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?

[summerbreezer]

Summer so we shouldn't know sweet FA about them then? Really? With something so important???

1. I would not consider someone's sexuality as something that we should know about our judges as a matter of course, even with something "so important". They are entitled to private lives too. Obviously if it was something that impacted on their ability to be a judge, that would be different.
   

1. Even considering the above, you are missing the point. The tabloids did not print the MR's sexuality (and marital status of the other two judges) because they thought the public had a right to know about them. They did it because they wanted their readers draw a connection between his sexuality with the (in their view incorrect) decision.
   

It is therefore homophobic. It is also a well known media tactic - why do you think we know that Gina Miller was born in another country?

[HardcoreLadyType]

We look like twats to the rest of the world.

On behalf of the rest of the world: Yes.
You and the US.

My Australian BIL said when we saw him in the summer, "The UK and the USA are vying for which country can look stupidest to the rest of the world. The UK is currently winning, but America's got a Trump card."

Kaboom-tish!

[Temporaryname137]

This whole thing has brought out the worst in everyone.

I am disgusted by the xenophobia and small mindedness that comes out of some parts. stop being cunts.

I am disgusted by the smuggery and the "hahaha you wanted parliamentary sovereignty, duhhhh, obviously this is what you wanted, lol it was so obvious, lol" jeering in other parts. if it was that fucking obvious, why didn't you mention it before? stop stirring it and stop being cunts.

the whole thing is just making me despair.

[stopfuckingshoutingatme]

don't sweat it OP, the cunts stupid enough to buy into this shit are the ones that would vote OUT again anyway

You cant decide something so momentous on a hastily done vote, its ridiculous

I am over it now. BEXIT, TRUMP---- Humans are fools

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

autumnintheair
The Judges were not deciding on Brexit. This case was not about Brexit. It was about the use of the Royal Perogative i.e. whether or not the Government have the power to alter the rights of British people without consulting Parliament.
Read the judgement for yourself
www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/
Paragraph 5 of the Judgement
"5.It is agreed on all sides that this is a justiciable question which it is for the courts to decide. It deserves emphasis at the outset that the court in these proceedings is only dealing with a pure question of law. Nothing we say has any bearing on the question of the merits or demerits of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union; nor does it have any bearing on government policy, because government policy is not law. The policy to be applied by the executive government and the merits or demerits of withdrawal are matters of political judgement to be resolved through the political process. The legal question is whether the executive government can use the Crown's prerogative powers to give notice of withdrawal. We are not in any way concerned with the use that may be made of the Crown's prerogative power, if such a power can as a matter of law be used in respect of Article 50, or what will follow if the Crown's prerogative powers cannot be so used. "

Stop trying to claim the judgment was on Brexit when it wasn't.

[birdybirdywoofwoof]

I am disgusted by the smuggery and the "hahaha you wanted parliamentary sovereignty, duhhhh, obviously this is what you wanted, lol it was so obvious, lol" jeering in other parts. if it was that fucking obvious, why didn't you mention it before?

What do you mean? Its been mentioned loads before by all sides. Just because some people didn't get it, doesn't mean it wasn't talked about.

[Gumpendorf]

16 million people need to have their voices heard too.

Spot on. We need to keep hammering this point home.

The tabloid press are now so skilled at dog whistling simple messages, while Remainers turn off people by discussing the complexity etc. A simple message is needed that 16m people have a voice that should be heard too, and maybe some of the 17m may get the point.

[Gumpendorf]

the whole thing is just making me despair.

This x1000 too

[Dozer]

What bollocks autumnintheair

[ToujeoQueen]

[LittleLionMansMummy]

I don't think you can equate the 'hahaha you wanted sovereignty' smugness with the level of aggressively nationalistic vitriol being spouted by many tbh. I'd rather be smug than racist.

[Temporaryname137]

I am disgusted by the smuggery and the "hahaha you wanted parliamentary sovereignty, duhhhh, obviously this is what you wanted, lol it was so obvious, lol" jeering in other parts. if it was that fucking obvious, why didn't you mention it before?

What do you mean? Its been mentioned loads before by all sides. Just because some people didn't get it, doesn't mean it wasn't talked about.



I mean that it's being used in a GF way now to stir the pot. In a gloating, poke the brexiters sort of a way. Which doesn't help a volatile situation. I don't mean people making a calm and rational argument. Those people don't make me despair. But they seem few and far between right now!

[ToujeoQueen]

Due process needs to be applied and respected.

[CocoaX]

Of course, triggering Article 50 and what terms Britain wishes to negotiate on should be given due Parliamentary discussion and process. We live in a democracy; that is what we vote our MPs in to do - represent our interests. And the interests of the British people as well as those not British but resident here are not unanimous- that is why we have a representational democracy.

Referenda are advisory; they are not a one-stop. Parliament allows for on-going debate, for laws to be made as well as repealed, amended or updated. That is what democracy is.

My personal view is that, although I voted Remain, that if we leave, when we leave, it needs to be managed in the best way possible as openly and transparently as possible. Which means parliamentary debate, by the people who are elected and paid to represent us.

[birdybirdywoofwoof]

That's probably true, Temporary.

But c'mon, it's hard to resist!

(Won't do it again!)

