Looking at the job description document from the previous thread (which has been archived, good work whoever did that!), there's an awful lot of "leading" as well as requirements for knowledge of various bits of equality legislation, none of which appears to have been borne out by today's hearing. And, given the experience requirements, I'm really rather surprised that this role went to someone who'd been a bartender and a contract tracer. WTF went on with that hiring decision?