Horse 3536 - THE PEOPLE V BREAKFAST CEREAL [2026] - Judgement

THE PEOPLE V BREAKFAST CEREAL [2026] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3536/1

On a motorsport forum which I like to read, people were discussing what the various drivers in the Formula One paddock were having for breakfast. There was much consternation when it was revealed that Kimi Antonelli and George Russell were skipping so many breakfasts and dinners, that it looked like a borderline eating disorder meal plan. The reason in principle is that just an extra kilo or two can amount to a few hundredths of a second on the track.

Former F1 driver Daniel Ricciardo even suggested that the drivers "starve themselves"; probably for this exact same reason.

https://x.com/cherieisla/status/2074767274821472509?s=20

Also in that same discussion, it was revealed that Lewis Hamilton liked to eat hotdogs for breakfast because if he ate whatever he wanted to early in the morning, then he wouldn't care about getting hungry later in the morning. We have to assume that Lewis Hamilton probably has some idea of what is talking about as you don't get to be a seven time Formula One World Champion by accident.

You will notice that none of the above mentions breakfast cereal at all. The case which has rattled its way through the internuts until it finally made its way to this court and found this fake internet court's attention, is to answer the question about whether breakfast cereal deserves to exist.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

Let's be perfectly honest here. Skipping breakfast in principle is not as terrible as people make out. The reason for this is that most "breakfast" food is a nutritional scam. Most branded breakfast cereals either fall into the category of being so incredibly boring that even media designed for children treats it as the punchline for a joke, or being so loaded up with sugar as to be diabetes inducing.

Long before Bert from Sesame Street, who is the stereotypical most boring man in the world, was eating oatmeal, Goldilocks was wandering into ursine houses and stealing porridge in a cautionary tale of the importance of respecting other people's property and the consequences of trying out things that don't belong to you. At the other end of the breakfast cereal spectrum, Tony Tiger, Sam Toucan, Coco the Monkey, all try to push their wares on children, in the same way that a drug pusher working in a much bigger ring might.

The unsaid truth that that there is no reason you need cornflakes, or oatmeal, or porridge in the morning. Even the replacements that are sold to professional business people are diabolical. Breakfast bars or meal replacement drinks such as Up & Go seem to me to be an awful and expensive way to replace breakfast cereal. 

Toast exists. Croissants exist. Muffins exist. Lewis Hamilton eating hotdogs for breakfast proves that if you are a professional athlete, then not even that is enough reason to stop you from eating beef or chicken in the morning so you don't feel like sludge all day long. Rice exists. The traditional meal ascribed to tradespeople of Bacon and Eggs is glorious. You will not find cereal in a full-English or full-Irish breakfast. 

Having said all of this, even the story behind the existence of breakfast cereal leaves a lot to be desired. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg took over the Battle Creek Sanitarium in 1876; which was originally founded by members of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church as a health resort and medical spa. It did all of the things that you would expect of a health spa and in addition to promoting things like fresh air, exercise, hydrotherapy, and vegetarianism, it banned all of the things which they Seventh-Day Adventists thought were excitable for a person and banned meat, alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.

Probably because Dr. Kellogg was interested in improving people's body, mind and soul through a program he called "biologic living", his treatments at the Battle Creek Sanitarium were mostly grounded in his religion’s tenets of dietary and sexual abstinence. This means to say that the reason why corn flakes were invented and marketed as breakfast food is... interesting... to say the least.

Final Judgement:

The subjective test of whether or nor people are allowed to like breakfast cereal is not at issue here. The general ruling that people are allowed to like what they like still stands. This Fake Internet Court is not charged with that decision but rather, the question of  whether breakfast or not breakfast cereal deserves to exist at all.

Having looked at the function which breakfast cereal was designed for, the alternatives which exist, and even the reason that breakfast cereal was invented at all, this Fake Internet Court can only declare that breakfast cereal exists and was invented in bad faith. Indeed the very reason that Dr. Kellogg invented it at all should bear testament to its horridness. By design BREAKFAST CEREAL IS STEALING YOUR LIFE FORCE.

Furthermore, the traditional French breakfast of having a Gauloise wrapped inside a Gitanes with un double café before working for two and a half hours before going on strike, or the traditional English breakfast of having bacon, eggs, beans, black pudding, white pudding, sausage, tomato, sausage and spam, egg bacon spam and spam, and then complaining about a war that you never fought in, both seem to exactly the same job as breakfast cereal.

Nevermind the fact that Sam Toucan's and Tony Tiger's ideal of an ADHD diabetes rush at 7am is a bad idea. Just the mechanics of how these things are processed by the human body should suggest that sugars and high glycemic carbs are suboptimal in the morning, unless of course your intention is to crash hard two hours later. To be fair though, with the general consensus that energy drinks exist as emotional support drink because everyone needs something to numb the pain as time slowly withers their life away, day by day in an endless cycle of burnout - eat, sleep, work, repeat, 'til the clock runs out - then breakfast cereal starts to look like more of a surrender.

Breakfast Cereal, you are guilty of both conspiracy and deception. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no sensible business by ruining people's lives like this. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

To that end, this Fake Internet Court rules that all Breakfast Cereal must be taken to a Hazardous Waste Management centre where it can be disposed of in the same way that other dangerous chemical and industrial waste is destroyed. We expect all Breakfast Cereal to be repackaged in brown or olive plain packages in the meantime, and that this process is to be complete by the end of 2027.

This ruling is binding on all people at all times and in all points in history. The fact that this is such a trivial matter means that it is of national importance but this Fake Internet Court is prepared to deal with the fallout.

That is all.

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3536/1 - Ed)

Horse 3517 - CRUNCHIE v VIOLET CRUMBLE [2026] - Judgement

 The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3517/1

"Two households, both alike in dignity,

In  Verona, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."

- Prologue, Romeo And Juliet (1597)

When The Bard laid out his tragic type thesp at the end of the sixteenth century, he was mining hundreds of years of narrative and counter narrative about so-called "star crossed lovers", to create what is essentially a fairly average love story. Punters who paid their tuppence knew from the outset that the lead characters would die, and thus everyone was happy with the result because sometimes the best way to feel good about yourself is to smirk at the misfortune of others.

What the paying public were never asked to judge, was the standing and the underlying case of the narrative. Shakespeare doesn't provide any and the story never asks you to evaluate the moral fitness of the parties. For the record, as presented, the Montagues are at fault for deliberately committing acts of wilful violence and the Capulets are in fact innocent sufferers of the effects of that violence. This Fake Internet Court would have awarded damages to the Capulets.

This case of Crunchie vs Violet Crumble, stems from the assertion from someone at work that these two things are the same and that it doesn't matter.

There are in fact two things wrong with this assertion:

1 - they are qualitatively different 

2 - it absolutely does matter; even if only by the tiniest of quanta

These are the facts as this court sees them:

Firstly, the base problem with this whole case is that people will like what they like and in fact have the right to like what they like. The great Harry Selfridge once said that: "The customer is always right in matters of taste". While this might be correct in matters of personal preference (including if a customer really likes a ridiculous looking coat and hat), this does not imply that the customer is in possession of the facts. Since this Fake Internet Court has been charged with the task of deciding which of these two items is objectively better, then ironically taste which is a key component of food products, has to be excluded from the evaluation process.

The task therefore becomes one of not of telos which is the underlying purpose, but of eidos; that is which of the two best articulates the defining principles of what makes these things what they are. In this respect, this is an Aristotelian judgment and not a Platonic one. 

So then, the two protagonists are represented thusly.

Crunchie - this is from the house of Cadbury, which means that the outside is made of an already known component of milk chocolate. The interior is a honeycomb structure which is made from a caramel which is just on the verge of being burnt but never quite achieving it.

Cadbury though, is not the original manufacturer of this sweet product; with this being an inherited asset from the takeover of JS Fry and Sons. Crunchie's most famous stablemate is Fry's Turkish Delight. 

JS Fry and Sons' confection dates from 1929; which is possibly the worst time for something to hit the market, given the economic clouds which nobody saw coming and the storm which followed.

Violet Crumble - the interior honeycomb actually contains gelatin which means that a Violet Crumble can never achieve either Kosher or Halal status. As the honeycomb contains gelatin, it makes it denser and structurally better. A Violet Crumble is less likely to break during the shipping process. It also means that rather than the internal structure breaking along predictable lines, it shatters.

What I find particularly interesting is that although the ownership of this asset was passed from Hoadley's to Rowntree's, then Nestlé, and finally Robert Menz, the recipe of all of the components never changed. The chocolate on the outside is in fact unique to this particular confectionery.

