Jump to content

Talk:Rayner Goddard, Baron Goddard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sexually excited

[edit]

I'm a bit worried about the bit saying he was sexually excited when sentencing. Can someone else check the source and say whether it has been quoted accurately? Furthermore, since the ref is a book on homosexuality, was Goddard gay? He was friends with Roland Gwynne so this could be possible. Malick78 11:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this pertinent? I have homosexual friends but am only attracted to women. Most heterosexuals with a wide social circle must be the same, all the more so in the past when homosexuality was much more in the shadows.82.71.12.233 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found this here:DEAD LINK

Ludovic Kennedy, in his anthology of miscarriages of Justice THIRTY-SIX MURDERS AND TWO IMMORAL EARNINGS, describes the Lord Chief Justice's idiosyncratic approach to donning the "black cap" and sentencing prisoners to hang:

"After Goddard's death his clerk, Arthur Smith, told John Parris (Craig's counsel) that on the last day of a murder trial he would bring a fresh pair of trousers into the robing-room, as Goddard was in the habit of ejaculating into his present pair when sentencing a prisoner to death.

While not wishing to linger of the mechanics of this, I have to say that I find it hard to believe that at his age his ejaculation was spontaneous and can only conclude that, with the bench protecting his lower half from the eyes of the court, he did his business unseen...."

If it's accurate, then it wasn't his valet but his clerk.Malick78 11:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Parris as counsel for Christopher Craig, and also as a left-wing Labour candidate, is not the most impartial observer that ever existed. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What absolute libellous nonsense and a stain on the character of this great man. The link doesn't work, google reveals nothing and no reviews of the book even mention this. Has anyone actually seen the reference in the book itself? 80.246.106.4 09:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that what the article says reflects what is written in Spencer's book. SP-KP 10:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard never sat on the Bodkin trial, three other Court of Appeal judges did. What Devlin allegedly said (and I say allegedly because the information comes from the Devlin article) is that "in the event of Adams being acquitted, that Adams be released on bail before the Hullett trial". This is a long way from "getting Adams off". Back to Goddard's alleged sexual activities during trials, the source for this highly doubtful information was first Ludovic Kennedy, now it is Spencer. What is it to be? 88.207.244.94 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source originally listed in the article is by Spencer (see the article's references list). Was your question about Kennedy's book? If so, that wasn't clear. SP-KP 19:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question was whether the source for this information was Spencer or, as was claimed above by Malick78, Kennedy. 80.246.106.4 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely believed and reported" - this is stretching it a bit. Also, as it stands, the article is reporting the supposed behaviour as reflecting first-hand information "It has been claimed" (dreadful tabloid language) "that Goddard had a particular personal reaction to sentencing people to death. According to his valet.... blah, blah, blah". Wouldn't it be more balanced to write that "some sources (footnote) have claimed that his valet blah, blah, blah" (especially as scurrilous and false "insider" reports of this type are common where the author has an axe to grind or money to make (the allegation that Farrah Fawcett once couldn't wait to use the toilet at a Hollywood party and squatted on the lawn springs to mind!!))? Theeurocrat (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of you seem to have disapproved this vile and scurrilous rubbish but no-one has done anything about it! On the grounds: one source was a burglar - hardly reliable for a strong judge another was a book about homosexuality - what's that got to do with anything? the third was a badly spelled, unsourced, anti death penalty propagandist website and other grounds, I have struck it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corcyra (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being "scurrilous" isn't a reason for removing info. It's well-sourced, so should stay (also - the fact that a book has the word 'homosexual' in the title has little impact on the relevance of a single fact contained in it). I've reverted. Malick78 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scurrilous is not the word for this vile attack on one of the last century's great LCJs. It is not, contrary to the statement above, "well-sourced,"but idel gossip from deeply untrustworthy sources. In the course of researching a book which peripherally touches on his career I have spoken to several members of his family. Two points are worth recording. One is that, although he believed in putting on a tough persona, as he thought it was appropriate for his job, he was deeply affected by any case that ended in a sentence of death. Although he was in favour of the death sentence on judicial grounds (thinking that its deterrent effect was important), he hated passing it. The idea of Rayner Goddard being homosexual is frankly laughable. His affairs, such as they were, and he was extremely discreet, were never homosexual. Wiltshire Muse (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered that Wikipedia entries are supposed to be based on consensus and on reliable sources, and that repeated reversions are against Wikipedia policy. I am therefore removing the sordid passage on the grounds (i) consensus - everyone but Malick thinks it has no place here, (ii) reliable sources - I think I demonstrated how unreliable the sources were in an earlier post and (iii) repeated reversion - Malick has restored this item twice - he is the only one pushing this agenda and he should not be allowed to set Wikipedia policy singlehandedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corcyra (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Corcyra amd Wiltshire Muse are new to Wikipedia, and this article is the first one you have both edited. Welcome to you both and I hope you both go on to make many more contributions. I support Malick's reversion, so we do not have community consensus for deletion as yet. The question here is whether there are reliable sources. If there are unreliable sources as well, then that doesn't really have a bearing, unless of course the reliable sources have based their information only on the unreliable ones, in which case they're perhaps not so reliable. I'm not going to repeat Malick's revert yet, as I respect the views of our two new editors. Could one of who please explain your reasoning for regarding the Spencer reference as unreliable in a little more detail? I don't think I understand your argument about this source from what you've written so far. SP-KP (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have two cited sources. Bob Turney was a career burglar. Colin Spencer's Homosexuality - A History is scathingly reviewed in Publishers Weekly, The London Review of Books, and every other review I have found. Then there is Ludovic Kennedy, although his book is not currently referenced in this article. The thing about all of them is that they are secondary and all draw on the same primary source - if that source is suspect they all fail, regardless of the other merits. This primary source is John Parris, Christopher Craig's counsel, who made the claim that he was told this by Arthur Smith, Goddard's clerk. Might Parris have made it up? To judge by this [1] I think perhaps he might. But surely the key question is whether Arthur Smith might ever have made such a claim. 40 years before Smith was clerk to the LCJ, he was clerk to Rayner Goddard, young barrister. In 1944 Smith wrote to Goddard: "If at any time I can be of service to you I shall be delighted to do what I can as a small token in return, not only for the kind regard you have shown toward me as a Judge's clerk, but also for the sympathy you displayed so many years ago to a small shy boy from Bethnal Green. Those days I never have and never shall forget. All my affection and good wishes go with you, Sir." (Bresler, Lord Goddard, pp 100-101). Is it conceivable the man who wrote that letter would later stab Goddard in the back as Parris claims? I say the balance of probability is overwhelmingly that Smith never made the claim, and indeed, personally I feel there is no reasonable doubt that it is a fabrication. Ideally I'd like to invite someone else to remove this item, but I don't know whether this post will be noticed so I am making the change myself, because I know a change in the article itself will be noticed immediately. I accept there was no consensus yesterday but hope this message will present fresh evidence to change that. Corcyra (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Corcyra (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your input. However, it strikes me that a) people's views change over time and Smith certainly may have changed his mind once he got to know Goddard better, and b) Goddard himself was often quite an unsavoury character and very divisive, so Smith may very well have had the wool removed from his eyes. Either way, the claim has been cited multiple times by, in my view, reliable sources. Perhaps find a source which doubts the claim and add it? If no such sources doubting it exist, then that suggests something in itself. Malick78 (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me a chance to come back to you before reverting. (a) yes, views change over time, but when Smith wrote the warm and admiring letter Bresler and I quote, he had already known Goddard for 40 years; time, surely, to have seen Goddard at his best and his worst? (b) your point about the multiple citations would be unanswerable if they were independent, but they are not. Would you accept that if the sole original source is unsound, all the repetitions in the world wouldn't make it any sounder? (c) a doubting source might indeed be helpful - as you say, the lack of such a source raises questions. My answer is, let us consider what we are talking about in plain English, not the gentlemanly language of Ludovic Kennedy. We are saying that the Lord Chief Justice, in an open court full of people, would routinely have a wank. For me, it is hard even to find words to say how preposterous, how wildly unlikely this is; and I think the same would be true of any potential "doubting sources." Corcyra (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh yes, 40 years, I forgot that bit. As for point b) above, surely if the original source was unsound then people would be less likely to repeat it? That they repeat it suggests they don't feel it's far-fetched.
  • I don't think it's impossible that Goddard had a wank in court actually: Jimmy Saville, god damn his burning soul, TOUCHED UP children ON TOP OF THE POPS, with the cameras on him. Perverts take risks, and Goddard was a shady guy (his friend Roland Gwynne was the lover of the serial killer John Bodkin Adams - how often do you find such short leaps between the judiciary and serial killers?). So, all in all I'm in favour of keeping the material in the article with any appropriate doubting comments from an RS. Malick78 (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a hysterical rant, complete with stereotypical CAPITAL LETTERS. Jimmy Savile, furthermore, has absolutely nothing to do with Goddard and, while I appreciate there is on Wikipedia a perverse desire to bring in Bodkin Adams to all too many articles, Bodkin Adams has nothing to do with it either. The claim is woefully poorly sourced and ought to be removed. 78.149.201.125 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No man is a hero to his valet, as I forget which French sage says. Decades of devoted service and affection by no means remove the possibility of liking to gossip. As I understand it the suggestion is that he got an erection and then spontaneously ejaculated - perhaps remarkable in a man of his age, but there we are. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Scapegoat.-a013553560

