Thanks CoolforCats.
I agree with your take on the WEC debacle. My understanding is that the ‘other side’ claim that Sarah Owens was beyond reasonable in her patience because Baroness Faulkner was filibustering. They claim that when she arrived, she gave a hard deadline by which she had to leave, and then, gave very long answers that didn’t address the questions posed and used up all the time available on irrelevant detail. This is the justification provided for the interruptions and irritation. If the shoe was on the other foot and the EHRC guidance played fast and loose with the ruling whereby they were leaving loopholes for allowing transwomen in female provision - I would have sympathy for a chair getting frustrated and interrupting if this wasn’t being addressed.
The bit I don’t get is what answers they sought that they didn’t get? There were questions that she redirected to the government and the courts, because they related to issues outside of the EHRC’s remit. Beyond that, I am baffled.
I tend to think it’s a case of failing to differentiate between determining an answer to be unsatisfactory because (a) it wasn’t answered and (b) they disagree with the answer. I expect they were expecting their views to be affirmed and failure to do this reflected a ‘non answer’.
If this isn’t the case, I would love to know what questions they feel haven’t been answered and do these could be provided. Getting to a place of ‘both sides’ properly understanding each others position and recognising where and why there is disagreement would reflect great progress!