Judge Rinder

This article refers to episode 7, series 1 of Judge Rinder.

Let me start off by saying that, like every television viewer, I have guilty pleasures on the box. Some I shan’t mention, lest your opinion of me as a critic and human drops to a level of disdain reserved for the lower fringes of society, but I will confess to a liking of Judge Judy. Starring Judge Judith Sheindlin, a bitter old woman played by a dehydrated Carrie Fisher, the show features her preside over civil matters which devolve into slanging matches before Sheindlin takes charge, spewing acerbic wit and cutting everyone down to size. It’s trashy and full of morons, but I like it.

So why bring this up, you ask? Because ITV has attempted to replicate the success of the show overseas, producing the abomination that is Judge Rinder.

Firstly, and very importantly, our hero Robert Rinder is not a judge. He is many things – Ryan Chappelle from 24 after dying his hair and finding himself partway through a metamorphosis into Christopher Biggins, a sexy Auton with delusions of grandeur, the lovechild of a lizard man and Rocky Horror, a melting blow-up doll for people with incredibly dodgy fetishes – but he is a barrister and not a judge, thereby removing any degree of actual legal power. The only way he can preside over these cases is if ITV allow him, but in that instance, they may as well have one of their knock-off celebrity figures to do it instead – Ben Shepherd (the least interesting man in showbiz), one of the endlessly despicable Loose Women or even creosote-coated antiques pervert David Dickenson would have the same degree of authority and punchability.

The premise is a simple one – some civil case is brought into the court, and both sides present their evidence. Not-Judge Rinder observes and questions, watches with his arms contorted like a paralysed T-rex, clicking his teeth like Hannibal Lecter in a freezer and spouts camp one-liners like a pantomime whore. Imagine problems not important enough for the law being dealt with by a man who has the irritated air of someone who’d rather be elsewhere, and you’ve got it.

pictured: Not-Judge Rinder source: itv.com

pictured: Not-Judge Rinder
source: itv.com

Case one featured Tiger (an Oprah Winfrey drag artist) and Kat (E.T. dressed as Michelle Obama), who were claiming back £5000 from Tiger’s ex-partner Jay (a waxwork of Lionel Ritchie after a night on the town), which they apparently gave to him to organize property renovations that were never completed. As is always the case, he was counter-claiming for £500 – this was for no obvious reason. For the intellectual content of the discussion, picture a white noise machine. We had the backstory of the claimants (including a ‘hilarious’ anecdote about why her nickname is Tiger, leading to Kevin Mcallister-esque expressions of shock from Rinder) and we got to the crux of the matter. She produced a contract straight out of a serial killer’s journal, and we learned that Jay had hired a number of pensioners who just grumbled and did nothing but drink tea.

Then, to Jay’s side of the story, in which he incriminated himself hideously within a minute of starting his testimony and made himself seem like the dopey villain of the piece. The only reason his testimony lasted as long as it did is because Tiger couldn’t shut up throughout, shouting incessantly and nearly getting their case thrown out of court. It turned out his counter-claim was for money on presents he bought for the woman – no-one could understand it. To complete the case, we get a post-ruling chat with each party, which is essentially Jeremy Kyle with suits.

The second case featured Stewart (Matthew Lillard), who wanted £800 for a leased motorbike, against Louis (an 80’s BBC employee on charges), who wanted £2117.33 for damages to the bike. There was a lot of faff over a couple of scratches on the back of the vehicle, but I stopped paying attention after a point – I noticed the flags behind Not-Judge Rinder’s head. There’s a Union Flag – fair play – and his own special custom flag with his name on. The vanity of the man is incredible – I kept hoping, throughout the cases, that someone would call for a mistrial on the grounds that Not-Judge Rinder is a colossal dickhead.

There were pictures of damages – there was no dispute about that – it went to a lot of technical talk I didn’t care about, but I got the vibe that it wasn’t looking good for Stewart. Really, I lost interest quite quickly and I didn’t care that much about the case. It just seemed to be Louis adding up lots of money for costs here and costs there – earlier this day, I watched an episode of Matlock and I briefly reminisced about how interesting courtroom drama could be. Not-Judge Rinder’s shtick seems to be saying ‘do you understand?’ on the end of every other sentence and treating everybody else with hatred, as though he was some member of a master race of his own devising. The end result was some money for Stewart for something or other.

I can’t claim to be a fan – indeed, I was and still am very sad about the time I had lost to watch this show. I couldn’t recommend it – it’s really dull, and the main character is horrible. Really, if you’re after some courtroom action, there are better ways to go – I’ve mentioned Matlock already, but you could read a John Grisham novel instead. Or, if you’re really into it, go out, choose a victim and bludgeon them to death, leaving just enough clues for you to be connected to the crime.

Really, you ought to go on a spree, just to be safe – the more victims, the more chance you have of courtroom fun.

Comments (2)

  • I should be very careful of the law of libel if I were you in relation to your comment on David Dickinson if I were you. ‘ judge’ Rinder would have spotted that straight away as would any law student on target for a third class.

  • What a load of old blx If you don’t like it don’t watch it.!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.