Eyes. Rolling. Backwards. Such a fuss from so few over a District Court Judge shedding his clobber at a private nudist camp.
The hapless bugger was innocently raking his balls (Boules, you silly woman, it's a type of petanque, Ed.] and next thing he's before the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commission. No doubt sent there by the same busy-bodies who dobbed him in to the media.
These delicate petals (Offended-Mother-Of-Six-From-Wainuiomata; you know the kind, Catholics probably) who spotted the photos in a promotional pamphlet, or some such, have come all over with an attack of the vapours. Quick, nurse, a screen and smelling salts!
Patricia Bartlett has not left the building. (Yes, she's well dead, Ed.)
Is she? Taken too early. That's what comes from not enough good Rogering.
Must have been Mary Whitehouse then. (She's dead too, Ed.)
Whatever.
Said Judge is not now allegedly fit and proper to pass judgment on sexual assault cases, cases of indecent exposure (oh give me a break!) and other such indecencies.
Just because he chose to air his giblets.
Oh dear. Maybe all judges who drive faster than 110kph should recuse themselves from hearings over defended speeding tickets.
Actually that's not a good comparison because technically it is illegal whereas baring all in private? Well, what law does that break? Where will it ever end? Barristers must always shower with their clothes on just in case they may be admitted to the Bench and someone wanders past a window and espies them in the raw? A female judge sunbathes topless at a Mediterranean beach (and who doesn't?) then some random Kiwi tourist takes a photo which gets posted on social media, recognized, and she's then deemed unfit for office?
Tut-tut yes according to "We" the self-appointed guardians of public morals. "We" are not amused. "We" are offended.
Oh please. I saw the "offensive" photographs in an article in The Daily Mail ['Every woman needs her Daily Mail' - that was a good 70s ad campaign. Would have been even better if they'd added 'two times or more a day'.]
And apart from a smudge where normally his togs would be (and it was only a tiny little smudge), there was nothing anyone could blanch at.
I've seen more sick-making images of men cold-bloodedly beheaded by ISIS savages.
If those sensitive souls who channel Pat Bartlett don't like it they should avert their eyes.
But here's a thought.
Why not have all sitting judges dispense with all their clobber - gowns and suits - and appear in court totally naked. To be fair, we could bring back wigs so the bald-headed ones wouldn't feel discriminated against.
Lady Justice is blindfolded, so she won't mind.
It would certainly improve the aesthetic appeal of the Supreme Court, and cases in all courts would proceed more rapidly. Imagine, when a porky judge tells a recidivist, "I don't wish to see you before me again," you can be pretty assured that won't happen.
The crime rate may well plummet.
Another advantage - it would let us all clearly see how the members of our judiciary lie, which way they're stacked.
From the moment the judge enters the court to the call of, "All rise", we the public would have the chance to look around and see just how effective our judges - both men and women - really are.
Yes, I know I'm being Childish and Ridiculous. About as C and R as those huffing and puffing about the naked judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment