LAW REPORT : DIABLO V BIGOT-JOHNSON AND OTHERS (2016)

Seen as the common enemy the self-proclaimed Prince of Darkness was finally banished from the club by a determined Bigot-Johnson and his God-loving, bible bashing , crusading supporters. Diablo of course didn't take too kindly at being the victim of a well planned and orchestrated witch hunt , complaining bitterly about the way his expulsion was clinically executed. Desperate to get reinstated he decided to pursue his grievance all the way to the High Court. The following extract comes from the trial's transcript , just before the case came to a sudden and abrupt end.

Counsel for the plaintiff  (CP) : Bigot ....did you kick poor old Diablo out of your club on a trumped up charge of making a blasphemous remark at the table ?
B-J : Yes we did.....the man is the devil incarnate......in fact much worse. For years he's been doing wicked and malevolent things ......creating hell on whatever table he happens to be sitting at...
CP : Is that so ?
B-J : Yes....and what's more he gets everyone all fired up and burning with rage
CP :  Is that so ?
B-J : Yes.....he even plays devilish tricks on those he dislikes. The man shows no remorse for any pain he inflicts on his victims. He's the embodiment of a fascist , racist , mean-hearted, rampant , horny sexist ogre
CP : Is that so ?
B-J : If we were to save the club from eternal damnation he had to go . The pit of despair we were in was enormous.
CP : So please tell the court Bigot what the precise details of this blasphemous remark , which became the subject of a complaint ?
B-J : He said " Jesus Bloody Christ .....I've just allowed my opponent to lock me in dummy ! "
CP : Is that it ?
B-J : Ah.....one mustn't overlook his unholy body language. He gave this opponent the evil eye
CP : But wasn't that because his opponent had previously commented on my client's " goatie-looking " appearance
B-J : Well who wouldn't given that Diablo always turns up to the club in cloven feet and a tail between his legs
CP : Sorry.....but your club policy forbids discrimination against members who are born with physical disabilities or abnormalities
B-J : Oh I forgot about that...
CP : And this so called evil eye was nothing more than a red eye from constant crying over his partner's inept bidding and play
B-J : Oh I never realised that....
CP : And Christ of course died a bloody and brutal death on the cross
B-J : Too true
CP : So my client's remark was more a statement of fact than a blasphemous remark
B-J : I guess so.....
CP : Therefore the disciplinary charge against him had no substance or merit whatsoever , making his expulsion both wrongful and invalid
B-J : Not so....his banishment was based on all his past sins which according to our dossier go as far back as tempting our membership secretary , Eve Adams , with a juicy apple in order to gain entry into our club 
CP : And how big is this dossier ?
B-J : Exactly 666 pages... each one around 300 words  
CP : How long it take to compile and write up ?
B-J : It took our secretary May Dittup the best part of a year to research Diablo's past and embroider the facts
CP : Is that so ?
B-J : Yes....its contents were so shocking ,  we advised anyone who wanted to read the dossier to do so one paragraph at a time in the presence of a psychiatrist or doctor
CP : A long read indeed....
B-J : So naturally the committee viewed this blasphemous remark at the last straw ....or the one which broke the camel's back
CP : Had he been warned he was on final notice ?
B-J : No.....
CP : Had he been informed as to the likely consequences of this alleged wrongdoing ?
B-J : No.....
CP :  Was he invited to hear the case against him and to present a defence
B-J : No......because there was no point.....our minds had already been made up long before and the dossier completely justified our actions
CP : Well , that kind of hearing smacks of kangaroo court justice... so loved and revered by committee members of small social clubs , who believe that they can ignore the law with impunity
B-J : Needs must when the devil drives
CP : Ah....but this devil is not so black as he is painted
B-J : This committee would stubbornly refuse to accept that view
CP : You see poor old Diablo is simply a devil-may-care character who rides on a fiddlestick. Your case against him is , in Shakespeare's words, " much ado about nothing "
Judge : I agree....and for both parties who have brought this ridiculously frivolous case to court the costs are going to be the devil to pay  

LAW REPORT :  GILBERT and others v BIGOT-JOHNSON and others ( 2015 )

( In this landmark case a group action claim for negligence against Bigot-Johnson and his fellow committee members came up before High Court judge. Having lost their previous case, Bigot and the committee were obliged to pay an unbelievably high legal bill  , which was to be paid out of club funds. Some of the ordinary members now reeling under this financial burden wanted to refinance the club from the personal damages obtained against the committee members for their negligent mismanagement of club finances. Bigot as usual elected to act as defence counsel , and this short extract from the trial's transcript covered a critical stage of the trial . ) 


Counsel for the plaintiffs ( CP ) : Might I point out Bigot that in any club  the contractual relationship between the members imposes a duty upon the elected committee to manage the affairs of the club in a competent way. Such a contract will contain an implied term that financial decisions are carried out with reasonable skill , care and diligence. This action could be framed as a claim in contract , or alternatively .....as in this case.....as a free standing claim in negligence against each and every committee member. Your conduct would be measured by the standards which it would be reasonable to expect of a comparable and competent committee in all the circumstances of this case.
B-J : There is no case to answer. We always carried out all our duties with the club's best interests in mind , and decisions we took were supported and endorsed by the membership.
CP : Who of course voted on issues regarding a previous legal battle without never knowing the full facts...... or their long term financial implications. The club and all its members suffered a great financial loss because of the committee's refusal to admit liability for the damage to a member's car. The committee in fact allowed the dispute to go all the way to court....as in this case....with no guarantee of winning. 
B-J : Well....we didn't lose that case as I recall
CP : Yes that's true .....but quite rightly the judge ordered that both parties should meet their own legal costs ......which for your side amounted to nearly £200,000
B-J : We couldn't let that bastard hold us to ransom for criminal damage caused by an unknown third party
CP : Sometimes choosing the lesser of two financial evils makes really good sense
B-J : Might I remind you that I and my fellow committee members have always gone about our business in a very efficient and effective way. We are all principled people totally committed to stand up for what we consider as " doing the right thing " no matter what the cost
CP : But it wasn't your money which was at stake.....you made sure you had nothing to lose....it was the club and all its members who had to face and finance the legal costs incurred. Costs that I might add represent fruitless and wasteful expenditure , which was made in vain and could have been avoided had reasonable care been exercised
B-J : Rubbish.....we did what any committee would have done
CP : I think not. Would average men in your position chosen to incur such expenditure knowing that the club's whole future could be put at risk ? Funding a dispute all the way to court is absolutely unnecessary , especially when cheaper options , like mediation , were readily available.
B-J : But we went to mediation...
CP : But only after after two years of stubborn resistance and refusal , and only then when ordered to do so by a judge..... you scuppered the process by turning up to the mediation hearing with a rigid set of non-negotiable preconditions  
B-J : Oh.....
CP :  Negligence as you well know involves establishing a duty of care based on a reasonably foreseeable risk of loss or financial damage. And any numpty can foresee that litigation involves heavy costs which are never likely to be recovered. Your task as a committee was to look at the most cost effective options , and/or employ damage limitation strategies , which you failed to do. This unfortunate omission on your part amounts to gross negligence. This " bring it on " attitude of yours was both reckless and regrettable
B-J : So what does one do when being sued by a member who claimed we were at fault for the damage to his car ?
CP : Acknowledge that you knew  " someone " had already damaged other members' cars in previous weeks but then failed to take steps to avoid further incidents . Acknowledge that he had a justifiable claim given your refusal to employ a car park attendant , which would have cost so little. Acknowledge the fact that paying the member £2,000 for his car repairs was small change in comparison to the cost of fighting his claim in court.   
Judge :  I've heard enough .....Bigot .....you are someone who will never learn....and as such I have no choice but to find the plaintiffs. Damages with be set to the level of the legal bill incurred by the club in the previous case , which will be used to refinance the club .....and in addition to that.... all costs in this case with will met by you and your foolhardy committee members
B-J : Bugger....bugger.....bugger 
  

