Ex top judge admits he's incapable of reading email, doesn't own a PC A retired judge presiding over an Australian Royal Commission into corruption in the union movement has admitted he is incapable of sending email and does not own a computer. Dyson Heydon – once a judge of the High Court, Australia's ultimate jurisdiction – revealed his utter cluelessness in a ruling [PDF] on his own behaviour …
The Liberal Party is best understood as an analog to the UK Conservative Party or the moderate wing of the US Republican party.
My dear Simon, I get that you're from not around here, but still, please understand that there is no "moderate wing of the US Republican party", at least not since 1980.
Perfect reply. Of course we all know that those fools (tools?) also don't venture into the murky waters of the vast internet opinion pools. I have actually been missing some of the great politicians that were once the wise people of the rep'uglican party, even tho I would almost always have preferred one of the wise dems (even if they were piss-poor campaigners.)
I rather admire his antediluvian lifestyle. No one needs to bow to the World of Digital. On the other hand the waste of time and the ineffeciciency of having one's emails printed out (and presumably writing or dictating replies, which someone has to type in and email) is really not acceptable. He seems a little, well, past it. Or clueless. Or maybe just a rugged individualist who gives a scornful laugh if anyone suggests he is costing the public purse more than the usual judge.
@petur
If his position does not require him to be able to read/write e-mail, then why not.
It's indicative of the judge being out of touch with the modern world circa all of this millenium. If he cannot comprehend even the most basic functions of a computer, he cannot comprehend any part anything digital may play in matters he oversees. What other areas of life does he remain deliberately ignorant of or incapable of understanding?
I'm not suggesting this should require him to step down, only that it is a warning flag. The rest of your post I agreee with.
Sorry, but an inability to read emails in the year 2015 should be a source of professional embarrassment, not something to joke about.
This judge wouldn't be joking about it if he was illiterate, or couldn't tie his shoe laces. So why does he think it doesn't reflect very badly on him that he can't use something that's been around for 3 decades, and is now a basic, common-place feature of his profession and wider society?
Perhaps, but it seems to me that in his reply he has disqualified himself from hearing the case for a more egregious mistake than showing some partisan bent in the matter he was reviewing: failure to understand and uphold the law.
It matters not whether he was the person operating the computer in response to his messages. The account was in his name, and by his own admission, messages were sent at his direction. Therefore the issue of who pressed the keys is moot. It was still at his direction that the invitation was accepted.
Everyone has a political bias, even judges. I'd actually prefer that there biases were displayed rather than hidden and the question asked was "can he rule on the basis of law alone?" So I could live with him attending the fund raiser. However, such shenanigans as he engaged in to "exonerate" himself are the epitome of things which ought to disqualify a judge.
"On the other hand the waste of time and the ineffeciciency of having one's emails printed out (and presumably writing or dictating replies, which someone has to type in and email) is really not acceptable."
In an IT company in the late 1980s - a senior middle manager of a technical department had his secretary print out his emails. He then wrote longhand replies for her to send. He had started life in the company 20 years earlier as a programmer.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Meanwhile, with the shoe firmly on the other foot...
I didn't mean to front that protection racket your honour. I never opened the attachments to notice the connection. You can bet your bottom dollar that arguments are being rephrased to the same excuses here.
Re. US political parties, due to the broken US political system "forcing" virtually everyone into just two parties, both main parties (Republicans and Democrats) are for the most part completely centrist, with almost the exact same political views (large, intrusive government... while both falsely claiming they want to lower taxes and spending, claiming it's the OTHER parties fault spending is out of control.). But both main parties have various "radical fringes" that try, to varying degrees of success, to take over the party platform for one or the other party, or force their candidate into candidacy.
As for the judge... I do see his defence as sound, that his assistant replied and he didn't. If he's not micromanaging his assistant, they can make a "wrong" decision every now and then. I must say I found his defence quite unhelpful, however. It's one thing to say you're very busy, and have an assistant go through your E-Mail for you. Fair enough I guess. IMHO, it makes him sound downright mentally incompetent when he claims he's INCAPABLE of operating an E-Mail client... clicking an icon (to start the E-Mail client or web site), then clicking some subject lines checkboxes then clicking "delete"... or clicking a subject line and reading the text off the screen... are simply not too difficult.
