Court Rules That Judges Are Legal
In a controversial and - to some - shocking pronouncement, the Dorset Supreme Court has this morning ruled that its sitting judges are in fact judges and that "though they may have lost any shred of credibility or claim to impartiality before the so-called "law", they can continue to make arbitrary judgements based on "a measure of implied authority, stemming from their smart suits and occasional ability to sit upright on official furniture". Earlier the Court had heard a challenge from Ms Gina Lolly-Bridgetoofar [Dorset Psychiatric Institute] who maintained that the 12 supreme court judges were not judges but rather figments of their own self-importance. In so doing, she had sought to overturn centuries of commonly accepted practice which firmly presupposed that though inept, mindless, senile and occasionally insane, judges were nonetheless competent to hear cases provided "they could make it up as they go along". Ms Lolly-Bridgetoofar's failure to win the case was greeted with a sigh of relief by octogenarian and nonagenarian lawyers West Countrywide.
Spokesperson Lord Pastma Selbydayte  said: "As a body we are greatly relieved by this judgement which enshrines our ability to make it up as we go along and as seems appropriately expedient. Any suggestion that we should consult case history, attempt consistency or follow precedent would have been ludicrous. How many of us have the competence left to do that? So all-in-all this is an excellent outcome. Henceforth we can continue to confound all logic and do as we are told by the Speaker of the House of Commons".
Meanwhile, in another Supreme Court Session, judges ruled 3-2 that a small green semi-liquid alien was indeed responsible for stock discrepancies in the Threadboneextra store in Burstock and that Elvis probably had just left the building. The Court [amazingly] continues ...