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?

I said during the campaign that, In or Out, the tools being used by some (not all) campaigners were worrying me a lot more than the final vote.

And that's even more true today.

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

I quoted the original Mail headline verbatim, upthread.

What it did - quite explicitly - was to link the idea that these judges were "enemies of the people" with the fact that one had founded EUROPEAN (sic) law group, another had taken government money (ie provided remunerated services to the gocernment) and the third was "openly gay".

As I said in a PP it's quite hard for the Mail etc to turn their attack dog machinery onto elderly, white, conservative-with-a-small-c judges, with whom many in their readership have a fair bit in common, in terms of background and culture. So they needed to find a way of "othering" them - by accusing them of being making European sympathisers, government rip-off merchants, or gay.

How many supreme court justices would hear the appeal (if there is an appeal... I heard there may be no powers to request an appeal).

I think May should appeal to the European high court to overturn the decision.

Oooooh the irony.

lljkk

Usually 5 out of the 12 judges sit on a panel in the Supreme Court (I think there are only 11 at the moment). However, that number can be increase for a significant case so we might see a panel of 7 or even 9. In theory they could all sit on the case.

How many supreme court justices would hear the appeal (if there is an appeal... I heard there may be no powers to request an appeal)

The media are suggesting all 11 Supreme Court judges will hear the appeal to avoid criticism that the panel were chosen with bias.

Although, given yesterday's reaction I can imagine the pro Brexit press will undermine the whole Supreme Court by tagging them as 'metropolitan elite' and therefore not competent to overrule the "people"
The Mail has already started

given the risk of personal vilification & constitutional importance, maybe they will all sit on the case.

It was suggested yesterday that all 11 may sit for the appeal next month to ensure it can be dealt with unequivocally and speedily. As I'm sure that no one wants the next step of the government taking it to the European Court of appeal, though nothing can suprise us now

I feel quite angry that TM is putting everyone through an appeal, effectively appealing against democracy and showing complete contempt for the checks and balances that we need to ensure our rights are protected.
Surely she has been so shoddily and ill advised thus far, how was she not aware that the high court would rule against the government based on such a simple point of law.
Reckless or dictatorial, not sure which is more frightening

Maybe Joe & Bob the brickies should start hearing supreme court cases, while Anne & Nigel (the current justices) switch careers to start building houses. In meantime, Alice the math teacher can start driving a bus this afternoon while the bus driver Kim goes to teach A-level maths.

Coz the world would be so much better if completely unqualified people started doing all the jobs.

Pah!! :(

Why do you think the Daily Mail chose to include this irrelevant information in its "analysis" of a ruling on the powers of governments to act without parliamentary scrutiny?*

Okay Chaz, shall we have a look at some other sources and what they say about Etherton?:

www.legalbusiness.co.uk/index.php/lb-blog-view/6417-second-in-line-sir-terence-etherton-succeeds-lord-dyson-as-master-of-the-rolls

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sir-terence-etherton-is-next-master-of-the-rolls/5055496.fullarticle

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-03/brexit-who-are-the-people-behind-the-article-50-court-case

www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/old/Pelican-Easter-2013-for-WEB.pdf

All of these sources (and an awful lot more) all included his sexuality/religion as a prominent part of his profile well before this without complaint. I am still of the opinion that it was included with the intent to imply where his politics might lie rather than homophobia.

I am also aware, without needing to be patronised thanks, of what the case means in terms of it being to force a parliamentary vote rather than to stop Brexit. But I am also aware of the fact that the ultimate aim of the case (as the claimants have made crystal clear) is to stop Brexit.

I am also aware of the fact that the only social groups who voted in majority for remain are the high income AB groups. And that the claimants and judges in this case are all members of those groups. Which very much gives the impression that the rich and powerful are using their wealth and position to subvert the wishes of the majority of people who voted in the referendum.

Which also makes me think, that true to form, the left are trying to distract from the important questions over Brexit and the elite's use of money and power to force their will on the rest of the population by getting everybody bogged down in the same old arguments about identity politics and offence that they always do.

BillSykes I am waiting to hear you defend that front page filled with Foriegn lorry drivers on their phones or indeed sensationalising a story about child refugees by including an older translator and using an age app to assess their ages that makes me 40 (believe me nothing short of a miracle, and it is the bpnext Daily Mail obviously scandalous that I collect a pension shortly) is reasonable reporting without any trace of xenophobia.

