Talk:Alfred Denning, Baron Denning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Alfred Denning, Baron Denning has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
February 8, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
February 17, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

"refreshing"[edit]

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)

Proposed move[edit]

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)

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

  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

Comments[edit]

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)

Decision[edit]

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

Rather soft focus[edit]

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)

Rather soft focus about this judicial influence[edit]

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)

Distinctive prose style[edit]

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.

Tom / Alfred[edit]

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"?[edit]

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?[edit]

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

Senior wrangler[edit]

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)

Changes and move[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Picture of Lord Denning[edit]

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)

Name restored[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Lord Denning "was a British lawyer and judge"[edit]

England and Scotland do not have the same law though other parts of the United Kingdom -- Northern Ireland and Wales, inter alia -- do. He was not a British lawyer and judge but an English one. (As various countries of the Commonwealth, once the British Empire, have law other than English law: Sri Lanka and South Africa Dutch; the province of Quebec in Canada French.) Would it not be more accurate to put it that way, English rather than British? Masalai (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

He was a citizen of the United Kingdom, and so was British, however ;). I agree it's a weird way of phrasing it, though; can you think of any way of communicating both "He was British, not English" and "he was a lawyer"? As an aside: actually, no, Wales has a strong overlap with England, but with a few differences now that we have the Welsh Assembly, while Northern Ireland is a very different jurisdiction thanks to both their local assembly and a history of exceptions being granted for NI in legislation (see the Firearms Acts, for example). So it's more 3.5 legal arenas, with English as the 'primary' for 2.5 of them, than it is 3 or 4. Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It is certainly incorrect to talk of "British Law". "No such thing", law teachers tend to say, when crossing it out. In this context "English" is correct, as is "English Law".Paulturtle (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I know; I did a law degree. I don't see the phrase "British law" used anywhere outside of your objection to it. Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was. However, calling somebody a "British lawyer" without further qualification suggests that he practised "British" Law.Paulturtle (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
...no, it suggests he was a lawyer from the United Kingdom. Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
So if I'm a French kisser, does that mean I come from France?Paulturtle (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No, but that analogy fails because "British law", as you note, is not a term of art. French kiss, obviously, is. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The point is whether the conjunction of words invites the reader to draw a false inference, not whether the inference refers to a non-existent thing (describing a lawyer from Britain as a "British lawyer") or to an actual category which does not apply in this instance (describing a man from Germany who looks after sheep as a "German shepherd", or a man from France who enjoys kissing as a "French kisser"). And just because somebody is a lawyer from Britain, you would not describe him as a "British lawyer" - you would not describe an eminent Scottish judge as a "British lawyer", would you? Or if you did, you shouldn't.Paulturtle (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Alrighty; if it's that important to you, tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)