Beth Rigby interviews Iain Anderson

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

He does not do well!

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1682117673277337600?s=46&t=aWQLrPtVicDNf6MQpq5WVg

Bloody hell, Beth was amazing and it was a delight to watch Iain squirm.

He showed a complete disregard for women, including lesbians who he claims to represent. Fucker.

I'm so pleased to see Beth is on our side. She's brilliant

If Stonewall weren't so dangerously powerful that would be funny.
Incoherent, evasive, unclear, rambling. An embarrassing display of an ideology based on fantasy and enforced by bullying.

That's all they've got.

I recommend everyone watch this. I can't quite believe what I saw.
She did really well.
I missed the beginning but he could not express his or stonewall's position on anything at all. He had no way of making it sound sensible and good when he was actually asked the direct questions, using non genderist language and concepts, and so he floundered, waffled and sweated. Relying on very general "I want everyone to be cared for..." bollox. Avoiding answering every question.
This is what happens when you refuse to discuss it for years.

She certainly came across that way, but I don't think we can or should make any assumptions about that. She's a professional and it's her job to challenge. She did it very well!

Everything about him showed how deeply uncomfortable he was getting as that interview progressed! That smile😱

I think he knows too. And that's why he struggled so much.

I wonder if people are beginning to realise why they spent years going "no debate" yet?

I didn't get the impression she was on our side as in one of us. She was doing what journalists should have been doing all along. Sometimes she was a bit unclear eg when talking about the single sex exceptions.

She should of asked him where he got the 4% figure. But she still did really brilliantly.

did anyone else watch that and think 'This man .... this man.... THIS is the man who is the chair of the organisation that is socially engineering every major institute in our country. THIS MAN .''

I was to busy telling him to fuck off

Now however having read you're post yeah, this man????? What the fuck!

also did anyone else notice the business pitch at the beginning when discussing gay marrige legislation... when he said 'yes, and many politicians thought this was the highwatermark or lgbt rights, but no... '

what he meant was... KEEP THAT FUNDING ROLLING IN

and is the crux of how Stonewall has become the organisation it has.

Apparently, there is legislation..did anyone know this before tonight?

And what is this Equalities Act? Its a very subtle but consistent error... wonder what that's all about.

I wouldn't even employ him to hand out free ice creams, nevermind instruct our civil servants what to think.

a transcript of this would be absolutely hilarious, one that included all 'umms' and stutters and repeated words.

It sounded like he was just hearing about it for the first time...

What an absolute weasel. He didn't answer a single question. He wants to 'have a conversation', just not with anyone who disagrees with him. Fottfsofatfosm.

Just watched this bit of car crash TV.

I don't think he believes his own nonsense or that of Stonewall. If he does he certainly can't explain it or defend it with any coherence.

I suspect his actual position is that he knows TWAM but thinks they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Any women or girls objecting don't matter because it's not important that we live fulfilled lives, feel included and safe or even have fair sports if that gets in the way of something a man with a gender identity wants.

Filibustering until the time was up.

”Well EVERYONE deserves, unreservedly, to uh, do whatever it is they wish to do and be fulfilled in their lives in the way they choose and of course EVERYONE has the right to say which way they want things to be for them, no one would disagree with that, I certainly wouldn’t uhm disagree, nor would I suggest anything different, and EVERYONE a must be included of course and be able to decide what they prefer….”

Good grief.

How could he bear making such a tit of himself? Is he getting paid a lot?

The other thing was all that facial tension - grimacing, blinking, wrinkling his nose. He felt really uncomfortable. Talking disingenuous waffle like the Devil’s got a poker up his backside.

The picture of Lia(r) Thomas standing next to the women competitors is always so illuminating and then he had the balls to say 'we want everyone to be able to compete' well, except for the women that Thomas has excluded, eh? They're not very included by his massive male body are they?

Beth, though very good, missed the opportunity to point out that Thomas can and always has been able to compete against the other men. No-one's banning Thomas from competing.

Desperate stuff.

He seems to have a plan for a conversation but with who? What was wrong with having the conversation then?

Did Labour leadership ask him to sort it out?
He's got no chance, he's got nothing to say about actual impacts of the law. If he's labours hope for a reconciliation with alienated voters they're completely fucked.

And he said women should have the right to choose a female carer. The men are going to hate him for that. Labour will be fighting itself over this for the next year.

What an inept man.

I watched that wondering why the hell he’d agreed to an interview. I think that was his attempt at softening Stonewalls position, without upsetting the TRAs. Two minutes in to the interview, he discovered it was impossible to soften the position without them losing it, hence the umming, sweating and looking very uncomfortable - he/they are backed into a corner now.

This could be interesting.

And he said women should have the right to choose a female carer

It's all very well him saying that but in reality because of what his organisation has been pushing for providers of said care now have it written into policy and contracts that women do not have a right to same sex female carers.

It's not explicitly put that way of course but when policy states that staff must be treated as the gender they identify as the result is the same.

He's being extremely disingenuous here or he's too stupid to understand exactly what Stonewall and others have done to women who need personal care.

One of my fave series episodes ends with the boss saying to his team "Well gentlemen, I'll listen to any reasonable comments on my report, but once you've finished, I'll tell you how it's going to be..."

I believe this was the Stonewall "consensus".
That held up until last year.
2023 isn't last year. The consensus isn't holding.