Talk:David Shoebridge

POV
This article reads like a promotion for Shoebridge. We are repeatedly told he has been "successful". He is described as fighting for "justice", while "Labor was tearing apart worker compensation and workplace safety laws", the NSW government was planning "detrimental changes for workers' rights", O'Farrell had "unpopular planning reforms", the relocation of the Powerhouse is "costly". In other words, he is right and everyone else is wrong. The article also says, "Shoebridge has campaigned heavily on police accountability, and consistently opposed increases to police powers and attacks on civil liberties in NSW". This is highly suspect. As the article says, Shoebridge has campaigned to water down the double jeopardy rule (in relation to the Bowraville murders) and to change rules of evidence and the statute of limitations (in relation to child sexual abuse). These could be seen as attacks on civil liberties, particularly in relation to double jeopardy. In the end, the article reflects Shoebridge's opinion what constitutes "justice" and "civil liberties", and his position doesn't seem to be particularly consistent. This should be completely rewritten in a neutral way.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed most of the offending material and hence the POV tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Industrial law barrister?
I changed the lead to say just "barrister", not "industrial law barrister", but it's been changed back, without explanation. The article says: "Before entering parliament, Shoebridge worked as a lawyer for 13 years, the majority of this time as a barrister with a focus on employment, discrimination and tort law." The citation is Shoebridge's inaugural speech, which says, "In my time I mainly represented employees, unions and injured workers, although my practice included a wide array of civil litigation". (Later, the article says that he was representing unions, without citation.) I don't think there's any justification for calling him an "industrial barrister" rather than just a barrister. If he himself said his "practice included a wide array of civil litigation", why should we say that he was specifically an "industrial barrister"? Furthermore, we don't have an independent source, and Shoebridge was clearly trying to depict himself as a champion of social justice. And, since barristers are obliged to represent any client that hires them, who's to know who Shoebridge represented over 13 years? If we have an independent source which describes Shoebridge as an "industrial barrister", it's OK, but until then I think it's better to simply say he was a barrister.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There being no response, I changed it back.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Bushwalking Club
I deleted the list of bush walks taken by the club, and it's been restored. I think this is utterly trivial. This is a Shoebridge too far.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)