Just caught up and thanks all for your magnificence for what was a hard day of listening to HH.
I have a new theory.
I think the J is desperately trying to find points he can argue. I think he has concluded on reading the detail in the bundle that there is no actual case to answer from either Rs but given the hostile environment re TRAs, which is fairly evident from the bundle, he is leery of an appeal from them and is anticipating his every action being poured over by the appeal team who he expects to err on the side of Stonewall Training.
He is not anticipating finding for ST which is why he is not concerned about an appeal from the Rs, and which is why he is getting frustrated with the intervenor process. He kinda thinks they've won already because the case is mostly nonsense and doesn't need their input (he thinks that - not me - is my suggestion. From my PoV he clearly does need their interventions because he is forgetting that the points need addressed even if he knows full well there is no case.
I think that makes sense of his interventions. I don't think he is biased per se, although I think the legacy of Stonewall Training has left an imprint, but I think he knows he will be finding for Rs and is shaping his interventions within that paradigm.
Going back to my point about desperately trying to find points he can argue: I think he wants to present a judgment that carries an appearance of weighing up the C's case as a reasonable one which is why he interrogated NB today about whether she agreed or disagreed with JH's outcome letter.
To me, NB had made clear in her WS that JH had asked for her involvement, NB had clarified points of law and JH had purposefully not consulted her before distributing the outcome letter because she knew NB would ensure it was more qualified. It would help J argue a point of process if he takes the position that JH had been given the necessary authority to produce the outcome letter and that any intervention from NB was uncalled for and beyond her remit. That in itself wouldn't be a failure of process given the disagreement was about adherance to the law, but he could argue that having been given an outcome letter fully supporting his position it must have been upsetting for the recommendations not to be implemented and that was, in itself, a rational justification for bringing it to ET. For all that I think the J knows that doesn't amount to harassment, or hostile working environment, but must have caused confusion and upset. I think J will use that as an opportunity to criticise comms within Defra HR as a mitigation to C in the j overall.
If I'm right then that will be very useful to TRAs even if ST case isn't found.
It seems to be that HH's main argument is that there is a hierarchy of PCs and that by not recognising the generally agreed Stonewall Law position that GRA sits atop that hierarchy, NB has created a hostile working environment for TRAs. It might be reasonable to find that is the case because this is not an ET about a hostile working environment for women, but for TRAs. However, I don't think the J will find that as it would be BOLD judge who would assert that any organisation shouldn't be seeking to pursue a balancing of PCs.
I think the heckler's veto that NC has introduced will be a new idea for j because I don't think she mentioned that in her opening submission?
I also think that her making clear that the bad behaviour was coming from the TRAs is new to the j and crucial because the careful use of language across the WS totally avoids saying that. This is of course fascinating. The fear that permeates through all the discourse is that no one can say the main problem is not SEEN but in coping with the TRAs. NB was so insistent on declaring ST a delight to work with but all evidence is to the contrary. Not only his stalled career but his constant harassment of SEEN colleagues, his seeking material he says is the catalyst for his harassment when he has been advised not to, his refusal to understand the context within which colleagues are working through his g/x. I cannot believe there is any aspect of working with him that is a delight. NB has, of course, never worked 'wtih' ST but only had a couple of meetings with him so it is an easy white lie for her to make and demonstrates the powerful fear underpinning so much of the careful approach.
For all that she has managed to hit home key points in amongst HHs desperate attempts to shore up a weak case. I am not an expert but it seems like desperation can make barristers willing to lie in court. JR was the same in the SP case but HH is actually outright lying. GIven the J's desperation in trying to find reasonable points he can argue he has given her way too much leeway.
I no longer am upset by this as much as I was because of my reasoning above but also I've given up caring. They can all fucking go to hell in a handbasket. It couldn't be any clearer that all the wimmins are working very hard to make the menz happy. Even NB. She did her job well but the delight to work with comment is a clearly a lie to all extents and purposes and it stuck in my craw.
AM was a breath of fresh air as he was just not having it. He used his personal SM to declare he wasn't having it and even here we are not allowing it, labelling it unwise. Which again demonstrates how far under the cosh we all are. His posts weren't bad. They demonstrated frustration at the authority given to individuals who have neither earned it or should ever be allowed near it.