Hibiscus Teach · Vids · Series
Learn English with Red Dwarf 3
Ego, Excuses and Judgement
A defence that sounds like an attack, followed by two spectacular attempts at self-justification. Follow the arguments, question the evidence and decide how to defend someone without ignoring their faults.
Created by Denis M., British English teacher.
Content note: Adults. Crude personal insults and sexual innuendo, including references to an inflatable companion, condoms and physical appearance. The accusations and judgements belong to fictional comic situations.
A little context: Rimmer is a hologram with considerable pride; Lister is his untidy companion, Kryten an android, and the Cat a remarkably confident humanoid. These are separate scenes from Justice and The Inquisitor. In the first, Kryten defends Rimmer in court. In the second, Rimmer and the Cat must explain why their lives are worthwhile.
Watch each clip, then try its activities.
Study guidance
Say your answers aloud. Watch before revealing each scene guide, then use the feedback to revisit one detail. For the final task, play both roles.
Use the follow-up questions selectively. Ask for one supporting detail, then develop the most interesting disagreement rather than completing every extension.
- Explain how an apparently hostile comment can support a speaker's argument.
- Distinguish relevant evidence, an explanation and an excuse.
- Defend a fictional person's choices while acknowledging a genuine weakness.
These words help you discuss the scenes; not all are spoken in the clips. Vocabulary examples, grammar transformations, recorded practice, imagined scenarios and possible speaking answers are original teaching material.
Before you watch
Original discussion scenario: you can clear your name, but only by admitting you were never important enough to cause the problem. Would that feel like a victory?
One possible answer
I would be relieved, but I might dislike how the argument made me look. I would want the facts explained accurately without turning my lack of authority into a personal insult.
Which would bother the person more: being blamed or being considered unimportant?
Original discussion scenario: an employee explains a poor result by saying that the training was inadequate. What would you need to know before calling that an excuse?
One possible answer
I would ask what training was missing, whether it was necessary and whether the employee requested help. A difficult situation may explain part of the result without explaining every decision.
Give one example of evidence that would change your judgement.
The Trial: an uncomfortable defence
Kryten needs the court to reconsider Rimmer's responsibility for a disaster.
Notice how the defence uses unflattering information and why Rimmer finds that difficult to accept.
English scene guide
Kryten's defence makes Rimmer's limited responsibilities central to the case. Lister's evidence is hardly flattering, but it helps that argument. Rimmer objects as the criticism becomes increasingly personal. The comedy depends on the uncomfortable possibility that information which damages his pride may also help him.
Watch and check · 6 questions
Choose one answer per question. Use the scene to separate what each person says from what their words achieve.
Answer key and explanations
- Even the person closest to liking him has just described him negatively. Correct. The contrast makes Rimmer's social position look worse.
- Keeping the vending machines supplied with snacks. Correct. This small-scale duty supports the defence's argument.
- Rimmer's limited duties make it implausible that he controlled the ship's safety. Correct. Kryten uses the limited duties to challenge the claim that Rimmer could have been responsible for the disaster.
- He is resisting personal criticism from the person defending him. Correct. His pride conflicts with his defence.
- He turns it into another example of Rimmer's poor judgement. Correct. The objection becomes material for the defence itself.
- Having routine duties and having authority that could endanger the ship. Correct. The defence contrasts Rimmer's routine duties with responsibility for the lethal accident.
1–2 minGrammar in a minuteC1 · Reporting a claim about an earlier event
An incompetent vending-machine repairman
Original practice, not dialogue from the programme.
Reporting passive + perfect infinitive: is said to have done.
Rimmer is said to have worked as a vending-machine repairman before the accident.
Separate the time of a report from the time of the reported event. A present report can use is said, is believed or is alleged, followed by to have + past participle for an earlier situation. The reporting verb also shows that you are attributing a claim rather than presenting it as independently established.
You say: Report an alleged earlier decision using is said to have, without presenting the claim as established fact.
Speaking · 3 prompts
Explain a view and use one detail from the scene. The models suggest possible arguments; other supported interpretations are welcome.
Is Kryten's defence effective, unnecessarily cruel, or both? Explain where you would draw the line.
Useful language
- The useful evidence is …
- The criticism becomes unnecessary when …
- He could make the same point by …
One possible answer
The limited duties are relevant evidence. The personal insults seem less necessary, although they create the comedy and challenge Rimmer's exaggerated importance. Kryten could make a clearer, kinder case by concentrating on who had authority to make the dangerous decisions.
Would a kinder defence lose anything important?
Why might someone prefer an impressive explanation of failure to an unflattering explanation of innocence? Relate your answer to Rimmer.