Violet Crumble which debuted in 1913, actually found its way to the western front during the First World War; which meant that Flanders' fields actually saw flecks of violet amongst the mud.

Final Judgement:

The subjective test comes down to whether you prefer the less caramelised but more intense sugar-hit, or the lighter but slightly chewier honeycomb. 

However, this Fake Internet Court is not charged with that decision.

The question of which is objectively better when the things are qualitatively different, is an impossible question to answer. However, when given the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Horse 2878 has already established that both Crunchie and Violet Crumble are C3 Adequate rated. Adequate is not horrible. Adequate is adequate.

https://rollo75.blogspot.com/2021/08/horse-2878-rollo-chocolate-bar-ratings.html

We have already done the impossible. The improbable truth in this case is that it will not be decided on the basis of what Crunchie or Violet Crumble taste like, but on the basis of nothing more than patriotic prejudice.

To that end, this Fake Internet Court rules that Violet Crumble is better than Crunchie because it is Australia's own. It has survived two world wars, it is the original; therefore it is the better of the two.

This ruling is binding on all people at all times and in all points in history. The fact that this is such a trivial matter means that it is of national importance but this Fake Internet Court is prepared to deal with the fallout.

That is all.

Horse 3513 - THE PEOPLE v DRACULAS (EMPLOYMENT DIRECTIONS) [2026] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

THE PEOPLE v DRACULAS (EMPLOYMENT DIRECTIONS) [2026] - Judgement

H3513/1

The phrase "Draculas can have any job" is a recurring statement from the Maximum Fun podcast network, specifically popularized by Jesse Thorn on podcasts like Judge John Hodgman and Jordan, Jesse, Go!. 

It stems from Jesse Thorn’s insistent claim that a person's profession does not disqualify them from secretly being a "Dracula." For example, if someone is a mayor or a regular human bartender, Jesse might argue that "Draculas can have any job"; as citation that that person might in fact be a "Dracula". 

However, the statement "Draculas can have any job" contains a verb which has two very different meanings. In Jesse Thorn’s statement, "can" appears to be used in the sense of "being able to" do something. This is a very different sense than the other definition of "be permitted to" do something.

"I can run fast" in the sense that someone has the ability to run quickly, is very different to the sense that "I can run fast" might not be allowed or permitted to run quickly in a crowded or busy place such as a hospital sharps room, or a building site, where doing so might result in considerable injury.

It is therefore incumbent upon this Fake Internet Court to draw up a set of Employment Directions which clarify the actual meaning of the statement that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of permission rather than ability; because whilst it is possible that Draculas might very well be hiding in plain sight and quite competent in their jobs, it might not be appropriate for them to do so.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

According to Bram Stoker's original lore and various adaptations, the character of Dracula himself has held several "professions".

These from the text have included both being a Statesman who conducted many trade missions; as well as being a high ranking Soldier who appears to have led armies and specifically mounted battalions of light horse. This would indicate that the ur-Dracula was a skilled swordsman.

Second to this, Dracula also appears to have been a Scholar of some kind and an Alchemist; though given that Bram Stoker's account dates from 1897 which is well after the realms of Alchemy and formal Chemistry have long since departed and  diverged, it is probably more logical to assume that Dracula was actually a Chemist.

Lastly, within Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, Dracula acts as a wealthy nobleman purchasing multiple estates in London. Dracula's property purchases include Carfax Abbey in Purfleet, 347 Piccadilly, 167 Chicksand Street in Mile End, and a house in Jamaica Lane, Bermondsey.

We estimate Dracula's property portfolio as being worth:

£29,000,000 - 347 Piccadilly

£4,600,000 - Carfax Abbey, Purfleet

£710,000 - 167 Chicksand Street, Mile End

£525,000 - Jamaica Lane, Bermondsey

£34,835,000 - TOTAL

However, these various professions that Dracula appears to have had, does not address the core question. The fact that Dracula has had these various professions proves that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of ability; and not in the sense of permission. Having a job in the in the sense of permission, seems to imply either a level of skill, training, and or appropriateness which isn't immediately evident within the proof texts. 

Where I live in the state of New South Wales, the Anti-Discrimination Act (1977) makes it it illegal to treat job applicants or employees unfairly based on "protected attributes" like age, race, sex, disability, religion, or family responsibilities. Specifically whether or not "Draculas can have any job" as a blanket statement as it relates to employment, likely relates to the Key Protected Attributes of Race, Colour, National Extraction, or Social Origin. 

Final Judgement:

This court finds that the general statement that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of permission rather than the sense of ability, should come with some key caveats.

Ironically, this court has found useful to look back at the words of Liberal Party Senator for Victoria, Sarah Henderson, from Sky News Australia's "Outsiders" program on October 5th last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kksc8LICTxw

"It’s all very well to have an independent inquiry, but that’s not good enough, and also the government’s decision just to get the regulator to do the job is like putting Dracula in control of the blood bank... We cannot forget this is an absolute scandal. A number of people have died as a result of the triple zero failures."

- Senator Sarah Henderson, via Sky News Australia, 5th Oct 2025

Admittedly Ms Henderson was trying to make a point about the difficulties in assigning a guardian with a vested interest in consuming or destroying something to oversee it, as in the case in the video. Ms Henderson's point was purely about political point scoring but in the actual specific case of putting "Dracula in control of the blood bank”, it does suggest that there needs to be ethical considerations which need to be thought about.

It is the opinion of this fake internet court that it is inappropriate that Draculas should be allowed to be employed in any front line medical services, or indeed in any occupation where they might be handling human blood or blood products. Other ethical considerations might include an legal and ethical obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of both blood donors and transfusion recipients. 

Then there are various Occupational Health and Safety concerns which specifically relate to the employment of Draculas.

As it is established that Draculas are physically repelled and burned by holy symbols, such as crucifixes and sacred wafers, then we suggest that Draculas should not be employed by Churches. Mosques, Holy Sites, or Religious Organisations generally.

For this same reason, as Garlic is a potent repellent that strips Draculas of their powers and physically repulses and repelles them, Draculas should not be employed by Garlic Farms or Italian Restaurants.

We also note that Draculas cannot cross running water such as rivers or oceans except at the precise moments of high or low tide. This would make make most Maritime or Water-Based Careers, which includes sailors, and lifeguards extremely difficult without constant assistance.

Apprently Draculas also cannot enter any private dwelling unless they are explicitly invited in by a member of the household. This would make them a very poor delivery driver or emergency responder.

By the same token, we have taken note that Draculas require a box containing soil from their homeland, to regenerate and maintain their strength. This would make modern office environments such as open plan offices with cubicles difficult, unless they are allowed to bring a large box of dirt with them. A corollary of this is that they might find that working in an office environment with indoor plants, quite conducive to acquiescent conditions. 

Conclusion: 

The phrase "Draculas can have any job" is functionally one where they might have the ability to have any job but in all likelihood should not have permission to have any job. This fake internet court feels that it has made adequate directions to this effect.

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3513/1 - Ed)

Horse 3506 - JEFF VADER V COMMISIONER OF TAXATION [2025] - Judgement

 JEFF VADER V COMMISIONER OF TAXATION [2025] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3506/1

This week we received the following correspondence from a Mr Jeff Vader, who appears to be in command of some kind of galactic delivery company or some such. He has given us the following taxation question: 

Dear Fake Internet Court of Australia,

I am the Operations Manager for a very large off-world firm which is resident in Australia for taxation purposes. I wish to claim depreciation for my Defence Sphere Mk 1 (DS-1) and am wondering what the appropriate rate for a Defence Sphere is. 

The construction costs were just over One Trillion Galactic Credits and it became operational on August 1st.

Thank you, 

Lord Jeff Vader of Cheem, Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet and Military Executor, ATM, KFC, BBQ.

This is an interesting case as The Fake Internet Court of Australia is not often asked to make interlocutory orders or non-binding arbitration rulings, however we are still prepared to make a preliminary hearing as an  obiter dicta in lieu of further passage to a court with proper jurisdiction. 

These are the facts as this court sees them:

The "Defence Sphere 1" as described by Jeff Vader in his correspondence, appears to be some very large machine which is capable of mass destruction on a planetary scale. Colloquially within the documentation it is referred to as a "Death Star", though it is not a star, however it seems to be quite capable of doing death to people and things.

There is not explicit provision for spacecraft, though Communications Satellites and Satellite Earth Station Electronic Assets generally have an effective life of 15 or 10 years depending on the use case. 

We consider an orbital defence sphere to be a habitable spacecraft and on the face of it, it looks more like the example of Aeroplanes (general use); in which case the Defence Sphere 1 likely has an  effective life of 20 years, which is similar to fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. 

