British judges have a long history of being slated for making absurd and idiotic judgements and comments. From the judge gulled by his prick into commenting to the jury about a criminal defendant's wife "Is she not fragrant?" to our own much lamented Judge Bertrand Richards who sat at Ipswich for many years and who once let a rapist off with a fine after judging the victim contributed to her victimhood by hitchhiking from a USAF base late at night. He was subject at the time to vilification from womens' groups far exceeding that directed at the Three Stooges in the past few days.
British judges were rightly seen as establishment targets, remote and out of touch with reality, from my earliest youth. In the 1970s they were mercilessly pilloried by satirists from Python to John Mortimer; no TV comedy show was complete without a deaf, stupid or sexually perverted judge in (or out of) full robes. They have appeared regularly on the cover of Private Eye saying stupid things, a fair revenge from a publication much subject to asinine judgements. "Who, pray, are the Beatles?" was an entirely credible question attributed to a judge from a class of judges intellectually removed from the British people.
So please, please, spare me this faux outrage at the comments directed at the Three Stooges in the past few days. Judges have quite rightly always been fair game for public comment; it comes from their unprecedented power to lawfully destroy lives, if no longer by hanging folk then by caging them like dogs. No barrister ever donned the black stockings, suspenders and little buckled court shoes without realising that they were from then on a subject of public comment.
And if the eleven judges of the Supreme Court reverse the judgement of the Three Stooges I will expect nothing less than that every scribbler, politico and dag who has rushed to defend the Three Stooges does exactly the same for those pronouncing the final verdict.