I publicly acknowledge that I contributed to the feather ruffling, and I am very sorry for the effect that it had on the individual controller.
I, too, was under a lot of pressure, as a very high worth individual had paid a very worthwhile charity for the homeless a very great deal of money for the experience, and I had told him, quite rightly, that the time to do it is early on Sunday when the Class D is only notional, as City Airport is closed.
I would imagine that the homeless charity will suffer a substantial loss of income as a result of what happened.
The issue of whether Class D airspace should be closed to any VFR traffic when the airport that it serves is closed is a matter which I am discussing at a senior level with NATS and most certainly will discuss with CAA/SARG, starting tomorrow at the FASVIG meeting. It comes down to questions about how Class D is managed compared to the ICAO definition, and questions of what should happen when there are not enough resources to manage airspace.
That informs the vociferous debate about Farnborough Class D, because TAG's whole premise is that they will always permit access (not just transits, any legitimate activity). If CAA/DfT say that it is acceptable to refuse access to Class D because of shortness of staff, even when there are no IFR arrivals or departures, then it will redouble GA's efforts to resist Controlled Airspace.
So the floor is rather covered with cans of worms, but, no doubt, all will be resolved in the usual, friendly, constructive and professional way.