I've represented defendants in loads of small claims hearings in County Courts, and there are quite a few differences in a real court:
1. The Judge is addressed as Sir or Madam, never 'Judge'.
2. The programme has the parties the wrong way round - in nearly all courts, the claimant sits on the Judge's right, the defendant on the left.
3. The Judge does not wear any special robes, just ordinary clothes.
4. There is usually no usher present to pass documents over, the parties are normally seated close enough to the Judge to do it themselves. In any case, the documents would have been submitted before the hearing, so the Judge would already have copies in his file.
5. The Judge (District Judge or Deputy District Judge) is unlikely to be a qualified barrister, they are usually former or current practising solicitors.
6. It would be very unusual to see many, or any, people in the public gallery seats.
7. After Judgment is given, there is often further discussion about leave to appeal, and any award of costs to the winning party.
8. Any real Judge who made the sarcastic comments and camp facial gestures made by Rinder, would soon be in hot water with the Lord Chancellor.
The thing you don't understand is... it's a TV entertainment show. It's not a real court and they don't claim it to be.
Also, what the hell do you mean by 'camp facial gestures'? There's no such thing, so explain yourself.
Also, I would like to have known how Matty was going to pay the outstanding £4,300, as he had accepted ownership of the dog before it was sadly killed. I can't imagagine a guy like that holding down a job. We didn't get told enough of the circumstances surrounding this case.
I agree. It was irresponsible and stupid of the dog breeder and trainer to sell a dog worth thousands, which he admitted was equal to a 'loaded gun' to an obvious nutter on benefits.
It could almost have been a set-up for the cameras couldn´t it ;-)
The thing you don't understand is... it's a TV entertainment show. It's not a real court and they don't claim it to be.
Also, what the hell do you mean by 'camp facial gestures'? There's no such thing, so explain yourself.
I understand perfectly that it's a TV entertainment show. Another poster asked what a real judge would make of it, and I was simply pointing out ways in which it differs from a real court.
No such thing as camp facial gestures? Frankie Howard based his entire career on those!
I agree. It was irresponsible and stupid of the dog breeder and trainer to sell a dog worth thousands, which he admitted was equal to a 'loaded gun' to an obvious nutter on benefits.
It could almost have been a set-up for the cameras couldn´t it ;-)
I'm now wondering if there was any proof that the dog was actually killed on the road. Matty said it was a 'hit & run', was the accident reported to the police? Is there any proof that the dog is buried in his back garden? or was the intention all along to sell the dog on, get out of paying the £4,300 to Joe by claiming the dog's demise, and keeping the profit. Maybe I give Matty too much credit for being capable of thinking up such a ruse. ;-)
I hated this show at first and stopped watching, but this week I have got back in to it. It's entertainment for a wet afternoon, but really awful nevertheless. If you took out the number of times he said 'Do you understand?' & 'This case is not difficult', it could be reduced to a mere half hour of nonsense.
He's got no justification for his arrogance, or to describe himself as 'The Cleverest Judge in the country'.
He was called to the bar in 2001, but after 13 years in practice, hasn't yet made Silk (i.e. become a QC).
There are other barristers around who were called later than him, and now have the letters QC after their name, so presumably they are even more clever.
He also, in the advert for litigants for the next series, says 'I'm criminal barrister Rob Rinder'. Whilst he has appeared in a number of criminal cases, his main areas of expertise and practice are fraud and money laundering, more often than not involving civil law.
Having said all that, it wouldn't be difficult to appear very clever when most of the people appearing in his fake 'court' seem to be chosen by the producers to be terminally stupid, unable to speak or write English properly, and to have no concept of what 'evidence' is.
Watch any film with Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey, and you will see just how wrong you are.
Absolutely agree with you. Also watch, if possible good old Larry Grayson and John Inman to name but two. And some of my friends as well. The poster is in denial if he/she thinks Rinder isn't camp, especially that stretched open mouth, which to watch is most cringeworthy.
He's got no justification for his arrogance, or to describe himself as 'The Cleverest Judge in the country'.
He was called to the bar in 2001, but after 13 years in practice, hasn't yet made Silk (i.e. become a QC).
There are other barristers around who were called later than him, and now have the letters QC after their name, so presumably they are even more clever.
He also, in the advert for litigants for the next series, says 'I'm criminal barrister Rob Rinder'. Whilst he has appeared in a number of criminal cases, his main areas of expertise and practice are fraud and money laundering, more often than not involving civil law.
Having said all that, it wouldn't be difficult to appear very clever when most of the people appearing in his fake 'court' seem to be chosen by the producers to be terminally stupid, unable to speak or write English properly, and to have no concept of what 'evidence' is.
That's exactly it. Most of the bits when he is acting all superior and pointing out how stupid the people he sees are, that comes from common sense and dealing with stupid people as opposed to him being in any way clever.
It's definitely no Judge Judy, but entertaining all the same. He obviously has his own little idioms. "I can smell a lie like a fart in an elevator" certainly got a giggle out of me. Not as great as "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining", from Judy.
