that no rules were broken? it were in place but it has been deemed that no rules were broken? that no rules were broken? it caused a stir at the that no rules were broken? it caused a stir at the time that no rules were broken? it caused a stir at the time and that no rules were broken? it caused a stir at the time and nicola - that no rules were broken? it caused a stir at the time and nicola bulley i a stir at the time and nicola bulley had been missing for about two weeks that the dash at the time the lancashire police made public health issues and everyone at the time surprised about how much detail that statement went into and they had a news conference that morning to talk about the issues that she had, personal issues, but they would not elaborate and then five hours they released the detailed statement which talked about nicola bulley s struggles with alcohol and problems with perimenopause and that caused quite an outcry from women s groups and politicians and the lanca
were two women that support austin being there. and that is it. being there. and that is it. but of course no being there. and that is it. but of course no rules being there. and that is it. but of course no rules are being there. and that is it. but of course no rules are being - being there. and that is it. but of| course no rules are being broken. no. austin is well within her rights to be there. she is following policy. she has done all of the testing necessary for her to be there to compete. yeah, in that sense, i m not saying that i support austin, but she has the right to be there in that too. this is a policy issue that needs to be addressed. nobody should be attacking the transgender athletes. there shouldn t be any of that. but we need to change policy, and we need to look at protecting the women, and we look at either category for the transgender athletes, or the transgender athletes, or the transgender men to also have a place in competition, and have an open competit
government inquiry into this. what will be more significant though is what the advisory committee on business appointments, which is a committee that examines anyjob roles that people in government might take up after they leave, what their conclusions are. bbc has been told that she is fully cooperating with them, and i think their findings of this will be key to whether or not she can take up this role working for the opposition, or if she does take it up, how long she may have to wait between what she has done and taking out that future role. now labour or insisting that no rules have been broken, and the shadow chancellor rachel reeves this afternoon was saying they look forward to welcoming her to the labour party. forward to welcoming her to the labour party- forward to welcoming her to the labour party. thank you for that. lu let labour party. thank you for that. lucy let b. labour party. thank you for that. lucy let b. the labour party. thank you for that. lucy let b, the
the investigation now by admitting it? ., , , ., , the investigation now by admitting it? ., , it? i have been repeatedly assured that no rules it? i have been repeatedly assured that no rules were it? i have been repeatedly assured that no rules were broken. - it? i have been repeatedly assured that no rules were broken. thank i it? i have been repeatedly assured i that no rules were broken. thank you mr speaker. that no rules were broken. thank you mr speaker. will that no rules were broken. thank you mr speaker, will be that no rules were broken. thank you mr speaker, will be prime that no rules were broken. thank you mr speaker, will be prime minister. mr speaker, will be prime minister tabby mr speaker, will be prime minister tabby house mr speaker, will be prime minister tabby house whether mr speaker, will be prime minister tabby house whether there - mr speaker, will be prime minister tabby house whether there was i mr speaker, will be prime minister tabby house
case for some of those gatherings after i left, and other gatherings when i was not even in the building. thank you. we need to understand is why mr thank you. we need to understand is why mrjohnson said to parliament that no why mrjohnson said to parliament that no rules or guidance were broken that no rules or guidance were broken in that no rules or guidance were broken in numberten that no rules or guidance were broken in number ten when we have evidence broken in number ten when we have evidence that he knew what the rules and guidance were, and that he was present and guidance were, and that he was present at and guidance were, and that he was present at gatherings where those rules and present at gatherings where those rules and guidance were breached. we have yet rules and guidance were breached. we have yet to rules and guidance were breached. we have yet to reach our conclusions in this inquiry have yet to reach our conclusions in this inquiry and we will not