otb,

Now you're simply stirring.

Nothing new.

They are fair questions but you consistently duck.

Why would any well-intentioned, reasonable citizen want to sledge the learned Justice and the Royal Commission he heads? It just doesn't figure does it?

otb,

I can't be held responsible for your lack of
comprehension skills. You have a very bad habit of
accusing posters whose views don't agree with yours
of "sledging, of negating their opinions by alleging
negatives about them and of impugning their motives.
This need to stop if you want to continue to receive
responses to your posts. Otherwise they will be ignored.

Fox,

Nice try of trying to put it back on me.

However you are the one who is casting aspersions at the Justice (while denying it of course) and the Royal Commission.

Why would any well-intentioned, reasonable citizen want to sledge the learned Justice and the Royal Commission he heads? It just doesn't figure does it?

otb,

Please explain to me how exactly am I "sledging"
Justice Heydon and the Royal Commission when I have
made it abundantly clear throughout this discussion
that that it was the organisers of the event who
betrayed Justice Heydon's good intentions by not
adequately disclosing to him that the occasion was,
in fact a fund raiser opportunity for the Liberal Party -
as the printed invitations make clear.

All I am doing is questioning the fact that he was a
sitting royal commissioner there was a clear obligation
on the organisers to make the nature of the event
abundantly clear to Justice Heydon, rather than to rely
on him to open an attachment to the email he was sent.
Immediately upon being alerted to the relevant
facts Justice Heydon withdrew from the event.
His then response was entirely proper.

What is being questioned is his decision to stay on as
royal commissioner due to the already explained circumstances
in which he has been placed by the NSW Liberal Party.
I firmly believe that the Royal Commission should go ahead.
I also believe that the NSW Liberal Party owes Justice Heydon
a formal apology for having placed him in the position that he
found himself.

If you still don't understand all of this - there's nothing
further that I can say except to assume that all you're really
interested in your own mission and anything that I may say is
of no interest to you. I have been explaining things to you.
You accuse me of "ducking," and "sledging," which makes me
think that either you are stupid, or you don't even bother to
read my explanations and the only thing you're capable of is
the same repetitive rants.

There's nothing more for me to say.

Foxy,

You said " Justice Heydon .... has argued in his own judgements that the mere perception of bias should lead to any judge being disqualified from hearing a case in which this concern arises."

That's not true at all.

He said that a Judge should recuse himself is there is apprehended bias. Apprehended bias is a long way from mere perception. If mere perception was sufficient to cause a judge to recuse himself, no judge would ever sit any case. The requirement is that the "bias" must be that a reasonable man could expect that this alone would be sufficient to affect the judge's decision.

The ACTU has not yet presented anything that meets that criteria.