Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

I am intrigued to know whether the DM thinks the judge being gay is better or worse than being an ex Olympic fencer? Not sure why being a fencer would mean you were incapable of being a truatworthy judge, but hey what do I know!

Oh come on POGS, so disingenuous - you know exactly what she means- it is clear enough.

whitewave

The point is the 'facts' are the same in both the Daily Mail and The Guardian.

Tell me , show me please , Which 'facts' in the Daily Mail article are different to the Guardians article for you and others call it 'trash'.

Just read the Guardian piece. Just straight forward facts. The fact that his sexual orientation was mentioned is because he is the first openly gay judge. That's it. Nothing else - zilch. Nothing to read into it whatsoever.

Perhaps the Daily Trash could learn some lessons.

Obviously POGS can't see the difference, Maizie, even if you and I can.

It's a question of intent, POGS.

The Guardian was merely reporting on the appointment of the Master of the Rolls and gave a bit of background about him. As, I'm sure, they have a wide readership among the LGBT 'community' it may also have been seen as encouraging that a person in high office was open about his sexuality.

While one wonders why the Mail had to copy and paste the information from the Guardian story in a piece calling the judges 'enemies of the people'.

I can see a difference even if you can't.

POGS, you've put that on earlier.
It was perhaps relevant when he was made Lord of the Rolls, but not now.

Can't you see the difference?
--

Durhamjen have you and others read the Daily Mail link put up by the OP to make her point.? It includes the link from the Guardian when Etherton was made Lord of The Rolls. I didn't just search for the damn link it was put forward by the OP.

Penstemmon Thu 03-Nov-16 22:38:40
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3901170/The-three-judges-blocked-Brexit.html

Sorry was in the bath!

So referring back to my post 15.17 What is the difference in the Guardian producing an article which is informing you that Sir Terence Etherton has been made Master of The Rolls and informing the reader of his sexual orientation, his civil marriage and Jewish wedding.

WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH BEING MADE MASTER OF THE ROLLS?

Did you or anybody else say disgraceful, homophobic journalism by the Guardian. His personal background has no bearing to being made Lord of The Rolls . Of course not because it was in the Guardian.

Yet the Daily Mail has simply reproduced the same wording from the Guardian article in a story about the EU referendum and it is homophobic and anti - semetic in some peoples eyes.

What has the Daily Mail done differently to the Guardian. Both have used Ethertons sexual orientation, Civil Partnership, Jewish wedding in articles because one has carried the others story .

It could be said that both The Guardian and the Daily Mail need not have mentioned Ethertons sexual orientation, civil partnership , Jewish wedding with regard to their articles.

I don't see either his sexual orientation nor his Jewish wedding are an issue to be concerned about. Therefore I am finding it 'twisted ' for the matter to be raised to make a point against just one paper because it is so disliked. It is disingenuous.

And guess what joannewton46 The fund manager who brought the case is referred to in the Mail (in an article which chooses to give publicity to some of the nasty tweets she has had)
as
51 year old Guyanese-born mother-of-three
and
ex model
in an article I saw earlier
and no reference to her job.

And now this!!!
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903812/Mrs-Hedge-Fund-won-5m-divorce-payout-Brazilian-crimper-started-millionaire-backer-Bentley-Trio-launched-action-halt-Brexit.html
a penchant for leopard skin!!! and other rubbish they have no doubt made up.

PS typical of the current Daily Mail attitude.

Totally irrelevant to how good a job they will do.
Have you also noticed that when a woman in a position of some authority is mentioned it always says how old she is? They don't do that with men.
And when she's interviewed they always comment on what she's wearing. We don't get "Joe Bloggs wearing in a grey suit" (probably too common).
I find it depressing that so long after so-called equal opps we should still face this double standard.

Interesting that there seem to be a lot of people not just on here who think that there is a danger of parliament over turning the referendum. I wonder what would happen then...

no and definitely no

The 'details' of Sir Terence Etherton's sexual preferences were newsworthy at the time of his appointment by virtue of the fact that he was the first gay judge appointed to the post. Subsequent similar appointments would have no news value at all.

His sexual preferences have no bearing whatsoever on the present case and there was absolutely no need to mention them unless it was felt that they might have affected his judgement in the case.

The association of a second judge with the European Law Institute might be more relevant but the insinuation that this affected his judgement in any way is, in my opinion, verging on the slanderous as it suggests that he is not as impartial as a judge should be.

And I'm not too sure how the aims and actions of the Institute he helped to found are served by the current judgement. Perhaps the more suspicious among you can explain it to me.

www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/about-eli/

The Rule of Law, which is an essential element of our constitution, depends on the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. They are there to judge on interpretations of the law, not to serve their own self interest.