LAW REPORT :  SATAN v BIGOT-JOHNSON ( AND OTHERS ) 2015

After another purge of undesirable members one at least felt it necessary to go to court claiming damages for wrongful expulsion. Bigot of course decided to conduct his own defence confident in the knowledge he was going to win. A short extract from the trial's transcript appears below. 

Council for the plaintiff (CP) : On what grounds was my client thrown out of your club ?
B-J : Because he was in breach of the club's dress code
CP :  Really ?
B-J :  Yes......the man wore hooves instead of shoes.... and had pointy horns sticking out of his head.....and what's more he always came dressed in a tight full-length black leotard , holding a trident in his hand
CP : Is that it ?
B-J : More or less...
CP : So what's your defence then to his claim of wrongful expulsion ?
B-J : Well , it's mainly based on a character assassination .....because let's face it ....the man's a devil....a nasty , evil bastard who should have been thrown out the club long before we were elected onto committee. Once we were in control his days were numbered ........
CP : I take it he got a fair hearing ?
B-J : No
CP : Are you saying the hearing was unfair ?
B-J : No.....
CP : I'm a little puzzled.....so tell the court what sort of hearing did he get ?
B-J : None at all.....we dispensed with such an irrelevance
CP : What no hearing at all ?
B-J : You see we had a job to do and by God we made sure it was done in a ruthless and efficient manner. We all knew what the outcome had to be .....so there really wasn't any point in giving him a hearing
CP : But surely even the most obnoxious and vulgar are entitled to respect , and according to the law be given an opportunity to defend themselves. My client was never given proper notice and an opportunity to confront his accusers before losing his membership.
B-J : Under the club's Constitution we used our discretionary right not to hold a hearing in his case given that the outcome was a foregone conclusion  ....... and we as a committee believe that things are best done in secret behind closed doors
CP : Well  in my book ......when expulsion is on the cards......holding an initial hearing becomes essential if rules of natural justice are to be adhered to
B-J : Sod them.....they don't apply to a small club like ours.....a privately owned and managed unincorporated association......surely to God we are exempt from judicial scrutiny......we are all amateurs when it comes to quasi-judicial matters....and we know that judges in past cases have allowed committees a fair bit of slack ......to make a few mistakes here and there in carrying out disciplinary procedures
CP : But quite a few of your committee members had a legal background......and should have known better than to deny my client a hearing. Moreover , you stated earlier how ruthlessly efficient and professional you were in carrying out this hatchet job 
B-J: Oh yes.....one dissident member......a smart-arse , trumped up Garrick room lawyer piped up with a load of awkward questions and concerns....and then had the audacity and nerve to say he felt obliged to act as the devil's advocate in his absence
CP : Did any of you listen to what he had to say ?
B-J : Hell no.....given that our minds were already made up , we weren't in the mood to discuss or debate any of his comments.... might is right ....and therefore the observations of this treacherous loner had no relevance or merit whatsoever 
Judge : Was this the same sane person who begged the committee to reconsider its decision and to seek mediation.... right from the off....... to resolve the dispute in a sensible , cost-effective , impartial way
B-J : Yes....but we engineered a mandate from the membership as a whole to hold our position and not to waiver
Judge : I'm speechless !

  




.  

LAW REPORT :  EBU v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2015)

The EBU , acting on behalf of all its members , decided it was necessary to sue Bigot-Johnson for libel in order to preserve the good reputation of the game. What upset their members the most was Bigot's claim that all bridge players were clinically insane, and should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. A short extract from the trial's transcript appears below.

