Thoughts:
When NC uses the word bigot J has a visceral reaction and demands she tone down her language. This seems quite remarkable, particularly given how willing HH and ST have been to bandy the word bigot about. Why did he have such a reaction, uncalled for, to NC?
There has, in my view, clearly been backroom chatter about NC and a legacy of Stonewall training but is that enough for the J to expose himself this way? I don't think so. I think there must be more to it.
Before the ET starts the panel meets in private, as far as I understand it, to discuss case management having read the documents. I suspect that something has been discussed in that meeting which has set the J on this course of behaviour. What could it be that has taken him to this extreme position where he is assuming that NC is being emotive purely and simply to be emotive and assumes there is no logic to her questioning other than that. That she somehow is geared up to provoking emotional responses rather than working to expose the bias and lack of logic in the general reactiveness to SEEN.
The panel members have somehow established that the J needs to control GC language, that GC's are inherently transphobic and he needs to be careful not to allow that in. I think that must have been brought up in response to NC's request to use correct sex language and which resulting decision exposes the J's lack of understanding of the ETBB guidance. I am presuming that in that meeting, and in the discussion that developed from considering that request, some comments have been made about NC and her approach that have caused the J to make those assumptions.
Today NC did excellent logical work in the face of it. With even mumsnetters inclined to dismiss her approach before we got to the key points she got NB to agree to:
-
There could be no equality impact assessment because it would be impossible to do that reasonably in an environment where impartiality doesn't actually exist as a foundation. Thus demonstrating to the panel that the lack of an equality impact assessment can't be found to be to the detriment of Rs. THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT and so important given HHs desire to make that central to claims of hostile working environment.
-
That there was nothing remotely troubling about GC/ SEEN posts and the only troubling material were the comments from TRAs. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT because it undermines the credibility of the witnesses to a huge degree. You can't claim harassment if you are the one, in chief, doing the harassing and your whole claim about harassment is dependent on how the workplace responded to YOUR harassment rather than any harassment originating from others than YOU!
-
The other point NC hit home was the fact that in her committment to being seen to be fair and reasonable, NB has demonstrated that she is willing to overlook consistent bad behaviour and significant bad behaviour (JH). This is hugely significant because it again undermines the credibility of the witness. They have not been passively in receipt of false expectations, but have been active participants in generating a culture of bad behaviour that is so intimidating even NB, a rational intelligent and calm witness otherwise, is willing to kow-tow.
The J/ panel can argue against the points NC is making but it is extraordinary that he doesn't seem to be willing to even see that she is making significant points he will need to consider.