Talk:Tom Denning, Baron Denning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] Proposed move

Is there something wrong with Alfred Thompson Denning, Lord Denning of Whitchurch? -- Kaihsu 15:58, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

It is incorrect because "of Whitchurch" is a "territorial qualification" which should not be used in even the most formal writing. Furthermore, "Alfred Denning, Baron Denning" is, in this case, more correct than "Alfred Denning, Lord Denning." -- Emsworth 14:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of article names, is there a specific reason why it's not just called "Lord Denning"? Following the naming conventions the most commonly used name should be used. Though Denning may have had a title of "Baron of Whitchurch", etc., he has always referred to as "Lord Denning" in legal literature and court decisions. Given that he is probably one of the most cited Judges in the 20th century, I would put a lot of weight on that name being the "convention". Any thoughts? -- PullUpYourSocks 20:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's probably most appropriate to move all the quotes to wikiquote. I think it's important to show some quotes since part of the real charm of Denning is his writing style. However, I don't think large blocks of quote really fit well here. I suspect it was a large factor in getting denied as a Feature Candidate. I hope no one objects. Please feel free to give some suggestions. Cheers! PullUpYourSocks 03:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

  1. The redirect from Lord Denning is sufficient. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree absolutely with everything said by John. Mackensen (talk) 07:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for all the usual reasons. Jooler

