A THOUSAND years of British legal history has reached its summit in a decision on the privacy of a woman’s fandango.
Weighing the complex legal documents and precedents in the case of what Imogen Thomas does with her crotch, Mr Justice Eady summarised his decision in an eight-page document that legal historians feel will sit alongside the Magna Carta, the Statute of Marlborough and Jordan vs Andre.
Speaking on behalf of the scrutinised groin, Thomas said: “Is this what Rumpole Of The Bailey died for?
“This is a dark day for shark-eyed career fornicators everywhere and I’m disgusted that my name has been dragged through the mud, or whatever the equivalent substance is for somebody who willingly collaborates with journalists from The Sun.
“I’m picturing a kind of bubbling, farmyard slurry.”
Thomas’ lawyer was Denys Finch-Hatton QC, a Cambridge-educated barrister with over 20 years experience in humping litigation.
He said: “All those countless nights slaving over text books, months of unpaid clerkship and years spent honing my brain to the finest vagaries of the British legal system were worth it to be part of such a landmark ruling on whether slappers can discuss the ins and outs of footballer cock.
“I almost sprinted out of the courtroom following Eady’s summation so I could phone mummy to tell her. I just wish father was alive to see how far his only son has come.”
Eady’s decision has been criticised for protecting the identity of rich, powerful men when they unwisely lay some meatpipe, but this has been countered with the argument that, because the ruling heralds the utter collapse of Western civilisation, it really doesn’t matter.