More consoling amongst the Abbott worshippers that should make you feel better.
The judge is supposed to be impartial that is what is on trial. Abbott believers say he is not corrupted by any means. Labor say he has bias tendencies. Who is correct is the question. That is why the commotion, so who will win is the man corrupt or not.

Saying that he is squeaky clean by one side only does not make him clear of corruption. So let the GG make his decision, if he is not a liberal plant as well that is.

That other female was in your favor when Thomson was on trial, so that is your bias.

Haydon certainly has got it in front of him hasn’t he. Especially being appointed by Abbott’s captain pick to head the royal commission into union corruption.
You must admit his tenure is on tender hooks. He was on the panel to award Abbott his Rhodes scholar certificate, he also signed up for a liberal party fund raiser. That is enough to judge the man on, even if it is by himself which is not a good look, in any case he will be judged by the voters of AU.
Firstly given Abbott’s impeccable wisdom at being a Rhodes scholar, or was that a corruption of the selection panel. In any case Abbott may have thought he owes Haydon a favor. Hence the 88 million $ royal commission.
The second case is did Haydon show political bias by signing up for a liberal party fund raiser. For a man of great pride in being a former crown judge, he should not have any trouble defining his own judgments made in accepting his role in Abbott’s Royal Commission into union corruption.
Seeing this royal commission is seen by many as an Abbott attempt to smear union involvement, and link it to the labor party. Corruption is a very serious subject, and should be held with the most impartial of persons that can be judged to be worthy of such a position

doof,

You are sounding very much like the stereotypical Roman Catholic bishop arguing against the Royal commission into child abuse.

Remember the, 'If the bishops have nothing to fear they shouldn't be objecting to scrutiny'?

Willie Shorten, Penny Wong and others are demonstrating exactly why the public should have very little confidence in their principles and ethics and their capacity to act for the benefit of all, not just the shadowy union factions that refuse to allow rank and file members to decide Labor policy and leadership.

Heydon has adjourned and it will be interesting to read his decision. However, at this stage I very much doubt that the expensive silks being paid out of union members subs will go within a bull's roar of "demonstrating that a ‘fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question that the judge is required to decide’ (the ‘reasonable apprehension of bias test’)".

It has been scurrilous smear campaign.

Dear Steve,

I don't quite get what all the fuss is about here -
except for the politics of it all - of course.

As Julian Burnside QC pointed out some time ago -
a Justice and a brilliant lawyer would never have
agreed to speaking at a Party Fund Raiser if he was
investigating the opposing party's affairs. The
perception would of course be - a conflict of interests.

Burnside believes that the Justice was not aware that
it was a political party fund-raiser at which he was to speak.
I tend to agree with Burnside. As soon as the Justice found
out he withdrew from attending.

I do feel that Labor is using all of this for political gain.
This is the unfortunate state of affairs of our current
political scenario.

Here's a good one...

"The royal commission into trade union corruption has been accused of failing to release all relevant information its commissioner Dyson Heydon received from the organiser of a Liberal Party event he had agreed to address.

John Agius, the barrister representing the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union in an application for Mr Heydon to disqualify himself from head of the royal commission, made an explosive allegation that an email released by the commission on Monday had been "doctored".

He said a reference in the email of August 12 to attachments, including one on political donation compliance, had been deleted from a version of the email released to unions on Monday. But he later appeared to withdraw the accusation after it was explained to him that the emails were part of a chain and that the reference had dropped off.

The barrister representing the ACTU, Robert Newlinds expressed concern that he had not received all relevant documents on Monday as promised.

"Boy, you've got to be confident when you tell someone that they've got all the documents and you were wrong when you told me that, and there's no explanation for how that could have happened," Mr Newlinds said."

"Mr Agius said earlier he was concerned that the information released on Monday was "at best a partial disclosure, if not a disclosure of a doctored document which had been edited to remove the reference to state donation".

The full email "makes clear that connected with the invitation to the Barwick lecture was a state donation compliance requirement which clearly identifies the function as one which might be called a fundraiser".

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/trade-unions-royal-commission-accused-of-not-releasing-all-documents-relevant-to-dyson-heydons-invite-to-liberal-event-20150820-gj3qk2.html#ixzz3jPvX9asY

Poirot, I don't know why you bother writing such long posts.
I think everyone knows what you are going to say and then don't bother.
I look at the signature and then read the next post.
I suspect many other do also.