Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

I thought that would be the case jen
What do you mean, Paywall?

A paywall means you can't read it unless you pay to read the Times. It happens quite often with the Times and Financial Times. It makes it impossible to read the article.

Well if you will read The Daily Wail,

I always think a person's sexuality is totally irrelevant and before reading the article would have said it was irrelevant here too. However it does say "He made legal history almost a decade ago when he became the first openly gay judge to be made a Lord Justice of Appeal", so I think it is kind of justified in this case. It must have been a significant thing at the time.

Well done disgruntled couldn't agree more. Hate the DM with a passion

I was in shock, glad I had been a vegetarian for years, when I heard what chefs are 'famous for using frozen chickens for'..........I would never accept the last 4 as any type of sexuality although clearly there are promoters for them..........

Why should the fact a person is homosexual need be mentioned no matter what position they take , it has been legal since 1967

There are a number of disgraceful headlines today, attacking the judges and showing pictures of the brave woman Gina Miller, who led the action. The people who voted for the "sovereignty" of the UK were, surely, voting for the rule of UK law and the UK parliament. This is exactly what the judges have done - upheld the sovereignty of parliament. The alternative is an autocratic PM and whatever "yes men" he or she appoints pushing through all kids of changes without the consent of the people - who are represented by all the MPs and not just the cabinet acting with the royal prerogative. This is what prevents the UK from becoming a dictatorship. (Look at what has happened in Russia where the constitution has allowed Putin to be re-elected repeatedly as either PM or President and can effectively act as a dictator. A failure of their constitution - with no judges to counter that power grab.)
Parliament - both houses - has a right to be involved in the way in which we leave the EU and not just be told to wait patiently and don't interfere for 2-3 years, until some kind of fait accompli is presented to them.
I gather Gina Millar has had a lot of really nasty threats on social media. (Even other people with the same name have had nasty threats.) Some of these are, no doubt, doubly unpleasant because she is a woman.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/article-50-fallout-sees-gina-millar-receive-death-threats-online_uk_581ba19fe4b020461a1bec57
Meanwhile the Sun, The Mail etc carry on trying to fan the flames of hatred in this country in a completely irresponsible manner.
Still, what do we expect when newspapers are owned by power mad billionaires who have their own right wing agenda, plus one should assume, an endless thirst for power.

It was a significant thing at the time LesleyC but it isn't significant now and certainly isn't relevant to the case.

Hmmn, having read the printed news from the Mail ( above) I think it wasn't quite the 'shock horror' type of thing that was implied.

( about the judge)

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

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.

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.

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

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 ???

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

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.

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

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?

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.

Great post JessM at 13.54

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?

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.

no and definitely no