Were this a one off, I believe that it would have raised the odd snigger and we would have all moved on.
Now, while it is perfectly possible that the production team was hoodwinked and a rogue slipped herself in via the focus group recruitment agency that supplies these supposedly representative samples. That agency is required to back-check respondents/interviewees, as mandated by the The Association for Qualitative Research. As the user of these samples, you rarely see the respondents until the day of the session but any frauds are easily spotted and you ask them to leave. Simple. You don't want false data through insincere opinion.
It is, of course, quite possible that this woman may well be someone who is both an extra-playing actress AND someone who runs a batshit mad mentalist right-wing "church" on the internet. Loads of people do multiple things.
Most certainly. However, when you are sampling opinion, you concentrate on the mainstream and deliberately exclude the margins. No one with any professional credibility wants nutters skewing their findings.
That is broadly the case for crass ineptitude. However, and I repeat, this was not a one-off and not even with Ms Hayter.
Jack believed in the inherent goodness of humanity, and felt a deep social responsibility to protect that. Through us all, Jack marches on.