Counsel for the plaintiff : Did you publish a blog which stated that all bridge players are insane ?
B-J : I certainly did ......and what's more is that they are all clinically insane 
CP : So how do you define insanity ?
B-J : Well , let's look at Einstein's definition.....which states insanity is when a person does the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Bridge players are notorious for adopting the same inferior lines of play with the expectation that this time they will produce a good result , when all that happens is yet another horrendous bottom is added to their card .
Judge : I must admit....behaviour like does raise doubts about their sanity
B-J : Yes....the product of magical thinking. But that's only the tip of the iceberg.............because how does one explain why players who are clueless about the game start out each and every time expecting to win ? 
Judge : How odd ....
B-J : You see insanity can also be defined as the inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. Bridge players in particular fantasise about about their great ability and lofty status when in reality they are nothing more than born losers. Most view themselves as experts even though the opposite is true. 
Judge : Surely , it's natural for people to think positively about themselves ?
B-J : Not so.....in other walks of life people recognise and acknowledge their failings and shortcomings......but not bridge players.....who are so delusional they have completely lost touch with reality
Judge : Well , I never...
CP : Can I interject here......defamation is defined as a false statement of fact which has damaged a person's reputation and standing within the community to which he belongs. EBU members by and large come from a managerial and professional background , being eminent people in their local communities. These are intelligent , well-educated people. So to suggest that they are insane is both malicious and libellous.
B-J : Have you ever seen them behave at the bridge tables ?  No....you haven't. Given that insanity can be defined as extreme foolishness or irrationality , I can assure you that in the bidding and play of the cards these two qualities are in abundance. You only have to hear the incessant chastising and berating which takes place after each and every hand to realise how true this is. The game is so littered with irrational and foolish decisions , the winners of an event are simply the ones who make the fewest.
CP : Again I say to you that in every aspect of our lives we will all make bad decisions , some I agree are based on foolish and irrational considerations....but it's human nature to make mistakes.
B-J : Listen muppet head......in bridge there are many, many maxims which dictate what the right course of action is. If insanity is the inability to distinguish right from wrong , then clearly bridge players meet that criterion. They will take finesses when the bidding clearly suggests that the king is off-side , rather than doing the right thing. This of course might involve engineering an end play , playing for the drop....or executing a squeeze. 
Judge : Yes Bigot.... a valid argument there
CP : Is there any more evidence to justify your claim ?
B-J : I should say so. Nothing is as insane as spending thousands of pounds in the quest for green points to climb up the rankings ladder. The whole process is a complete farce because everyone knows that promotions are based on attendance not ability. I've seen complete numpties reaching regional master status, but no one is prepared to tell these trumped-up emperors that they are not only lacking clothes.... but ability as well
Judge : Is that true ?
B-J: Too right it is......have you ever known a sport where you can improve your ranking simply by turning up at an event and yet again never being placed in the top half ?
Judge : Unbelievable
B-J : But what really hammers home the fact that insanity pervades the world of bridge is when bridge players get themselves onto committees. All rational thinking and common sense flies straight out of the window
Judge : Can you give me an example ?
B-J : By what reason other than  insanity...........would a committee decide to take a legal dispute all the way to court costing the club tens of thousands,  when (a) there was never any guarantee of winning ,and (b) far cheaper options were available earlier on.... by which a mutually acceptable resolution could have been achieved ?
Judge : You've got me there.....I can't think of one 
CP :  Me neither....
Judge : Well , on that sobering thought.....I agree with you Bigot..... bridge players are insane..... and that the world which they belong to is indeed the theatre of the absurd 

        

LAW REPORT :  ARDUNTOO v. BIGOT-JOHNSON AND OTHERS ( 2015)

Having been thrown out of the SHBC for offensive and aggressive behaviour , Arduntoo felt obliged to sue the committee for substantial damages on the grounds that the expulsion was wrongful and malicious. A short extract from the trial's transcript appears below. 

Counsel for the plaintiff : So please tell the court Bigot.... what precisely was this the alleged assault all about ?
B-J : It was horrible.....tantamount to a terrorist attack using biological weapons...putting all those in close proximity at risk for their lives 
CP : You mean my client sneezed ?
B-J : Exactly.......releasing tens of thousands of nasty germs into the air ......apparently aimed at his left-hand opponent.......poor sod..... who took the brunt of this airborne attack. He was almost blown off his chair !
CP : Might I remind you that my client suffers from acute hay fever ......not the plague , ebola or a deadly strain of the flu 
B-J : Nevertheless .....what he committed was an offensive and aggressive act ,  leaving the committee to cough up a solution to resolve this potentially lethal problem 
CP : Like killing the millions of dust-mites lurking in the club's grubby carpets and upholstery.....or like providing the man with some tissues.......
B-J : Listen up you .......sneezes can kill........in fact we should have done him for attempted murder
CP : Excuse me....but your reaction to this sneeze was clearly laced with bias 
B-J : How dare you suggest we were biased in any way towards that snotty-nosed , snivelling ,
red-eyed , toss pot like Arduntoo
CP : But I have documented evidence we clearly demonstrates a history of animosity against my client...... by certain committee members..... long before the sneezing incident occurred ......indeed ,  the fact that you promised to " sort this man out for once and for all " leads one to suspect that any step he took out of line was going to be his last
B-J : Arduntoo is a trouble-maker who has a habit of getting up everyone's nose......or at least his germs do !  The decision to expel this germ bag was made without any bias or prejudice whatsoever. We had a job to do and by God we did it....... in a thoroughly professional manner .... and in accordance with the club's laid down disciplinary procedures
CP : So how come he didn't get an initial hearing ?
B-J : Couldn't risk bringing him in......the man's a walking plague......I was obliged to use my discretion.........especially when the outcome was a foregone conclusion
CP : No bias then......just pre-judgement ? Or was it simply the fulfilment of long held dreams by
certain committee members ?
B-J : Yes ....you could say that .......but as a committee we approached the task in a fair and impartial way
CP : So what if other members are caught sneezing.....will they receive the same treatment ?
B-J : Not a chance.....the committee would see these unfortunate incidents in a completely different light
CP : Why is that ?
B-J : Well , as you know.....some faces fit......others don't........and as committee members we use our vast experience and knowledge to determine which members deserve to stay ....and which deserve to go
CP : No bias then ?
B-J : Absolutely not....

LAW REPORT : BOYLES  v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2015)

Yet again Bigot was up before a court of law for the constructive expulsion of a member , by virtue of refusing him entry into the club on every occasion he turned up to play. As usual Bigot elected to present his own defence , and a short extract from the trial's transcript appears below.

Counsel for the plaintiff (CP) : Please enlighten me Bigot as to why you refused to allow my client .....a fully paid up member ......into the club house , to play the game he so dearly loved ?
B-J : Boyle wasn't dressed properly ....
CP : Excuse me ? ....I have it on good authority that my client dresses in a very smart and dapper way , renown for his excellent taste in top-of-the-range designer clothes
B-J : Listen bird brain......have you not read the club's by-laws and regulations , where under the section headed " Dress code " , there is a rule which categorically states ....." male members must wear a shirt and tie for an evening event , and failure to do so forfeits their right of entry ".The committee are in total agreement with me that the club's dress code needs to be rigorously enforced , in order to (a) deter riff raff from ever joining the club , and (b) to create a refined atmosphere inside the club in keeping with the majesty and splendour of  this great and noble game
CP : Yes....yes....I am fully aware of such a rule but my client was unable to wear a tie...because as you well know he has a long term persistent skin complaint .....called psoriasis....of the face and neck
B-J : Rules are rules.....with no exceptions.......otherwise to make an exception for him would simply open the floodgates for others to find medical reasons for not wearing a tie 
CP : I sorry but your refusal to make an exception in his case smacks of blatant discrimination against members with serious albeit unfortunate medical conditions. Why ...wasn't it a few months ago you refused entry to a member....simply because he was not wearing the stipulated " black leather shoes "
B-J : Correct....
CP : Yet according to several witness statements he was abiding by this rule
B-J : No he wasn't.....he was wearing only one black leather shoe....for the simple reason he had only one leg......... having recently lost the other in an unfortunate work's accident. Nevertheless the rules stipulated shoes in the plural .....and we as a committee implement these rules to the letter
CP : Bigot ....these dress code rules are inflexible , brutal and unforgiving.....completely devoid of offering sympathy , empathy and concern for members who fall victim to both accidents and misfortune 
B-J : Rules are rules....
Judge : And in this court I make them. Thankfully , I have come to a decision. You Bigot must immediately change the club's dress code policy in order to reinstate Boyle as a member , allowing him to enter the premises whenever he wants..... without a tie...... to play his favourite game 
B-J : This is an outrage...
Judge : Or if you refuse.....I am going to award Boyle £50,000 damages to cover the loss of this amenity , along with all the disappointment and emotional distress he has recently experienced. Your ultra strict interpretation of the rules , so often seen in clubs which adopt zero tolerance policies , represents an unlawful failure to make reasonable adjustments for mitigating medical factors......such as serious skin problems, necks supported by braces and breathing difficulties....
B-J : That's needless pandering..........