Bodkin interference

[edit]

88.207.244.94, the source for Devlin's accusation that Goddard tried to influence his decision on bail comes directly from Devlin's book and is reffed as such in the article here. Maybe my phrase 'getting him off' was hyperbole, but Goddard was obviously doing a favour for the defendant's lover.Malick78 08:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that it can be described as a favour when the jury were already out and had no knowledge of the conversation. At best it's an inappropriate comment. 80.246.106.4 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intervention of Lord Goddard, who as Lord Chief Justice had responsibility for the training and guidance of the judiciary of England and Wales and was President of all the courts of England and Wales[1] was not unlawful or ultra vires. Proposing to Devlin that, in the event that Adams being acquitted in the Morrell case, he should be granted bail before the second charge was heard was understood at the time by the legal profession as a warning to the prosecution of strong judicial displeasure over the Attorney-General's plan to proceed with the second indictment. Devlin put this to Manningham-Buller only after the jury retired and, although only Devlin and both counsel were present, accounts of this meeting circulated at the time.[2] Lord Goddard had earlier expressed his unhappiness over the second indictment, which was against precedent.[3] Devlin's account doesn't read as an accusation but as a suggestion from the head of the judiciary, his mentor and friend .

Sources

[edit]

Sscoulsdon (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Judiciary.gov. accessed 28 May 2018
  2. ^ Simpson, pp. 812-3.
  3. ^ Devlin, p. 48.

Craig and Bentley

[edit]

This summary of the trial really isn't very good. A characteristically careful description appears in Lord Bingham's judgment (which appears as an External Link). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.142.149 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

"To balance this criticism there is the appeal case of Daly v Cannon, presided over by Lord Goddard in 1954..."

Is this paragraph relevant to the criticisms given above? In the absence of a notable source invoking this in his defense, I think presenting it as a rebuttal to Bingham & Levin's criticisms is synthesis at best. --GenericBob (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rayner_Goddard,_Baron_Goddard&oldid=1207449597"