The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Daily Mail attacks judge for being 'openly gay'

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mailonline-online-attacks-brexit-judge-for-being-openly-gay_uk_581b344ee4b0ab6e4c1ba5ff
Original post by Foo.mp3
It's not "an attack" as such (tad hyperbolic), but does paint a picture of a certain type of 'judge' e.g. a mincy fencer :camp:


It's not an 'attack' but it's incredibly strange that they are implying that the fact he is openly gay, and indeed a fencer, has anything whatsoever to do with his ability to be a high court judge.
I would say its an indirect attack on his character. If it wasn't then why mention his sexuality at all?
They could have mentioned the price of his house.
It's purely to give the comments section another thing to rage about.
They were clearly trying to make it seem like a bad thing, when you put it in context with the way they described the other judges. I read that they deleted all traces of the comment on their website pretty quickly, but it certainly should not have been said and is quite shocking, even for the daily mail
Original post by Bornblue
It's not an 'attack' but it's incredibly strange that they are implying that the fact he is openly gay, and indeed a fencer, has anything whatsoever to do with his ability to be a high court judge.


Ofc its an attack. the only reason to mention it is to diminish their reputation in the eyes of the readership.
They are clickbaiting, simply.
A gay ex-olympian sounds like a pretty good guy tbh.

olympians are cool
They're just saying he's openly gay. What's wrong about that?

Seriously though, **** the Daily Mail.
Original post by Bornblue
It's not an 'attack' but it's incredibly strange that they are implying that the fact he is openly gay, and indeed a fencer, has anything whatsoever to do with his ability to be a high court judge.


Original post by 999tigger
I would say its an indirect attack on his character. If it wasn't then why mention his sexuality at all?
They could have mentioned the price of his house.


They're clearly attacking him for being an Oylmpic fencer. I mean, why bring it up?

It's something eye-catching and wacky that helps the headline draw more attention. I feel like you're both trying to view this as being nefarious (because it's the Mail) when it probably wasn't the intent.

Worked on you though, didn't it?
Original post by Dandaman1
They're clearly attacking him for being an Oylmpic fencer. I mean, why bring it up?

It's something eye-catching and wacky that helps the headline draw more attention. I feel like you're both trying to view this as being nefarious (because it's the Mail) when it probably wasn't the intent.

Worked on you though, didn't it?


Lol @ eye catching and wacky. Seems to be a lot of that in the DM. Its done to undermine and alert its target audience. What relevancwe has his sexuality got to do with his abilities as a judge? Until you answer that in a credible manner, then your explanation is laughable.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Dandaman1
They're clearly attacking him for being an Oylmpic fencer. I mean, why bring it up?

It's something eye-catching and wacky that helps the headline draw more attention. I feel like you're both trying to view this as being nefarious (because it's the Mail) when it probably wasn't the intent.

Worked on you though, didn't it?

It's downright homophobic.
It tries to slander and question the credibility of all three judges. It uses the fact that one is 'openly gay' to question his credibility.

Imagine the uproar if that said 'openly Jewish or openly Muslim'.
Original post by 999tigger
Lol @ eye catching and wacky. Seems to be a lot of that in the DM. Its done to undermine and alert its target audience. What relevancwe has his sexuality got to do with his abilities as a judge? Until you answer that in a credible manner, then your explanation is laughable.


No more relevancy than his past as an Olympic fencer. But it's something of note about him, and it's more interesting than putting "...and some other judge" in the headline. It draws attention.

Original post by Bornblue
It's downright homophobic.
It tries to slander and question the credibility of all three judges. It uses the fact that one is 'openly gay' to question his credibility.

Imagine the uproar if that said 'openly Jewish or openly Muslim'.


When has 'openly Muslim/Jewish' ever been a thing? Or an interesting thing about a judge, for that matter? As with my comment above, it's probably just something eye-catching to pad out the headline. Essentially all you're doing is making a near-slanderous supposition of a homophobic 'attack' based on two words in a headline and your prejudgment of the Mail. Do they even bash him for being gay in he article?
Original post by Dandaman1
No more relevancy than his past as an Olympic fencer. But it's something of note about him, and it's more interesting than putting "...and some other judge" in the headline. It draws attention.


It has a homophobic slant, just as if you were mentioning the colour of his skin or his religion would also be an attempt to stir up its readers. they are irrelevant. Rather than be colourful (your laughable appraisal) its a low level attempt to diminish the judge.

You are naive or being seriously disingenuous.
Original post by Bornblue
It's downright homophobic.
It tries to slander and question the credibility of all three judges. It uses the fact that one is 'openly gay' to question his credibility.

Imagine the uproar if that said 'openly Jewish or openly Muslim'.


I cannot believe this person is being serious. he is just trolling. Everyone else can see what he cannot.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you