LAW REPORT :  McFLY v. ANYTHING GOES BC (2015)

In this landmark case , which has serious implications for all bridge clubs in the UK , the committee was found liable for not carrying out a formal risk assessment with regards to " flying bridgemates " and/or other assorted objects capable of being propelled through the air at speed. Following the precedent laid down in an earlier case Phee v. Gordon (2013 ) , where a player was hit by a flying golf ball , the judge held that the bridge club was negligent for failing to recognise the risk of a player being struck by a hard fast moving object during competitive play. The judgement handed down was as follows :


Evidence of numerous altercations at the tables clearly support the inference that a player in a pique of temper might well pick up an object to throw it with force anywhere across the room , whether aim is taken or not. Whatever flight path the object takes , there will always be a real risk that someone will get hurt by consequence of either a direct hit or ricochet. 
It was clear that the club were well aware of the potential danger, created by having such lethal projectiles close to the hands of players with attitude problems , volatile temperaments , and short fuses. Given that committee members themselves were prone to losing their cool on many occasions , they too must have known of the risk.
The fact that the club took no measures to warn players, especially visitors and inexperienced newcomers was , without doubt , a significant failure of their duty of care to ensure the safety and well being of all those participating at the tables. In the Phee case , the victim's contributory negligence by failing to duck was held to be minimal. The lion's share of the blame completely rested with the club's committee , who failed to recognise the nature , frequency and magnitude of the risk involved. 
Crowded fairways and over-hit shots are a common occurrence , especially when players get wound up and angry at having to wait to play their next shots. Impatience , frustration and anger are the part and parcel of a golfer's competitive personality. For bridge clubs , the message is just as obvious. Warnings signs are essential, especially on nights where players tempers are likely to be frayed. Any reasonable risk assessment would flag up an urgent need to make regular public announcements " for players to be on their guard against flying objects " , " to hide behind screens whenever possible " ,  and/or to wear " appropriate hear gear for added protection " Moreover , the introduction of formal rules and safety training to help reduce the risk of being hit needed be put into place at the earliest opportunity. 
It cannot always be inferred that players , especially the elderly , hard-of-hearing, slow reflexes and slow in movement , have the ability to duck or take evasive action , even when a verbal warning just precedes the moment of impact. Therefore , it is true to say that the committee members' failure to carry out a formal risk assessment led to a failure to warn and take preventative action . Consequently , they are all personally liable for the £300,000 damages I award to the plaintiff.
The primary function of all sporting clubs , including bridge clubs , is to develop policies which sustain the long term financial future of the club. Since the decision in Phee v Gordon was ignored , the club took no action at all to safeguard members' health and safety, and therefore has only itself to blame for being sued. The size of the damages involved in head injury cases are always six-figure sums ,  which many small clubs may not be able to sustain. This of course will ultimately result in either the financial ruin of the club, or significant liabilities imposed on its members.  


            

AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT : For the first time ever we have published a law report which breaks all censorship boundaries. Using all the latest joke-gathering techniques , including state-of-the-art satirical pieces , pin-point parody and good old fashioned toilet humour, Bizarrebridgeworld has pieced together a masterpiece.


LAW REPORT : PANDORA PANTOPOD v. BIGOT-JOHNSON ( AND OTHERS ) 2015

With the purge still in full swing , Pandora found herself at the mercy of a rather cut and dried disciplinary process. Fuming that the internal club appeal failed to set aside the committee's initial decision to sling her out , the case eventually found its way to the Supreme Court In London on which a landmark precedent was going be set. Bigot-Johnson , stubbornly refusing to heed best legal advice, went ahead as usual to present the club's case. A key extract from the trial's transcript can be seen below.

Judge : Are you telling this court, Bigot , that poor Pandora Pantopod never got an initial hearing ?
B-J : Too damn right she didn't . Her fate was sealed as soon as she brought that dog muck onto the premises , stuck to the soles of her shoes. The criminal damage she caused to the carpets was unforgivable. It was a foregone conclusion as to what the committee's decision was going to be.
Judge : And what about the fact that many members on the committee were known to harbour extreme negative views about her , which to even impartial observers amounted to bias? 
B-J : Good God man , have you ever played bridge against this infernal woman ? Because if you had .... you would also harbour the same degree of hatred and loathing I have towards her.
Judge : Well , I hate to upset you....... but Pandora was entitled to be treated with fundamental fairness , which requires an initial hearing comprised of committtee members with open minds, free of pre-judgements and bias.
B-J : But the silly bitch never asked for a hearing ?
Judge : She didn't have to.....the onus was on you to offer her one......and in the light of the punishment you had planned.....strong words of advice should have been sent out for her to attend and be heard. 
B-J : But the punishment was proportionate given her appalling disciplinary record over the years  
Judge : Sadly we are not here to review the decision , just the manner and way the disciplinary process was carried out.
B-J : Give me a break..... we spent hours and hours collected dirt on her.....if she hadn't got enough already on the soles of her shoes. Why we even held a re-enactment that cost another few hundred pounds in cleaning costs , hiring off an off-the-street tart to play her part.
Judge : And according to evidence provided by the plaintiff's counsel , it was your dog's random droppings , which she inadvertently stepped on while crossing the lawn of the Slaughter House BC gardens. Moreover , all the outside lighting was out of action for lack of proper maintenance ...... which therefore places a big burden of blame upon yourself.
B-J : Oh shit....but hey I have a real Ace in my pack to play here today
Judge : Yes.....please enlighten me ?
B-J : Pandora did get a hearing after all in the form of an internal appeal which took place two years later
Judge : So I take it then the ban was put on hold until the appeal panel had its say ?
B-J : Like hell it was....no bloody point.....the appeal panel also figured her expulsion was nothing more than a foregone conclusion
Judge : What .....you didn't set out to find panelists with completely open minds, who were prepared to consider the possible shortcomings and errors of the committee?
B-J : Please allow me to put you right on a point...... the three names randomly selected from the hat were all members of the club...... who the committee trusted
Judge : Trusted ?
B-J : Trusted to do a good job and back the committee all the way. 
Judge : What other names were put in the hat ?
B-J : Just those three .....in fact the only hat we could lay our hands was a barbie doll hat just big enough for three bits of paper
Judge : Who were these members ?
B-J : Freddy Axman , Chopper Harris......and MIke McChete
Judge : Three good men you reckoned would do a great hatchet job
B-J : Too right !  And if you name the right price......they'll do any job you want...... cleanly and precisely........no questions asked
Judge : Like at the appeal ?
B-J : Hold on a mo....their job was to listen to one side's case... and ignore the other. Goddamnit the whole charade ooops appeal....took over 8 hours with Pandora going on and on about injustice , spurious allegations of bias and unfairness and breaches of rules of natural justice. The whole debacle could have taken less than 2 hours if she had bothered to let legal counsel do her talking
Judge : But she did bring legal counsel with her , a respected member of the club , only to be told by the panel that he was not welcome and to keep his mouth firmly closed
B-J : Oh yes.....that was a unfortunate oversight. 
Judge : Just the like the one of failing to acknowledge fundamental mistakes made by you and the committee, requiring them to declare your decision invalid. These mistakes were so flagrant .....and so obvious. And with evidence suggesting that the appeal process itself was similarly tainted with procedural misgivings .....this appeal was never going to be in a position to make things right.
B-J : Yet ...the chairman stated weeks before how right were were....... and much he was in support of our decision to sling her out
Judge : Enough.....I find for the plaintiff .....and I'm sure my colleagues will concur with my analysis and decision 




  

LAW  REPORT : BIGOT-JOHNSON V. WALNUT TREE ALLOTMENT SOCIETY  BRIDGE CLUB  ( 2015 )

Yet again the Walnut Tree Allotment Society BC committee were forced to severely reprimand Bigot-Johnson for a flagrant breach of the club's rules with regards to its revised dress code. Having been slung out after the briefest of hearings , Bigot decided once again to argue in court that the expulsion was both wrongful and invalid. This time he decided to hire a top barrister from London to fight his corner. A short extract from the trial's transcript appears below . )

Counsel for the plaintiff  (CP ) : Your Honour....I represent Howard Bigot-Johnson , who is by all accounts a world famous blogger and household name 
Judge : Never heard of him......he looks likes a sailor in that ridiculous outfit
CP : He's a trifle odd I must admit , but I am indebted to your Honour for your astute observation. However , let me assure you that he is a familiar face in the bridge scene here in the UK, and his face is well known in the bawdy pubs and brothels , which are in close proximity to tournaments venues up and down this country.
Judge : I don't suppose you have details of these establishments ?
CP : Well , as a matter of fact I do....
Judge : Well pass them over please....
CP : There you go your Honour....But if I may return to the matter in hand , which is the mean , vindictive and wrongful expulsion of my client from this club. 
Judge : I do recall the counsel for the defendants establishing the fact that Bigot turned up to a teams event with three young , gorgeous looking , well endowed , topless slappers in his team ,
of which many photographs were taken as evidence of his misconduct. Moreover , the defence counsel established that the club had the strictest of dress code policies anywhere to be found in the world of bridge.
CP : Indeed they did , the puritans. However , close scrutiny of the dress code regulations lists hundreds of items which cannot be worn , but there is no mention of a lack of clothing which would constitute a breach of the rules. In short a birthday suit was not on the list. As it happens all three ladies were from nudist colony bridge clubs , where hundreds of men and women regularly play bridge in the buff
Judge : Are they here as witnesses ?
CP : Unfortunately not
Judge : That's a shame
CP : But I have a dossier , packed with photos , of these nudist colony bridge clubs which demonstrate how well attended... and popular.... their duplicate sessions are. This provides clear evidence of how times are changing and how more liberal minded our society is becoming...
Judge: May I have a look at this dossier ?
CP : Of course
Judge : Phew ! Is it me or is it getting hot in here. Please tell the staff to turn off the radiators , open the windows ....and to fetch me a bucket of ice-cold water.
CP : Therefore , I submit to you your Honour that there was no breach of any dress code rule , and as a consequence there are no grounds whatsoever for the committee to charge my client with misconduct . The expulsion was both wrongful and invalid. 
Judge : I'm terribly sorry but I missed all that.....I was still catching up with the contents of this dossier
CP : I understand. Your attention to detail is both admirable and commendable. So allow me to recap.....there was no breach of the dress code....no valid charge against my client.....no grounds on which to expel my client from the club
Judge : I agree.....that was a very succinct , cogent and logical argument. Freedom of dress should be enshrined in our laws like freedom of speech. Just look at the ludicrous gowns and wigs we have to wear. In a liberal society like ours , there should be no place for people with fixed, rigid rules about dress . God was happy giving fig leaves to Adam and Eve....and keeping fleshy bits under wraps restricts people's ability to absorb sunlight into their skin to maintain healthy levels of vitamin D .....essential for fighting off infectious skin diseases. Therefore I find for the plaintiff
CP : I'm indebted to you , your Honour for seeing sense , and it would seem most appropriate for you to keep the dossier as a memento of this momentous trial 
Judge : I am forced to admit my eyesight is poor. Is there any chance of getting hold of some blow ups ?
CP : Photographs or plastic dolls ?
Judge : Both please
CP : Take it as done....
B-J : Bugger me.....now that's what I'll call a result

  

LAW REPORT : SOOTHSAYER v. SLAUGHTER HOUSE BC COMMITTEE ( 2015 )

Yet another ruthlessly executed expulsion ended up in court for a judicial resolution , with the plaintiff demanding reinstatement and damages.Bigot-Johnson , club chairman and owner , was once again forced to defend his position claiming that the expulsion was fair and correct. As usual he elected to conduct the club's defence  , and a short extract from the trial's transcript can be seen below.


Counsel for the plaintiff ( CP ) :  My client has been the victim of a real injustice 
B-J : Like hell he has !
CP : Many of the issues involved in this case have entered the realms of equity law 
B-J : Well , I never .....
CP : Indeed , it needs to be noted that one of the fundamental failings of this committee is that they failed to treat my client the same way as they would another member who had committed a similar transgression. Equity requires all members to be treated the same , irrespective of how liked or disliked they are.
B-J : Listen muppethead .....what do you know.....this man is a serial loud-mouthed troublemaker , whose final straw act broke the camel's back. He deserved special treatment given all the grief and misery he has inflicted upon the club over many many years.
CP : Yes , his past history of misconduct may be relevant to the business of determining an appropriate sanction , but with regards to the actual complaint made he was entitled to be treated the same as any other member up before the committee on a similar charge of misconduct.  
B-J :  Exactly...
CP : However , where you and your committee failed was in the manner and way you  set about dealing with my client's alleged misconduct of slamming a door in the face of a member following close behind. 
B-J : That behaviour was disgraceful ! 
CP : So if other members had behaved like that .....  would they too face similar disciplinary proceedings ?
B-J : I've no bloody idea
CP : Well , like me remind you of what did actually take place. The committee member who made the complaint , on behalf of the alleged victim , admitted he had chosen to take this course of action because  he knew  " it would carry more weight if it came from him ". Clearly his intent was to ensure that the committee would respond differently....albeit in a stricter and unforgiving way......... towards my client ,  as a consequence of his committee status. This represents a clear breach of the equal treatment rule.
B-J : Which committee member said that......I'll have his guts for garters
CP : Moreover , the same committee member also admitted  that " if anyone else had done the same thing , he or she would have been treated differently ......and by that we can assume ......   .....more leniently. So yet again another breach of the equal treatment rule.
B-J : I'll have him.....I'll have him
CP : It is my contention that your committee would be more inclined to regard the slamming of a door as a thoughtless, inconsiderate , innocent perhaps wind-assisted act in most instances.....but in the case of my client you all decided to treat the same act as a violent assault...... using a door as a deadly weapon......just because he was on your hit list .
B-J : How in the blue blazes did you get to know about that ? 
CP : In terms of natural justice and equity my client was treated unfairly..... in a disturbingly robust and adverse way , 
Judge : I agree.....but I do believe the plaintiff is requires a lesson or two in shutting doors 
B-J : I've heard enough of all this bloody nonsense ( and at that point in the trial Bigot stormed out of the courtroom slamming of course all the doors behind him )



( Author's note : This spoof law report , like many others before , is based on a real life case , where the plaintiff successfully obtained a judgement for reinstatement as a member of his local yacht club. Having been expelled from the club following an altercation on a towpath with a son of a committee member , the judges ruled by a majority that the expulsion was wrongful , since the misconduct of the other party was completely overlooked. 
This contrast of outcomes clearly represented an invincible bias in favour of the committee member's son , condemning the plaintiff to be treated in a different , adverse and unjust way. 
As for the incident itself , the plaintiff found his way on the towpath blocked by the son's car , who was still occupying the driver's seat. Refusing to move the vehicle , the plaintiff elected to climb on the bonnet and walk across the car roof in order to continue his journey. Although the dents to the vehicle were paid for by the plaintiff ,  the committee still decided to discipline him , but in the process exonerated the driver's spiteful and provocative behaviour. )  

  

LAW REPORT ( "X" rated material not suitable for adults with sensitive dispositions ) : R v. BIGOT-JOHNSON 2015

In this landmark case Bigot-Johnson was brought before the Crown Court charged with the crime of bestiality. Not surprisingly he venomously denied the charge ,  and was so confident about his innocence he decided to conduct his own defence. The following extract has been taken from the trial's transcript , which for many proved to be too shocking and harrowing to read in full.

Prosecuting counsel ( PC ) : Bestiality is defined as sexual relations between a human being and an animal. In fact many devout Christians regard this heinous act as a crime against nature
B-J : I'm innocent....
PC : I put it to this court that Bigot is guilty of this crime......a most despicable , depraved , perverted act........one so often associated with inbred Welsh mountain sheep farmers....
B-J : I'm innocent.....why I'm a respectable married man with a devoted and loving wife , two well grounded children and three adorable grand-children. I'm a blogger of distinction, a former law lecturer, carer and pinball enthusiast.
PC : Well, let me ask you this Bigot .....have you ever engaged in extra-marital affairs with lady members of your club
B-J : I can't say "no" to that question....
PC : I'm not surprised given the thirteen witness statements I have in front of me 
B-J : Tip of the iceberg.....
PC : So you admit to bit of sporran dabbling here and there with ladies ....who obviously have poor judgement and an obliging nature
B-J : Mmm....yes.....I do recall a little bit of hanky panky on several occasions....and of course
happy moments of lustful play and indulgence 
PC : But is it also true that you.... constantly and repeatedly ...... refer to the female members in your club as " cheating dogs "
B-J : Yes
PC :  And on many others occasions as " clueless rabbits "
B-J : Yes..
PC : Several times as " chimps "
B-J : Yes...
PC : Other times as " timid mice  "
B-J : Yes..
PC : And on occasions as " sly old foxes "
B-J : Yes...yes...yes 
PC : So I take it then you perceive and define all lady members......even your partners.......as animals of one kind or another
B-J : I guess so
PC : Therefore.....on those occasions you were engaged in extra-marital activities , you had it your mind you were performing sex with an animal of one shape or form 
B-J : You could say that.....especially when they turn into tigers
PC :  Well that to me establishes the mens rea of the crime.....and so with the sexual act itself ...the actus rear....oops sorry....the actus reus....all this adds up to one inescapaable conclusion.....Bigot you're as guilty as hell
Judge : I'm shocked.....your sexist attitudes have so corrupted your mind , you have clearly sunk to an appalling degenerate level......the courtroom has been stunned into silence.  What should have been a loving .....albeit adulterous.....acts between two human beings was sadly converted into acts of bestiality. What pray God do you have to say for yourself ?
B-J : Well , your Honour... since I am happy to acknowledge and accept my intentions as " beastly aforethought ", which along with my odious reputation as " a loathsome beast who bull shits his way through life " ..... I cannot therefore be guilty of this crime
Judge : How come ? 
B-J : Because.....by ceasing to be a decent human being .....a person of any worth or standing....I have become a beast. Consequently , the human requirement for this crime is clearly missing. And if you consider the ladies as fulfilling the human requirement and me being the beast, then it is they who should be on trial.....and not me
Judge : My God....you're right....case dismissed      

NEWSFLASH : THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE BRIDGE CLUB TAKES OVER WHERE THE EBU LEFT OFF

( Acting on behalf of this well known but infamous bridge club , Bigot-Johnson decides to mount another legal challenge against the HM Revenue and Customs ,  to reclaim VAT on competition entry fees. Despite the fact that the EBU lost its case earlier on this year , Bigot was of the opinion that their lawyers had clearly missed a trick by relying on inadequate and flawed arguments. He was determined to get this precedent over-ruled , if only to ensure that bridge is revered as a sport in the same way as boxing. The case came before a High Court judge , who thankfully approached the issue with a fair and open mind. ) 

B-J : Your Honour ........I don't give a fig as to what happened several months earlier when the EBU failed to win its case. The earlier judge got it completely wrong. So to follow the precedent he laid down would be absurd and obscene ......creating yet another example of unacceptable British injustice
Judge : The judge you are referring to happens to be my brother
B-J : Oh....
Judge : Nevertheless I am prepared to hear what arguments you are going to put forward to establish bridge as a sport...... equal to say.....boxing ? 
B-J : I agree that many sports have a physical element to them , but the essence of a real sport has nothing to do with muscles , hand-eye co-ordination or steroids.
Judge : Please go on.....
B-J : Well , first off to call an activity a sport requires of course the element of competition , where each participant enters an arena to pit his/her skills and abilities against others in the quest for glory and fame. Bridge certainly meets that criterion.
Secondly , all sports involve rules , which by and large are designed to create a level playing fields and to crack down on cheating. And let me assure you that the sport of bridge is deluged with rules...not to mention the tens of thousands of cheats who continue to ignore them....
Judge : My God is the problem of cheating that bad ?
B-J : So bad your Honour that in major events screens have to be put up so that competitors can't get to see their opponents.....or their partners. 
Judge : Heavens above......I never would have guessed
B-J : Moreover any proper sport requires all competitors to go through the pain barrier in order to succeed. And nobody suffers more pain then when a bridge player sees his partner bin a simple contract ...or allow the opposition to make an impossible contract. The pain is excruciating... 
Judge : Any other observations ?  
B-J : All sport champions rely on their mental discipline ,  sustained concentration and focus, in order to push themselves to the limit so as never to allow their exceptionally high standards to slip....not even for a second. Again bridge is no exception.
Judge : But how can you equate bridge to the physically demanding sport of boxing ? 
B-J : Boxers and bridge players are in fact very alike. Boxers get physically bruised....bridge players mentally bruised. Each is trying to inflict maximum damage to their opponents. Prior to entering the sporting arena , battle plans and tactics are drawn up , where it becomes essential to identify and play upon an opponent's weakness. Mental stamina is essential if both types of sportsmen wish to succeed. But the main thing that boxers and bridge players have in common is the ability to anticipate what an opponent will do next....and how to counter the move. Moreover , both will set out to seize every opportunity to break through an opponent's defence.
The ability to think quicker and react faster than your opponent is what makes a winner and a champion....nothing to do with physical size , weight or strength. Why the best boxers knock their opponents out with a split-second combination of fast small punches as opposed to one single almighty wallop.
Judge : Yes.....I see what you're driving at....sportsmen need to be " clever " as opposed to fit in order to triumph 
B-J :  Exactly , bunny bashing requires hunting down and outwitting your opponents before going in for the kill.......in fact I would equate bridge to the fiercest form of gladiatorial combat ...
brutal and beautiful to watch 
Judge :  Well I'll be damned......bridge is indeed the ultimate sport......and yes you can reclaim VAT on competition entry fees. All costs  therefore are to be paid by the defendants.
B-J : Your Honour......you really are a gentleman and a scholar  
Judge : And my cheque will be in tomorrow's post ?
B-J : Count on it.....       

LAW REPORT : MAITLAND AND OTHERS v. BIGOT-JOHNSON  (2O14)

( Bigot found himself once again up before a judge to answer allegations of discrimination against several club members , who had all been made to wear derogatory name tags when
arriving at the club to play duplicate bridge. In 2010 The Equality Act defined various offences , which set out to protect people from all forms of discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. Bigot-Johnson as always elected to conduct his own defence. )  

Counsel for the plaintiff ( CP ) :  Did you Bigot.....or did you not.....place a rather large name tag on Arthur Maitland , which contained the words " Rigor Mortis "
B-J : Indeed I did....
CP : And why was that ?
B-J : Because as slow players go he always gave the appearance of a man who was dead ....
whose body was in an advanced state of rigor mortis
CP : My god Bigot....you really are a mean , vindictive monster , who is not only guilty of unlawful discrimination....but also malicious persecution. You subjected Arthur to such extreme ridicule and humiliation , the poor man has had to undergo intense psychiatric therapy.
B-J : Hey...why don't you wise up a bit.....slow players are killing the game of bridge , bringing it to its knees. Time bandits like him are mean , selfish , inconsiderate bastards who need to be taught a sharp lesson...
Judge : Surely ....they just slow thinkers.....that's all ?
B-J : Well , please allow me to demonstrate .....through this impromptu re-enactment....how annoying and frustrating it is to be at a table .....watching a slow player sink into a comatose state.....and then waiting for him to make a bid.... or play of a card .... as he ponders forever over what to do for the best.

( At this point Bigot moved across to where Arthur was sitting , with a sheet of paper in his hand along with a hand of cards. Written on the paper were the details of the auction , with the cards representing Arthur's hand. Bigot then instructed Arthur to make an opening lead against the opponent's 6NT contract. Silence fell over the courtroom , and everyone waited with bated breath for Arthur to select a card. Minutes rolled by and still Arthur stared blankly at his hand seemingly unable to make a choice of opening lead. Already the judge was beginning to fidget in his seat , desperate for Arthur to put an end to his torment and anguish. Elsewhere in the courtroom pain was etched on the faces of all those looking on , but the statuesque Arthur seem oblivious to the passing of time. Eventually Bigot picked up two massive cymbals  only to crash them loudly behind Arthur's head , but to no avail.  Not a flicker of emotion or movement. Immediately afterwards , before the judge could intervene , Bigot pulled out an ice-pick and stabbed it into Arthur's upper arm.  Again not a hint of a response or reflex action. Several more minutes rolled by , and then to everyone's amazement and relief Arthur finally came to life .......and spoke 

Arthur : I'm sorry but I need more time. This really is a tricky lead problem
B-J : Well , there you have it.....15 minutes of the nearest thing to rigor mortis you will ever see
..... a classic example of death followed by resurrection
Judge : For once I agree with you ......never in my life have I been subjected to so much torment and mental torture. You are free to carry on with the name tagging.........case dismissed
B-J : Your Honour.....you're a gentleman and a scholar   

LAW REPORT : LADY PANTOPOD  v. BIGOT-JOHNSON ( 2014 )

( As the purge in the Slaughter House BC gathers more momentum ,  even those with landed titles are now victims of Bigot's anti-pantopod crusade. Having sneezed out loud, in front of an opponent with an acute germ phobia , Lady Pantopod was dragged before a disciplinary to face her fate. A life ban. Not surprising she decided to sue the chairman, Bigot -Johnson , for wrongful expulsion, demanding reinstatement and damages. Bigot as usual decided to conduct his own defence , relying on a philosophical argument to win the day. )  

Counsel for the plaintiff (CP ) : Bigot I ACCUSE YOU of acting as accuser , judge and jury in what can only be described as the most shameful and scandalous episode in the club's infamous history....
B-J : Her aristocratic face didn't fit. Nobody liked the self-righteous, up-her-own-arse, sanctimonious, nit-picking , snotty nosed , germ ridden snob 
Judge : Do I take it the Lady was not present at her disciplinary hearing ? 
B-J : Too damn right......she wasn't......hells bells.....there's was no point. Christ almighty no one at the club wanted her around. She had the looks and charisma of a sewer rat 
Judge : But every member, irrespective of age, gender , background , class, and race, has basic rights to attend an unbiased hearing...... as laid down by the club's constitution and/or the law of the land  
B-J : Well, let me tell you your Honour that real justice is that preached by those who believe in utilitarianism. In other words any decision .....no matter how it is reached.....is fully justified and vindicated if it enables the majority to benefit , whilst at the same time minimised the pain experienced by the few. Indeed , all the club members rejoiced at the prospect of never having to see that posh, pompous  bitch again.  
Judge : Ah...I see that you have read J.S. Mills great work on this topic. Moreover , I noticed that in your evidence how you obtained a near 100% approval of your decision at an AGM to establish some justification for your utilitarian-based decision to expel the good Lady......but unfortunately for you the whole concept is flawed.
B-J : What......it can't be....it makes perfect sense. Actions are judged by their consequences , and the amount of pleasure all the club members derived from her expulsion was immense. Our aim has always been to maximise the greatest happiness for our members , and this was achieved when she was booted out. The utilitarian creed is widely accepted as the foundation rock on which all rational and moral judgements can be made. 
Judge : But as I said before.....the creed is flawed. Firstly , how can you claim happiness as an outcome given the fact that most bridge players are , and always will be , apathetic ,  morose , miserable , grumpy , cantankerous anti-social misfits..... at the best of times.....who don't give a hoot about anything other than the next hand of cards coming up. Secondly , there is still the issue of unfairness in that ruthlessly carving up an innocent member just to appease a small baying lynch mob doesn't make your action fair. For instance , slavery was an unjust, cruel and evil institution , which by all accounts didn't worry or concern the ruling white majority at the time a single jot. But the most damning argument against utilitarianism is the creed's one-sidedness., which suggests that morality is best analysed entirely by people's actions and their consequences. This approach , of course , completely overlooks the more important elements of motives and intentions. These I believe.....in your case....were malicious and self-serving......and it is on those grounds I find for the plaintiff.
PC :  Hoo-rah for the judge
B-J : Bugger.....bugger.....bugger    

LAW REPORT : ARCHER and BOWMAN v. BIGOT-JOHNSON 2014

( A landmark case in which the competition winners sued Bigot-Johnson , the tournament promoter for breach of contract . Bigot decided after establishing widespread cheating that the results were null and void .  Subsequently , both the trophy and the prize money were retained by the promoter as there was no way of establishing who the true winners were. ) 

Counsel for the plaintiffs (CP ) : Is it true Bigot  that you promoted and organised this competition ..... charging each of the 200 pairs £100 in entry fees ?
B-J : True...
CP : And from the £20,000 you received in fees ,  you had promised to pay out prize money totalling  £10,000........ of which 50 % would go to the winners 
B-J : Yes big prizes pull in big fields......plenty of big hitters......many of which were likely to resort to cheating in order to get their greedy hands on the dosh
CP : But none of this allocated prize money was ever handed out ?
B-J : Too bloody right......the results were completely undermined and corrupted by the level....... and the extent...... of cheating that was going on
CP : So Archer and Bowman were denied their trophy and the £5000 prize money because all the results were declared void ....and therefore scrubbed ?
B-J : Absolutely.....and although I had no evidence of foul play on their part, the cheating that went on elsewhere forced me to declare the event a non-event......with no way of determining who the real winners were
CP : So why not reimburse the participants with at least half of their entry fees
B-J : Well, no way was I going to reimburse the cheats who sabotaged the competition.....and moreover.... there was no way I could identify all the pairs who were cheating...... and all those pairs who were not
CP : So tell me Bigot ....how many times have you promoted competitions which turned out to be non-events because of alleged cheating ?
B-J : Dozens
CP : No doubt that in these competitions all the prize money and trophies were withheld ?
B-J : Of course...
CP : So what's the point then in promoting further competitions if cheating continues to be so widespread 
B-J : Players want them .....but more importantly..... I have an expensive life style to maintain.... not to mention a string of mistresses with lavish tastes
CP : But can't you see that non-payment of any prize money represents a breach of contract... given the fact that participants enter the competitions on an agreed understanding that a good performance will earn valuable rewards in some shape and form. In legal parlance...... this is known as consideration.....and there is no doubt in my mind that they have entered into a legally binding agreement, where both parties intended to create legal relations
B-J : Not so..... entering bridge competitions come down to nothing more than gentlemen's agreements.....binding in honour only.....but honour , I might add , is a personality trait I do not possess.....or ever will
Judge : Yes....I must agree with you Bigot on both counts.....
B-J : Why thank you my lord......so does that mean I'm free to go ?
Judge : Yes.....so long as that cheque you gave is more valid than your claims of " prize money to be won "
B-J : Indeed it is......indeed it is