We suspect that for a highly specialised asset such as this, that the Australian Taxation Office is going to want to make a Private Ruling based on like technical data and industry experience; from an appointed expert witness.

Final Judgement:

We determine that the Defence Sphere 1 is analogous to an Aircraft (general use) and as such that it has a comparable effective life of 20 years.

As such we determine that:

A - it has a Straight Line depreciation rate of 5%

B - it has a Diminishing Value depreciation rate of 10%

Whilst we can not explicitly determine the actual conversion rate between Universal Galactic Credits (UGC) and Australian Dollars (AUD), the use case seems to be that the ratio should read something in the order of 1 UCG : 6 AUD.

If it follows that the initial capital costs were One Trillion Galactic Credits, then the take up rate should be about $6,000,000,000,000. 

The actual amount of Depreciation Expense will need to be decided upon by the client, and the method retained for the life of the asset. 

This court hereby advises that the takeup rates as stated above be used, and further advises that an amount of Depreciation being claimed in a Tax Return as a business expense of $300bn which by itself is more than 16% of the GDP of Australia, is likely to cause at least a few raised eyebrows at the Australian Taxation Office. We hope that the ATO does not bring hateration and holleration to proceedings.

We trust that our mutual friends at the Australian Taxation Office will adhere to the advice given in this judgement, because we have seen what happens in the Catering Department if you are not happy with the moisture and condensation on food trays.

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3506/1 - Ed)

Horse 3505 - THE PEOPLE V THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2025] - Judgement

THE PEOPLE V THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2025] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3505/1

We have learned of a crime against all that is decent and good; which has arisen and which rattled through the internuts until it finally made its way to this court until it found this fake internet court's attention:

https://nomoreteabags.com/

Usually this Fake Internet Court is asked to make decisions about trivial matters that do not affect all that much in society but this is a crime so heinous that it warrants immediate judgement.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

"No More Tea Bags" appears to be a highly compressed and liquidised version of tea, much in the same way that Condensed Milk is supposed to mimic milk for those occasions. Unlike Condensed Milk which has applications other than just making milk (such as in making cakes), No More Tea Bags prima facie is only for making tea.

The method for making tea with No More Tea Bags is to pour out some of the liquid tea concentrate into a cup, then add boiling water and wait five minutes for the tea to steep. This sounds like a remarkably similar process to making tea either in a pot with loose tea leaves or with tea bags; which is what No More Tea Bags is probably trying to solve.

The United States has a semi-foundational story with tea. When the British Government imposed a tax of about 3% on the value of tea imported into the United States (actually as a coercive Act to get them to abandon slavery), the 13 Colonies were not happy. When the British East India Company was given a specific exemption in 1775, things kind of kicked off and people decided to make the world's largest cup of tea in Boston Harbour by dumping all the tea into the sea in protest. The United States has had a strange relationship with tea ever since.

The United States since 1775 has famously become a nation of coffee drinkers, which curiously doesn't know how to make a cup of coffee either. American drip coffee is quite frankly an affront to Italian espresso, or French café, or Turkish coffee. This suggests in principle that the United States sees coffee as having utilitarian purposes only; this might explain why it seemingly is also so terrible at making tea, that No More Tea Bags exists at all.

No More Tea Bags is trying to solve a problem, for which there were not only adequate solutions but lovely ones. If No More Tea Bags isn't trying to solve the problem of Morning Tea, or Afternoon Tea, or the lovely cup of tea in the evening, or the position of Work Juice which is what Coffee and Strong Builder's Tea is already doing, then what the jinkies is it trying to do? I just don't know.

Final Judgement:

Whilst this Fake Internet Court is prepared to accept that the useful invention of arts and science for the purpose of business and profit, this doesn't mean that all things need to be invented in the first place. Especially not when already adequate and lovely solutions exist. Inventing something which is actively worse, hurts society at large because it pushes open the cultural Johari Window further into the unknown and into places that did not need to be known. By inventing worse things, people begin to accept worse stuff. In relation to a lovely cup of tea, this may as well be a crime against humanity and decency.

America, you are guilty of both conspiracy and deception. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no sensible business by ruining tea like this. 

As this is not the first time that you have been brought before this Fake Internet Court, America, the penalties need to be severe. 

This court hereby orders all of you in the United States to sit down with a lovely cup of tea, made with either a tea bag or in a pot and take a good hard look at yourself. We would order you to watch a day's play of cricket with Afternoon Tea already built into it but we realise that you aren't ready to become a real nation yet.

Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3505/1 - Ed)

Horse 3483 - The Fake Internet Court of Australia - POTATO CAKE v POTATO SCALLOP [2025] - Judgement - H3483/1

 The Fake Internet Court of Australia

POTATO CAKE v POTATO SCALLOP [2025] - Judgement

H3483/1

It has come to this fake internet court's attention that across this wide brown australian land that we call Australia, that there is a dispute across state lines which divides the nation.

This is the use of the terms 'Potato Cake' and 'Potato Scallop' to describe that small, golden brown, texture like sun, fried potato thing, which may or may not be battered, and distinct from a hash brown.

Judgement Praecido:

As for the people in the far north of the Northern Territory who have decided to just stay out of the argument entirely and call it a 'Potato Fritter', this fake internet court applauds you and admires your pragmatism. You are weird but we shall allow this.

Back to the case at hand:

In a classic case of using formal epistemology to define the case, we need to ask what is a 'cake'?

A 'cake' in its broadest possible sense, is a thing which has been shaped and/or moulded. This is why a bread like object which has been made from flour and eggs and placed into a tin to bake is a 'cake', and equally why cakes can be made of soap, mud, concrete, ice cream, fudge, and a whole host of other shapeable and moldable substances.

Thus the term 'Potato Cake' is apt, as this object which has been shaped from the constituent parts of potato and batter, is properly a 'cake'.

On the other side of the argument, we need to ask what is a 'scallop'?

A 'scallop' is a common name that encompasses various species of marine bivalve molluscs in the taxonomic family Pectinidae. The absolute classic example of a scallop is the animal which lives inside the shell which is used for the Shell Oil company. The term 'scallop' can also refer to the kind of ruffled edge of that same shell and a pattern which follows, but this is materially irrelevant to the case at hand.

Since we are not talking about that marine animal, this warrants further information.

We are in fact talking about something adjacent to the marine animal, by virtue of a 'potato scallop', also being cooked in Fish & Chip Shops; quite possibly at the same time.

This means that the reason for a distinction between a fried scallop and a 'potato scallop' exists because of the immediate proximity of the two things. 

The English Language has a long and proud history of stealing from everywhere, from everything, and from everyone. Thus, stealing a term from a thing which is close at hand, is perfectly normal for the language.

Consider that tins are not made of tin, that a pencil lead has never been made out of lead, and that a pineapple is actually derived from the older use of the English word 'apple' which encompassed every kind of fruit and it's just that this is an 'apple' that looks like a pine cone.

Thus, the existence of the term 'scallop' in reference to a fried thing which happens to have 'potato' as a qualifier, is historically consistent when set against the backdrop of a language with a fifteen hundred year history.

Judgement:

Let it be known that this fake internet court understands the historical reasons why this crunchy comestible should be called a 'potato scallop' but just because something has been around for a long time, is neither just cause for its continued existence, nor does it make it fit for purpose.

If a thing is bad, then it should be gotten rid of. 

This court hereby orders that the term 'scallop' in reference to a cake made from potato, be gotten rid of and erased from the collective consciousness.

A 'potato scallop' just is not a 'scallop', no matter how hard you try to convince us that it is. In the olden days when we were told something that blatantly is not true, then we would have used that now old fashioned word 'lie'.

This fake internet court hereby orders that the correct and proper and true term is a 'potato cake' and that it should supplant and replace all existences of the lies sold as truth, immediately and without exception.

The people of Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and most of the Northern Territory, do in fact have it correct. A cake made from potato is a 'potato cake'. This fake internet court also accepts the weirdness in some parts of the Northern Territory.

As to all the people of Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia, who continue to use the term 'scallop' when very clearly a more truthful term exists, you are guilty of both conspiracy and deception. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no business mucking with a language that doesn't even bear your name, we order you to cease, desist and stop this egregious pretense. If we ever see you back before this court, the penalities will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3483/1 - Ed)

Horse 3417 - THE PEOPLE v PAUL McCARTNEY [2024] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

THE PEOPLE v PAUL McCARTNEY [2024] - Judgement

H3417/1

It has come to this fake internet court's attention (and definitely not for the first time) that the decisions of a certain Paul McCartney of Liverpool, have resulted in untold suffering and dismay for roughly one twelfth of the year; starting on or about the last Friday in November (owing to the existence of the United States' Public Holiday of Thanksgiving). Starting in late November, across radios and shop tannoys all over the world, this terrible horrorshow beings with the simple noise of:

wob wob wob wob wob wob wob wob

wob wob wob wob wob wob wob wob

wob wob wob wob wob wob wob wob

wob wob wob wob wob wob wob wob

Oh no. It has begun.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

The terrible horror which is unleashed on the world every year, as shop decorations change from orange and black, to brown, to red and green, is one dastardly component of the soundtrack of the season. That terrible horror which has been unchained and allowed to roam the world like an unthinking beast, every year since 1979, is "Wonderful Christmastime".

