Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

Do you mean "hypercritical" or "hypocritical" BalancedBags ?
Do you not think that a PM (and/or a minister of justice) should be able to transcend party politics now and again and think of the greater good of the country?
And what makes you think that the PM has a "negotiating position"? Because very few other people seem to be convinced that she has. She keeps saying it but
She's just had a gruesome trip to India. And I'm not just talking about her thinking that it's a good idea to dress up in a gold sari/toga.
Here is a blog from the vice-chancellor of Sheffield University on just how disastrous he thought it was. Enjoy. www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/i-feel-truly-ashamed-keith-burnett-theresa-mays-trade-mission-india

And to lower the tone, here's the fashion news re the golden sari/toga with giant pasta accessory
www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/i-feel-truly-ashamed-keith-burnett-theresa-mays-trade-mission-india

Well, we have no reason to believe that they have done, have we?

The hairdresser who started the challenge has gone into hiding, but I am not sure why judges should do so - after all, they are making difficult and, to some, controversial decisions every day.

If you've signed the Official Secrets Act, surely you shouldn't be posting privileged information on a public website like this, whether you reveal your source or not?

Bad form, I'd say...

Unfortunately, it seems to be par for the course for anyone who sticks their head above the parapet these days.

Remember the nasty threats just because someone wanted to put a woman (Jane Austen!) on a bank note??

I haven't looked at any papers today, just fed up with them all

head in sand syndrome, except for coming on here.

X post!!

What - me - monumentally patronising??
lol

Yes, I have signed it
Truly
Not fibbing

Sorry, Jalima, not to you, to bags.

I signed the official secrets act a long time ago.

Have you read the article about Gina Miller in the Guardian today?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/11/article-50-claimant-gina-miller-safe-outside-brexit

For heaven's sake, if that's not monumentally patronising, I don't know what is!

Bags Bags Bags You obviously don't get the bigger picture here.

I have always thought that Bags got the bigger picture more than anyone else on GN!

Perhaps Liz Truss doesn't read the DM btw

djen you can tell me, I signed the Official Secrets Act

(posts)

Hooray! Brilliant post thatbags.

The stuff about the judges was hypercritical too, so a response in kind is just joining in the silliness.

I interpret the behaviour of TM and LT on this issue as Keeping Calm and Carrying On in good old British tradition.

The short version of all that is: don't be so monumentally patronising. It does you no favours.

I don't read what you call the pro-Brexit press, jess. I read balanced articles on both sides of current debates and issues.

I don't agree that the PM should show her Brexit hand before negotiations start. I think that would be silly, as do other much more eminent and knowledgeable people than I.

I'm liking Theresa May. She doesn't seem the type to do what other people do just because of pressure to be seen to be doing "the right thing", or what other people think is the right thing at any particular moment. She is her own person.

The rubbish in the Daily Mail clearly wasn't un-British because it's a British newspaper that published it. Maybe TM doesn"t feel the need to say it was unwarranted because to any body who isn't already full of stupid prejudices that's obvious without being told, so saying it would just be to pacify people like you, jess, who want her to do what you think is right and don't give her credit for having sound thoughts of her own on the subject. You don't have to agree with someone's viewpoint or attitude to accept that it's valid. That's what I'm doing with regard to TM and LT who, so far, have not given me reason to doubt their sincerity and good (possibly even wise) intentions, even when I might not agree with them.

Maybe I'm just not inclined to be deciding how other people 'should' behave and don't always think that because someone isn't doing what I think would be a good idea that they are somehow in the wrong. I think you, and others, are being hypercritical.

Bags Bags Bags You obviously don't get the bigger picture here. The "Leave" campaign, heavily funded by one Aaron Banks, and led by Farage, lied and lied and enough people believed them that we got a Leave result in the election. They also fanned the flames of racism (that Farage poster; the claims that Turkey was going to become an EU member in immediate future etc etc)
Since then the PM and her ministers have not reassured anyone of anything. Least of all that they know how they will handle leaving he EU.
They have failed to reassure the millions of EU nationals who live, work and pay taxes in the UK that they can relax and get on with their lives, without fear of being sent "home" in 2 years time. For many of them, the UK is their home.
Nevertheless the PM and her team, some of whom are the architects and /or perpetrators of the lies referred to above, say they are going to press ahead with triggering a process that could have dire effects on the UK economy and on the rights of working people.
Many people, including, no doubt, some who voted to leave, would now like to know what "leave" means before the PM pushes the whole country off the diving board, into the unknown.
So understandably, lots of people are worried and some have brought the question before judges - shouldn't parliament have a say on this? e.g. when to jump, and what kind of waters are we leaping into? All totally legal and above board and reasonable. Then we get a pro-Brexit press trying to whip up the populace by describing the judges (who were just doing their jobs) as enemies of democracy etc etc. And the odious Farage whipping up more hatred and planning a march that is going to give an afternoon of glory to all the racist and facist groups in the country.
So what would a sensible, grown up, "statesmanlike" (sic) minister of justice or PM do at that point? Dodge and weave and think about the danger of offending their voters? Or do the right thing and saying something like "This attack on the judges and their court is unwarranted, un-British and misguided." ?
There is every indication that Obama abhors Trump, but he knew enough to say the right thing yesterday. The contrast is glaring.

Sorry about that, dj. I'm supposed to be able to share articles for a week after they're published. I do know a 'magic' way of sharing if anyone does want to read today's Gove. Just let me know and I'll start spelling [magic wand emoji]

durhamjen

Nope I didn't have a clue you were so close to such important people.

I am not saying you could be telling the truth but I trust you will understand why I will choose not to believe a poster on Gransnet if that is the only evidence provided.

Without evidence then 'unsubstantiated revelation' is how I will view your statement.

Quite!

As a taxpayer, I am pleased to see that the DWP communications department has been doing its job, in the same way as the corresponding unit in any government department, company or other organisation that engages with the press. But the information should not have been suppressed.

It is reasonable for journalists to protect their sources when they work for reputable media with proper editors, but in other cases readers are justified in treating as mere gossip unsubstantiated revelations such as the judges being in hiding.

Are they still in hiding, then?

And it should have been condemned by the person who is supposed to uphold our justice system.
It makes one wonder how many friends she has in the media whom she did not want to offend.
That's why her minister resigned, because she could not be seen to be impartial.

I really wouldn't take much heart from an article by Michael Gove because his politically motivated behaviour in the EU campaign leads one to mistrust his sincerity now. But I am prepared to listen to lawyers, barristers and judges who condemn headlines in three right wing newspapers designed solely to stir up hatred for judges who made a perfectly impartial judgement on a point of law.

If there had been any truth in the papers' stories they could have been forgiven but they were designed solely to attack a vital part of our constitution, the impartial judiciary, and to mislead their readers as to the significance of the judgement.

Inexcusable and well worth condemnation.

POGS, haven't you realised by now that that is not a source I will disclose on a forum anyone can look at.

Bags, your Times links are always behind a paywall.