To think the right wing tabloids have gone too far?

[Mistigri]

Reactions of the Mail, Express and Sun to yesterday's court decision on brexit:

The Mail's front page has a picture of the three high court judges with the headline "Enemies of the people". One judge is criticised for being "openly gay".

The Express says this is the UK's greatest crisis since the Second World War.

The Sun (proprietor: R Murdoch) takes to task the "foreign elites" who brought the case. Because their readers are less likely to approve of attacks on white pensioners (the other claimant), they focus their attack on the non-white woman claimant.

The Mail is the most problematic IMO; attacking the judiciary is another step on the road to facism.

How can we have any reasonable political debate in this environment?

Well, apart from the one on R5 this morning who said he WASN'T trying to stop Brexit.

Just ensure it followed due process and was orderly.

Or was that misreported?

Alfieisnoisy I agree that the papers we're talking about pander to their market readership. I don't agree, however, that most people are incapable of understanding the ruling. I don't believe anyone on this thread is incapable of understanding the ruling - or at least the main thrust of it, stripped of the detailed constitutional law framework. My 9 year old can grasp the substance of it, having had it explained in appropriate terms.

What is a shameful tragedy is the extent to which readers of these newspapers (and their websites) are wilfully misled and manipulated by proprietors and editorial teams for commercial gain and political traction. This gross misinformation directly undermines democracy.

It is this mistake, believing that establishment thinking can uphold a hyperreal scenario through blanket coverage of "liberal" bien pensant views on media channels, that has got us into this bloody mess in the first place

Great post werkz ( as usual)

TBH things are moving at such a fast pace people who cling onto this idea are being left behind, your right, the balance could tip.
Interesting points about this lady identifying with Labour, but then Tony Blair is all over the media crying out " we are the insurgents now" etc

I don't agree, however, that most people are incapable of understanding the ruling.

Absolutely. What's more, I think that Mail and Express readers - who I think we can safely characterise as being generally conservative-with-a-small-c in their outlook on life and probably a bit older than the population generally - do on the whole understand perfectly well concepts like judicial independence and the primacy of parliament, and are broadly in favour of them.

Regarding the motivation of the Claimants, here's an extract from the skeleton argument submitted on behalf of the 2nd Claimant, Deir Santos (para 3):

"...it is important to underline that, by this claim, Mr Santos (who is a British citizen resident in the UK) does not seek to “challenge” the outcome of the Referendum (or any lawfully taken decision that the UK should withdraw from the EU). The Claimant’s concern is to protect the fundamental doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, and thereby uphold the rule of law. The Claimant seeks the protection of the Court to ensure that, if he is to be deprived of his domestically enforceable EU legal rights, such rights are taken away from him in a constitutionally proper and lawful manner. The purpose of the Claimant’s challenge is therefore to ensure that, if a decision by the UK to withdraw from the EU is notified under Article 50(2), that decision is one taken in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements."

BillSykes It's fucking depressing to see a left wing which is apparently now in favour of wealthy elites using their money, status and power to silence the ignorant electorate because apparently 'ordinary' people just aren't good enough to understand politics. The left wing now is no better than the paternalistic mill owners who they were set up to resist. They need reminding what their original purpose was because it has been completely subverted.

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." The Go-Between, L.P. Hartley

You are wrong.

You don't understand the message properly.

Judges are good. Just not these ones.
These are the bad kind of judge. The biased one. The corrupt one. The gay one.
Unlike our good judges who lock up terrorists.
We must purge our system of these bad one and make them accountable to a special commons select committee. (Hello Suzanne Evans. Hello Jacob Rees-Mogg).

I'm in favour of both Brexit and our democracy. In my opinion the referendum legally needs to be ratified by parliament to proceed and MP's should reflect the popular vote in their constituencies or be held to account. In my town, 63% voted Leave whilst our MP is in favour of Remain. It'll be interesting to see if democracy wins?

What I find hypocritical is Remain quoting the overall voting figures for and against Brexit because it was with 2%. This has no bearing in our democratic system given that the numbers of seats in parliament have rarely closely reflected overall voting results in GE but is accepted.

As recently as 2011 the UK overwhelminging rejected proportional representation...ironically in a referendum

Unfortunately the EU referendum count was conducted using the EU voting areas, rather than UK parliamentary constituencies which makes comparisons difficult. Out of the 362 voting areas, only 113 voted to remain which is less than 30% in favour of remain.

What else has been done since to try to estimate what the parliamentary constituency results would have been. Remainers will be pleased to know this skews the results more towards Remain than the EU voting areas reglect. Of the 650 UK parliamentary constituencies, 39% voted to remain. Still a landslide in our democratic system.

. People buy into it. So they can push the boundaries a bit more in order to be competitive with other publications doing the same. Each time the overton window of shock is pushed ethics go out of the window a little more. Repeat over. Its a relationship that feeds off public shock, horror and fear and is actively exploited

I do hope this isn't just directed at the DM etc?

I mean back in the day The Guardian was describing Lenin as pleasant and refreshing Man . The guardian is exactly the same and panders and peddles fear as well, which is where much of this ridiculous crap must come from.

Judges are good. Just not these ones. These are the bad kind of judge. The biased one. The corrupt one. The gay one.

Exactly. As I said upthread, the Mail faced a problem: its readership is broadly in favour of the rule of law, of the idea that even governments are subject to the law of the land. So they had to find a way of "othering" these particular judges - by making them out to be biased, corrupt or sexually deviant.

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/hairdresser-behind-brexit-challenge-now-in-hiding-after-vile-hate-mail-a3387411.htm

Mr Dos Santos is now in hiding, despite having voted Brexit.

