Judging by what the DM is saying about the dodgy images found on his home computers, probably more likely that he will end up in prison. And probably fired as well.
On what grounds did they search his home computer?
Really sick story. It truly boggles my mind what some people are like...do you think the stroke he supposedly had HAS made him do this, or is he just a twisted perv? I'm leaning towards the latter.
Cannot comment on this guy but, yes, stokes can cause personality changes (often quite subtly over a long period of time )and can damage areas of the brain which regulate behaviour including the ability to recognise inappropriate behaviour.
In the middle of a rape trial? he's looking at women being gagged? You don't find that a bit twisted? he must have been having a great time - listening to the rape evidence and watching porn simultaneously (all while he;s an officer of the court ).
He's a perv all right.
Because he is doing it whilst hearing a woman retell all the details about how she was raped? Its disturbing and highly disrespectful to both the court and the victim. It really couldn't be more inappropriate.
Also being so addicted you cant wait till you get home to look at porn is a serious problem.
I have no problem with porn. Anything goes between consenting adults. Consent being the operative word.
I can't imagine much worse than having been raped, having the guts to report it, undergo examination and testify in to court. I'd imagine any woman who's had the courage to take it to court does so believing that despite her ordeal there are still good people out there who'll believe her, who'll display some empathy and ensure justice is served.
For her then to hear an appointed member of court is getting off on your testimony while watching porn is beyond disrespectful, it's so incredibly cruel it could be the nail in the coffin in terms of her recovery and learning to regain the trust that not every man is the same.
This clerk should be taken off the jury. He's an idiot! Watching/looking at hardcore pornography while a woman who has been raped is giving evidence? He's a flaming fool!
On what grounds did they search his home computer?
An interesting point to raise. Unless the pornography he was viewing in court was so extreme it raised questions of illegality I am unsure. I can't imagine that viewing more run of the mill porn would raise grounds for a home search.
There is a time and a place for it however and the work place isn't it, particularly a rape trial.
In addition to that he also had extreme and pseudo images of child pornography - completely unacceptable.
Off point, why do some criminals take such stupid risks to draw attention to themselves? I suppose it is fortunate.
An interesting point to raise. Unless the pornography he was viewing in court was so extreme it raised questions of illegality I am unsure. I can't imagine that viewing more run of the mill porn would raise grounds for a home search.
From what I read he had pseudo images of children, and separate to that he had 'extreme images' - whether they were of children or of adults I don't know.
I'm deeply uncomfortable wit the the criminalisation of either of those things. Unless pseudo images are of actual children, ie victims, then I can't see any justification for criminalising the viewing of a mere drawing of an imaginary child. It may be fairly repugnant behaviour but I can't see that it should be criminal behaviour. No one is being harmed, and frankly I don't believe in crimes of morality. I'm unsure what is meant by 'pseudo' in this context though, it can mean real images of real children in a digital form, but that is technical language. Journalists reporting cases tend to use it to mean drawings, possibly of children which don't even exist. They really ought not to be illegal to possess.
As for 'extreme' images, again I can't see the argument for criminalisation. I also find it hard to see where the line is drawn, or even if juries will prove the law of any use if its actually tested. Unless the people in the images are not consenting, I doubt if juries these days have any problems with consenting adults doing 'extreme' things to one another, except perhaps if it puts life at serious risk.
The issue of him looking at porn in court is of course entirely different. It's simply a matter of misconduct at work, but because his place of work happens to be in one of her majesty's courts, that is rightly a criminal offence.
On what grounds did they search his home computer?
I suspect the circumstances have more relevance than the content. Anyone watching porn while a rape victim testifies is either as thick as mince, a sociopath with no sense of empathy or a sick fcuk who is a danger to women. Therefore, worth a background check.
Wasn't the joke of the TRAINERS thing the fact that the person who started the post used capitol letters for the word TRAINERS and as a result made the fact that the boy's sexual abuser buying him trainers sound worse than the fact that she'd abused him?
Cannot comment on this guy but, yes, stokes can cause personality changes (often quite subtly over a long period of time )and can damage areas of the brain which regulate behaviour including the ability to recognise inappropriate behaviour.
If you read the article, you'll see that the offence happened about six months before the stroke. Unless you mean that there can be changes to the brain well before the stroke occurs.
This clerk should be taken off the jury. He's an idiot! Watching/looking at hardcore pornography while a woman who has been raped is giving evidence? He's a flaming fool!
You really don't understand how the legal system / court works if you think the clerk is on the jury!:D
Comments
On what grounds did they search his home computer?
What's the irony?
Cannot comment on this guy but, yes, stokes can cause personality changes (often quite subtly over a long period of time )and can damage areas of the brain which regulate behaviour including the ability to recognise inappropriate behaviour.
I have no problem with porn. Anything goes between consenting adults. Consent being the operative word.
I can't imagine much worse than having been raped, having the guts to report it, undergo examination and testify in to court. I'd imagine any woman who's had the courage to take it to court does so believing that despite her ordeal there are still good people out there who'll believe her, who'll display some empathy and ensure justice is served.
For her then to hear an appointed member of court is getting off on your testimony while watching porn is beyond disrespectful, it's so incredibly cruel it could be the nail in the coffin in terms of her recovery and learning to regain the trust that not every man is the same.
He's twisted for looking at it during a rape hearing.
There is a time and a place for it however and the work place isn't it, particularly a rape trial.
In addition to that he also had extreme and pseudo images of child pornography - completely unacceptable.
Off point, why do some criminals take such stupid risks to draw attention to themselves? I suppose it is fortunate.
An interesting point to raise. Unless the pornography he was viewing in court was so extreme it raised questions of illegality I am unsure. I can't imagine that viewing more run of the mill porn would raise grounds for a home search.
From what I read he had pseudo images of children, and separate to that he had 'extreme images' - whether they were of children or of adults I don't know.
I'm deeply uncomfortable wit the the criminalisation of either of those things. Unless pseudo images are of actual children, ie victims, then I can't see any justification for criminalising the viewing of a mere drawing of an imaginary child. It may be fairly repugnant behaviour but I can't see that it should be criminal behaviour. No one is being harmed, and frankly I don't believe in crimes of morality. I'm unsure what is meant by 'pseudo' in this context though, it can mean real images of real children in a digital form, but that is technical language. Journalists reporting cases tend to use it to mean drawings, possibly of children which don't even exist. They really ought not to be illegal to possess.
As for 'extreme' images, again I can't see the argument for criminalisation. I also find it hard to see where the line is drawn, or even if juries will prove the law of any use if its actually tested. Unless the people in the images are not consenting, I doubt if juries these days have any problems with consenting adults doing 'extreme' things to one another, except perhaps if it puts life at serious risk.
The issue of him looking at porn in court is of course entirely different. It's simply a matter of misconduct at work, but because his place of work happens to be in one of her majesty's courts, that is rightly a criminal offence.
Thanks, I'll settle for that.
If you read the article, you'll see that the offence happened about six months before the stroke. Unless you mean that there can be changes to the brain well before the stroke occurs.
If he is arrested for an offence, a search of his home can be made if it is believed there will be evidence of like offences.
It also says he admitted looking for sites to access at home.
They had plenty of grounds for a search.
You really don't understand how the legal system / court works if you think the clerk is on the jury!:D