Second, the judge has exposed himself to all and sundry.
That's the nature of the internet. How then does he sit in judgment on sex cases, public indecency charges, or rule on the acceptability of pornography to minors?
To make a concrete example: how can he preside in judgment over a man accused of exposing himself to children?
Isn't that exactly what he has done?
Third, there's a credibility gap. Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue is reported as saying: "An image of [the judge] posted to a website without his knowledge has just been brought to my attention."
The key bit here is "without his knowledge".
The explanation is that members give written consent when they join, perhaps many years ago.
It stretches credibility for me, but it is certainly careless and given the judge's role it is an integrity gap that needs closing .
Fourth, the Herald on Sunday chose not to name the judge.
His anonymity throws all district court judges under suspicion.
No one can be sure the male judge they appear before is not the one who thinks it acceptable to expose himself publicly.
Fifth, the pictures were removed once the Chief District Court Judge was alerted.
That suggests someone thinks there is a problem.
So what is the problem and how has it been dealt with?
So far, those who would sit above us in judgment refuse to judge their own and refuse the transparency their justice demands.
TV and radio frontman Paul Henry has gone into bat for the judge, declaring himself a nudist. That's very nice for Paul.
But Paul is not a judge and full frontals of him aren't available publicly online. Yet.