The current court case against senior judge Sir Stephen Richards, who is accused of, as several newspapers have coyly put it, "flashing his genitals", has raised more interesting queries than LiS can ever reasonably hope to answer, no matter how long we visualise the scenario. And believe me, dutiful journalists, us, we have visualised it hard. In fact, that's what Marina and I are doing at the top of this page: gazing off into the middle distance and visualising. That's why she looks so serious and I'm making a bit of a smile. Yes. Shall we get on with it now?
So first, now we know what the variation to the old "how many judges does it take to change a lightbulb" kneeslapper now is - "how many hands does it take a man to pee? Two, is the answer, according to the esteemed judge, as this is "the natural way of doing it."
Next, just what kind of bag should a man wear, then? Sir Stephen's choice of a rucksack made him look, according to fellow appeal judge and presumably mate o' Steve's, "like a schoolboy swot." The words "kicking", "man" and "down" come to mind here, do they not?
But most of all, it has given us a most intriguing insight into the mind of Robert Thomson, editor of this most esteemed paper of record. In an article in today's edition, By His Pants Ye Shall Judge Him writer James Delingpole makes a fine fist (you see what I did there? You see? YOU SEE!?) of the subject, musing at length about how best to expose "your willy to carefully-targeted strangers on jam-packed commuter trains." Wear something that can be "whip[ped] open and closed in a trice" seems to be the answer. But it's not just a how-to article, mind. What do you think this is, the Daily Mail? One should only be so lucky, right, Robert? No, no, no - there are news related thoughts going on here, namely, is the judge guilty or not? And this fine British paper's verdict is... no, decidedly not. Why? Because "these tailored, close-fitting, pouch-like undies ... are congenitally unsuitable for flashing." But even if he were guilty, Delingpole wouldn't have minded - not because he's (necessarily) that inclined, but because cK pants are associated with "normal, healthy fashion-aware chaps, comfortable with their sexuality and physicality" (very comfortable, wacka wacka.) Therefore, should the judge wish to get it out in front of young James he can rest assured that the only thoughts going through the gentleman's mind will be "If he has a perversion, it's going to be something groovy." You know. LiS was wondering what the most extraordinary element of this article was going to be and, thankfully, Delingpole pulls it out (you see, you see, etc) at the post - "groovy." Oh James! If there's anything more disgusting than a judge in a rucksack whipping it out, it's a journalist using antiquated youth slang. Well done, my son, well bloody done. Longh may this court case continue, allowing British journalism to show itself off in its finest possible light
