Talk:Tom Denning, Baron Denning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tom / Alfred

The wikiquote article is still at Alfred Denning, and I can't find much information to suggest either was his prefered first name. Can anyone enlighten me? —anskas 01:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• He always preferred to be called "Tom", and signed his correspondence "Tom Denning". Legis 11:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wesley"?

Where did the edit relating to Wesley come from? He was always known by "Tom" during his lifetime as far as I know. Are their any sources for suggesting he went by that nickname or moniker? Legis 08:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Common names?

Shouldn't this be at Lord Denning per common names policy? --Sumple (Talk) 06:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather soft focus

Rather soft focus, this one, isn't it? No mention of the Birmingham Six or apalling vistas here? Generally assumed not to have been racist? By whom precisely? Not me, and not by many other members of minority communities in this country who felt Denning had nothing but contempt for us?

I'd agree to the extent that Denning (born 1899) held many views that no longer have currency, and despite being a judicial innovator was conservative in other respects. He reflected the values of his day which are different from the values of today and, no doubt, will be different from the values of the next generation. His generation did not think themselves racist and so I suppose that the author of the article was reflecting that. But the article could indeed make reference to more of his controversial views to show the change in society (one other aspect aside from racist or sexist views is that Denning always refused to countenance any suggestion of police corruption, a sadly misguided belief then as now). Further, if possible, could there be a quotation of the remarks about jurors that led to Denning's resignation? That seems to me to have been a pivotal moment in his life and yet I cannot find anywhere on the net what he actually said.

It's very soft-focus. There's plenty of information out there about Denning's often reactionary attitudes (he liked "the little man" as long as the little man was white and conservative, and wasn't being cheeky to policemen). I've added some stuff about the Birmingham Six, and I'll look up some more information. --ajn (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very soft view of what was a controversial man with some unbeleivable decisions. I feel the neutrality of this article must come into question. Some of the phrasing of the article is clearly biased towards denning and the scandal that was the "birmingham six case" appears to have beenn "watered down". He sent men he knew to be innocent to jail to protect the corrupt police. Many of his other feuds with lord scarman and house of lords have been missed entirely. I feel some of the details of this article should be edited. Jackmac17 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Senior wrangler

I have removed the unverified fact that he was senior wrangler at Oxford, because I'm pretty sure that this term is only used at the University of Cambridge. If anyone can find evidence of this being untrue, feel free to add it back in. If he did indeed come top of the year, this would not make him Senior Wrangler, but would of course be worthy of a mention. Jetekus 09:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather soft focus about this judicial influence

Rather soft focus, not towards his political attitudes!? I find it wrong to only talk in great terms about Denning. Sure he was influencial, but also he is (and I believe rightly) heavily criticised for he sometimes arbritray decisions, his weakness for "vulnerable victims of judicial hardship". Surely he has dramaically developed the law, but there is also probably no other judge in the 20th century who has been reversed at so many instances like Denning. One could also say that Denning quite some times just ignored that law as it clearly stood to do "justice" or what he though justice to be. One can see this at the one hand as developing the law - or just as biased decisions putting the law in a mess. He is notorious for his decisions in hard cases that make bad law. I think that beside all gushing the article should mention something in this direction - at least that there are quite some people who think so .. and they are not only fools but among them very respected academics and judges. Somebody more learned than me should write something about this --86.142.162.207 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I comment as an academic lawyer, I believe Denning holds a certain place of affection although it is unclear to me exactly where he is held in affection or indeed why. It is a fair assertion that some of his best known judgements are brief and prima facie founded on 'arbitrary' reasoning. Indeed it would seem Denning did prove that hard cases indeed make bad law. Doctrines of his creation such as 'promissory estoppel', for example, which has its genesis in the High Trees case, the judiciary has later been forced to go to great lengths to obviate the potentially pernicious effects of Denning's legal innovation and restore intellectual integrity.

Furthermore, while undoubtedly a man of some significant intellect many academic lawyers would comment that he was not of the same calibre as some far less colourful mumbers of the senior judiciary of the time. Candidates for this might include Lord Wilberforce.

It is my opinion that his notoriety comes from the impression that he was a maverick, a man who in some respects at least did not conform the tenuous but widely held stereotype of a member of the judiciary. Whether or not he had a hand in creating this image is a moot point. Certainly a large part of this is as a result of his novel approach at times, possibly a sense that a normal man, dealing with situations as a normal right minded man would. But obviously I speculate. No matter, this article is certainly in need of some revision, both in terms of his legal contribution and in terms of the debate about his somewhat dislikeable vews expounded in his extra-judicial writing.

the above unsigned comment ( nearly wrote biased drivel) which cites no authorities should not be taken to be representative of academic or judicial view of Lord Denning. For more representative comments see Meagher Gummow & Lehane Equity Doctrines and Remedies (currently in its 6th edition) written by appellate judges who were all lecturers at Sydney law School or see Asburtons Equity.Backnumber1662 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"refreshing"

Quote "a man does not need to have committed adultery for her husband to have grounds to divorce her,but rather she simply has to believe that he has committed adultery." This makes no sense. Is it the husband or the wife who has grounds for device?80.169.162.100 (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)80.169.162.100 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC) I quote: "His approach was refreshing, ground-moving and he was not afraid to take on established precedent"

I've no problem with the latter two - but "refreshing"?? To whom exactly? That is surely unencyclopaedic and POV 125.239.238.181 08:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Done the first bit; where, exactly, did you find the 'ground moving' bit? Ironholds (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes and move

Anyone who pays attention to this page (and from the state of it I'm assuming those people are few and far between) will notice a page move and massive article reforms. I'll address the two points in turn.