Whilst you are at it since you are a woman, how about all those stories about how women bring all sorts of problems, especially Breast Cancer, on themselves, in spite of the fact scientific research says to the contrary (only 5% of risk factors are known and most of those are genetic, lifestyle accounts for less than 1%. )

The Sun and Daily Mail are just exploiting every prejudice going to sell newspapers for the benefit of their elite (and in one case, oh the irony, Foriegn) owners.

One of the claimants was on radio5 this morning making it very clear that he accepts Brexit, he just doesn't want the whole thing to be a dogs breakfast -- which it will be if due process isn't followed.

drivinmecrazy I agree entirely with your dismay about the attitude of the current administration.

Just to say - a reference to the ECJ (if it were to happen) would not be by way of appeal. The Supreme Court is the ultimate court of appeal. But there remains a possibility that a specific point of European law which is relevant to the Supreme Court's determination might have to be sent to the ECJ for determination - namely whether an Art 50 notification is irrevocable.

In the High Court all parties, and the Court, were content to proceed on the basis (assumption) that an Art 50 notification is irrevocable, and thus deprives citizens of rights. If the Govt wanted to alter its case on this point at the Supreme Court level, it would probably have to refer that specific point to the ECJ because it has never been tested by a court.

"I am still of the opinion that it was included with the intent to imply where his politics might lie rather than homophobia."

Whereas the implication that ALL gay men are liberal and left-leaning isn't any kind of problematic generalisation, of course.

Have the press gone too far? Depends on how you view that.

One way you can view it is if they had gone too far then they could be held to account. The trouble is there is no way to do this. (In part for good reason. In part because politicians have been gutless self serving pricks who protect their masters).

In the absence of that, does it even matter if they have gone too far morally. Levenson part 2 just got shoved under the rug.

The press reaction is unsurprising.

The ruling is fine.

There is widespread lack of understanding of the checks and balances in a democracy.

That's about all I can say from the attack on the judges. I'm totally unsurprised and therefore not really shocked.

They've done worse. We'll probably see what worse looks like within the next month. There is a current competition to piss off and enrage anyone who isn't keen on the Daily Mail and Sun as the tabloids test the limits in the post referendum era. They are trying to work out just how far they can push it, and what generates the most click bait revenue.

The more shocking, the more clicks.

They want you to get upset so you just have to read in horror or they want you to agree. Either way they win if you click.

Which is depressing in its own right.

*never been tested before a court of competent jurisdiction with regard to European law (i.e. the ECJ).

Some of us, Bill, left and right, have always kept a very close eye on how the rich and powerful use their power and influence.

And include the proprietors of newspapers in that class.

LarkDescending that's really interesting. Thankyou for the clarification

The problem is the nature of referenda in this country. They are advisory.

Millions of people on both sides were conned into thinking they were making a decision. We were not.

We engaged in a massive consultation exercise. We live in a representative democracy. We were asked an opinion, we expressed one. Our representatives will make a decision based on a consultation, like they do for every law they pass which is likely to be controversial.

*drivinmecrazy" you're welcome

One can imagine the discussions behind closed doors today.

Either they run the appeal on the basis that three very senior judges in a tightly-reasoned judgment have misdirected themselves on over 300 years' worth of English law which says you can't deprive citizens of rights without running it past Parliament.

Or they decide to switch tracks and say after all they think Art 50 doesn't deprive anyone of any rights, because it can be revoked, and they have to run off to Europe to get an ECJ judgment to support that submission.

Off to Europe! The very thought of it!

Draylon are you aware of the history of the Daily Mail in the 1930s.

www.thelondoneconomic.com/tle-pick/revealed-the-extent-of-the-daily-mails-support-for-the-british-union-of-fascists/28/10/
Revealed: The Extent of the Daily Mail’s Support for the British Union of Fascists

Guess why the Mail pulled support.

However, the Daily Mail did not drop its support for Mosley’s BUF wholly because of their ‘violence’ and ‘intolerance,’ as Pendlebury claims.

Rothermere – whose dynasty still own the news group – told Adolf Hitler himself that real reason was because Jewish advertisers in the UK threatened to pull the plug on his paper.

Funny eh?

I hope the campaign is picked up on and successful.