Hold on, is Sir Ted applauding himself?

Ted Thomas page 2 NZ Herald patting himself on the back for breaking a confidence and for levering a claim against the former Judge Bill Wilson for as 'Ted' puts 'a serious breach of judicial ethics.' The article goes on to say that there have been murmured claims that Sir Edmund 'was meddling. Those claims are wrong.' According to who, either Sir Ed himself or the reporter Phil Taylor is not clear which. Also 'Sir Edmund was right to intervene' according to Ed or Phil Taylor - I think we have to assume its old eddie finding himself not guilty of meddling, denying due process and natural justice to Bill Wilson because as we know Ed broke the story to the press, making it public at the same time as making his 'complaint.'

It goes on. 'The Judicial Conduct Commissioner - agreed, finding grounds for an unprecedented judicial panel investigation and so, essentially did a three-judge High Court panel.' But Ed you forgot to mention that there was a successful judicial review of the decision which you have 'conveniently' left out. That decision to you use your word 'essentially' told the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to reconsider his decision because it wasn't right, if that decision wasn't right then I can't see how you were right either Ed, despite all this patting of yourself on the back.

And lets also remember Ed you revealed the 'precarious' financial position you alleged Bill Wilson was labouring under, despite there having been then, or now, no evidence of the same. And this financial 'precipice' you leaked to support your claim. Bit naughty Ed, and now to leave all of that dirty stuff out doesn't do you much credit, doesn't balance the odds in your favour despite blowing your own trumpet. The private members bill requiring public disclosure of the financial interests of judges you take credit for as well, but from what I've read I don't recall that it was your idea at all. But perhaps there is one you might convince a member of Parliament to table - one requiring retired judges to keep their noses out of the business of current judiciary members expect through the proper channels and certainly not in daily newspapers where a de facto trial takes place against somebody unable to defend themselves except by proper process.