It might have started out as an innocent song, as Paul McCartney having rocked the world in The Beatles, then quietly put it to sleep again with Wings, then decided to branch out on his own and release a solo career and music therein into the world.  

Sure, the song of itself isn't a bad thing, but it isn't particularly a great thing either. Unlike playing Whamageddon in which one tries to avoid listening to Wham's "Last Christmas", or the yearly defrosting of Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas Is You", "Wonderful Christmastime" arrives on radios and tannoys for three and a bit minutes of mind-bending, soul-sucking, spirit-crushing nonsense before going away again. "Last Christmas" is like trying to eat a kumquat. "All I Want For Christmas Is You" is a yearly does of ear diabetes. "Wonderful Christmastime" is the equivalent of eating mashed suede.

The mood is right.

The spirit's up.

We're here tonight,

And that's enough.

This is first verse; which is lyrically as impressive as an average first grader's story in a creative writing class. You might be impressed if this was a child in kindergarten, but if a first grader submitted this, you would seriously consider whether even they had put in the effort. 

The second verse is worse than the first and is such a curse that I want to burst:

The party's on.

The feeling's here,

That only comes,

This time of year.

Four lines of rhyming verse like this, if it appeared in a greeting card, would rightly be seen as drivel and dross. I will even go so far as to say that this kind of drivel is more offensive than outright offense or abuse as it insults both the intelligence of the sender and the recipient of the greeting card. This however, is not in a greeting card but a song; which gets wheeled out every single year. We know that Mr McCartney is better at producing songs than this.  We know that Mr McCartney is better at writing better lyrics than this. Maybe if this was a Roud folk song we might deign to forgive it but the fact that this was a song which was put out for commercial consumption, just pounds my mental hazelnuts into paste and then folds through Castrol TTS two-stoke additive. The result is unpalatable. 

This is same chap who brought you such things as "Love Me Do", "I Saw Her Standing There", "Blackbird" and "Yesterday" with the Beatles. Granted that I think that the useful catalogue of Beatles songs nominally ends with the end of the Revolver album, that still doesn't change the fact that Mr McCartney was talented way beyond compare. Then with Wings and when the first one said to the second one there "I hope you're having fun", we should have realised that his career and body of work had peaked and was kind of dribbling out. That's fine. There is no shame in being one half of the writing duo from arguably the most successful band of all-time. However, likely due to his name and the supposition that it alone would sell records, "Wonderful Christmastime" was not only approved and pressed and sold.

Judgement:

In considering what kind of judgement is to be handed down, one must first consider what kind of crime has been committed. The punishment should be commensurate to the crime perpetrated. This fake internet court, although being fake, still believes in the principle of equity. 

This court had to consider the possibility that in exchange for being part of the most successful band of all-time, that Paul McCartney must have sold his soul to the Devil. The Devil apparently thinks himself something of a fine musician but keeps on losing in head-to-head contests. Even when the Devil went down to Georgia and demanded to challenge some Johnny to a fiddle contest, or for two chaps to play the best song in the world, his failure was eminent. However, when one considers the absolute dross that Mr McCartney has released in addition to some of the funnest pop songs of all, we have to admit that this is not the work of the Devil, and to be perfectly honest, "Wonderful Christmastime" is not so nefarious that it is diabolical. It is just bad.

Normally this court would make orders of instruction but in this case, it is likely impossible to undo the psychic damage which has been allowed to take place. Unless one is able to tightly control terms of copyright like George Lucas has done, once the bird has been released it is practically impossible to recapture it again. This fake internet court is unable to make any meaningful judgement.

But this does not change the fact that you Paul McCartney, are guilty of both psychic negligence and culpable moral hazard. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as the nature of this malfeasance is such that we can not act, then all we can do is point the pointing finger of shame at you and hope that you think about what you have done .

If we ever see you back before this court, the penalties will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J 

(this case will be reported in FLIR as H3417/1

Horse 3406 - PERSON J V ONTARIO [2024] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

PERSON J V ONTARIO [2024] - Judgement

H3406/1

Having learned that The Fake Internet Court of Australia is prepared to make rulings which are binding on all people at all times and in all places, and forever, a prospective litigant which wishes to remain anonymous and will be henceforth known as Person J, has decided to apply for this court to make a ruling in a case versus the Canadian Province of Ontario. 

The case in question which has demanded this fake internet court's attention, relates to a kind of pepperoni pizza which appears to be exclusively made and sold in Ontario. Person J alleges that the kind of pepperoni pizza which is made and sold in Ontario is "cringe" and that regular pepperoni pizza is "based".

These are the facts as this court sees them:

Rather than thinly slicing pepperoni before placing it atop a pizza to be set in the over, the people of Ontario allegedly shred their pepperoni before putting it on pizza. Presented into evidence is the photograph which will be ticketed as Exhibit A; in a glorious example of administrative pettiness, will be the only thing submitted into evidence.

There is no method described by Person J as to how the pepperoni is shredded before placing atop the pizza; so whether it is cut many many times, or run through with a fork, or put through a cheese grater or other such device is unknown. However the photograph does suggest that the method of shredding produces a not only relatively fine aggregate of pepperoni but uniform grade of size.

The reason for this, in the imagination of this court, is to do with increasing the available surface area of the pepperoni to be exposed to heat radiation. It is a well known phenomenon of physics that heat is transferred from one body to another via convection, conduction, or radiation; and increasing the surface area of a thing is an excellent strategy for doing so.

Pepperoni on a pizza, even with no other topping, is a fine thing. Whether the pieces are small or large, whether they curl up around the edges or not, whether they form small cups or not, or whether they develop micro char and become crispy or not, it is perhaps impossible to get a bad pepperoni pizza. In increasing the available surface area of the pepperoni to be exposed to heat, the reason for doing so is immediately obvious. The people who do this, are obviously chasing crispiness. This seems like a perfectly sensible motive for wanting the pepperoni to be shredded before placing atop the pizza.

There is no justification put forward as to why shredding pepperoni before putting onto a pizza is "cringe", nor is there any justification put forward as to why putting normal sliced pepperoni onto a pizza is "based". This court accepts the latter of these two propositions as an irrefutable axiom and/or law; so makes no attempt to disprove that statement. It is also unclear whether or not using the word "cringe" is itself "cringe", either ironically, unironically, or by way of demonstration, or means of hyperbole. 

Final Judgement:

This court notes that as presented in evidence, shredded pepperoni atop a pizza, looks perfectly acceptable. There is nothing in principle which is strange, scary, weird, or repulsive about this pizza. This court notes that although shredded pepperoni is not a thing which is familiar in this part of the world, the reasons for why one would want to shred one's pepperoni are logical. If this is a localised thing which a particular region is known for, then this is sensible. If this is a localised thing because of the characteristics of the pepperoni which is available in the local area, then this is also sensible.

If there is a material case to be decided here, then the questions which follow are:

- Would one eat this pizza? Yes one would. 

- Would one be happy to receive this pizza? Yes one would. 

- Would one be weirded out by this pizza? No; don't be daft. 

In trying to decide this case, this court has seriously begun to question why it was ever brought forth. Given that it might very well be impossible to ever get a bad pepperoni pizza, then this court wonders if this is the invention of a deranged mind. Granted this court has made rulings against both Pineapple on a pizza, and Banana on a pizza, but asking this court to rule against a particular kind of Pepperoni on a pizza seems almost like an act of trying to defy the forces of nature. This court wonders if Person J needs to be sectioned under their local Mental Health Acts, for fear of the harm that they might to do to themselves and the world at large. This court also wonders if pondering if there is such a thing as a bad pepperoni pizza, might itself be some kind of cognitohazard. 

In fact, given that literally everything about the evidence which has been presented looks both sensible and delicious, this court wonders what if any grounds could be invocated in order to justify ruling against Ontario. This court hereby orders that henceforth, that the people of Ontario continue to do their thing; in quiet enjoyment of their surrounds, and in quiet enjoyment of their shredded pepperoni pizza. This court has no beef with the people of Ontario, and we hope that we can continue to acquiesce in a mutual sense of conviviality and friendship.

