Recommended Posts

A court clerk who watched hardcore pornography during a rape trial 'because he was bored' was caught looking at the explicit material right under the nose of the judge.

Debasish Majumder, 54, accessed the obscene images while the victim gave her harrowing evidence at Inner London Crown Court.

He looked at photographs of topless women being gagged and couples engaged in sexual acts, Kingston Crown Court was told.

However the judge, who was sitting directly behind him, spotted the filthy pictures as the prosecution evidence was being given.

Majumder, who had worked at Inner London Crown Court for a number of years, later admitted routinely watching porn while trials were taking place.

A search of his home computer found more extreme images, including child pornography.

Annabel Darlow, prosecuting, said: 'Majumder was working as a court clerk at Inner London and his conduct constituted a wholesale abuse of his position and the equipment provided in that he viewed porn sites on his court computer whilst the court was engaged in the conduct of a trial on an allegation of rape.'

He made the searches as the victim gave her evidence and throughout the prosecution case.

Judge Nigel Seed QC spotted a search list of explicit sexual language and at another point saw an image of a blonde engaged in a sex act on a man.

While he was in the courtroom, Majumder also looked at pictures of topless women gagged, it was heard.

Ms Darlow said: 'Judge Seed noticed what was taking place. He initially hoped that he had been mistaken or the behaviour would desist.

'On December 10 he did take action and drew the attention to the matter of the resident judge.'

When police investigated, they not only found pornography searches in the history of Majumbder's work computer but also child and extreme pornography images on his home computer.

Ms Darlow said: 'He had been working as a court clerk for a very considerable number of years and it could not have been more clear that using court computers to access or research pornography would have been anything other than clearest possible case of gross misconduct.

'The internet history was entirely representative of how Majumder chose to pass his days in court.'

Between December 9 and 10 2010 during the rape trial Majumder viewed roughly 30 images, the prosecution alleged.

He confessed to police it was not the first time he had used his time at work to search for porn.

Ms Darlow said: 'He said that he watched a lot of internet porn, he said that at work there were moments in his day that were boring and he would surf the net not to get access to sites but to get the titles of sites to use on his home computer and normally sites were blocked.

'He said that nobody in the court would be able to see what he was looking at on his screen apart from the judge and the judge would not be able to read the names as the print was too small.

'He said he only looked at porn if the case was boring and did so once or twice a week. He had been carrying out this type of behaviour since the December of the previous year.'

Majumder pleaded guilty to one charge of misconduct in public office and five counts of possession of indecent images.

On his home computer police found a number of pseudo porn images of children and 12 extreme porn pictures.

He had his sentencing postponed for further medical reports until later this month.

Susannah Stevens, defending, said that a stroke her client suffered roughly eight months ago could have affected his mental state.

She said: 'The stroke and Mr Majumder?s cognitive state might explain the complete breakdown of his thought processes and his ability to tell right from wrong and that is of huge importance when it comes to sentence.'

Majumder, of north London, may also face a separate hearing before sentence after he called into question the number of photos he accessed while in court.

Source

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1057056--/
Share on other sites

There's something wrong with how this story was written. This is the impression I got:

COURT CLERK CAUGHT WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY DURING TRIAL!!!

btw, he was also in possession of child pornography, but that's not the main story...

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1057056--/#findComment-594642954
Share on other sites

There's something wrong with how this story was written. This is the impression I got:

COURT CLERK CAUGHT WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY DURING TRIAL!!!

btw, he was also in possession of child pornography, but that's not the main story...

Majumder, who had worked at Inner London Crown Court for a number of years, later admitted routinely watching porn while trials were taking place.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1057056--/#findComment-594643000
Share on other sites

I understand that, but the story only gives a few scant mentions of the fact that he had child porn. I don't know what the laws in the UK are regarding that, but in the US, that'll easily get you several years in prison and registered as a sex offender for life. I think that's deserving of a little more attention.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1057056--/#findComment-594643076
Share on other sites

I understand that, but the story only gives a few scant mentions of the fact that he had child porn. I don't know what the laws in the UK are regarding that, but in the US, that'll easily get you several years in prison and registered as a sex offender for life. I think that's deserving of a little more attention.

You're right, the article is very poorly written but it is, after all, the Daily Mail. There's clearly more to this story because it's not clear why the police were involved or why his house was searched. The charges don't stack up either - if child porn was really found on his PC then he either wasn't charged with it or they just threw the indecent images charge in because there wasn't enough evidence for a proper kiddy porn charge.

Either way, he was stupid to view porn at work but it seems unfair to charge him with a crime rather than just sack him/reprimand him.

That's so silly. Watching in front of a judge.

But I wonder how many judges are involved in such behaviour. Because no one can see what they are doing. :woot:

Some judges just sleep in court while others masturbate. :laugh:

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1057056--/#findComment-594643146
Share on other sites

I understand that, but the story only gives a few scant mentions of the fact that he had child porn. I don't know what the laws in the UK are regarding that, but in the US, that'll easily get you several years in prison and registered as a sex offender for life. I think that's deserving of a little more attention.

Depends, per the story:

"On his home computer police found a number of pseudo porn images of children and 12 extreme porn pictures."

What is 'pseudo porn'? Does it mean it's not porn? Does it mean they aren't children? Pseudo implies it isn't really child porn.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1057056--/#findComment-594643364
Share on other sites

Depends, per the story:

"On his home computer police found a number of pseudo porn images of children and 12 extreme porn pictures."

What is 'pseudo porn'? Does it mean it's not porn? Does it mean they aren't children? Pseudo implies it isn't really child porn.

Pseudo sounds like they want to broaden their asset for court... Nothing more :/

Either it is porn or it isn't.

Is it? -> there are laws

Is it not? -> Well, not exactly worthwhile mentioning in that regard

Glassed Silver:mac

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1057056--/#findComment-594643400
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • This got me thinking, would you rather a self driving car prioritise protecting its passengers or everyone else? I'd choose the one that keeps me and my kids safest. At some point, these cars have to make those choices already, don't they? Wonder if we have a way to find out what way they lean.
    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      561
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      78
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!