This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Daily Mail have just finished publishing a 3-part Rumpole Christmas story in which they describe Rumpole as a QC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.209.181 ( talk) 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"[A] television series created and written by British writer Sir John Mortimer ... [I]t has been spun off into a series of short stories, novels, and radio programmes."
My understanding is that Rumpole first appeared in a play, followed by some short stories, followed by the first TV series. If there is no objection I will make changes to reflect this. Wulfilia 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
One book (Rumpole's return I think) states Rumpole's degree as a Fourth; a classification that has not been available from Oxford for many years. Contrary to the previous text, an Oxford Third was not equivalent to a 2:2 - the second class was undivided, so both 2:1s and 2:2s were in that class. Sjoh0050 16:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that was an in-joke. Not only is there not a fourth (below a 3rd is either an ordinary non-honours or a fail) but it is becomes even funnier with the "an oxford 3 is a 2.2" attitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.26.230 ( talk) 22:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Oxford used to award a 4th. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:D942:4CC1:5245:8398 ( talk) 02:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Image:Rumpole-book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In "Rumpole's Last Case" both Dennis and Cyril Timson plead guilty to theft, though, I'll admit, not in exchange for lesser punishment on the gun charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.123.234 ( talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Many other TV shows have an expanded section detailing DVD releases (e.g. series, region, and date of release). Does anyone know those details for Rumpole? I'm happy to add the information if someone can point me at it (or send it to me). HWV 258 02:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd seen a few episodes on Mystery!, but only just yesterday began watching the entire series on a cheap DVD set ($33 for all 44 episodes). I was much-surprised by the differences between British and American views on what constitutes a legal "defense", especially as pronounced by Horace Rumpole.
I grew up watching Perry Mason, and wondered how an ethical lawyer could defend someone they knew to be guilty. (Perry never knowingly defended guilty people.) I later grew to understand that everyone is entitled a defense -- that the purpose of a defense is not to "get the client off at any cost", but to force the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. There is therefore nothing unethical in defending a guilty person -- quite the opposite.
So, why do the British believe that a lawyer shouldn't defend clients they know to be guilty? Rumpole even says that it's in a book of "legal etiquette". I realize that this article is about a fictional character -- not about the British legal system -- but this point really needs discussion.
By the way, "Peanuts" Malloy appears in the very first Thames episode. I have therefore added "Series 1, Episode 1" to his "biography". I might add... What's wrong with simply writing 1:1, 3:4, 7:2, etc? I think most people will get it. People know what "John 3:16" means, don't they? WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 16:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for not signing my remarks. I normally do — I just forgot to sign in. I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but sincerely feel season:episode should be an obvious parallel to book:verse — indeed, "plain to the veriest dunce". (That's WSG, by the way.)
As a technical writer, I prefer to use a spaced em dash. I'd never noticed the inserts — thanks. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 16:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In viewing the remaining episodes, it became clear that Horace Rumpole didn't care whether the defendant was guilty — he was taking the approach I described (forcing the prosecution to prove its case) — and indeed enjoyed "sticking it" to those in power. So it isn't clear why he seems to have a different aattitude in the first episode. Only John Mortimer can tell us, and he's not around to do so. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 12:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In one episode - I can't recall which - Rumpole is at pains to ensure that his client does not actually tell Rumpole that he did the deed, and explains that if the client were to tell him of his guilt Rumpole would be ethically bound to enter a guilty plea. Rumpole's mantra is "Never plead guilty!" So he explicitly tells the client not to tell him that he is guilty so that he may mount a defence. In the pilot episode and elsewhere Rumpole makes it clear that under no circumstances does he consider a signed police confession an admission of guilt since the police are not to be trusted, a fact that he goes on to demonstrate. Elsewhere, on being asked whether or not he believed in a client's guilt or innocence, Rumpole retorted that what he believed to be the case was irrelevant. 199.127.252.195 ( talk) 12:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As above on the question of Legal Ettiquette - It make no difference if the barrister thinks their client is guilty or not. It is only if the client expressly tells their barrister that they are guilty that the barrister either has to get them to plead guilty or step down from representing them. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Madabbafan (
talk •
contribs) 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to have grown beyond Rumpole of the Bailey (the Play for Today and TV series), and now contains whole sections on the character and world of Horace Rumpole, the BBC Radio audio dramas, and the Rumpole books. Would it now make sense to move the whole article to Horace Rumpole; and give the TV shows, audio dramas and books their own articles? memphisto 15:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments; although I'm not sure that Rumpole of the Bailey applies to anything other than the play and TV series - was the character ever addressed by that name? memphisto 23:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Buffy is a good example. I could only think of The Lone Ranger. memphisto 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Horace does actually refer to himself as "Rumpole of the Bailey" at least twice. Nick Cooper ( talk) 08:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
recently re-watched all the series on DVD.
Inthe first series Dodo is refered to as Dodo Perkins (owned and ran a tea shop which Hilda went to help her to run for a while) When the name crops up again in series 3 it has become Dodo Mackintosh. Was this a continuity error in the series or did the books marry Dodo off and then later become a widow?
I added in brackets that Rumpole is known to drink gin at home (made clear in series 1) however this seems to have been promptly removed. Why? 199.127.252.195 ( talk) 20:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
<< Never ask a Question, the Answer to which you do not know. >> This cross-examination prudence deserves due mention. Rumpole gem. 180.200.139.207 ( talk) 10:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
As the article is written at this time, "Erskine-Brown [...] He particularly loves the operas of Wagner, and his (and Phyllida's) children are named Tristan and Isolde."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rumpole of the Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Daily Mail have just finished publishing a 3-part Rumpole Christmas story in which they describe Rumpole as a QC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.209.181 ( talk) 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"[A] television series created and written by British writer Sir John Mortimer ... [I]t has been spun off into a series of short stories, novels, and radio programmes."