As for Person J, you have wreaked vexation and frivolousness in this court. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no sensible business by bringing the good and fair people of Ontario to court, we order you to desist and stop this egregious nonsense. If we ever see you back before this court, the penalties will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3406/1 - Ed)

Horse 3346 - THE PEOPLE V JOHN LE FEVRE [2024] - Judgement

THE PEOPLE V JOHN LE FEVRE [2024] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3346/1

We have learned of a dispute which has arisen and which rattled though the internuts until it finally made its way to this court until it found this fake internet court's attention:

https://twitter.com/JohnLeFevre/status/178492926559250034

Someone who has decided to give themselves the title of "Entrepreneur", a Mr John Le Fevre, has decided to write 40 laws for men's fashion. It might have been acceptable had they been sensible laws which genuinely address how one should put one's attire together, but instead Mr Le Fevre has not just gone off piste but has gone troppo, berko, nutso, and whacko. 

In realms such as language, fashion, literature, films, art, et cetera, as all of these things are subjective, making objective laws is ill-advised. Style guides should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, save for instances where you want there to be a unified style across the family of thigns you are producing. So when Mr Le Fevre produces 40 "laws" and this Fake Internet Court gets tagged for comment, we take notice. 

On first viewing the laws are as daft as they are bad. They are daft because they dip into the realm of shenanigannery and not very good and jovial shenanigannery either. They are bad because it isn't exactly clear who these laws should apply to, if in fact anyone. A useful axiom here is that Law is Bad Law if it is unenforceable; it is More Badder Law if it is internally contradictory and nonsensical. 

This Fake Internet Court's task therefore, is to evaluate the 40 laws in turn and see what kind of merit, if any, exists. It should go without saying that one who sits in judgement should be aware of their own failings and shortcomings before bringing someone else into judgement; so of course this Fake Internet Court readily admits that there is not a speck in our eye, not a plank in our eye, but an entire 95-gun three-deck all-wood ship-of-the-line in our eye. We not only sail the high seas of Hypocrisy, we know its waters very well. Hypocrisy, ho!

These are the facts as this court sees them:

Speaking as someone who looks at episodes of Doctor Who and Poirot not as mere television programs but as fashion options, I am not exactly the person speak about what the latest trends in fashion are. If I were to compile any laws for fashion, they would be thus:

1. Wear clothes.

2. Wear clothes that are appropriate (this also involves safety gear).

3. That's about it.

Personally I don't wear very many t-shirts because I don't particularly like them and I also I don't wear very many shorts because I don't particularly like them either. People like what they like and don't like what they don't like. Obviously don't wear a death metal t-shirt to court or church, and don't wear a top hat and a greatcoat to the beach (for the simple reason that I do not like the beach and I do not want to get sand in either my top hat or greatcoat).

So when I get tagged on a Tweet about laws for fashion, two things happen. Firstly I wonder why I should care. Secondly, I get out my pointing finger of judgement and point point point and wag wag wag because that's funny. Most of the time, wear what you like; it's fine. Thirdly, I take notes about all the various points about the laws. Fourthly, I start writing day and night like I am running out of time. Fifthly, I realise that I said that only two things would happen but only after it is too late. Oh well. 

I have nothing personally against John Le Fevre. I have no idea who John Le Fevre is. He might be a saint or a sinner, a knave or a knight; I know not. His 40 laws for fashion, which are all don'ts, give away that he lives in a world which is not populated by ordinary people and is populated by the kind of people who have a lot of money. If this is true, then as I work in the Sydney suburb of Mosman which is full of more money than even John Le Fevre lives in, then I can tell you that the very rich also mostly don't care what you wear. It is only the great middling classes who want to aspire upwards who care for things like fashion, and manners. The very rich and the very poor care not.

I shall mist John Le Fevre's 40 laws because they are as I see it, very strange indeed. 

Below is the link to his tweet and the 40 laws follow:

https://twitter.com/JohnLeFevre/status/1784929265592500345

Here are 40 things a man should never wear:

1. Flips flops unless you’re near a pool or beach.

Mr Le Fevre has never been to Australia, has he? Wearing flip-flops, or thongs, is not only acceptable and normal, it is practically part of the national dress code. Except if you want to go to a pub, where the wearing of flip-flops is generally banned because of the combination of glass and alcohol (and is therefore an OH&S issue because the pub does not want to conduct triage on people's cut feet), you should be able to wear flip-flops in the supermarket, in court, in church, in fact everywhere that isn't High Church of England and even then, Jesus himself likely wore sandals; so who does Mr Le Fevre think he is? Does he think he's better than Jesus?

2. Flamboyant pocket squares. All it says is you pay $1,200 a month for a car you can’t afford.

The people who have a pocket square already have the suit jacket. How much they pay for their car, is not even remotely connected here. Secondly, a bank or other lending institution isn't going to extend a line of credit to people if they can not afford to pay. That is a bad business risk. $1200 per month over seven years is only about $100K; which means that the person has bought a nice car but not overly nice. On top of this, a pocket square can be had for about $50 at a high end shop like Zara or Boss. This does not seem like a ridiculous extravagance.

3. Statement socks. They don’t give you personality or style.

No they do not. They also do not detract from it either. 

The best socks that I have ever had, were a pair of Adelaide Crows socks made by Sekem. They were lovely because they were so warm and I tend to have cold ankles and cold feet. I wore those socks with Doc Martens boots, as a Court Recorder on the floor of the High Court Of Australia on multiple occasions. So, Ha!

4. Cargo shorts.

I do not like the look of cargo shorts because I think that they look daft. However just because I do not like them is not enough reason for someone who does, to like them.

Having said that, Cargo shorts have a utility which normal trousers and jeans do not. I would expect that someone who likes cargo shorts also likes to do things outside; in which case the fashion statement here is one of rugged outdoorsmanship. "Bravo" and "Hurrah" to the person who likes cargo shorts. Fair play to you.

5. Turtlenecks. Circumcise that sweater.

Again, this is a matter of what people like and do not like. I think that Mr Le Fevre seems to think that as he is the self-confessed arbiter of what fashion is, that he gets to be the final judge. Of course as the self-appointed judge of the Fake Internet Court of Australia, I stand in absolute hypocrisy here. 

6. The guilt of your ancestors’ sins.

I can almost guarantee that Mr Le Fevre is likely to be a white person. I can almost guarantee that Mr Le Fevre is likely to be the kind white person who tries to excuse his veiled racism with the phrase "I was only just pointing out that..." was if he did it with any other motive than to harm people and cause offence. 

7. A pro sports jersey with another man’s name on the back of it.

S-Y-D N-E-Y,

I am Sydney 'til I die.

With a knick-knack, paddy-whack, give a dog a bone,

Mr Le Fevre, GO ON HOME!

Of all the least important things in the world, football is the most important. Precisely because it does not matter, the world inside a ball is bigger and better than grown-up things live love, taxes, wars, and politics. 

If you can not instantly recall line for line, some piece of sport's commentary, then quite frankly, you know nothing about passion, about skipped heartbeats, about watching everything all fall apart in an instant, or occasionally watching as time stands still and we get as close to glory and perfection as we possibly can.

No.

DO Put another man’s name on the back of it:

Yorke - 19

Skrtel - 37

Gerrard - 8

Dalglish - 7

Cantona - 7 

Also, DO Put another woman’s name on the back of it:

Kerr - 20

Vine - 5 

Earps - 1

Arnold - 18

Catley - 7

Ignore Mr Le Fevre's Rule No.33. Do wear your heart on your sleeve and on your back.

8. Facial hair that doesn’t look intentional.

How about no? Why? I appoint myself as the ur-example.

Even though I am a 45 year old man who is going grey disgracefully, I still have an amazing ability to look as though I was 17 years old and with my finger up my nose. Mrs R likes me to sport a little bit of fuzz so that she doesn't have to walk around with someone looking like a teenager. I do not know whether to take this as a complement or not. 

9. Jewelry (other than watches and wedding rings). The only thing more disappointing for a woman than seeing a desirable man with a wedding band on, is seeing a ring on any other finger.

Oh, so Mr Le Fevre is speaking for women now as well, is he? Mr Le Fevre appears to have some kind of personal vendetta against people having nice things. Just who does he think he is to speak not only on behalf of but for women? How does he get to appoint himself as the arbiter of what woman find desirable in a man. That's incredibly presumptive and horribly rude.

10. Backwards or flat brim baseball caps. Or any hat inside.

This is 2024. Who is wearing a cap backwards these days? Is Mr Le Fevre complaining against imagined teenagers who have time-travelled from the 1990s or something? And also, wearing a hat inside is fine. I do not know why this point of manners was invented in the first place. It is dafter than a nine dollar note.