[edit] Comments

Britannica has it as "Denning, Alfred Thompson Denning, Baron", though I agree that the current name is a little clumsy. The suggested move brings it into line with List of cases involving Lord Denning but out of line with other similar articles, like Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (though it is at the moment anyway). violet/riga (t) 19:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't give much value to the naming of List of cases involving Lord Denning since I made it. PullUpYourSocks 02:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the title of Baron is appropriate for the article name at all, his status as a baron is incidental to his fame. He is not famous as a baron just as Margret Thatcher isn't famous for her title. In fact, I don't even think recieved the title until well into his career. The crux of my reasoning is that the name "Lord Denning" has huge cachet value in law, it's a name synonymous with many concepts of law, and the name itself has historical and symbolic significance. As I mentioned elsewhere, he's written about quite often in the highest courts around the world. If you go to a legal database like http://www.worldlii.org and search for "Lord Denning" you'll find many of references to him, but you won't find any reference to Baron Denning or Alfred Denning. -- PullUpYourSocks 02:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Most peers are "best known as Lord so and so" but this is a clumsy form that doesn't sit well for encyclopedias. Note that we don't call the page on Hailsham "Lord Hailsham" and not just because both father and son were known by it. The conventions on peerages have been discussed for quite some time - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage for instance - and it would be clumsy to start making changes on individual pages that would throw the whole system into a mess. Timrollpickering 09:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What Timrollpickering says. Near every peer is best known as "Lord Soandso". We can't put articles there, because that would make a mess. We have clear standards for articles on peers, and this fits in with that perfectly well. Note that Lord Byron is at George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, Lord Tennyson is at Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson, and so forth. john k 15:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would not go so far to suggest that the naming convention for Peers should be changed, keeping a tidy consistency goes a long way, however if (and that’s a big if) there ever were a case for exception I think this would be one. My main issue is that I don’t think it’s appropriate to use titular names that are ancillary or completely unrelated to why we should care about this person. The identifying name that is most famous, I feel, should trump formal titles. On a global scale no one knows of Denning as a baron or even really for his peerage. In fact, once he earned his peerage he didn’t even stay at the House of Lords for more than a few years until he moved back down the Court of Appeal but the name stuck anyway. In the capacities as a baron or peer he did not do anything very notable. Instead, he’s known almost exclusively around the world as “Lord Denning”, the maverick judge on the Court of Appeal. Actually, he is probably the only (or at least the most famous) Judge who is studied in countries outside of the UK. The name earned a mythical quality, irrespective of his status in the House of Lords. I can sympathize with the preference towards formal titles and would leave the final judgment to those with deeper knowledge of the subject of naming conventions. Nevertheless, I think there is a compelling argument to use the name that is more internationally recognized. -- PullUpYourSocks 16:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. Surely Lord Denning, whom I had never heard of until this dispute, is not better known than Lord Byron or Lord Palmerston, or any of the many other Barons, Viscounts, Earls, and Marquesses known as "Lord Soandso." I see nothing in this particular case that justifies revision of our general peerage naming conventions. john k 18:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RIght, I should clarify myself and say he's the 20th century's most well-known judge from the UK. He fame exists primarily in the legal world, but within that world his name is huge. I think the fact that he is not well known outside that world goes towards my argument as him as an exception. Like Conrad Black or say Paul McCartney they are both famous within their own spheres (in PM's case, a bit outside too!), but just because each earned a royal title should not mean that he should necessarily be referred to it in most cases. In thd case of Denning, as with Conrad and Paul, the title is peripheral to who they are. The Lord Palmerston example speaks directly to my point as well, he is famous as a peer, part of the aristocracy of the time. Both him and Byron had hereditary titles so I'm sure that the title of Baron or Viscount were very important in identifying who they were, it was part of their identity. Denning recieved his title only as an accolade to what he had accomplished in the legal world. I think the "Lord" part of the name is the deceiving part. His status as Lord is totally unremarkable, but his status as a Judge however is remarkable, it only so happens the nick-name "Lord Denning" has stuck to him so well. -- PullUpYourSocks 20:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. Palmerston wasn't even in the House of Lords, since he was an Irish Peer. He is famous as Lord Palmerston because that is what you call someone who is a Viscount. Similarly, Lord Byron is called Lord Byron not because his hereditary peerage was particularly important, but simply because this is what a baron is called by. It is exactly the same situation as with Lord Denning. He is famous, and is mostly known as Lord Denning. he is called Lord Denning because he was a life peer. And he is mostly known as Lord Denning, because that is what judges who are lords are mostly known by. Conrad Black became famous before he was a lord, and is mostly known as Conrad Black, although he's occasionally called Lord Black. Basically, we have two options for peers. If the peer is not known by their peerage title, you use their name, e.g. Conrad Black, Harold Macmillan, Margaret Thatcher, and so forth. If they are best known as "Lord Soandso," they go at their name and peerage title, as George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, Alfred Denning, Baron Denning, Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Those are your options. In this case, the proper place is very clear, as you yourself point out. He is known as Lord Denning. Therefore, he goes at Alfred Denning, Baron Denning. If you think this is a bad convention, you're welcome to try and get it changed (although I know that I would argue against the change). But this particular example is very clearly not one where an exception to a general rule should be made. john k 20:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Denning's most famous accomplishments were before his peerage, but only appreciated in the legal world once he gained the title so the title was pretty much inescapable. I appreciate your argument for the strict use of the title, but what I'm trying to get at is that his fame under the two words "Lord Denning" is so significant that it has effectively changed what was just a title governed by a titular formula to a nickname that is so broadly recognised that it becomes almost farcical to refer to him generically as "Baron Denning". I think it is this issue of "fame" that I am not able convince others of, and honestly I don't know what more I can tell you to do so. There does not seem to be anyone who knows who Denning is beyond what this article says or what can be found on google, nor are there many legal professionals lurking around the 'pedia who could vouche for this, so I'm at a loss. To satisfy your discomfort in the use of "Lord" alone, I would suggest compromising by using his name Alfred Thompon Denning as it would be more useful than the archaic title of "Baron Denning". However, as my argument does not seem to be gaining any traction with those around, I will leave the issue alone. I appreciate being heared out. -- PullUpYourSocks 04:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lord Denning is simply what he is referred to because he was a baron. This is absolutely no different from Lord Byron, which is just as recognized, and referring to a far more famous figure. This page is exactly where it should be. john k 06:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 19:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Distinctive Prose Style

The "poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown" passage is not a very good illustration of Lord Denning's unusual prose style, as it was in fact delivered in a speech by William Pitt the elder, in the 18th century.

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/m/Talk%7ETom_Denning%2C_Baron_Denning_859e.html"