Talk:Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

message: argh. This will need to be merged with Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW). Kewpid 07:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged it. Kewpid 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Othogonal1 would you or any other readers please not remove relevant transcript material and claim some reason like bias. You know it's the truth and the truth hurts. Those comments were made by senior judges and barristers in the courts. These are officers of the court. That is who they are and who they represent.Gkable (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by users 

message: I happened to find this page on 16/10/ 2016 links disrupted by a user called find bruce. All I did was atempt to make the links work again. When clicking a link the link would refer to possible corrupt file and ask the user to secure link. Please see edit by find bruce. Or talk to me about my attempt to mearely correct the links. Drm310 please talk? Gkable (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied to duplicate message on my talk page. --Drm310 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No conflict of interest 

message: I have removed the aftermath section. To the extent that it made any sense (i.e. not much), it looks like Kable trying to relitigate some aspects of the case on Wikipedia. I have advised Mr. Kable that he must refrain from editing the article. Should there be anything to say about Kable 2, I would like it to be hashed out here before returning to the page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for a disgruntled litigant, and the removed section was quite clearly unencyclopedic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat & other nonsense. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone is interested, here is a link to the discussion of the incident  and to the Conflict of Interest discussion .--Jack Upland (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath Kable 2 removed

message: "After a sharp separation from his children to prison the letters were written whilst in prison in the first 12 months after being denied access to his children."
Very confusing. Moriori (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it because it is badly expressed and doesn't appear to add anything to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this sentence trying to say? 

message: I have added a brief mention of Kable 2 which is based on a respected constitutional textbook. I have also removed the CoI tag because the issue seems to have been resolved.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it is a separate case rather than an aftermath so I have changed the heading to reflect that and added a further Court infobox.  I have also included a mention of the decisions leading to the High Court in State of NSW v Kable, reflecting the case summary prepared by the High Court, with references. Find bruce (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Kable 2 was NSW v Kable in the High Court, which is why that was the heading used.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSW v Kable