As I write this on the train (inside), there is a lady with a Manchester United beanie, a man with an old school New York Yankees hat, a chap in a black Trilby, and I myself are sat sitting with a Cheesecutter. We are all in open defiance of this Law 10.

11. Pleated or cuffed pants.

I have to wonder what world Mr Le Fevre thinks that he lives in. Surely Pleated or cuffed pants haven't existed since the beginning of machine made trousers in the 1840s. Does Mr Le Fevre think that people have pantaloons and chaps or something? I know that we have just exited an Elizabethan Age but that was Elizabeth II not Elizabeth I.

12. Sneakers with a suit. It’s a good look for 1% of men, but you’re not David Beckham.

NO. DO IT.

Especially go for the classics like Chuck Taylor All Stars or Nike Dunk-Hi. It's cool.

13. Fashion watches - Chanel, Hermes, Gucci, and even Cartier.

My guess is that if someone has a Chanel, Hermes, Gucci, or even Cartier watch, it is because they like watches. I can't come at spending that much money on a watch when a Seiko will do the job reliably for years and years. Quite frankly a watch is one of those things which is so personal and hangs around for so long, that fashion is not exactly a concern here. 

14. Hoodies after the age of 40, unless the weather requires it.

There are two very good cases for wearing a hoodie and age has nothing to do with it.

Firstly that it is cold. My biggest problem with hoodies is that they are not warm enough. They are not thick enough; the are not fleecy enough. They look as though they should be able to give you a nice warm hug but always consistently fail to do so. Secondly, a hoodie is the universal uniform for people with ASBOs or people who want ASBOs. Hoodies tell the world they they should "go away" and "leave  me alone". 

Taken together, old people who tend to feel the cold more, have more of a physical reason to want a hoodie. Young people who want to brood in a world of angst, want everyone to go away. This the Hoodie is arguably the most democratic and universal piece of kit by strange default.

15. Double-breasted suits. The vast majority of men can’t pull it off.

The vast majority of men don't have a double-breasted suit. If you have bought one, then it is because you like the look of it. Some people like the look of having two sets of buttons. 

Here's the thing about why No.15 is daft. The statement that "The vast majority of men can’t pull it off" is an outright lie. To wit, I like wearing hats. I have been told that some people think that they can’t pull it off wearing a hat which is obviously a lie because if I can, and I am just a random person, then anyone can. If you do a thing more than about three times, people think it is normal; because it is.

I personally wouldn't wear a double-breasted suit because I like the look of a waistcoat and tie. That reverts back to the statement that people like what they like and don't like what they don't like; not because there needs to be a rule about it.

16. Any shorts longer than the knees.

Oh I wish I could find shorts longer than the knees. Unless it is very hot, I do not want air going up... to Georgia, looking for a soul to steal (BAM BAM). I live in a country where it appears that shorts are always inadequate and made all the worse by the existence of Stubbies. Shorts below the knees would be the answer to hopes and prayers for years.

17. Skinny or ripped jeans.

Ripped jeans? Skin is showing...

Where'dya think you're going, baby?

Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy.

But here's my number; so call me, maybe?

I am basically as noodly as Kermit The Frog. Finding ANY jeans that fit is already a task in itself. I wouldn't but someone else might.

18. Vineyard Vines.

What the sweet Johnny Major are you talking about? Vineyard Vines? Is that a footy team? Look, I wouldn't even tell people not to wear a Manchester United, Collingwood, or Western Sydney Wanderers shirt. Vineyard Vines? Hooray, boo? Go, Riverstone Rivers!

19. Country club logo golf shirts where you’re not a member. I don’t care if you played Pebble once, it’s a conversation-starter for losers.

Again, who does Mr Le Fevre know who does this? Is he mistaking Gant, Ralph Lauren, Polo, or Hugo Boss for something else? 

To that end statement "it’s a conversation-starter for losers", well is it? This sounds to me that someone went somewhere because they like golf. This person has a passion which was enough to drive them to go somewhere. Such a person is likely to be interesting. Please, do tell me about how you went to the Royal and Ancient St Andrews, or Augusta, or Torrey Pines, or Canoostie. I don't even play golf and I want to know how you approach a shot which requires backspin with an undercut 9-iron.

20. Short-sleeve button-down shirts.

I am sorry if Mr Le Fevre has added ignorance to his list of crimes but Short-sleeve button-down shirts are ace. Perhaps the greatest exponent of Short-sleeve button-down shirts was Gene Kranz who worked as Flight Director on several Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. In Mission Control he often wore Short-sleeve button-down shirts with a waistcoat and tie. 

Short-sleeve button-down shirts are the uniform of someone who wants to get serious stuff done and look serious while doing it. They likely work in an environment which is warm; which was certainly the case in Mission Control where there were banks of 1960s computers everywhere. Short-sleeve button-down shirts are cool; they are also cool in a warm environment.

21. Identifiably-designer belts.

I'm sorry but Mr Le Fevre seems rather a bit pre-occupied with looking at other people's butts here. Unless someone was wearing a brass belt buckle in the shape of Texas, or with the Great Seal of some armed force, then I wouldn't have a clue if someone was wearing a designer belt or not, much less being able to Identify what the designer was.

22. Dirty sneakers in the office. Even with a relaxed dress code, you should take care of sneakers in the same manner as dress shoes.

Counterpoint:

If someone walked into an office with a pair of obviously dirty Dunlop Volleys with the traditional blowout hole (as they all develop), then it would take about five minutes for that not to be weird. Further to this, if someone walked into an office with a pair of obviously dirty Dunlop Volleys with the traditional blowout hole, then they would instantly be cooler than Steve McQueen because they do not give an iota about what you think.

23. Oxford collars.

Given that an Oxford collar is just a collar with buttons to hold it in place, what exactly is the objection here? 

24. A backpack.

Why? I might need useful things which are in there; such as a laptop, sandwiches, a coat in case it gets cold, something to drink, a longneck of Extra Special Bitter, groceries, a football, Christmas presents. A backpack is fine.

25. Tevas, Crocs, Birkenstocks, or Uggs.

Mr Le Fevre has never been to Penrith, has he? The kinds of people who are going to wear Crocs or Uggs in public are also the same kinds of people who are really into things like doing do-eys in the carpark and hangin' around Sennalink. The kinds of people who are going to wear Birkenstocks in public are also the same kinds of people who are really into things like pilates, and wearing activewear despite never actually doing anything active but isn't it fabulous. Both of these kinds of people who are likely to take their dogs to the supermarket; though there is a distinct differnece between a Toy Pekingese and a Rottweiler.

26. Bowties without a tuxedo.

As the Doctor once said: "I wear a Bowtie now. Bowties are cool." Argument. End of.

27. Monk straps, tassels, or square-toed shoes.

Why?

28. Deep V-neck t-shirts.

Why again?

29. A fake watch.

Que? Who does this?

I'll take "Things that never happened" for $400, please.

30. Dress shirts with a pocket.

Has Mr Le Fevre seen shirts since the 1880s? Even in 2024, the idea that a dress shirts has a pocket is incredibly useful. One might need to keep a USB stick there, or a business card. One might walk into a club where you will be issued with a ticket as a temporary member. One might have bought a raffle ticket for a meat tray, or some kind of lucky door prize, or a 1969 Holden Monaro 327 GTS. Yes to the pocket.

31. Baggy clothes. Get the essentials, even jeans, tailored.

This isn't the 1990s. That kind of thing has gone out of style.

Besides which, some people are just self-conscious about how their bodies look. This isn't helped at all by people with attitudes like Mr Le Fevre's.

Besides which again, if you are complaining that people shouldn't have flamboyant pocket squares because they don't have the money, then where are they magically getying the money to have jeans tailored? 

32. Anything with big logos.

What is this supposed to mean? Does this mean something like the Adidas trefoil? Or the big Nike swoosh? Or how about the Jack Daniel's Old No.7 label? What about the logos for Metallica, Nirvana, or the Ramones? What about Castrol, Shell, Red Bull, M&Ms, Halford's, or any other motorsport sponsor? 

33. Your heart on your sleeve.

HUR-HUR-HUR... This is not even a very good dad joke. Please see me after class. You need better material.

34. Sports sunglasses. Quality shades serve an important function; they let women know you appreciate nice things and are responsible enough not to lose them.

I hate to tell you but Sports sunglasses serve an even more important function; they shield your eyes from the brightness outside and protect your eyes from UV rays. A cheap pair of Sports sunglasses which are polarised and have UV filtering, from a petrol station for $20, will do they job just as efficiently as "Quality shades", whatever that means.

