THREAD: 1. Separation of powers is fundamental to our democracy. Senior politicians, current or retired, like all of us, have opinions on judicial decisions. Cases which come to court usually concern vexed issues which invoke strong passions on all sides. Tough job for judges.

2. Some senior politicians may think Vic Court of Appeal got it wrong & should have paid more heed to Pell opportunity witnesses. Some may think High Court’s ‘no jury, acting rationally’ will have chilling effect on complainants coming forward against well-resourced defendants.

3. However, to use their opinion as reason to call for the sacking of judicial officers is quite something. Should judges resign every time a politician doesn’t agree with them and tries to strong-arm them into it? What might that look like? All judges in this case did their job.

4. On a Qantas flight in 2017, a retired politician who is currently making these claims, had a cordial conversation with my publisher @louiseadler & I. He did not declare it off the record. If he had, I’d go to court to protect him, as I did with sources ahead of the Pell trial.

5. During that conversation he told Ms Adler & I George Pell was innocent & he knew it. I asked him what marvellous coincidence placed him in the locations where it was alleged crimes took place. He waved his hand at us & insisted, again, that Pell, a man he knew, was innocent...

6. His reason? “George is a blokey bloke.”