Talk:Rumpole of the Bailey

Rumpole, Q.C.?
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)
 * Can anyone shed light on this? Wulfilia 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless Rumpole "takes silk" becomes a Q.C. in the story itself, which seems unlikely, it sounds like a mistake. Is the story available on the Daily Mail website or elsewhere? Newyorkbrad 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Which came first - stories or TV?
"[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)


 * Without a source, we shouldn't get too precise on the chronology of the written stories compared to the TV series. Given that he wrote both the short stories and the TV show, I assumed they probably were done at about the same time, with the written stories serving like a treatment for the teleplay. (Rumpole à la Carte was published a year before series 6, but the others were published the same year as each associated TV series.)


 * The short stories and TV series probably became fairly intertwined; for example, the actor who played Judge Bullingham died in 1987 and the part was not recast, I wonder if any of the televised short stories from 1987–1992 have him as a significant character? It doesn't seem to be a particularly clear case of one being spun-off or adapted from the other. Those are my caveats, I agree it needs some revision. --Mrwojo 09:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumpole first appeared in the 1975 BBC Play for Today, whereas the first book didn't appear until 1978, the same year as the first Thames Television series, and almost certainly written concurrent with it. Mrotimer has himself drawn parallels with his 1957 radio play The Dock Brief (filmed in 1962, a.k.a. Trial and Error), but the lead character - the barrister Morgenhall - is more a mixture of Uncle Tom and a successful version of George Frobisher than Rumpole. Nick Cooper 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Class of Rumpole's degree
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)
 * When did he attend a university ? He mentions attending a 'crammer' which is a private study tutoring passage to the bar exams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:DD49:9152:6CB3:2ACA (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oxford used to award a 4th. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:D942:4CC1:5245:8398 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rumpole-book.jpg
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 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)

Exception to the rule "Never Plead Guilty"?
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)

DVD releases?
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)

the assumption of innocence -- and "legal etiquette"
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)


 * As you correctly state, Rumpole is a fictional character, so remember that Mortimer's style of writing was designed to build a (lovable) character. In terms of "needs discussion"—perhaps—but not here. Try Law of the United Kingdom.
 * Regarding the use of "x:y": considering the close to two thousand year head start the Bible has had, I suspect that it will be a while before that notation will be recognisable as television seasons and episodes. We need to write in a way that will make our articles accessible to the widest audience (without head-scratching or undue explanation).
 * HWV258 . 08:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would advise you not to use two hyphens as a substitute for an en dash. If you want to indicate a break, use a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash. I prefer the unspaced em dash, but modern publications lean toward the spaced en dash. On a Windows machine, an en dash can be entered by holding down the alt key while typing the numbers 0-1-5-0 on the numerical keypad, and the em dash with the numbers 0-1-5-1. You can also enter them on WP by clicking the little icons below the "Show preview button while editing.
 * HWV258 . 08:33, 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)


 * It’s the episode with the hippie colony. Girl selling marijuana to get her brother out of Turkish prison. ‘Rumpole and the Beautiful People’ or whatever. He tries to prove that the police set her up, but she shouts him down and admits she did it. So he tries plea bargaining, but she goes to gaol. The other lawyers laugh at him for ‘getting involved’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1459:A00:5144:DEEC:ABBF:F74F (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2023 (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)

Moving the article to Horace Rumpole
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)


 * Moving parts of this to separate articles would seem to be a good idea. I would not name the new articles HR though since most searches will not begin with typing his name. I would question how many people even know his first name is Horace :-) I would suggest moving this page to RotB (television) to preserve the edit history. Then I would create new pages entitled RotB (radio), (novels) etc. Then I would create a disambig page entitled RotB and redirect the term HR to it for those who do know his first name. I think that would cover most eventualities.
 * FYI I don't think this article is on very many watchlists anymore. I might suggest postings at the talk pages for the Television and Novels wikiprojects to get more input. Thanks for the suggestion. MarnetteD | Talk 19:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rumpole of the Bailey (television), Rumpole of the Bailey (books) and Rumpole of the Bailey (radio) would seem the way to go. To be honest the TV material does need some work, as there are a few inaccuracies/omissions, and a there is some terminology which is not appropriate for British television productions (e.g. the label of "TV movie" for a special made on videotape!). Nick Cooper (talk) 21:49, 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)


 * I see what you are getting at. RotB is the name applies to the "franchise" and that is what we are discussing here. It is the title of the TV series, the radio series and the first book collection. The rest of the books do not use Horace in their titles. A google search turns up 19,300 hits for HR and 174,000 for RotB. John Mortimer's obits referred to him as the creator of RotB or Rumpole. Per wikipedia's naming conventions it would be a mistake to just use his last name. Also using those conventions a page for the characters from the series should be named "Characters from RotB". The only page that I can think of that it would be proper to name HR would be a page for the character by himself. As I said before you may want to solicit more opinions than the three here. MarnetteD | Talk 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me a bit to think of an example but you might want to take a look at the disambig page for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. the only page that uses the name Buffy Summers is the page for the character. In all the forms of that series you would be hard pressed to find her referred to as BtVS. MarnetteD | Talk 00:29, 17 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)

Dodo's surname
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?
 * She Who Must tells Rumpole that Dodo 'never married'. Probably a continuity error, though it could be perhaps explained by Dodo changing her name.Gazzster (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mrs Rumpole specifies that she 'used to be Dodo Perkins' in that episode. Steepleman (t) 12:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The whole Rumpole ‘world’ is predicated on the idea that he is relating his past cases - in the short-stories, at any rate. This might explain many inconsistencies, either because Rumpole has forgotten some details, or because he is deliberately using pseudonyms to preserve anonymity. Or perhaps because no editor has bothered to mention such errors.


 * There are parallels, in Sherlock Holmes for example; in an early story, Holmes invites Watson to share his lodgings. Watson says he has ‘a bull pup’. We never hear this dog mentioned again. In P.G. Wodehouse, the bullying Spode is cowed by revealing his ownership of a women’s undergarment factory. When Spode returns in a later Wodehouse novel, the fact is completely ignored.


 * And so on. There are small flaws in ‘Yes Minister’ and ‘Fawlty Towers’ and these would not have been noticed, only that these programs have been available for repeat home viewing and critiquing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1459:A00:5144:DEEC:ABBF:F74F (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Gin
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.
<< 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)
 * You'll also find the precept in 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. Scout says that, as a lawyer's daughter, she absorbed the idea with her mother's milk, or some such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:DD49:9152:6CB3:2ACA (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And the concept that a literary genius (he got paid ; he may even have turned a profit on writing!) like legal professional Mortimer had read "Mockingbird" and deliberately or unconsciously referenced it ... is not exactly hard to conceive. Actually, there may well be previous uses which both Mortimer and Lee knew of. Which would be an interesting facet for literary lawyers or legalistic writers to follow. AKarley (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a very common saying, and probably old. It is not necessarily true though. Do you agree?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In-joke?
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."


 * That sounds to me like an in-joke on the series of books popular at the time (early 1970s) in Britain known as "the Vet Books" - pseudonymous author James Heriott, protagonists including Siegfried & Tristan, whose father was a Wagner fan ... or it could be something that Mortimer "retconned" into the story. It's unlikely that the real motivations would ever appear, but it feels like the sort of joke that Mortimer would include. Speaking as a casual fan. AKarley (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See Tristan and Isolde: more likely they both used the same source or sources!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403191043/http://www.625.org.uk/biograph/biogmort.htm to http://www.625.org.uk/biograph/biogmort.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)