35. Noticeable cologne. Men generally have a weak sense of smell and get desensitized to their own scent, so it’s worse than you realize.

NO. QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

Granted that men and especially teenage boys can smell like a thousand gorillas jammed into shipping crate (and let's be honest, that is what the back of the 173X bus does smell like on sports day), this does not mean that men should not smell of Noticeable cologne. I would rather the smell of Lynx Africa (which is the universal smell of "I have not had a shower yet") than the absolute horrorshow of the 173X bus.

36. Graphic t-shirts.

Congratulations, No.36 is just No.32 rebanged. 

The best graphic t-shirt that I have seen someone wear recently was of the retro throwback design for Brad Keslowski's Castrol Mustang. Quite frankly it kicked butt, took names, rolled around the top like a mad thing, and won all the kudos and all the marbles. 

37. Pajama pants in public.

Mr Le Fevre has never been to Melbourne, has he? The kinds of people who are going to wear Pajama pants in public are also the same kinds of people who are really into things like crystals, reiki, pilates, eastern medicine, om, going vegan, hemp clothing, et cetera. They are also the same kinds of people who will also tell you chapter and verse about where their coffee comes from, or how they found themselves in Thailand, or at the other extreme end how they were doing nangs in Frankston last week.

38. Windsor tie knots.

This is just called a 'tie'. Does Mr Le Fevre not know how to tie one? 

In a sea of black and white office attire, the tie was the last domain of colour in the office. From the classic striped club tie, to the uniform tie, or ties with The Phantom or Scooby-Doo on them, the tie was sometimes the only place of individuality in an otherwise funless office environment. Some time around about 2010, the sea of black and white office attire sort of expired and business people tend to not wear a tie at all. 

39. A “going out” shirt.

After literally saying that men should not wear graphic t-shirts, V-neck t-shirts, and short-sleeve button-down shirts, what's left?

People literally used to have a set of clothes which they called their "Sunday Best" for “going out”. After spending 40 laws on what people should and should not wear, then what in blue blazes is Mr Le Fevre going on about here? 

I bought my sister an "eating" shirt last Christmas; which was also inadvertently good enough for "going out". 

40. Women’s clothing.

I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay. I sleep all night and I work all day. 

Final Judgement:

After reading through Mr Le Fevre's insane 40 laws, then I would like to amend my own list:

1. Wear clothes.

2. Wear clothes that are appropriate (this also involves safety gear).

3. That's about it.

4. Ignore Mr Le Favre at all costs. He is a will-o-the-wisp, a flibitty-jibbet, a clown, a knave, and worst of all a flog.

Mr Le Fevre, you are guilty of both eejitation and nutwittery. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no sensible business by inventing laws in a discipline in which you have no jurisdiction, we order you to desist and stop this egregious pretense. 

If we ever see you back before this court, the penalties will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3346/1 - Ed)

Addenda:

Upon being ratio'd into the Shadow Realm by this very post as a reply (1173 likes to his 19) John Le Fevre either removed his Tweet in an act of cowardice, shame, or sensibility. This post remains intact though.

Horse 3323 - CELSIUS V FAHRENHEIT [2024] - Judgement

 CELSIUS V FAHRENHEIT [2024] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3323/1

We have learned of a dispute which has arisen and which rattled though the internuts until it finally made its way to this court until it found this fake internet court's attention:

https://twitter.com/ItsAndyRyan/status/1770502479878193226

Who's to say which system is better?

- Andy Ryan, via X, 21st Mar 2024

Well Mister Ryan, if you want matters of hypothetical ethics solved then you go to Geoffrey Robertson QC; if you want matters of astrophysics and rocket surgery solved then you go to Neil de Grasse Tyson; if you want to know what knick-knacks to put into a room or what kind of rug needs to go underneath that hideous coffee table that you can't bear to part with then you go to Tonia Todman; but if you want definitive answers to questions of no consequence then you come to The Fake Internet Court of Australia. Who is to say which system is better? I am.

This court is not only equipped to answer this dispute but it asserts jurisdiction in all spaces and all times. If that seems like an act of ultimate hubris to you, then your feeling is correct. It is. We have hubris by the bucket load here. The Fake Internet Court of Australia will judge upon about which is better: Celsius or Fahrenheit?

Probably the reason as to why this argument is uniquely posed, is that the United States of America will go to any and all lengths to use any system of measurement other than the Metric System. Miles, pounds, gallons, furlongs, barleycorns, school buses, smoots, elephants; literally any nutjob, whackjob, madjob or oddjob system, with no ground in logic or sense will do. This is despite the fact and in spite of the fact that the Metric System which is very French, was adopted by the same country which helped the United States gain their independence. This is also despite the fact and in spite of the fact that the United States was the first country to adopt decimal currency and knows very well how to operate in a system where 100 cents make 1 dollar. What the hell is a kilometer? It is an actual freedom unit; 100 per cent of the time.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

The Celsius system of temperature measurement is named after the Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius. It sounds strange that an astronomer would want to do temperature calculations but when you bear in mind that back in the 1740s, scientists were far more polymathical and ecumenical to different areas of scientific reading, this is not unexpected. In Celsius' 1742 paper "Observationer Om Twänne Beständiga Grader På En Thermometer" (Observations about two stable degrees on a thermometer), Celsius performed a series of experiments showing that the melting point of ice is essentially unaffected by pressure. He then assigned an index of 100 to the melting point of ice and an index of 0 to the boiling point of water. This proved to be really useful but the rest of the scientific community assigned the an index 0 the melting point of ice and the index of 100 to the boiling point of water because it makes more sense that the numbers should go up the hotter that a thing is.

Likewise the Fahrenheit system of temperature measurement is named after the Polish-German Gabriel Fahrenheit, who, was an instrument maker; specifically trying to make temperature measuring instruments. His thermometer made us of the fact that elemental mercury while being a liquid metal at normal room temperatures, is still subject to the same kinds of expansion and contraction as other metals when heat is applied. His scale was derived from the fact that his personally developed frigiforic mineral salt ice mixture when frozen, had a very stable melting point where he could calibrate his zero mark. The 90 mark was taken from the temperature when his thermometer was placed underneath someone's arm of in the mouth; though he worked out pretty quickly that 96 as a highly composite number was very useful. His scale which was then adopted in various places, was tinkered with and tinkered with and tinkered with.

It has to be said here that the name "Anders Celsius" probably sounds completely normal for a Swede and the name "Gabriel Fahrenheit" does indeed sound ver very German. However it can not be denied that in the English tongue, the name "Gabriel Fahrenheit" is a positively cracking name for a baby. Moreover if you hear the name "Gabriel Fahrenheit" coming out of the mouth from someone oop North, when ten year old Gabriel is out playing football in the street at 6pm such as "Gabriel Fahrenheit! Your tea is ready!", then that's well great and pure belter.

The real nub, crux, and central plank of this case is that it matters not an iota what system anyone uses, as long as everyone agrees to it. However, the idea of preparing a specific frigiforic mixture to obtain your zero point as opposed to using ordinary water under normal laboratory conditions, is very very silly. Counter to that, practically everyone in the world who wants to know what the temperature of something is, does not calibrate their own instruments. I for instance do not have to care how many electrics are in a Volt, how a Horsepower is calculated, or if the speed limit on the road is 50 whether or not that's in miles or kilometers as long as the dials in my car match up.

Final Judgement:

There are in fact three systems of temperature measurement which are in common usage. In making judgement it is best to compare their usefulness; the broadest way to do this is to compare their usefulness as applied to humans. This is what the three systems feel like to a human:

On a scale of 0 to 100 in Fahrenheit, 0 is cold and 100 is hot.

On a scale of 0 to 100 in Celcius, 0 is cold and 100 is dead.

On a scale of 0 to 100 in Kelvin, 0 is dead and 100 is dead.

Immediately this becomes a question of utility, of what feels right, and of what is sensible. We can perform a sensibility test quite easily, just by asking the simple question of fact. Is the system suitable for science, and it is suitable for humans?

Fahrenheit while it is suitable for humans is also very clearly, silly. 30 degrees Fahrenheit is cold and 100 is hot. The fact that 0 is take from a specific sample of salty water, means that it is of no use at all to humans in the real world. About the only shred of utility that Fahrenheit possesses is that 100 is hot and seems like it should be intuitively hot.

Celsius is both useful for scientific studies and suitable for humans. 0 degrees Celsius is cold and quite obviously so, and while 100 is dead, 40 is hot. If it is freezing outside, then minus temperatures is excellent at communicating that. 10 is cold. 20 is nice. 30 is warm. 40 is hot. 50 is deeply unpleasant. 60 is dead. 70 is dead. 80 is dead. 100 is boiling. 180 is an oven. 700 is a fire. 5000 is the sun. This is all reasonably intiuative. 

