A judge with a taste for chickpeas and a dodgy golf swing is an adornment to the court
The judge in the George Pell trial, Peter Kidd, was welcomed by James WS Peters, president of the Victorian Bar, who mentioned Kidd’s service as a war crimes prosecutor in Sarajevo, October 5, 2015:
There were security concerns — and you and your family were advised to go about your lives “normally”. “Normally” is an interesting word. One day Your Honour went shopping for food you were shadowed by two imposing security officers — heavily armed … You wanted chickpeas for a dinner party. You couldn’t find them. One of your minders became impatient and pointed out what he claimed to be chickpeas. You did not agree. A heated argument followed. Onlookers gasped as the argument escalated and your minder’s coat shifted to reveal glimpses of his concealed armament. Perhaps it is “normal” for Your Honour to argue heatedly with agitated, armed men — even about the dinner menu.
Peters went on to describe Kidd’s life outside courtrooms:
My spies deny that Your Honour is all work and no play. You are known to, perhaps once or twice a year, to exhibit the qualities of what is, I believe, known as a “stayer”. After the criminal bar dinner at Mateos, you were seen at another bohemian haunt in Brunswick Street “rocking on” with congenial professional colleagues … And you’ll take a shot at anything — one colleague says Your Honour’s golf swing is reminiscent of “Mr Gadget meets Mr Bean”. I should say that for the correct price, I am willing to disclose the source of that quote.
US commentator Tucker Carlson is in hot water for something sexist and offensive he said in the 2000s, Fox News, Monday:
As anyone who has ever been caught in its gears can tell you, the great American outrage machine is a remarkable thing. One day you’re having dinner with your family imagining everything is fine. The next your phone is exploding with calls from reporters … (demanding) to know how you could possibly have said something so awful and ask something like, “Do you have a statement on how immoral you are?” … It’s a bewildering moment, especially when the quotes in question are more than a decade old … It’s pointless to try to explain how the words were spoken in jest or taken out of context, or, in any case, bear no resemblance to what you actually think or would want for the country. None of that matters. You know the role you’re required to play. You are a sinner that needs the forgiveness of Twitter.
Monica Hesse gets personal, The Washington Post, yesterday:
A dissertation could be written about the journey between Tucker Carlson’s furrowed eyebrows. The bafflement that dwells within that centimetre-long stretch of skin. The woundedness, the indignation … Why does he spend so much of his time furrowing his eyebrows? Why does he spend so much of his time feeling victimised? The eyebrows of Tucker Carlson are a blend of smugness and bafflement, of fear and outrage, of concern and vitriol.
Headline on Matt Vespa’s piece, Townhall website: “It’s Not Tucker Carlson Vs. The Left-Wing. It’s Freedom Vs. Tyranny”, Tuesday:
Many of the progressives who are shocked by Tucker’s salty language have produced, written, and peddled similar material if not worse. It’s fine … but don’t think for a second I’m going to fall for this … reprehensible, faux outrage that’s erupted … Tucker, to his credit, has not apologised — and that’s the first rule for any conservative in a similar bind: never cave to the left-wing outrage mob.