Pogs - there's some kind of (twisted) logic in your arguments, but the issue remains, is the duty of newspapers to inform and educate, or to make personal attacks on proponents of the "other side", spread destructive gossip, and lower the moral expectations of readers of the press even further?

Great post JessM at 13.54

I haven't had chips in newspaper for years Teetime - apart from those trendy places that have fake newspaper and chips in little buckets (and very nice they were too).

No, nothing should make any difference at all.
A judge should apply the law impartially without fear or favour.

politicalscrapbook.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a424ae15fced56b3bcdaed9be&id=8b92949ee8&e=66bdcbee4a

This is what the Mail was going to print, and had to change.

POGS, you've put that on earlier.
It was perhaps relevant when he was made Lord of the Rolls, but not now.
Can't you see the difference?

jen I thought that's what you meant & couldn't understand the relevance to the link I'd posted.
I don't have a subscription to the times or the FT but that article came up when I googled 'who paid for Gina Miller's court case'. I could read the whole article.
Now though when I try to open the link I get the paywall.
Very

For goodness sake you all keep making the point this is more about the dislike of the Daily Mail rather than the story.

Example

Lentilweaver Fri 04-Nov-16 14:34:38

"hmm, not just gay but jewish too- I didn't notice the religious affiliation of the other judges being mentioned
really I don't know how anyone can take the DM seriously with that ridiculous column on the side".

Extract from the 'sainted' Guardian

www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/26/britain-first-openly-gay-judge-master-of-the-rolls-terence-etherton

"Educated at St Paul’s school in west London and Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Etherton has been a judge since 2001 and was the first to become so while publicly declaring his sexuality.

He entered a civil partnership in 2006 with Andrew Stone, which was then converted to a marriage in 2014 in a traditional 'Jewish' wedding ceremony at West London Synagogue.

On joining the appeal court in 2008, Etherton said: “My appointment also shows that diversity in sexuality is not a bar to preferment up to the highest levels of the judiciary.”

Extract from the 'detestable' Daily Mail

He said his appointment 'shows that diversity in sexuality is not a bar to preferment up to the highest levels of the judiciary'.

He entered a civil partnership in 2006 and in 2014, after a change in the law, he and partner Andrew Stone were married in a traditional' Jewish ' wedding ceremony at West London Synagogue.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3901170/The-three-judges-blocked-Brexit.html#ixzz4P3K3NzKK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is ridiculous. It is the persistent view by some to believe Daily Mail is homophobic/racist/anti semetic, call it what you want but the 'sainted Guardian' which has reported practically word for word , indeed used with Daily Mail article is what, marvellous, intellectually stimulating, above reproach!

Neither paper is being homophobic but the view that only one paper is being homophobic, the Daily Mail, is to be honest not only disingenuous over this article but if you cannot read or see the 'mirror image' , the 'same wording' in both the Daily Mail and the Guardian then it is 'selective' hatred but one that is shown time and time again.

Just because the DM has notoriety doesn't mean it has influence.

I cannot understand why so many people (I am not talking about this thread on GN) are getting so excited about this court case.

All the judges have done is confirm that we live in a Parliamentary democracy and Parliament is sovereign. The government agreed that if the referendum over the membership favoured getting out it would act on this decision, which it is, but we are not living in a dictatorship and it cannot take us out of the EU without consulting Parliamnet.

Breaking news is that the Conservative MP for Sleaford, Stephen Phillips, a Brexit supporter has resigned his seat because, he says, the government has ignored Parliament since the Brexit vote.
so that he was unable properly to represent the people who elected him.

Even Brexiteers think that Parliament should be consulted on how the process of withdrawal from the EU should take place

Hate all the labels we feel the need to hang on people. Why do we need to know about anyone's sexual preferences? Surely we don't even need to know if the judge is male, female or transgender as that shouldn't have any effect on how they do their job.
And as for the Daily Mail - my husband's holy grail ???

hmm, not just gay but jewish too- I didn't notice the religious affiliation of the other judges being mentioned
really I don't know how anyone can take the DM seriously with that ridiculous column on the side

Brendan Cox has tweeted:

Whatever our views on the court ruling I hope we can take a step back & debate it soberly. Inciting hatred has consequences.

radicalnan wrote
"I was in shock, glad I had been a vegetarian for years, when I heard what chefs are 'famous for using frozen chickens for'

Having lived in Hull, we knew all about Fisherman's Friends.
Sorry , this is a serious subject. But why the DM has to be taken seriously, I don't know. It's frightening how much influence it has.

Isn't it just the usual pernicious and insidious journalism of that particular rag?