||Court dismisses attempt to disqualify bushfire expert
A bushfire expert who was called as a witness in a Victorian court has been dismissed.
The court heard Andrew Jones, who is also a fire safety advocate, could not be contacted after he retired from the Victorian Fire Service in July last year.
The court heard Mr Jones, who retired from the service after 38 years, was interviewed by the Victorian Fire Service in September last year.
The judge said that after the interview, the matter was passed to the Victorian Fire Commission, and that investigation led to the dismissal of Mr Jones.
"I don't believe that any inquiry into that inquiry is ever to resume," Mr Justice Roberts told him.
The judge was interested to know if a second investigation had been done on the case, and if that had been successful.
"You are entitled to see my judgment," he said.
"We are not going to hear any further arguments on that.
"The issue is not one that I'm willing to revisit.
"I would not make an exception in circumstances where I am unable to do that. You are entitled to be informed of it."
'I am an Australian citizen'
Justice Roberts said the court should "have no doubt" Mr Jones, who was called as a witness at the trial to show how to identify potential bushfire hazards, was an Australian citizen.
Mr Jones had been questioned at least 12 times by the Victorian Fire Service and he would not have known of any other occasions where he had been refused access to witnesses, he said.
"If there is an issue where your privacy may have been invaded, well then you have the obligation in this case to have an inquiry which is not about, as opposed to what is your case," Justice Roberts said.
"You have breached, if you're a fire safety specialist you have breached your obligation as an Australian citizen to be subject to an investigatory process, and the Supreme Court has rightly said that's an offence," he said.
"The obligation to be a properly-drafted public officer, to be able to exercise such an investigatory process, and also to consider that what's in question would not be the best policy for the community, the community's interests, is a pretty strong legal obligation."
He was also asked why he had not been contacted by the fire authorities after he gave evidence in court last year.
Mr Jones said the information he gave to the Victorian Fire Service about bushfires was confidential.
"I haven't told anyone how I am, my private life, or even what we do at the fire service," he said.
"As I can see from the way the medi
La porn industry stung by first condom fines
The first case of sex between an employee of the porn industry and a potential customer comes at a time when it is hard for the industry to get even the tipsy and horny employees out of their offices. And what do sex addicts think of the laws? "Good idea for the first time ever. You don't know I'm going to ask for tips on my way out and I can't afford to tip because of my own habits."
The law in Colorado, however, is complicated and the details are not clear. The Colorado Attorney General's office was not immediately available for comment.
At issue is who must report a sex worker and who gets the right to refuse to do so. Both parties are supposed to be considered sex workers.
To be a sex worker, you must have sex with at least two clients, say two people who do not have a relationship with you, and at least one of them must be under the age of 18. In Colorado, you are not supposed to be involved in sexual activity with another client without consent.
The industry has opposed some provisions of the law in favor of others, including those that prohibit people from becoming sex workers for the purposes of prostitution.
A representative from the state Division of Human Services told Human Rights Watch that the agency would do its job and report cases where workers have been prosecuted.
The director of Colorado Human Services told Human Rights Watch that in "just one case, the district attorney's office was willing to file charges against a provider for facilitating the prostitution of a minor. But there were so many different issues, and there was a high possibility that the individual provider could continue to operate as a sex worker for reasons of financial hardship, the personal privacy of the client." He added that the agency also had to go to the courts to take the case to trial because, "We were working at a time when Colorado was very vulnerable because our court systems were on the verge of collapse."
The Colorado Attorney General's office said it received about a dozen reports of employees who were accused of prostitution during the past year in the state. "We don't know the specifics yet of the cases."
While the details of the cases aren't clear, Human Rights Watch interviewed some employees about their experiences of sex workers and prostitution, and the stories were varied.
Jared C. O'Brien, who works at a motel in the city of Boulder, told Human Rights Watch that he first ran into an undercover officer when he was trying to pay a prostitute through his agency. When they asked him about it, O'Brien said, the officer began laughing and saying, "Good work, buddy."
"There were four or five other guys waiting in the room who were kin