Useful language
- Being blamed might imply that …
- Being cleared in this way suggests that …
- The conflict is between … and …
One possible answer
Being blamed for a major event can imply that the person mattered. Being cleared because they lacked authority protects them but damages that sense of importance. Rimmer seems pulled between wanting the defence to succeed and wanting its description of him to be false.
Can accepting a limited role be a sign of confidence?
Original role-play: a colleague has been blamed for a failed event. You know they could book the room but could not approve the budget. Give a short, fair defence without claiming they did everything perfectly.
Useful language
- They were responsible for …
- They had no authority to …
- One weakness was …, but that does not establish …
One possible answer
They were responsible for booking the room, and they should have raised the capacity problem sooner. However, they had no authority to approve additional spending. We need to examine the budget decision separately before blaming them for the whole event.
The tutor says that they should have spoken more forcefully. Acknowledge the point without accepting the entire accusation.
The Inquisition: explain yourself
Rimmer and the Cat face an unusual judge: a version of themselves.
Compare what each character considers a convincing defence and how each responds to criticism.
English scene guide
The interrogator takes on each character's own face. Rimmer's claims of goodness are challenged, and he turns to his disadvantages. The Cat offers his appearance as a contribution to the world and readily accepts that his defence is shallow. Their answers reveal strikingly different ways of seeing themselves.
Watch and check · 6 questions
Choose one answer per question. Focus on the two interviews shown, not on what might happen later in the episode.
Answer key and explanations
- By revealing that Rimmer will be judged by himself. Correct. The face reveals the unusual basis of the hearing.
- His claims are immediately challenged. Correct. Broad assurances fail to satisfy this judge.
- To argue that his achievements should be considered against his difficult starting point. Correct. He changes the standard against which he wants to be judged.
- The pleasure he believes his appearance gives other people. Correct. He treats his looks as a sufficient contribution.
- He accepts the description without treating it as a problem. Correct. The criticism fails to disturb his confidence.
- Rimmer asks for allowance for his disadvantages; the Cat assumes his appeal is already obvious. Correct. One pleads for context; the other expects admiration.
1–2 minGrammar in a minuteC1 · Whatever: allow for circumstances without removing responsibility
My brothers had all the looks
Original practice, not dialogue from the programme.
Whatever + noun + subject + perfect modal: concede possible past circumstances while keeping a present limit.
Whatever disadvantages he may have faced, they do not explain every later decision.
Whatever + noun introduces a concession across possible circumstances. Keep statement word order: whatever disadvantages he may have faced. May have faced leaves the exact past experience open; it does not assert that every possible disadvantage occurred. The main clause keeps the limit on what those circumstances explain. No matter what disadvantages is a possible alternative.
You say: Restate the example with No matter what disadvantages, keeping the same uncertainty and limit.
Speaking · 3 prompts
Compare the arguments before judging the characters. Use a concession where it helps you express a balanced view.
Does being judged by yourself guarantee a fair hearing? Compare what that arrangement means for Rimmer and the Cat.
Useful language
- A person knows their own …
- However, they may overlook …
- For the Cat/Rimmer, the problem is …
One possible answer
A person knows their circumstances, but they may also excuse familiar weaknesses. The Cat is so pleased with himself that criticism has little effect. Rimmer is more conflicted: he recognises disadvantages and faults but still wants his account to count as a defence.
Who could improve the judgement: a friend, a stranger or someone affected by the person's actions?
Should a person's achievements be assessed against their starting point? Explain when that is fair and when it risks excusing avoidable choices.
Useful language
- Considering what they started with, …
- That helps explain …, although …
- I would still ask whether …
One possible answer
Starting points matter because people face different obstacles. However, recognising those obstacles does not mean every later choice was unavoidable. I would consider both the opportunities available and what the person actually did with them.
Invent a small achievement that deserves more credit once its circumstances are known.
Original challenge: give the Cat a stronger argument for a worthwhile life without removing his confidence or sense of humour. Add one invented helpful action and explain why it matters.
Useful language
- He could keep the confidence but add …
- One concrete contribution would be …
- The stronger claim is that …
One possible answer
He could say that his confidence helped a nervous crewmate speak up during a meeting. That would give him a contribution beyond appearance while leaving room for an outrageous claim about how inspiring he looked. The stronger part is the effect on someone else.
The tutor challenges whether this was kindness or attention-seeking. Respond without pretending to know the character's motives for certain.
Listen and repeat
Listen, repeat, then try each original situation before opening a possible response.
Download the British-English MP3
That may explain it, but it does not fully justify it.
Acknowledge a reason while questioning whether the action was acceptable.
You say: a colleague says they sent an insulting reply because they were exhausted. Acknowledge the pressure without excusing the insult.
