Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

I’m saying everyone, whoever or whatever they are, who's making such a fuss about a ridiculous headline in a ridiculous newspaper is blowing it out of proportion, dj, and I still think Liz Truss's response is a good one.

There's an article in the Times today by everyone's favourite joirnalist, Michael Gove, in which he criticises LT's response and supports the view of the out of proportion blowers. I'll post a link if anyone wants to read it but I suspect that most people won't want to read anything that might make them agree with MG, for fear of contamination.

durhamjen you stated

" The judges have had to go into hiding."

Where have you heard or read that please.

Is this anyone's idea of a free press?

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/secret-dwp-documents-prove-they-silenced-the-media-from-running-stories-they-didnt-approve-of-evolve-politics/

twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/795738825133789184/photo/1

These QCs must be blowing it up out of all proportion, too.

Are you saying Tory MPs who are lawyers are blowing it up out of proportion, too, bags, or just some gransnetters?

'Angry Conservative MPs confronted the justice secretary, Liz Truss, at a private meeting on Monday night, voicing concerns over her handling of the criticism of high court judges in the article 50 court case.

Tory MPs at the meeting, many with backgrounds as senior lawyers, are understood to have told the lord chancellor there was “huge concern” among colleagues at the slowness of her response to the attacks on Lord Thomas, the lord chief justice, the master of the rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales in newspapers and by politicians.'

Liz Truss doesn't need to stand up for the judges. The independence of the judiciary is not imperilled by the opinions of a newspaper. As she said. Some of you are blowing it out of all proportion. As usual.

Yes, I like to state the 'bleeding obvious' from time to time, as 'some' People just don't get it and need reminding.

nd yes, it means SOME people, nothing cryptic about it.

So you weren't referring to anyone on this thread, then, roses? Just a making a general statement of the obvious?

Liz Truss is the Secretary of State for Justice, so speaks up for all justice.
The minister of state resigned because of it, saying "I have nothing against Ms Truss personally, but is she going to have the clout to be able to stand up to the prime minister when necessary, on behalf of the judges? Is she going to be able to stand up, come the moment, to the prime minister, for the rule of law and for the judiciary … without fear of damaging her career? It is a big ask."

She follows Gove and Grayling. Tories don't like experts.

And look what admirable company Mr Farage is attracting. Will he have the balls to be out there himself in that company?
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/supreme-court-march-article-50-nigel-farage-bnp-edl_uk_5821bc2de4b0c2e24ab0ec18?x7n4yg5g2rm005p14i

What legal decisions has she allegedly made, daphnedill?

Errrmmm! I didn't realise that Liz Truss is qualified to make legal decisions. Has she done a fast track law degree over the last few weeks?

And calling Obama a "loathsome creature" and making a joke about Trump touching the PM.... who is the loathsome one here?
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-calls-barack-obama-9233130

I think demonstrating and trying to influence politicians is fair game. Telling people that judges are the enemies of the people, that they are biased, that their decision to support Parliament rather than the government of the day is somehow undemocratic is sinister rabble rousing.

Haha, it was little old me that said it Jalima and yes, it means SOME people, nothing cryptic about it.

Elizabeth Truss, the Lord Chancellor, agrees with me. As she puts it so well: "I think it unlikely the the High Court is imperilled by the opinions of any newspaper".

Quite. People who think otherwise need to calm down and stop making slightly hysterical remarks.

LT goes on, in the same letter, to defend the principle of a free press: "I believe in a free press, where newspapers are free to publish, within the law, their views."

And again, quite, spot on and well said.

Some people only smile on free speech if it accords with their own world views
It sounded quite philosophical to me

Is it a well-known saying - who said it first?
Plato?
The Dalai Lama?
rosesarered?

Some people not all people I presume

Perhaps naming them might be beyond the freedom of speech allowed.

roses
You are, of course, entirely free to make cryptic comments but who are these 'some people' ?

Some people only smile on free speech if it accords with their own world views!

Could you please explain for me POGS just where on this thread I have said anything against free speech?

OK.
thatbags seemed to think that 'some people' didn't understand what free speech is. Who doesn't understand?

'My point being that she didn't actually need to make them.

' We don't need lecturing on freedom of speech.'

' So why bother unless she thinks something need defending against other posters?'

That's nice!

I know that bags can easily speak for herself but I think your posts make the point that bags was making perfectly. Especially this one:-

"It seems to be that some people simply don't understand what free speech and freedom of expression means".

My point being that she didn't actually need to make them. No-one is saying that Farage can't have his demonstration. We don't need lecturing on freedom of speech. We've all grown up with it.

So why bother unless she thinks something need defending against other posters?

I don't see anything 'defensive' in thatbags post.

Some perfectly rational points were made.

Paedophilia is against the law, so no. Daft suggestion. Actual racism ditto.

I will continue to speak up for freedom of speech when I think others are knocking it. I think it matters. A lot. I'm defending it here because some comments suggest to me that it needs defending here.

If a writer in the Daily Mail, or anywhere else, thinks a group of judges are enemies of the people, why shouldn't they say so? Whether the opinion is correct or crazy is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to express it. That's what some people don't seem to understand. It's an opinion. Paedophilia and racism are more than mere opinions.

I wouldn't like it, I'd argue against views expressed in favour of paedophilia and racism. But people do have a right to express such views. What they don't have is a right to engage in either of them.

I'm not sure we disagree about anything I've said, maizied.