Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

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.

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.

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

That was to radical btw

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

The brief biographiess of a couple of other judges gave details of their wives, families and hobbies - all completely irrelevant to the matter in hand. I'm afraid those of you who think that the introduction of personal information of this kind are probably right in surmising that the Daily Fail's intention was indeed to call into question the moral values of the panel without appearing to do so. I understand this is known as a 'dog whistle' - the invitation to judge on grounds of sexual orientation will hear the message loud and clear, even though nothing is actually implied in the text as written. A depressingly common, and devious, approach in this style of do-called journalism. Whilst we're on the subject of gender, am I the only one to question the all-male line-up?

MissdekeThe case was brought by Gina Miller, a Fund Manager.
It has not been funded by the taxpayer.
www.ft.com/content/c8c5ff24-7bf8-11e6-b837-eb4b4333ee43

But isn't there a Crowdfunder money-raiser for the case as?

as well?

The sad thing is some people only read one rag , and soak up the bile , repeating it as fact . This is the Trump tactic , if you watch his use of innuendo : he may not be bright , but boy is he sly !!

radicalnan your sexual awareness course made me giggle - did you all manage to keep a straight face?
Only 8? I can think of a few more

The government side of it is paid by the taxpayer. The government itself has no money. It uses ours.
If the government decides to contest the decision, it will be taxpayers' money.
The other side of the case is crowdfunded from now on.

Paywall, Jane.

No

The Daily Fail, like the Sun, would never ever make it into this house

Can 'Unelected ' judges be regarded as representing the populace?
My vote for Brexit was purely against the unelected J-C Juncker who could make decisions which affect all of us

The Daily Mail has said this from the article:-

'Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, 65, is the second most senior judge in England and Wales, after Lord Thomas.
He made legal history almost a decade ago when he became the first openly gay judge to be made a Lord Justice of Appeal, The Guardian reported.'(link to the Guardian)

Sir Terence Etherton was called to the Bar in 1974 and became a QC in 1990. He was appointed a High Court Judge in 2001 before becoming a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2008.
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.

Sir Terence, who studied history and law at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, was in the British sabre team from 1977 to 1980 and qualified for the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow. He boycotted the games in protest against the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan.

The Master of the Rolls - a position which dates back to at least the 13th century - is the head of civil justice and the second most senior judge - after the Lord Chief Justice - in England and Wales.'
---

I don't understand what the problem is to be honest.

The article from the Daily Mail makes reference to the background of ' ALL 3 JUDGES ' ,not picking out one and making a big deal of his sexuality which would indeed lead me to agree it is of no consequence to making judicial decisions.

The piece from The Guardian which is included in the Daily Mail article is obviously mentioning the sexual orientation of Sir Terence Etherton and I find no issue with mentioning his background in either paper.

My problem is just because the Daily Mail has mentioned it some will make a predisposed assumption that there must be a reason for/opportunity to snipe at someone/ show a racist tendency/ be homophobic.

The Daily Mail reported on Sir Terence Etherton becoming Master of The Rolls in a similar vein to the Guardian but no doubt there would be cries of why does the Daily Mail think it neccessary to mention his sexual orientation because he has become Master of The Rolls , homophobic and poor journalism, yet nobody would bat an eye lid to virtually the same article being reported in the Guardian.

Ironically it is the Guardian headline not the Daily Mail which draws attention to Etherton being ' Gay '.

Ex-olympic fencer sir terence etherton to become master of the rolls | Daily Mail Online

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

So no I don't find the Mail has made 'an issue' of a judges sexuality to undermine today's High Court Judgement on Article 50.

No & No

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3610687/Ex-Olympic-fencer-Sir-Terence-Etherton-Master-Rolls.html

Didn't work in last post so I will try again.

It's the Daily Mail, what can you expect!

But those links were in May and from when he was made Master of the Rolls. Perhaps his history was relevant then. It wasn't in the judgment mentioned in the OP.