8

Just having a conversation here about Interesting Names

by Whaleoil on September 2, 2010

I see one of the Interesting Names is in the paper again.

Interesting Names, Name Suppression, Whaleoil, Cameron Slater, Albany WardA doctor has been suspended from practising for nine months after pleading guilty to possessing images of child sex abuse.

The doctor, whose name is suppressed, was sentenced to four months’ home detention after admitting 25 charges of possessing objectionable material and one charge of distributing an objectionable publication.

The material was found on the doctor’s computer and an external hard drive which contained over 400,000 files, 290,000 of which related to images of young girls in explicit sexual poses.

In a decision released by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal today, the doctor had his registration suspended for nine months from the date of the hearing – July 26, 2010.

The tribunal also imposed several conditions for three years after the suspension ended, including that he comply with ongoing counselling, ongoing oversight by the health committee of the Medical Council, and that he undergo a psychiatric assessment confirming fitness to practise before he was re-registered. He was also ordered to pay $6000 costs.

In its findings, the tribunal said the doctor had a psychiatric diagnosis of paraphilia, which involved compulsive masturbation and the use of images when masturbating. This was apparently under control as a result of medication he was now taking.

I’m not sure the people of what ever town this paraphile is likely to inhabit are going to be too keen on having him look at their children for medical attention. But that is no matter, because we all can’t know who he is because Judge Grant Fraser thinks:

“In this case there is no offending against any individuals within the New Zealand community.”

Like how could he possibly know that? Did the judge personally sight every single one of the 400,000 images, including the more than 290,000 images of children and positively identify each one as from overseas? Does that matter that his victims were from overseas?

Isn’t it amazing that the truth is leaking out…when first reported it was “many images” to more than 10,000 and now a staggering 290,000 images of children. But the Judge saw this at e light end of the scale. Judge Grant Fraser is clearly pedo-friendly and gets the Pedobear seal of approval.

All I can say is don’t get sick/burn yourself in the Manawatu.

This case remains an outrage, luckily for the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal they can rely on Judge grant Fraser’s pedo-friendly ruling to allow the Dirty Doctor to remain hidden behind the mask of the Burqa of our Justice System.

Pedobear - Pedo friendly Judge keep paraphile's name suppressed

Tagged: • • • • • •

Related posts

  • wallyanchor

    I have a young (5 year old) daughter.
    A (medical) doctor is supposed to be a person you can trust.

    Is it acceptable that his anonymity grants him the access to ‘treat’ children that he’ll later jack off thinking of? Does the judge have children? How would he like to know that the nice friendly family doctor was jacking off to the image of his kids? Or more importantly, how would he like it if he wasn’t allowed to know that his nice friendly family doctor was jacking off after seeing his kids? Hopefully they’re not left alone with him.

    NO. No, no. Absolutely not. This is not acceptable. Not even close!

    290,000 pictures of young girls in explicit sexual poses? This guy is sick!
    There should be no name suppression for somebody in this position. The public (especially parents) NEED to know if their family doctor is a sick cunt.

    • Blondie

      Couldn’t agree more. I can’t believe this judge isn’t even going to serve time. And god,, what kinda sick society do we live in when paedophiles can blame their sick behaviour on some psychiatric illness – and it gets taken seriously?

      Is there some kinda psychiatric disorder, that could serve as a defence, for people who feel so inclined to remove paedophiles from our midst? Bullets are cheap, but bricks are reusable?

      • wallyanchor

        Sorry judge, I suffer from Paedophobia. I was scared this sick cunt was going to get off after ‘treating’ my daughter.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1201173949 petal

    This is even more sickening in my mind:

    “In this case there is no offend­ing against any indi­vid­u­als within the New Zealand community.”

    We rely on judges to protect the weak.

    Perhaps we need to set up an exchange program where we go over to Australia and kill their pedo friendly judges (“In this case there is no offend­ing against any indi­vid­u­als within the New Zealand community.”), and they send over a few good mates to do the same here (“In this case there is no offend­ing against any indi­vid­u­als within the Australian community.”)

    A B S U R D

  • drevo

    I’m going to play devils advocate here and lean towards the judge being on the right track with this one.

    Certainly, the medico’s behaviour appears to have been reprehensible and, yes, disturbing. And for that, criminal charges have been successfully brought against him, and a sentence imposed.

    However – this *does* seem to be at the light end of the scale of offending – notwithstanding the sheer volume of material in question. There was no evidence (that I’ve read about in the press at least) of the individual molesting minors himself, or acting inappropriately around children, or even of being guilty of ‘making an intimate recording’ himself. Of course, it goes without saying that the children depicted in the material that he viewed *were* abused, and that this is absolutely not a victimless crime. But this individual was not the perpetrator of that abuse.

    When it comes down to the actual offence committed, the individual was guilty of viewing (and circulating?) groups of cleverly arranged pixels on a computer screen, Which, ironically, is exactly what you have done in this post by including QR code (and continue to do as part of your campaign for Name Supression Reform)

    So… while the nature of the censored material is dramaticly different, the actual offences are remarkably similar,

    • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ inventory2

      drevo – the NZ authorities were alerted to the Prominent Palmerstonian by the FBI. That would suggest to me that he was doing more than just downloading images for his own gratification.

      The man was charged with 25 counts of possessing objectionable material and one count of distributing pornographic images on the internet after an FBI investigation led to his arrest last year.

  • http://stevesgeekspeak.com kinthiri

    What really bothers me is that this guy gets home detention. I haven’t read anywhere that he has had access to the internet removed or restricted in a meaningful way. So this doctor got to spend months at home with the internet probably continuing to commit the same offences he was charged with.

    There should be absolutely no possibility of name suppression in relation to paedophiles (and any sexual assault for that matter.) If you’re found guilty, you get named regardless of who you are, what your position in the community is or how it might affect your life. Don’t like that idea? Don’t do the fricking crime in the first place!

    Thank you for the QR code. I have sent it on to some friends in that area who have children that might have been at risk next year when this monster gets all past deeds forgiven by the organisation that is supposed to hold their members accountable!

    Disciplinary tribunal? What a crock.

  • grizz

    This does not excuse the crime, but parents should have nothing to fear. This doctor was a rehabilitation specialist which suggests that his patients were adults. This is probably how he will probably be able to practice again. Unless of course he has other hidden paraphilias. Possessing adult pornographic material is not illegal per se. I do hope he does not have a copraphilia problem as well.

    Nevertheless, not ignoring the children of course, I feel for the poor police officers who had to sift through all the images on his computer. Probably also document what was in the picture. This sort of thing must give normal people nightmares.