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

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

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

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

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 don't think that was the sole motivation for the decision but I do think that the very remark was unprofessional. If being narcissistic was a crime in combination with imagined sex acts, I'd say there's another candidate waiting in an Ecuadorian embassy in London - who has done an actual deed which still requires a judgement. But het got to take it all the way through the system.

However, let's leave the judgement then, and look at the "review" process itself. You cannot possibly claim independence from a review of a decision by the very same people who were involved in the first judgement. If there are questions, address them by an independent review. He should be entitled to that.

If that review comes to the same conclusion, end of story (we can then look at what is actually EFFECTIVE in reducing risk - letting him camp outside? Really?). But it gets WAY more interesting if that judgement is found to be flawed. If they truly have nothing to hide, there should be no problem with an independent assessment. Otherwise there's something not right.

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