1. page move: standard wiki procedure is to have an article at either 1) the 'correct' name per the manual of style, which would be Alfred Thompson Denning, Baron Denning' or 2) the most commonly used name, which is Lord Denning. For simplicities sake I've decided the second one is the best to use.
2. content changes: I was quite shocked at the state of the article considering his controversial-yet-important nature, and decided to improve it. Using sources of my own I've expanded the article by about 250%; I have tried to include elements of the old article where possible, but much of it was either unreferenced or covered in more detail in my sources.

• Feel free (of course) to discuss any problems you may have with the changes. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's proper practice to have people named by their proper titles - even if we all call him Lord Denning (eg Lord Blackburn, Lord Mansfield, Lord Atkin). So you might want to put it back. Also, do you have a photo of him? I was thinking about going to the Portrait Gallery one day, and snapping his picture with my mobile (avoiding copyright I think?!). But there must be an easier way. Wikidea 23:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually see WP:COMMONAME; common practice is to call them by their most common name that doesn't conflict with other articles. I assume this is to avoid unnecessary headscratching from the reader (What?! I wanted lord Denning, not Baron Denning! and the like). The national portrait gallery are, to put it bluntly, arseholes when it comes to taking pictures; very protective of their pics. I'm hoping I can nick the classic one (portrait shot, dressed in his MR robes, looking sage) with my scanner from one of the books I've been using as a source, since it comes under fair use what with him being dead and all the decent images being copyrighted. If you want something involving law and photos in London though you might want to check out this (excellent plug, I thought). Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's naming styles, this article should be under the title Alfred Denning, Baron Denning and have Lord Denning redirecting to it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, see WP:COMMONAME. Denning is referred to be almost everyone (the layperson, lawyers, legal historians, journalists) who know who he is as Lord Denning, easily enough to warrant placing the article at this location (see the discussion immediately above).

Perhaps you should read the second line in WP:COMMONAME. It states: "The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles." (Bolding mine). This then has a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). As point 2 under the "British peerage" section instructs, this article should be under the title Alfred Denning, Baron Denning and have Lord Denning redirecting to it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh righto, didn't see that; my mistake. I'll get an admin to move it ASAP. Ironholds (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, but you do know you could have moved it yourself, right? :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No; there was a redirect at Alfred Denning, Baron Denning, and pasting over the top would have eliminated the page history; instead I had to get an admin to move it over the redirect. Ironholds (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First wife's death

The infobox states the marriage ended in 1942, but the Personal life section states she died in 1941. What is the truth? Best name (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1941: thanks for spotting that error, mate :). Ironholds (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I appreciate it can be hard to source pictures for some individuals, but is there any chance of getting one here? I feel the article's missing something as it is, almost! RichsLaw (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try and scan something in at some point. There isn't anything PD, but we can get away with FU images. Ironholds (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough, good work. RichsLaw (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the whole article, so ta very much :). Ironholds (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The image on the cover of The Due Process of Law looks good. I can't say if a cropped section might be usable under FU, but no doubt advice would be forthcoming at the relevant Help section. RashersTierney (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be fine, I'll take a look. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole article? Blimey that's impressive. Can't imagine the amount of research which went into it! RichsLaw (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it did. Norman Birkett had just as much work, but my personal favorite was Lord Mansfield. Again, all my work and lots of effort :). Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing this thread reminded me about a possible resource for this article I'd come across, while looking over another article, a while back. I figure I may as well mention it, in case it's useful for expanding. 'Coleman, Brady (2001). "Lord Denning & Justice Cardozo: The Judge as Poet-Philosopher". Rutgers Law Journal 32; 2:485–518.' It's quite long. From what I remember, it covered their approach to constructing their arguments, and how the writing style & personalities contributed to their popularity or success. –Whitehorse1 11:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be absolutely brilliant :). No chance you have access to it? Ironholds (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I did happen to save a copy, yep. I don't have a way set up to send it through here though. Do you have a (munged for spambots) e-mail address I can send it to, Ironholds? –Whitehorse1 13:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Try thedarkthird[at]hotmail.co.uk - that would be brilliant :). Ironholds (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I sent you an e-mail a little earlier on. :) –Whitehorse1 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, got it - I'll deal with it in a tick. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Name restored

As per this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Odd_page_move_by_admin_-_support_for_reversion_sought, this article was renamed to Alfred Denning, Baron Denning. Please do not conduct any further name changes without discussion. Manning (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Case conventions

Hello all, I see that someone has timeconsumingly de-italicised the 'v' in each case name. In fact this is unnecessary according to the main convention, which is called OSCOLA. This is what most leading journals and the House of Lords (or is it "Supreme Court" these days?) do. It's absolutely fine, and saves time, to simply write, for instance, Hoenig v Isaacs. And that's another thing: it'd be really good if you could link all the case names, because even if there's no page there yet, it'll increase the likelihood that somebody will create one. Cheers, Wikidea 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Lord Denning

Hello all, does anyone know how to get photos from Flickr.com? There are a few passable photos of Denning there. Could somebody more knowledgeable about this than me possibly get one and put it in the title box? Wikidea 03:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It has to be Creative Commons for us to really justify it - could you give me links to the images you've found? I'll try and deal with it when I get back from Edinburgh on monday. Ironholds (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• pic 1
• pic 2

  Both are all rights reserved, and can't really be justified. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is you could ask for a release to use. Wikidea 09:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, which is incredibly roundabout. We can't ask for a general release just to use on Wikipedia, it has to be a release to be used under creative commons. In addition the images would need to be substantially tweaked to be helpful, creating a derivative work. If we go for a fair use image here I'll just nab the Denning biography I've got, flick it through a scanner and use that. Ironholds (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)