certainly I've never heard of any accusations that a Royal Commission is biased one way or the other.
For this American, that sounds like not being allowed to talk about their bias. I would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level.
I would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level.
Yes, that's kindof what I was trying to say. And I think to some extent it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course people are only human and have their biases, but if you create a social expectation that they'll be unbiased (and combine this with choosing the best people for the job -- old judges with nothing in particular to gain or lose and a well-earned reputation for impartiality) then they will be as unbiased as humanly possible.
The "Royal" in the title is no accident, though -- the traditions of the Commonwealth countries dictate that the Crown is above all politics, so anything expected to be above politics is always given a direct symbolic link to the monarchy. In the US there is no such thing and the highest power in the land is just another damn politician.
One might, perhaps going only a little too far, wonder whether the American political need to constantly invoke God comes from not having a Queen instead.
For this American, that sounds like not being allowed to talk about their bias. I would guess that many Americans do not believe in an unbiased group of any sort, at any level.