If no means no.
The track record of his judicial work appears superb, ahead of his time, delivered concisely often wittily. And now showing to be correct, against the prevailing views of the time and being the better way forward.
His track record hosting porn doesn't appear too bad, some of it quite amusing. (Side note : the ex didn't need to be painted to resemble a cow.)
As for the handful of complainants, shouldn't they be simply told to "grow a pair"?. Maybe the prevailing view of the current time will, in the near future, be seen for what it is.
Employer : Here, come and look at this, this porn on the PC.
Employee : NO.
Employer : Here, come and look at the diversity* of this porn on the PC
Employee : Ooooh yeah, lovverly ain't it.
I seriously doubt that the Judge is losing any time or intellectual capacity, at all, in fulfilling his judicial duties and responsibilities.
Shouldn't such levels of outrage, and the white knightmanship in many cases, be better directed at more significant, and truly damaging, areas of concern.
Hint : Cafcass**, parental alienation, harm to children. In 2017.
* Not that it isn't already one of the most diverse of employers. So i'm led to believe.
** IIRC a UK all party parliamentary committee decided they were unfit for purpose. Plus ca change.