It's far less tragic than Jeremy Kyle and that's the main thing. I enjoy it for the entertainment it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
I change my mind mostly. After watching the entire series, I can honestly say he's not even close to Judy. He shows little respect for the procedures or reputation of law. His continues calls of "stupid", are well, just stupid. He has an inflated sense of his own worth.
He's not a judge, but a criminal barrister. He makes quips about the fact that lawyers belong at the bottom of the ocean, but he himself is a lawyer. There is little difference between a solicitor and a barrister, other than the fact that a barrister can't act on a clients behalf without direction from a solicitor.
He's camp and that's fun. But it's fun to a point before it gets old.
I get that it's "courtroom" entertainment, but they could at least cut back on his catty snideness and return a type of order and dignity that a courtroom would normally show towards those who show up in front of a bench.
I suspect some of the disputes are concocted by Jeremy Kyle type people in order to get on TV. In real life you never sue anyone who doesn't have the proverbial pot to piss in, which probably accounts for most of the defendants on this show. Also a lot of Rinders questions are totally unrelated to the substantive legal principles of the case. I hope it pulls away from the Jeremy Kyle style because it would be just as entertaining with real disputes and also claimants/defendants who have IQs above that of a cheese sandwhich.
I suspect some of the disputes are concocted by Jeremy Kyle type people in order to get on TV. In real life you never sue anyone who doesn't have the proverbial pot to piss in, which probably accounts for most of the defendants on this show. Also a lot of Rinders questions are totally unrelated to the substantive legal principles of the case. I hope it pulls away from the Jeremy Kyle style because it would be just as entertaining with real disputes and also claimants/defendants who have IQs above that of a cheese sandwhich .
With you here Bob, I feel I'm insulting my own intellect by watching.
I understand perfectly that it's a TV entertainment show. Another poster asked what a real judge would make of it, and I was simply pointing out ways in which it differs from a real court.
No such thing as camp facial gestures? Frankie Howard based his entire career on those!
As did Larry Grayson hey ho😄
Watch his old "chair" routines on Saturday night variety and his ongoing row with Jack Parnell and the broach he reckoned Jack nicked
Comments
The thing you don't understand is... it's a TV entertainment show. It's not a real court and they don't claim it to be.
Also, what the hell do you mean by 'camp facial gestures'? There's no such thing, so explain yourself.
I agree. It was irresponsible and stupid of the dog breeder and trainer to sell a dog worth thousands, which he admitted was equal to a 'loaded gun' to an obvious nutter on benefits.
It could almost have been a set-up for the cameras couldn´t it ;-)
Ooh, get her!
Oh boo, lost track of the time..lol. Thank gods for +1, shall catch it on that.:D
No such thing as camp facial gestures? Frankie Howard based his entire career on those!
Roll on next week and I'll be free of resorting to daytime TV.
Ohhh. I think you'll find there are!
..................... but Series 2 is on its way!
Judge Judy would run rings round him.
LOL!
He was called to the bar in 2001, but after 13 years in practice, hasn't yet made Silk (i.e. become a QC).
There are other barristers around who were called later than him, and now have the letters QC after their name, so presumably they are even more clever.
He also, in the advert for litigants for the next series, says 'I'm criminal barrister Rob Rinder'. Whilst he has appeared in a number of criminal cases, his main areas of expertise and practice are fraud and money laundering, more often than not involving civil law.
Having said all that, it wouldn't be difficult to appear very clever when most of the people appearing in his fake 'court' seem to be chosen by the producers to be terminally stupid, unable to speak or write English properly, and to have no concept of what 'evidence' is.
Watch any film with Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey, and you will see just how wrong you are.
Absolutely agree with you. Also watch, if possible good old Larry Grayson and John Inman to name but two. And some of my friends as well. The poster is in denial if he/she thinks Rinder isn't camp, especially that stretched open mouth, which to watch is most cringeworthy.
That's exactly it. Most of the bits when he is acting all superior and pointing out how stupid the people he sees are, that comes from common sense and dealing with stupid people as opposed to him being in any way clever.
It's far less tragic than Jeremy Kyle and that's the main thing. I enjoy it for the entertainment it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
He's not a judge, but a criminal barrister. He makes quips about the fact that lawyers belong at the bottom of the ocean, but he himself is a lawyer. There is little difference between a solicitor and a barrister, other than the fact that a barrister can't act on a clients behalf without direction from a solicitor.
He's camp and that's fun. But it's fun to a point before it gets old.
I get that it's "courtroom" entertainment, but they could at least cut back on his catty snideness and return a type of order and dignity that a courtroom would normally show towards those who show up in front of a bench.
With you here Bob, I feel I'm insulting my own intellect by watching.
As did Larry Grayson hey ho😄
Watch his old "chair" routines on Saturday night variety and his ongoing row with Jack Parnell and the broach he reckoned Jack nicked
Me too.
http://www.c21media.net/itv-courts-more-judge-rinder/?utm_source=C21Media&utm_campaign=d81b6176dd-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bb765a3f7-d81b6176dd-292248905