[BillSykesDog]

How ironic that you're complaining about the ethics of reporting whilst deliberately misrepresenting that reporting OP.

Firstly they did not criticise the judge for being openly gay. The exact quote is:

The 65-year-old, who took his role as the second most senior judge last month, made legal history a decade ago as the first openly gay judge to be made a Lord Justice of Appeal. In 2014, he and his partner, solicitor Andrew Stone, took part in the first Jewish ceremonies at a UK synagogue to convert a civil partnership into marriage.

That's not a criticism. And both the other judges are also profiled including their partners and number of children so he was not singled out.

And as for the 'white British pensioner' being hidden, in fact he is explicitly mentioned and included in the 'foreign elites' context by virtue of being an ex-pat.

You're also conveniently ignoring the part of 'foreign elites' which isn't 'foreign'. The other part of the story, the 'elite' part concentrates on the fact that people who are fabulously wealthy are using that wealth to try and subvert the wishes of a mainly poorer majority by using their financial muscles to access a legal system.

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.

As for the rest of it, it's opinion. And what you're essentially saying is that you disapprove of opinions which don't chime with your own being expressed. I find it frightening, to be frank, that some people can't see how dangerous their desire to express freedom of thought and expression are. Don't forget that while you can sit and feel smug while the prevailing winds are silencing views you disagree with, next week it might be your views which are on the wrong side so you should never take those rights for granted. Even opinions we disagree with have the right to be expressed.

[Temporaryname137]

Look birdy, with your accurate spelling and grammar and well-reasoned intelligent posts, you're just going too far!

[Gumpendorf]

How the tabloids reacted to the parliamentary vote to join the EU in the good ol' days (1971)

https://twitter.com/Lawandd_policy/status/794307272872775681

[birdybirdywoofwoof]

[whatwouldrondo]

YANBU I share your views OP.

What is worse is that these are the dying cries of a desperate press. Their circulation figures are on a downward slide, sadly dog whistle politics sells papers but it does so by exploiting and normalising extremes of homophobia and xenophobia in a mainly older readership. It is cynical exploitation of a market. They are claiming to talk for the people and against the elite, what they are actually doing is being yet another elite designing their product for the demographic they have identified to have the propensity to buy it, and to hell with any standards of decent journalism, or even decency at all.

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Bill
Tell me why the marital status, sexuality, religion, house value of any of the judges is relevant.

If you can't see that this is an attack on the independent judiciary then you are being wilfully short sighted. They are putting the judges private lives in the frame - why? The judges have made a decision on a technical point of law which the DM doesn't like so they start discussing their sexuality - what is the link between the legal decision and the fact that one of the judges is gay? How is it relevant to an analysis of the the judgment. Do gay judges interpret the law differently?

The Editors Code of Conduct includes

party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.






"2. *Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy."

How are the details of the judges private lives justified in the context of a decision on the use of the Royal Perogative.

[shovetheholly]

Remainers: Yes, many of us may have built whole careers out of touting the value and importance of direct participation, but we only meant the kind of participation that agreed with our own values. Since these are now threatened, we warmly welcome the obstacles to Brexit that can be produced by a representatively democratic system.

Leavers: It is totally undemocratic that a democratically elected Parliament should be consulted on Brexit and that our democratic laws say that referenda are only consultative. The fact that this ruling comes from the British High Court, and is essentially about whether the British Crown's prerogative powers can be used without reference to the British parliament just shows how powerful and insidious the EU is.

Me:

[summerbreezer]

That's not a criticism. And both the other judges are also profiled including their partners and number of children so he was not singled out.

Bill, we have already explained why it is homophobic. I agree that it is perhaps more subtle than overt homophobia, and that is what makes it more dangerous.

The other part of the story, the 'elite' part concentrates on the fact that people who are fabulously wealthy are using that wealth to try and subvert the wishes of a mainly poorer majority by using their financial muscles to access a legal system.

Rupert Murdoch. In a nutshell.

[DoYouRememberJustinBobby]

I find it frightening that so few people understand the difference between government and parliament. I have watched reactions on yesterday's rulings, from various different elements of society and it seems only about 20% of people actually understand that we live in a parliamentary democracy and now a straw poll down the pub democracy. The majority seem to think the words government and parliament are interchangeable. These people do not need to be spurred on by rags who would make even more money if they ended up rioting.
Rioting over what they don't quite know.


This reaction to actual sovereignty being implemented makes me think the vote for Brexit wasn't so much about "reclaiming British sovereignty" AT ALL because they had no clue what it is. Which makes me wonder what the real reason was. Cough, cough.

[whatwouldrondo]

BillSykes The Daily Mail pulled its original headline though a screenshot has been shown upthread. Why do you think they would have done that if they had not realised that they had gone too far with the attention grabbing dog whistle rhetoric?

And how does the recent Daily Mail front page singling out Foriegn lorry drivers for behaviour anybody who uses a motorway knows is universal? Nothing to do with politics, pure xenophobia.

Or a particular favourite bugbear of mine, the Mails ruthless exploitation of the pinkification of Breast Cancer and associated rhetoric, there was some of that in yesterdays paper. Article on breast cancer, cue picture of somebody smiley in pink (definitely not how most of those of us who have experienced it feel) though thankfully they actually couldn't find anywhere to slot in the words "bravery" "strong" and "battle".....