Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

Rags like the Daily Mail will dredge up anything to discredit people who express different views from theirs.

Sassy60 - the complicated process for exiting the EU it was one of the things the Leave campaign never warned about. They had no plan for what deal they want.

The delay in getting on with it has not been helped by the 3 Brexiteers and others in the Tory party all disagreeing with eachother about the terms of a Brexit.

It is interesting that Leavers don't want Parliament to even debate the triggering of Article 50. What are they afraid of?

Ginny42 are agree, judges have to interpret the law as they see it, regardless of whether they agree with what the decision they must come to agrees with their own personal beliefs. As to their sexual orientation, well I'm sick to death of this being mentioned ever. What difference does it make to anybody else what anybody's orientation is, as long as someone is a good person and their sexual preferences doesn't hurt anyone, who has any right to comment on it.

On another note, who is paying for this court case? Is it costing the tax payer money?

How do you suggest that we 'just get on with Brexit, sassy60? There are so many things that have to be negotiated not only with Europe but with the rest of the world.

Absolutely appalling. For those GNrs who complain about so many posters who criticise much of the Daily Mail's output this is why! A classic example.

Such comment is really nasty insinuation and generally homophobic.
(A) Not relevant.
(B) Appalling journalism.

Too much faffing and nit picking, let's just get on with Brexit.

Yes * Whitewave* it did.
But as I said in my earlier post, only so it could point to Sir Terence Etherton's being gay.

....and to the OP, no a judge being gay doesn't matter at all.

That was to radical btw

I don't think we can accept the last four!

Judges are simply interpreting existing English law. No more, no less. Personal sexual preferences do not come into it and it is wrong of the DM to imply that they do. They certainly know their readership and which buttons to press to stir up prejudice.

If he's a very honest person surely that makes him a better judge.

Five years ago I was sent for sexual awareness training by local authority I worked for. There are 8 sexual categories we were told.

Heterosexual
Homosexual
Lesbian
Bi sexual
Necrophiliac
Paedophile
Rapist
Bestiality

That being in the pipeline so to speak towards universal acceptance, I think perhaps we do need to know someone's preferences in future.

MaizieD - I couldn't agree more. OP's questions are very much to the point. Oh ho hum. It's going to be rocky few months/years/decades...

Did the Daily Trash mention that the other judges were heterosexual?

Totally irrelevant of course. But used by this kind of paper to sway the opinion of some people in a distorted way. Sadly, tragically, it works with too many.

We are told again and again we shouldn't judge people for the paper they read- but I am sorry, if someone intentionally buys such papers with the dreadful, biased + all the 'ists' possible- then you do have to wonder if this is not what they want to read, and therefore support to some extent. There is no escaping that - whichever way you want to look at it.

Please don't use the words "Daily Mail" and "journalism" in the same sentence.

It's the Mail - what do you expect?

To answer the OP's questions

1) It's irrelevant
2) If it's irrelevant it follows that it is poor journalism; in my opinion.

However, if you think that rabble rousing is good journalism then today's headlines from the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph (I expected better of the last named) are up with the best..

I am even more ashamed of being British today than I was a few days ago when the Mail targeted foreign lorry drivers using their mobiles...(and on many other occasions since 24th June)

My mam reads it so I have to keep abreast of the garbage she's absorbing as fact.

I wouldn't use the Daily Mail for chip paper let alone read it.

Obsession with sex. A judge is gay so is reported as such in a newspaper, a judge is gay and us described as being honest because he has 'come out'

The DM will use anything it can to prove to it's readers that the country is being undermined by fifth columnists. It uses sexuality because that appeals to those readers who are homophobic.

The article sort of pretends it isn't making an issue of his sexuality by including references to the other judges' wives and children too.
I think that not only that judges' sexuality is irrelevant, but references to partners, wives, husbands and children is a serious invasion of their privacy.

However what really concerns me about this article is the assertion that judges are 'activist' and not politically impartial in making their judgements, and that their allegiance is to a 'metropolitan elite'.

That contradicts the whole basis of our political system - which is that parliament makes the laws, and that the judiciary interprets those laws passed by our elected politicians in an unbiased way.

Since the Referendum the ideal of parliamentary democracy seems to be giving way to mob rule. A dangerous road, IMHO.

Why is the fact the man has 'come out' is he described as being honest about his sexuality , if people do not choose to 'come out' they are being dishonest ?

I just looked through the article quickly. I can't seen why it was thought relevant to mention a judge's sexuality.

I think a person shouldn't feel that they have to hide their sexuality but neither should it be flagged up when there is no reason for it to be mentioned. After all a judge's heterosexuality wouldn't be thought newsworthy.

It reminds me of the way women in the public eye are often subjected to an analysis of their private lives , in particular if they are married and have children, whereas men rarely are.

But like you said, Penstemmon, there was no need to mention it as it has nothing to do with the article or his ability to do the job.
Surely being open means accepting it without mentioning it.