Talk:Recorder (judge)

Merge discussions

As a casual observer: To me the pages look sufficiently similar to be merged. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the articles merged and better clarified what, if any, difference there is between the two. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree merger is appropriate. Recorder (legal office) deals with the historic position and Recorder (judge) with the way the term is used today. I would have to research when the change took place, but I suspect it was under the Courts Act 1971. --Gary J (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• I have now checked the position. Section 44 of the Courts Act 1971 abolishes the traditional sort of Recorder, associated with a particular town or city (apart from the Recorder of London). The Act also provides for the appointment and duties of the new sort of Recorder (as a part time judge of the Crown Court and the civil courts, particularly the County Court). --Gary J (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that they ought to be merged. Recorder (legal office) deals mostly with what are now known as Honourary Recorders. This can easily be distinguished in a merged article. Although perhaps like Circuit Judge it ought to be an article on Recorde (judge - UK) with a disambiguation for other countries? Nthep (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• I was the one who originally suggested the merge. Also, if anyone can add more information on the office as it exists in the USA and other English-speaking countries, it would be much appreciated. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• I agree and second DoubleBlue's request. -Rrius (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree with a merger. There may be enough material somewhere out there for two separate articles, but at the moment it's best to discuss everything in one place to explain the distinction. This might even be the fastest route to substantial individual articles. Even then, a short common article discussing the history of the term and acting as a gateway to various subarticles will still be needed. Hans Adler 08:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree. Neither article is satisfactory but it is difficult to improve them coherently while they are split in this way. Chelseaboy (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• merge -- the two articles are dealing with subjects that are much too closely related to be retained as they are. The judge article sets out briefly US and Biblical uses. These need to be retained as separate sections, preferably with Easton used as a reference for the latter (if that is what it is there for. However, the English (and Wales) section (level 2 heading) will need subsections (with level 3 headings) dealing with (1) pre-1972 English usage, which is (I think) for the person appointed to preside over city or borough Quarter Sessions (2) Honorary and titular appontments (3) post-1971 position as a part-time or junior judge. This would (I hope enable there to be one general article. If there is too much material, the answer will be to have a summary in this article and the detail in a separate one, linked by a "main" template. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support merger - a little late to the party here, but Recorder (legal office) is a subset of the subject of this page and there is no point having separate articles as it is causing confusion, see Talk:Recorder (legal office). – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Part time judge - revolving door issue ? - Sorry to ask this question. But I am from outside UK. When a recorder is working normally for maybe 6 weeks a year as a part time judge, what is this person doing for the rest of the year ? It seems this person is working as barrister in front of judges. What worries more, a recorder working as judge is judging cases represented by current people working in the same procession. Maybe even pals. Is this a revolving door issue ? How will this person deal with Litigants in Person (LIP) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.195.215 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Recorder of Londonderry

Is there any reason to think that there is no longer a Recorder of Londonderry? The position is listed in the "Judiciary of Northern Ireland" page [1] and there are recent references to it in the media e.g. here: [2]. However two anonymous editors have removed reference to the position in the last few days without leaving an edit summary. Wham2001 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)