Comments on: Police Blotter: Official can't be fired in sex e-mail flap

Pennsylvania court rules that a senior bureaucrat who circulated photos of exposed body parts should be reinstated at a lower level.

[shanedr]

What an idiot court system

A high level employee is absent from his assigned work station during assigned hours. When present he engages in non-work actions, sends emails containing words and pictures that are or approach pornography. He violates rules that he was supposed to be enforcing while claiming he wasn't aware of it. A Pennsylvania court says he can only be demoted.

All Pennsylvania residents please keep your judges away from the judges of other states. Your judges affliction may be contagious.

[Michael00360]

He should be Fired

He deliberately abused the policy which he was suppose to uphold. I think he should be fired immediately. If he is not, then he should at least have extremely restricted access to the computer.

[skrubol]

Wow, no back pay?

Usually people in public offices end up getting back pay on top of it all.

[mrmagoo2015]

nice

If he worked for the govt. agency I work for he would have promoted and his pay doubled

[K.P.C.]

Hey c/net . . .

You really ought to change the name of this column from "Police-
Blotter" to "Judicial-Blotter" or "Court-Report" or sometthing like
that since 99% of the stories have absolutely nothing to do with the
police while 100% of the reports concern court rulings.

Just a suggestion.

[declan00]

interesting point

You're right that this week's was about a civil dispute.

On the other hand, last week's was about a ID theft conviction. In September, I wrote about a DOJ criminal case, a porn spammer criminal case, a civil LAPD case with criminal components.

If you have a better name, feel free to suggest it. :)