I assume the judge considered it sufficient to state after the break 'nothing to see here' and expect it to be accepted, rather than talking about DB's medical condition.
Is there any evidence to believe that DB had a negative reaction to NC saying that TW are men? We have been working backwards from her facial expression and request for a break - is there anything else that reinforces the theory that DB is pro-gender ideology?
So if you accept that it was due to pain and a need to move and take painkiller - which as a FM sufferer, I can confirm is very likely and convincing, there is no other evidence of her bias.
So the drama of the handwritten note seems to have been based on a misinterpretation.
If DB told the judge a different story during that break, i.e. that she objected to TWAM, and the judge urged her to leave the panel because of that, but we'll come up with some cover story about FM - the judge is now blatantly lying.
'An appalling vista'...
In response to some other posts: whatever about the professorship, there is lots and lots of stuff about DB on the internet, about her business, her environmental work, her networking with other women in business and her service on a number of govt boards in NI.
She is not shrouded in mystery, apart from what she's been doing recently - maybe she took early retirement because of FM - I had to😞