Jane, thank you a million times over. You were very, very brave and so strong to keep refusing to listen to his segues, semantics and implications that women asking this are disrespecting men who say they are women and causing ‘toxicity’.
I think that Nick guy was actually a bully. Why didn’t he intervene to make Sir Kier stop obfuscating, and make him answer the point about letting men into women’s sex based spaces when they have a GRC? He left it to you to insist on a straight answer in the face of those blatant time-filling tangents and evasions, then he made out you were not giving Kier Starmer a chance.
Can you believe that he tried that Brianna Ghey/Rishi Sunak line yet again, rather than answer? It is sickening that for all he goes on about Rishi Sunak bringing up BG in a seriously tactless context, he, Kier is still manipulating Brianna’s tragedy for his own ends. What was it supposed to mean anyway? That women wanting sex based spaces are responsible for causing harm to children like Brianna?
I also heard him at the start not answer another woman. She told how her son had not been able to get a secondary school place. Therefore, she and her husband had mortgaged their house to send him to a private school.
She asked how, given what had happened to their son, children leaving the private sector due to vat, could actually be sure they could get a place at a comprehensive instead?
He had no answer at all to that interesting question, which was not about whether vat is right or wrong, but just about what will happen in practice? He just gave his pre-set speech on and on no matter how many times he was brought back to the question .
To return to your call near the end of the programme, I am not surprised you were shaking. I wish I could take you out for something lovely.
You are a hero. Thank you again.