will. I'm just glad that WH actually interviewed the stunningly good Susan Smith who got all her points across so clearly and well. It was a triumph for her and for FWS.

Janice Turner in her Notebook today:
"Late to the party
You run the flagship BBC radio show for women and — wow! — two Scottish women, their arms raised in victory, are pictured outside the Supreme Court on the front page of every national newspaper. They’ve made history! Everyone is talking about their seven-year battle for this landmark ruling on what the hell is a woman.
If you were the Woman’s Hour editor Karen Dalziel, wouldn’t your journalistic instincts tell you to rip up your running order, (maybe cut your 4,000th item on the menopause) and rush these women to the studio? Er, no. Next day, hilariously, WH had a man, Joshua Rozenberg, explain the ruling.
Apart from a brief appearance on World at One, Radio 4 ignored the women: they weren’t interviewed on the Today programme, nor PM, whose presenter Evan Davis sounded delighted to find in Lord Sumption a man to trivialise and misrepresent the judgment (while failing to name the Equality Act correctly), with no balancing voice.
Finally yesterday, after substantial social media pressure, Susan Smith of For Women Scotland appeared on Woman’s Hour. A whole week late. Hey, Karen, what a scoop!"

Has anything changed in the BBC off the back of Stephen Nolan's report on Stonewall in the BBC and Ofcom? Or did they simply deny there was any bias or influence, and use Nolan's programme to prove that in some form of twisted logic? I always found the "everyone's complaining about us, so we must be doing fine" argument spurious, when one side's complaints come from a culture where "hate", "violence" and other ordinary words have taken on a whole new meaning.

I’d still really love to know what the usual presenters were doing that was so pressing that they couldn’t find the time to fit in a pre-recorded interview. You’d have thought any half decent journalist would have killed to present a story like this, whether they agreed with FWS or not.

My 77 year old mother, who head butted more glass ceilings, (and broke a few) than these pampered idiots have had hot dinners, has been raging for years, and was delighted last Wednesday.

It matters because it is another indication of bias.

Gosh I see what you mean. The interviewer was clearly not hiding her opinion. It was very much as though FWS had done something wrong!!!

It was temporarily semi-protected earlier today https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Women_Scotland&oldid=1287056875

All that will happen is that the page will end up protected or semi-protected.

I honestly can't believe Clare didn't thank Susan, but the interviewer isn't the person who edits the recording. We simply can't know what else was said and I think disagreeing about this actually takes attention away from just how good Susan's answers were.

Original birth certificate is what matters.

I thought the Supreme Court gave clarification to that in a very coherent and understandable way. Sex is biological sex (for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010), and biological sex means sex at birth, as recorded at birth.

Therefore one's original birth certificate, created by a registrar within the first six weeks of life, is the document that matters.

I’ve just tried to edit but I can’t for some reason. I wonder if they’ve locked down the page somehow. I’d be raging if I was working for FWS.

Listened to the whole thing now - I thought the interviewer was fine and probably asked what she needed to. Susan was magnificent.

On the principle that a carrot is better than a stick, I’ve emailed to say well done for covering this and I hope to see WH featuring similar achievements in the future.

My guess is the lack of a thank-you is because it was pre-recorded and the thank-yous and final pleasantries were cut to save time.

Woman's Hour is 57-ish minutes long. Why did this interview have to be crammed into 20 minutes? What was so pressing about all the other content that 10 seconds couldn't have been found to say a polite thank-you?

I've just seen the clip on Woman's Hour instagram feed; while it's interesting that they chose to highlight that particular question (of the many small donations funding the court case), Clare McDonnell's expression is certainly... uncompromising.

I agree with you.
It was a good interview with plenty of space to answer fully.
A cosy chat would not have allowed Susan to flesh out her answers so fully.

I thought it was excellent, just what the subject required.
The right questions were asked, and plenty of time given to the answers.
I don't feel the need to police the tone of the presenter.

Didn’t Talk Radio have a TRA on and as soon as she was asked a question she declared she was ‘unsafe’ and stormed off?

Gosh I've since picked up a different vibe from the BBC online clip (sorry it is on X, but I am sure it is probably somewhere else too by now): https://x.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1915048936265408659

They never do. They cancel last minute or only do pre recorded interviews. Refuse to debate with other interviewees