Reply to post: RE 'Yes, I was just reading the same quote in disbelief.'

Sex ban IT man loses appeal – but judge labels order 'unpoliceable'

Killing Time

RE 'Yes, I was just reading the same quote in disbelief.'

Yes, I was just reading your post in disbelief and worryingly someone upvoted it.

'I can get that some people think they have identified a risk and act on it, but so far I have yet to see evidence that confirms this.'

Errr, I think they were a little more than 'some' people, from the article they were health, mental health and law professionals. Precisely the people you would want to identify and assess the risk and what qualifies you as a Judge?

'the very statements made in court as argument make it more look like a judge turning a personal dislike into a judgement'

Errr, I don't believe any of us will be privy to the statements actually made in court, only a version supplied to the media, I suspect the source being the guy under the SRO who is more than keen to publicise the issue in a clear attempt to sway public opinion.

Do you truly believe that this is a case of a Judge ( a Queens Council, the cream of the barrister community), taking a personal dislike to someone and not remaining impartial? I believe the statement regarding his character was part of the judgement, precisely what is required of a judge. The clue is in the description.

The narcissism and grandstanding on this thread beggars belief, sorry, I don't have a handy quotation to paraphrase in closing out, just enough confidence in the UK justice system to believe there are smarter and more impartial people than me making these decisions.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019