Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

It's not snobbery to recognise that the Daily Mail is a bigoted rag.

Ask George Clooney and Ed Miliband for their opinion.

In answer to the op...NO! A judge's sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with this judgment.

Just trying to be helpful.

Perhaps counselling would help

Thanks, Jalima, but I don't give up, I stay and fight.
I still feel ashamed, though.
Even if I renounced my citizenship I would still feel ashamed.

I think both of us have answered her question often enough, Maizie.
None so blind....

I'm not taking it any further, POGS. You've already had my answer. You not liking it and repeating the question doesn't make me change my mind. It didn't work when my children tried the same tactics, either.

Here is a useful link:

www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality/overview

Good luck!

I am even more ashamed of being British today
Is there any way you could renounce your citizenship?
It must be possible.

Although I think because you do not agree with the content of some of the media is not sufficient reason, you could get turned down.

I used the term 'saintly Guardian' Mazie d also,.

I have no idea why you asked this question.

'As for the 'saintly Guardian' comment, are you saying that they lied about the judge's sexual orientation, roses?

The point roses made I assume was the Guardian can do no wrong in some peoples eyes not remotely querying the words the Guardian used. Why would she the Guardian spoke the truth, same as the Daily Mail.

You quite rightly say 'context is important'. Kindly explain to me what is the 'context' behind the Guardian mentioning Ethertons sexuality, Jewish wedding in their article which is telling the reader he has been promoted to Lord of the Rolls? Please explain to me the relevence .

My opinion is none.

There has been a link put forward by the OP which asks a question, not about the judges decision re Article 50 but the mentioning of a persons sexuality and journalism standards. I am responding to that question and using the link the OP provided to debate. It is however apparent some posters are trying to ignore the link by saying the guardian article was printed in May and has no relevance. I beg to differ.

POGS

You are equally devoid of understanding of the point that others have made about context.

You are gaining nothing by repeating the same question over and over again and neither are we by repeating the same answer.

Shall we leave it as stalemate?

durhamjen

You are devoid of understanding my point.

Instead of shouting answer my question to make your point.

Why is the article by the Guardian which is used in the Daily Mail and it is that Guardian article which mentions his sexual!orientation and Jewish wedding deemed to be acceptable journalism when those points the Guardian raised have bugger all to do with his promotion to Lord of the Rolls.?

If I had started a thread asking

"Why does The Guardian find it necessary to mention Lord Terence Ethertons sexual preference, Jewish wedding in their article telling us he has been promoted to Lord of the Rolls."

Does anybody think this is a)relevant and b) good journalism.

(I wonder if some posters have even read the link the OP put forward if they cannot equate the words come from a Guardian article. I think the words used in both the Daily Mail and Guardian amount to no more than a statement put out by many other media outlets where Etherton himself was making a statement 'quite happily' about his life , probably to stop idiots making a point out of his sexuality as though it is a problem in today's society.)

Clearly Media Studies is a useful part of the modern school curriculum. It does attempt to show that unquestioning acceptance of anything published in the media is unwise. That context is important. That the same 'fact' can be used to support entirely different agendas. Is the glass half full or half empty; optimism or pessimism.
Perhaps some of us might have benefited from such a course when we were at school (though the study of history should tell us much the same thing..)

I don't mind dj shouting. I feel her frustration...

As for the 'saintly Guardian' comment, are you saying that they lied about the judge's sexual orientation, roses?

What a shouty post djen ( bad manners on forums) to use capitals as much as that.
Ah yes, the saintly Guardian, where all is Gospel, where all that is printed can be believed.

No, Magpie, we just read the link that was on here.
Don't you read links - or do you just read the Mail?
Off to buy my Guardian now the rain has stopped.

Snobbery, thats the reason. What makes me laugh is that they must read the Daily Mail to comment on it.

No difference between the mail writing the judge is gay to the guardian writing the new master of the rolls is gay , both are wrong

THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN MAY WHEN HE BECAME MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
tHE GUARDIAN HAS NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIM BEING OPENLY GAY THIS WEEK, HAS IT?
IT WAS ONLY THE DAILY MAIL WHICH SAID IT THIS WEEK IN ORDER TO DENIGRATE HIM.
IT WORKED, DIDN'T IT?
THE DAILY MAIL WRITES TRASH NOW. THE GUARDIAN WROTE THE ARTICLE TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT AN OPENLY GAY BARRISTER COULD BECOME MASTER OF THE ROLLS, TO SHOW HOW OUR SOCIETY HAS BECOME MORE WELCOMING OF GBLT PEOPLE.

GET IT, POGS?

So I ask again.

Why is it seen as OK for the Guardian to write about Ethertons sexual orientation, Jewish marriage in their article when Etherton became Master of The Rolls. What was his sexual orientation or Jewish wedding to do with his promotion? Please somebody tell me!

Answer, none but it was a Guardian story so that's OK then.

The Daily Mail use the Guardian article, which obviously uses the same words because it was the same article, but that paper is accused of homophobia , anti Jewish.

I fully understand the two articles are talking of different subjects but if the ' premise of your arguement ' is to question what does a persons sexual preference, Jewish marriage have to bear then the answer is it doesn't and neither the Guardian nor the Daily Mail need to have mentioned it!

The fact is the Guardian and the Daily Mail use the same wording, because it was the same article lifted from the Guardian in the link put forward by Penstemmon/the OP.

We see and read on GN time and time again The Guardian can never be questioned, positively saintly and for the intellectual reader. The Daily Mail is trash and read by the
thick in the head, far right scum who believe anything they are told. Thereby hangs the tale in the minds of many!

Personally I think the Mail have been idiots to challenge the judges decision so strongly but that is the question I would respect being asked an opinion on. The OP was not asking about the decision made by the judges over Article 50 but solely 'concentrated on the use of sexuality.'

Therefore I have asked repeatedly why is it the Daily Mail not the Guardian is called trash when the article is the same because it was a Guardian article used by the Daily Mail and Ethertons sexuality and Jewish wedding was of no consequence to either papers articles.

The Eye of The Beholder I suppose.

Not only did certain sections of the press and some politicians make some disgraceful statements about the three judges yesterday but nothing was heard at all from the Lord Chancellor.

thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and-should-resign/

(I would copy & paste a bit of the blog but I'm using my tablet and copying/pasting isn't easy)

A massive "NO".

A person's sexual orientation is their own business. If you have made it to the upper echelons of the Law it is only reasonable to assume that you are competent,knowledgeable and unbiased. If we don't assume that the whole concept of the judiciary goes out of the window.

The people who write in the gutter press are intelligent, articulate and well educated, or they would not have been able to get a job in publishing. When they write such rabble rousing rubbish they are patronising their readers.

#StopFundingHate has been trending on twitter because of the articles published in the right wing media, odd that that didn't happen when the guardian published their article isn't it?

The guardian article and The mail article don't compare, anyone who disagrees is being deliberately obtuse. This is dog whistle reporting at it's finest and "openly gay" was used as a negative slur. I am sickened by the press in this country and the hatred it stirs up but I guess that hatred and prejudiced is already there as people continue to buy these rags.

I'm wondering why Gina Miller is 'brave' Jessm?

They are answering that on The Last Leg, Deedaa. Most offended at being called an ex-Olympic fencer.

POGS is never disingenuous.