mhaze,

Both quotes are entirely consistent, which is why you haven’t identified any specific contradiction.

Your claim only works if my earlier position is reduced to slowness alone, stripping out the other objections I listed at the time (disruption to live proceedings, intelligence risks, operational freezing, jurisdictional mismatch).

Once those are removed, it can be made to look like a reversal. But that isn’t a change of position, it’s a change of description.

It would have been more effective if you had you quoted me like this:
_____

"Royal Commissions are slow and disruptive with years-long timelines..." JD in an earlier thread.

"You've successfully rebutted the claim that royal commissions necessarily take years, Scott, but that was never [an] objection."
_____

But we don't want to be THAT obvious now, do we? Safer to quote me in full, then leave others interpret it the way you hope they do.

Nice try, but no cigar.

The upper class "stakeholders" couldn't care less about Albanese's ruinous levels of mass-migration, world-level rental and housing pain, punishing energy prices, two-tier educational system, and divisive social policies.

But hey, a performative RC that would only betray the Bondi victims, look-the-other way, they're all out on the hustings, protesting as one voice, their elevated levels of virtue on full display.

Steve S

Outside the opinions of those “that matter”, ( Courier Mail): #…A small number of extremists, mostly confined to online echo chambers, tried to exploit the tragedy to push division. But they were marginal…#

No, they were not marginal but profoundly main stream, they were brutally marginalised; and who by?

The culprits:
A RC or no RC, the effect is the same, they both represent the marginalisation of the common voice of truth and realism, which must be silenced. Both of these stances will effectively do the job of rendering all to ineffective obedience and the neutering of outside opinion. We are living in Venezuela!