The conspiracist in me says that, because the process is now much more legalistic (proving NOT fair, consistent and objective), the panels are getting embroiled in legal argument about terminology, rather than (as they should be doing) focussing on the academic questions. I would be interested to know whether others have any views on this?
It has been known for there to be an occasional serious delay due to lengthy cases - even before "fair, consistent & objective" came on the scene.
The difference was that, if an old-style non-qualification appeal had to be re-arranged, it could be heard by any
appeal panel. These new appeals are for a specific school, so the same
panel (and ideally the same clerk and presenting officer) have to be used. There is much less flexibility in the system when there is a delay.
I have rarely heard of appeals being held during half-term, which suggests to me that this is probably the only date when this same panel will be available.
A panel ought to be focusing both on "fair, consistent & objective" and
on the case for selection. It is still early days, and possibly too soon to draw conclusions, but a couple of comments on the forum have suggested that not many questions are being asked about the case for selection ...