My understanding is that Rumpole first appeared in a play, followed by some short stories, followed by the first TV series. If there is no objection I will make changes to reflect this. Wulfilia 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
One book (Rumpole's return I think) states Rumpole's degree as a Fourth; a classification that has not been available from Oxford for many years. Contrary to the previous text, an Oxford Third was not equivalent to a 2:2 - the second class was undivided, so both 2:1s and 2:2s were in that class. Sjoh0050 16:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that was an in-joke. Not only is there not a fourth (below a 3rd is either an ordinary non-honours or a fail) but it is becomes even funnier with the "an oxford 3 is a 2.2" attitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.26.230 ( talk) 22:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Oxford used to award a 4th. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:D942:4CC1:5245:8398 ( talk) 02:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Image:Rumpole-book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In "Rumpole's Last Case" both Dennis and Cyril Timson plead guilty to theft, though, I'll admit, not in exchange for lesser punishment on the gun charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.123.234 ( talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Many other TV shows have an expanded section detailing DVD releases (e.g. series, region, and date of release). Does anyone know those details for Rumpole? I'm happy to add the information if someone can point me at it (or send it to me). HWV 258 02:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd seen a few episodes on Mystery!, but only just yesterday began watching the entire series on a cheap DVD set ($33 for all 44 episodes). I was much-surprised by the differences between British and American views on what constitutes a legal "defense", especially as pronounced by Horace Rumpole.
I grew up watching Perry Mason, and wondered how an ethical lawyer could defend someone they knew to be guilty. (Perry never knowingly defended guilty people.) I later grew to understand that everyone is entitled a defense -- that the purpose of a defense is not to "get the client off at any cost", but to force the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. There is therefore nothing unethical in defending a guilty person -- quite the opposite.
So, why do the British believe that a lawyer shouldn't defend clients they know to be guilty? Rumpole even says that it's in a book of "legal etiquette". I realize that this article is about a fictional character -- not about the British legal system -- but this point really needs discussion.
By the way, "Peanuts" Malloy appears in the very first Thames episode. I have therefore added "Series 1, Episode 1" to his "biography". I might add... What's wrong with simply writing 1:1, 3:4, 7:2, etc? I think most people will get it. People know what "John 3:16" means, don't they? WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 16:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for not signing my remarks. I normally do — I just forgot to sign in. I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but sincerely feel season:episode should be an obvious parallel to book:verse — indeed, "plain to the veriest dunce". (That's WSG, by the way.)
As a technical writer, I prefer to use a spaced em dash. I'd never noticed the inserts — thanks. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 16:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In viewing the remaining episodes, it became clear that Horace Rumpole didn't care whether the defendant was guilty — he was taking the approach I described (forcing the prosecution to prove its case) — and indeed enjoyed "sticking it" to those in power. So it isn't clear why he seems to have a different aattitude in the first episode. Only John Mortimer can tell us, and he's not around to do so. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 12:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In one episode - I can't recall which - Rumpole is at pains to ensure that his client does not actually tell Rumpole that he did the deed, and explains that if the client were to tell him of his guilt Rumpole would be ethically bound to enter a guilty plea. Rumpole's mantra is "Never plead guilty!" So he explicitly tells the client not to tell him that he is guilty so that he may mount a defence. In the pilot episode and elsewhere Rumpole makes it clear that under no circumstances does he consider a signed police confession an admission of guilt since the police are not to be trusted, a fact that he goes on to demonstrate. Elsewhere, on being asked whether or not he believed in a client's guilt or innocence, Rumpole retorted that what he believed to be the case was irrelevant. 199.127.252.195 ( talk) 12:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As above on the question of Legal Ettiquette - It make no difference if the barrister thinks their client is guilty or not. It is only if the client expressly tells their barrister that they are guilty that the barrister either has to get them to plead guilty or step down from representing them. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Madabbafan (
talk •
contribs) 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to have grown beyond Rumpole of the Bailey (the Play for Today and TV series), and now contains whole sections on the character and world of Horace Rumpole, the BBC Radio audio dramas, and the Rumpole books. Would it now make sense to move the whole article to Horace Rumpole; and give the TV shows, audio dramas and books their own articles? memphisto 15:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments; although I'm not sure that Rumpole of the Bailey applies to anything other than the play and TV series - was the character ever addressed by that name? memphisto 23:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Buffy is a good example. I could only think of The Lone Ranger. memphisto 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Horace does actually refer to himself as "Rumpole of the Bailey" at least twice. Nick Cooper ( talk) 08:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
recently re-watched all the series on DVD.
Inthe first series Dodo is refered to as Dodo Perkins (owned and ran a tea shop which Hilda went to help her to run for a while) When the name crops up again in series 3 it has become Dodo Mackintosh. Was this a continuity error in the series or did the books marry Dodo off and then later become a widow?
I added in brackets that Rumpole is known to drink gin at home (made clear in series 1) however this seems to have been promptly removed. Why? 199.127.252.195 ( talk) 20:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
<< Never ask a Question, the Answer to which you do not know. >> This cross-examination prudence deserves due mention. Rumpole gem. 180.200.139.207 ( talk) 10:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
As the article is written at this time, "Erskine-Brown [...] He particularly loves the operas of Wagner, and his (and Phyllida's) children are named Tristan and Isolde."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rumpole of the Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)