Well done you. I bet you are brilliant at parties. "Oh, I have a gay friend too. Marvellously funny, aren't they?".

Oh here we go again. How original. Someone dares not to toe the line so the personal insults get rolled out.

Actually it's not something I would say myself. But I think it's an inaccurate and distasteful statement rather than a homophobic one.

And you've also ignored the fact that as I pointed out, multiple other publication have also given prominence to Etherton's sexuality in profiles without a whimper of protest.

The DM were absolutely stupid. Not only because it's distasteful, but because they've focused on the fact that he's gay when it's irrelevant. What's relevant is the fact that he is a member of a rich and powerful class who are using their wealth and position to force a stop to Brexit which most poorer people want.

"As recently as 2011 the UK overwhelminging rejected proportional representation...ironically in a referendum grin" (sic)

Joy

I think you will find that this referendum was previously ratified as legal in Parliament. Unlike this latest referendum (and the one bringing us into the EEC as it was then in the first place). It was a form of proportional representation known as Alternative Vote.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

the ultimate aim of the case (as the claimants have made crystal clear) is to stop Brexit

No that isn't perfectly true. One of the claimants voted to LEAVE!

However, they want the process to be scrutinised properly.

I do not want decisions taken by public prerogative. It's bad enough if Parliament imposes obligations on me or takes rights away. But at least it is kind of democratically elected depending on your views about FPTP. I do not want a PM who has not been elected taking all sorts of decisions that affect me adversely without any sort of scrutiny.

" What's relevant is the fact that he is a member of a rich and powerful class who are using their wealth and position to force a stop to Brexit which most poorer people want."

But that's not what's happening. This has been explained multiple times.

Just the disgusting homophobic headlines did it for me.

I didn't care about the outcome of this judgement....I still don't but the response makes me fear for the future of our society. We really are filled with hate filled venomous people .... and the likes of the Mail pander to it.

Horrific...I weep for the future...people like my DS who is autistic and will always be "different. Great to know he is growing up in such a tolerant and supportive society. ..and yes that IS relevant. Today they blame an "openly gay" judge for their inadequacies and hatred....tomorrow who knows, it may be the disabled.

I know posters on MN CAN put a coherent argument together....many many folk cannot and such an important decision should not have been made by them. I am grateful the result may now be debated in Parliment before we Brexit. ...as we will.

Autumn yes the guardian is guilty of it too. But to a lesser degree. And in different ways.

Its a problem for all media to a greater or lesser extent. You have to learn to identity the editorial and question its motives rather than swallow what you read whole no matter what you read.

The main and particular difference in the Guardian and Mail is the use of quote and paraphrasing and the degree to which the editorial line is applied in doing this treatment of news.

The Mail has much shorter quotes as a rule which makes their context less clear and easier to manipulate. They also do a lot more paraphrasing.

This means the original meaning has been 'processed' a great deal meaning as a rule it is more leading and leaves the reader less able to make their own mind up in a free way or question what they are being directed towards. The end content tends to reflect what happened less accurately as a result.

Don't get me wrong though the Guardian drives me bonkers at times. The Independent too.

The way I view it is like this:

Its a bit like between eating a meal you've made from scratch or eating a constant diet of ready meals. One is on the whole 'better for you' than the other.

You can still eat too much and too much of the wrong stuff if you cook from scratch which isn't good for you.

And there is nothing wrong with eating the odd ready meal, but if that's the only thing you eat then that's really bad for you because of the processing and high sugar/salt/fat content.

Moderation and variety is the key to a healthy lifestyle.

by making them out to be biased, corrupt or sexually deviant.

This is exactly what I mean. You are using the fact that this man's sexuality has been discussed to negate the importance of the bias that is probably present in the other judge. It is not 'othering' to point out that one of the judges has a vested interest in stopping Brexit. It's absolutely relevant and rather worrying. Yet you're piggybacking it on to a completely separate argument about homophobia to suggest it's unacceptable in the same way.

How is requiring the Government to abide by the constitution and not try misuse their powers stopping Brexit.
Nobody is saying that art50 can't be triggered simply that the authority to trigger it sits with parliament not the government. If the Act establishing the referendum had made it binding not advisory then this case wouldn't have happened. However Parliament chose not to make it binding.

Totally vile headlines today. Belittling and dismissive of those concerned implying that the country is being held to ransom by a silly rich foreign woman and a hairdresser

We should be celebrating the fact that ordinary people are willing to fight for democracy and proper process. Why are leavers so worried about Brexit having the checks and balances that parliament can provide. The referendum campaign has been based on lies and this is too important to be left to TM to dictate the terms alone.

BillSykesDog
Your comment makles no sense. Why is it not ok to list problems with the article? Its not 'masking' anything.

''...to negate the importance of the bias that is probably present in the other judge''
do you really think judges dont have to be aware of the possibility of their own bias on a daily bases?
You dont have much faith in the judicial system.

Bill, Red is doing an analysis of the Daily Mail message. As she very clearly states.

Not doing her own analysis of the judgement.

"You dont have much faith in the judicial system"

The judicial system that you were so keen to see freed from the fetters of the EU...........

They're not biased, for goodness' sake. Had the Govt (or any of the parties) though any one of them was biased or was capable of giving an appearance of bias, an application could have been made for that judge to recuse himself and be replaced on the panel. No such application was made, quite rightly.

These are senior, experienced, highly intelligent, thoughtful, independent judges. Those of us who spend our working day appearing before them know that, at the end of the day, one side or another will lose. Disappointing though that inevitably is, it does not mean (except in a tiny proportion of cases) that there is any judicial bias.