An excellent write up indeed covering the broader societal issues as well.
Now the judge had to make a decision about whether a rape occurred or not or say he was unable to do so. He bravely decided to make a decision either way rather than go the unable route. Given multiple lies and degrees of mistruths and mistakes by both parties in order to do so he had to dismiss one sides 'story' and then use what was available to shore up the other sides story. He went with rape occurred.
I would suggest a talented man such as the judge could just as easily have supported things the other way on the material available. For example, the talk of a sex scandal for money before such occurred and the lies about seeing a doctor and not in fact doing so could have been ran with. Let's not forget the best lawyers are paid to do just that.
When the judge went into how long the sex act occurred, he might be in trouble in this area on appeals grounds. Has he inferred and or made up too much?
In any event a lot of people are not aware of the legal process in that once he made a decision either way what follows as to defamation and costs is pretty well set in stone ie the rest of the decision and consequences emanate from that one step in a pretty set way.
The tribalism referred to in the article is not going to go away any time soon. This is partly an IQ thing and partly emotive blocks to reason or human behaviour thing.
What we can hope for is that Parliament start revising their hiring practices. The bar is set way way too low!