One possible response
You were exhausted. That may explain it, but it does not fully justify it. You could acknowledge the pressure and still apologise for the insulting reply.
Pause before but. Give explain and justify clear contrast without making the reply sound triumphant.
What evidence would support that conclusion?
Ask what would turn an opinion into a better-supported judgement.
You say: someone calls a quiet team member uncommitted. Ask for evidence without agreeing with the label.
One possible response
What evidence would support that conclusion? Being quiet in meetings does not tell us how much work they do afterwards.
Stress evidence and conclusion. Keep the question curious rather than accusatory.
I accept that criticism, but I would question the wider claim.
Concede one point while limiting how much it proves.
You say: you missed one deadline, and a colleague now says you never take your work seriously. Accept the mistake and challenge the generalisation.
One possible response
I accept that criticism, but I would question the wider claim. I missed this deadline and should have warned you; that does not mean I never take the work seriously.
Make the concession sound complete. After a short pause, stress never when challenging the generalisation.
Give them a fair hearing before you decide.
Ask someone to hear the other person's explanation before reaching a judgement.
You say: a friend has seen an angry complaint online and immediately decided the business is dishonest. Suggest a fairer next step.
One possible response
Give them a fair hearing before you decide. We have read the complaint, but we have not heard their explanation yet.
Stress fair hearing and before. A calm falling tone makes the suggestion sound measured.
1–2 minGrammar masteryC1 · Modal scope: an uncertain duty is different from an uncertain action
What else could I have been?
Original practice, not dialogue from the programme.
May not have been required to: preserve the scope of possibility, negation and a past obligation.
The witness may not have been required to attend; that alone does not tell us whether she attended.
May not have been required to report means that perhaps no reporting duty existed. It does not mean that reporting was forbidden or that the person failed to report. Compare may have been required not to report: the possible requirement is now a prohibition. May not have reported concerns the action itself. Keep the duty and the action separate when assessing responsibility.
You say: Explain in plain English the difference between may not have been required to act and may have been required not to act.
Put it all together: a fair defence
Original role-play. Prepare mentally for thirty seconds, then hold a two-minute hearing. Acknowledge one real weakness, use the supplied evidence and answer a challenge. There is no single required verdict. On your own, speak both parts.
A small organisation blames its event assistant, Alex, for a poorly attended public talk. Alex booked the room and sent invitations to the approved list. The director chose a weekday afternoon despite an earlier survey favouring evenings. Alex noticed that only a few people had replied, but waited four days before raising the concern. Alex had no authority to change the date or buy advertising. Alex now says the entire failure was beyond their control. The organisation criticised Alex publicly before inviting an explanation.
Advocate
Defend Alex against blame for the entire event. Concede the delay in raising the concern. Explain which decisions were outside Alex's authority and avoid attacking anyone's intelligence.
Reviewer
Ask two precise questions. Challenge the claim that everything was beyond Alex's control. Decide how responsibility should be divided using only the supplied facts.
- Support at least one claim with a specific fact from the scenario.
- Acknowledge a weakness without accepting an unsupported generalisation.
- Explain a fairer response or an opportunity that was missed.
One possible exchange
Reviewer: Alex says none of this was their fault. Do you accept that?
Advocate: Not entirely. They should have raised the low response sooner. That criticism is fair, but it does not establish responsibility for the whole event.
Reviewer: What evidence supports that distinction?
Advocate: The director chose the time despite the survey. Alex could neither change it nor approve advertising. Their actual authority matters.
Reviewer: Could an earlier warning still have made a difference?
Advocate: It could have prompted another discussion, although we cannot know whether the director would have changed the plan. Alex should accept responsibility for the delay, not automatically for every empty seat.
Reviewer: Then my judgement is that Alex missed a chance to raise the problem, while the director remains responsible for the scheduling decision.
Advocate: That seems fair. Alex should have been heard before being blamed publicly. A proper hearing would help us distinguish what was required, what was possible and what actually happened.
Second attempt: Swap roles. This time, the reviewer opens with the claim that Alex is simply incompetent. Challenge that label and complete the exchange in ninety seconds. Then name one way your defence was fairer than Kryten's and one way it avoided Rimmer's or the Cat's weak reasoning.
In twenty to thirty seconds, name one useful distinction from the lesson and use one new expression in a fresh example.
Tutor notes
Ask the learner to distinguish evidence from rhetoric, not simply list insults.
Keep the discussion on the character or an invented example; personal disclosure is optional.
Look for a specific concession followed by a clear limit on responsibility.
Ask for a reason tied to each character's response rather than assuming self-judgement is always harsh or lenient.
Invite a fictional example and distinguish evaluating an action from deciding a person's overall worth.
The helpful action is explicitly invented for practice, not an event from the clip.