Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

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...

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.

PS typical of the current Daily Mail attitude.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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'.

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

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!

POGS is never disingenuous.

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

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

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.

#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?

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.

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)

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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?