"clicking an icon (to start the E-Mail client or web site), then clicking some subject lines checkboxes then clicking "delete"... or clicking a subject line and reading the text off the screen... are simply not too difficult."
I beg to differ. Having taught other family members (who prefer to delete messages one by one as checkboxes are "confusing"), I would say that you understand this as I do because you grew up with it, you use it, it makes sense to us. To some people, some things are "simply too difficult" no matter how many times you try to explain (even with pictures and drawings and stuff).
"clicking an icon (to start the E-Mail client or web site), then clicking some subject lines checkboxes then clicking "delete"... or clicking a subject line and reading the text off the screen... are simply not too difficult."
The MAN is a frigging judge, he should have some semblance of intellect. If my 'in her 70's' mother can use a PC I'm quite sure a person PAID by the public purse in high office should do his own email, or is it considered a menial task way beneath him??. perhaps he should be ridiculed for wasting our taxes... what a jerk !!!
>The MAN is a frigging judge, he should have some semblance of intellect
Lawyers are performers - they have their own theatre and costumes to go with it. Sometimes the role takes over and they become the person they play. That ought to be the point at which they're shown the door, but "martyr to political interference" is a role they'd relish even more.
Oi! Enough of the 'in her 70's mother' crap.
I'm in my 70s and was writing assembler code in the 60's up until a few years ago. Also COBOL, PL/I and later on a bit of SQL for good measure.
Why would you assume that someone in their 70's, or for that matter even in their 80's was incapable of using a computer and email.
Having said that, I worked with a guy, also a programmer who did not own a pc until after he retired.
Mind you, he still knew how to use email at work.
I used to work with a guy in our IT department who didn't own a computer, and saw no purpose in owning one.
My kit may not be state of the art... ok, my kit is old and on its last legs, but, it still works. (You've no idea how many words I swapped around before settling on kit as a word that can't be misconstrued as penis).
Anyway, what I'm wondering is how someone with no equipment manages the continous professional development that accompanies all aspects of IT as a career? Almost everyone I know that struggles for work has let their skills degrade or date, with the converse being similarly true.
I know a bookkeeper who complained about how much ink she wasted printing the web pages with the lottery numbers. When I OFFERED TO SHOW her how to copy and paste the numbers to a notepad file for printing, she freaked like I was molesting her grandkids. End of discussion.
P S
She does all her corporate bookkeeping on Windows computers.
> Heydon dismisses the suggestion he should stand down from the Royal Commission on numerous grounds, among them an argument that it's not reasonable for a royal commissioner to read the entire contents of every email, especially those that aren't directly related to the Commission's work.
I suspect that in a trial, this guy would be the same to insist the average Joe knew about whatever piece of information/event because they had been informed by email, and therefore could no pledge ignorance.
"* The Liberal Party is best understood as an analog to the UK Conservative Party or the moderate wing of the US Republican party. It is in no way liberal in the way the word is used in the US."
Thanks for that footnote. It does help us poor leftpondians figure out what's going on.
I guess they're taking the "liberal" in their name from "liberal economics" rather than, say, liberal anything else?
"I guess they're taking the "liberal" in their name from "liberal economics" rather than, say, liberal anything else?"
It's more likely that they looked at the 3-way political split of the mother country, between Tories (reactionary aristocrats and their lackeys), Liberals (the rest of the middle and upper classes) and Labour (working classes) and thought, "We only need two of those.".
The US doesn't have any reactionary aristocrats either, but split before the working classes had been invented. Consequently, they only have one party, but pretend to have two to make elections less confusing. The pretence is nearly perfect, except that they got the color-coding back-to-front.
Many people who have a government job sought that job because they wanted a job that was easier than a private sector job. And a typical government worker is less competent than a private sector worker consequently. IOW, lots of government workers, judges included, are incompetent and dumb.
In a way, government employing of marginally skilled people is a welfare program. The people show up for work, alright, but they really don't add anything in terms of productivity.
These employees are behind the curve on everything, and technology isn't an exception. A judge doesn't understand email? That's not a surprise. It would be *surprising* if the story were about a tech *genius* who was a judge.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
