Namechanged for this - I am a Judge in a different Tribunal and thought I would comment on a few comments/questions people have - note I am not watching this Tribunal live and won't be commenting on any specifics within it.
Stenographers - I am not an expert in the different types but I have had two types. The 'old fashioned' version where one stenographer is at the machine where you push multiple buttons at one, and someone else next to them and corrects the typescript as they go, and the more 'automated' version where the stenographer has headphones and watches as the computer does the speech to text bit, and the stenographer corrects that as it goes along.
The judge generally gets the transcript at the end of the day but even with stenographers I prefer to take a lot down longhand for three reasons. Firstly so I have it instantly available if I want to read it in any break in preparation for asking the witness questions. Secondly because I find it easier to skim read than a transcript, because the transcript is generally provided double spaced which I find harder to skim, and because the transcript adds in everything - every um, err, repetition etc which is harder to skim read than my notes, and thirdly because I can also scribble relevant notes as I go along in relation to what someone is saying, and then go back and see if I need to ask a question about that or if it has been covered later on. A transcript is however brilliant for searching on an individual word when you are writing up.
You need permission for transcribers to be present in court because it affects the size of the court room you need. If the hearing is in a format where it is recorded (and not all are) then you can also pay for a transcript later from the audio file. You can find more details about this including costs here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/order-a-transcript-of-court-or-tribunal-proceedings-form-ex107/guidance-for-requesting-a-transcript#employment-tribunal-judgments
What the panel is deciding - It is important to understand that what is being decided is not 'did this person break the law/how does the law apply to this case' It is 'did this person break this law/how does this law apply to this case'. In other words, everything needs to be broadly set out by the claimant in advance. And if something else comes to light that is in relation to a different law entirely, the judge won't make a finding in relation to that. For example, if in the course of an employment tribunal it somehow became obvious that someone hadn't filed a tax return when they should have done, that wouldn't be a matter that the judge would make a decision about.
Each of the barristers/representatives/advocates is painting a picture, using agreed facts, contested facts, and the law, as to what the situation is. The panel's job is firstly to decide what is the fact of any contested matter, which facts are relevant and which are irrelevant, what is the relevant law (which may or may not be agreed) and how to apply the relevant facts to the relevant law. This is really important because once the first instance Tribunal has found the facts, it is very difficult to appeal the findings of fact to a higher court. The appeal courts generally only hear appeals on matters of law.
I have done judicial diversity training in the past year and I thought it was very good. It covered a very wide range of different types of diversity and there was nothing it it I think a person with gender critical views would object to.