Daily Mail huffs about ‘openly gay’ Article 50 judge – before line disappears

Semi-reverse ferret at Dacre towers over High Court ruling


Judges in today’s Article 50 ruling are getting the Daily Mail treatment – though a reverse ferret was employed on one particular ‘charge’.

In the first version of his story, the comically named Richard Spillett yelled:

“The judges who blocked Brexit: one founded a EUROPEAN law group, another charged the taxpayer millions for advice and the third is an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer


Mysteriously, reference to the judge’s sexuality vanished from the story’s headline half an hour later.


Thank heavens the rest of this very important piece survived its disappearance.

Incidentally, the Mail’s research into these judges must have taken more than an hour, which means they had this ready to go for today’s verdict. Would they have published their defamations if the Court had ruled in their favour? Plus ca change.

Still, at least they have a poppy in their masthead.

MediaWatch is Left Foot Forward’s progressive take on the press and broadcast media

See: Daily Mail calls HIV pill a ‘lifestyle drug’ for gay men

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

13 Responses to “Daily Mail huffs about ‘openly gay’ Article 50 judge – before line disappears”

  1. Mick

    Maybe not but your commenters are ready to go. SO let me join in some pointless bitchery.

    First, nice dig at poppies again. Sly way to slip that in. Also, LFF was hot off the blocks itself over this Article 50 ruling.

    What’s more, openly gay can have connotations, perhaps did until recently, of overt hobbyhorse activism. And you don’t need that in a judge, especially one who’d spend the rest of the day fencing.

    But still, give the Mail credit for rolling editorial policy. LFF simply leave all their junk online forever.

  2. More heat than light? What the Article 50 decision actually means | Left Foot Forward

    […] Treaty of the European Union. The government lost triggering fury from Brexit advocates including an awful attempt by the Daily Mail to criticise a High Court judge on the basis of their sexuality. […]

  3. L jones

    Good article…and “mick”. The point of today was about not allowing the prime minister to sideline parliament. Yours sincerely someone who is openly straight…although God knows what connotations the mail would read into that

  4. Andy C

    Interesting to see which face of conservatism is showing at the Daily Mail – it seems we are seeing a return to gay bashing and nationalism. The UKIP wing of the tories just want to send home johnny foreigner. Boris, Raab, Truss et al want to turn Britain into a more free market version of hong kong. May is trying to synthesise this into a social contract where we only hate rich foreigners and rich “metropolitan” types, a kind of countryside alliance against the EU. How long can they last?

  5. The media has declared war on the judiciary. What now? | Left Foot Forward

    […] highly qualified, and shouldn’t be vilified as a result. (remember that yesterday the Mail saw fit to highlight that one of the three, Sir Terence Etherton, has the temerity to be ‘openly […]

  6. Law Man

    Indeed the reference to a judge’s supposed sexuality was unpleasant and unnecessary.

    In substance I found worse the DM view that the judges are “Enemies of the people”.

    The courts are an essential third part of our constitution with separation of powers. They are independent, and carefully confine themselves to the facts and merits of the case before them.

    In this case the court made it clear that it has no part in, or view on, the merits of Leave EU. They upheld the view that parliament (the first part of our constitution) has a place in decision making along with the executive (the second part); that the executive does not have an unfettered ability to act.

    It is deeply worrying, and undemocratic, that the DM – and some of its readers – hold this view.

  7. patrick newman

    In Stoppard’s “Night and Day” Ruth says “‘I’m with you on freedom of the press. It’s the newspapers I can’t stand.” It is very sinister that these oligarch play newsheets are prepared to question the impartiality of the judiciary to suit their political ends.

  8. Mick

    They’re not against the judiciary as a whole and they also know how to lock into public sentiments to sell newspapers. This has been a controversial judgement – especially when Parliament, as it stands now, is still a support act and rubber stamp for EU policy.

    When that ceases, out of the EU, THEN you can talk about its primacy. A majority of MPs are Remainers who would be perfectly happy to ride anything which keeps things that way.

    I look forward to the Government’s rebuttal. Mischief is truly afoot, though not unexpected.

  9. Mick

    “It is very sinister that these oligarch play newsheets are prepared to question the impartiality of the judiciary to suit their political ends.”

    Lefties do that all the time. It’s been very ‘punky’ to complain about stuffy old judges and creaky old lords!

  10. Cole

    Yes, Mick, but the Mail printed a photo of the judges on the front page, with a headline ‘enemies of the People’. Almost a fascist style incitement to violence. A frigging disgrace

  11. Andy

    Leftist shame-mongering. Feel no shame: Social justice relies on shaming tactics, usually by slandering an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and behaviour.

    Say, for instance, hypothetically, that I am a baker and I refuse to bake a gay wedding cake for a couple and I am accused of violating their rights in the name of preserving my own. I would point out that no one is entitled to a gay wedding cake, baked by me or anyone else and I have every right to choose my associations based on whatever criteria I see fit.

    Only a corrupt government entity would claim I do not have that right. But the fact is I do. No one — not even a government — can force me to bake a cake if I don’t want to. I would also point out that the gay couple in question has every right in a free society to bake their OWN bloody cake or open their own cake shop to compete with mine.

    Hint: this is how freedom works. Freedom has nothing to do with collective entitlement; it is based on personal responsibility.

  12. Law and Media Round Up – 7 November 2016 | Inforrm's Blog

    […] which he says are “hailing and decrying parliamentary sovereignty according to their needs”. Left Foot Forward also pointed out that in the original online story in the Daily Mail about the article 50 ruling, […]

  13. Mick

    “Yes, Mick, but the Mail printed a photo of the judges on the front page, with a headline ‘enemies of the People’. Almost a fascist style incitement to violence. A frigging disgrace”

    You want to take a look at the likes of SOCIALIST WORKER or MORNING STAR, two decidedly left wing reads. Corbyn loves those papers and their language is way more inflammatory.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.