Kelvin while it is useful for scientific studies is clearly unsuitable for humans. When dealing with the cold, dark, expansive, horror of space, then Kelvin is perfectly sensible. But for looking at things which humans live inside of, although it is true that the temperature outside at the moment is 291 Kelvin, that is really really silly. 

As someone who is sufficiently old enough to have been born into a world which still remembered the Imperial System, I know that I am about 6 feet tall, weigh about 140 pounds and have no idea what that is in metric. I also know how fast 80km/h is, and how fast 90mph is. A pound is a useful amount of cheese a kilo is what flour comes in. A pint is a nice amount of brown ale and 1L of milk fits in the fridge. Indeed as someone who was born into a world which still remembered the Imperial System, I straddle both worlds. Then because I am married to a very very fine lady who having been born in America has also kind of learnt to walk in two worlds, I am fine with doing Metric/Imperial mental gymnastics for ease of being understood. Nevertheless, Celsius is better because Fahrenheit is silly.

Relative to the question of how many beans are in a pile (the answer is at least 23), we should be able to put that number into the schema for what is nice.  Generally speaking if there are 22 of a thing, it is nice. 23 is a clump. 24 is knowable. 25 is just about too many things. Humans do not really have intuitive powers to understand 25 things at once. Using this entirely furious spurious reasoning, then 22 then the ideal perfect number for a temperature to be nice, is 22. 

22 in Celcius, is nice.

22 in Fahrenheit, is cold.

DO NOT GO OUTSIDE IF IT IS 22 KELVINS OUT THERE!

This court hereby orders that henceforth, everyone in the world uses Celsius; including you 'Murica. Stop dragging your heels. It would not take long for a generation of children to be completely fluent in metric and it will take maybe four generations for the memory to be just that, a memory. The awful truth is that Fahrenheit in a world of Celsius is very very silly. As for you Andy Ryan, while you have been forensis amicus, this court finds that the country which you live in, which is full of nutjobbers, whackjobbers, madjobbers and oddjobbers, is guilty of massive amounts of knavery designed to perpetuate stupidity.

America, you are guilty of both conspiracy and deception. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no sensible business by continuing to use Fahrenheit when Celsius is very clearly and obviously more sensible, we order you to desist and stop this egregious pretense. If we ever see you back before this court, the penalties will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3323/1 - Ed)

Horse 3316 - THE PEOPLE v VAPE COMPANIES [2024] - Judgement

THE PEOPLE v VAPE COMPANIES [2024] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3316/1

It has come to this fake internet court's attention that vaping is now seen as cool by 'da kidz'. We are also aware that there is a secondary issue which has to do with the wide scale littering of vaping products, which we assume are supposed to be refillable but in practice never are. At least in the olden days when smoking cigarettes was seen as cool, the litter would be a cardboard box as well as miscellaneous filters festooned about the world. A vape device contains magnitudes more plastic than was ever generated by a packet of cigarettes, as well as a battery and the necessary elements to flash boil the syrup inside to generate the vape cloud.

This is not part of the primary hearing but this court by way of direction hereby orders everyone who does vape, to dispose of their rubbish thoughtfully. Don't be a mucky muk maker, do thing right thing. Chuck it the bin. If you can only be forced to do the right thing by means of the threat of punishment which stands behind the law, then you are a bad member of society and no better than an animal. 

Back to the principle matter at hand, e-cigarettes were originally invented as a quit-smoking aid. This would have been all that they were used for except that some bright spark worked out that by changing the syrup inside the device, they could get e-cigarettes to taste like anything. With some clever marketing in a practically unregulated market, within a few years e-cigarettes magically changed into what we now called 'vapes'.

Instead of a quit-smoking aid, vapes have turned into a nicotine delivery system in their own right. They have become popular enough and drawn sufficiently enough of their own market, that the ultimate proof that they have become their own thing is that there is vape advertising on Formula One cars. 20 years ago, these 200mph billboards would have advertised traditional cigarettes and it should surprise nobody that many of the various vape brands are owned by exactly the firms which owned the various cigarette brands: such as Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, et cetera.

This fake internet court makes no moral prescription about whether or not people should vape. The facts are well enough known that vaping causes lung damage, as well as health issues like black lung. This is only to be expected as vaping is yet another particulate delivery system to ones lungs. It is also a reasonably established maxim that people like what they like and are going to do what they like unless regulations and/or the law is so restrictive as to be a barrier to doing it. If people know the dangers and yet keep on wanting to do this anyway, then no direction from a fake internet court is going to change their minds.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

As someone who does not vape but who shares enclosed spaces with people who do, I know that most of the flavours of vapes are fruit based. I personally think that fruit flavours like pineapple, mango, strawberry, et cetera, after they have been sucked into someone's lungs and them blown back out again, all seem to resemble a poor facsimile of rotten fruit. This is not pleasant. 

As I live in the bogan west of Sydney and work in the harbour suburb of Mosman, and commute to work on trains and buses, I think that I must be singularly unique in that in one day I can share a bus with people from both the poorest and the richest suburb of the harbour city. In many respects, the difference between the quality of character of people at the very bottom and the very top of the economic ladder may as well be non-existent. One of the basic premises of economics and indeed most religions is that people are either rationally or irrationally selfish; and I can tell you that the likelihood of someone vaping on the bus in both the very richest and very poorest suburbs, is pretty well identical.

Vapes on the bus go round and round the air-conditioning system; so a bus ride is often like a smell roulette wheel. In addition to whatever other smells that we get on the bus, the smell of expended vape from someone else's lungs, is just one of legion. What smell are we going to get today? 4711? Pubescent boys' body odour? Rotten pineapple or rotten strawberry vape? Chanel No.5? Lynx Africa? Who knows? Wheel of olfactory, spin, spin, spin. What smell today do we find ourselves in?

There are two delicious ironies about this. The first delicious irony of this is that it is not delicious. Vaping probably tastes nice as evidenced by the fact that people like to do it. The second delicious irony of this is that it this is not merely a case of an old man yelling at a metaphorical cloud but a case of an old man yelling at a actual cloud. In the twenty-first century we have in some cases returned to the fug and palls of cloud which form inside of public transport. 

Final Judgement:

One of the things about smoking is that burning tobacco had a certain smell about it. That smell indicated to the world that the person who was smoking was aware of the risks and did it anyway. There is a sense of daring-do with tobacco smoke. The smell of a Gauloises wrapped inside a Gitanes indicates that a French person is looking down on you. The smell of a Marlboro indicates that person has dreams of punching a bison. The smell of a Lucky Strike indicates nothing other than it's toasted. The smell of putrid pineapple, mouldy kiwifruit, or not quite strawberry, indicates that you have accidentally wandered into a creche during snack time. Tobacco smoke was cool because fire is dangerous; even if it is tiny. However, can someone really said to be cool if they smell like rotten banana, mouldy strawberry, or pine lime?

This court hereby orders that henceforth, all vaping companies replace their fake fruit flavours with something actually cool and daring. This court suggests that such vape flavours as espresso coffee, southern beans and chili, charred capsicum, schezuan beef, and that most venerable flavour of all, bacon, be used instead. One does not impart any sense of being cool with vape exhalations that smell like someone has vomited an entire ice cream shop into a bus.

Vape Companies, you are guilty of both conspiracy and deception. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no sensible business by altering the air that we breathe, we order you to desist and stop this egregious pretense. If we ever see you back before this court, the penalties will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3316/1 - Ed)

Horse 3309 - THE PEOPLE v THE CHIZZA [2024] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

THE PEOPLE v THE CHIZZA [2024] - Judgement

H3309/1

"Great Judge Rollo,

Make a ruling on whether or not The Chizza from KFC should exist. I think it's dumb and is pointless and needs to **** right off and never come back."

- Kyle18, 2nd Mar 2024.

It has come to the attention of this court that KFC has invented a thing called "The Chizza" and this week, I was sent a message on a motorsport forum of all things, to make a ruling on Kentucky Fried Chicken's apparently new invention. Firstly I am flattered to be called "Great Judge" because that helps to solidify the inherent silliness and seriousness The Fake Internet Court of Australia. This court is in a unique position in that it simultaneously asserts that it is both definitive, irrelevant, and igororable.

This fake internet court has been asked in the past to rule on whether or not pineapple belongs on a pizza (no, it doesn't), whether or not banana belongs on a pizza (no, it doesn't), and what the best pizza actually is (it is pepperoni and red onion). This court claims to therefore be qualified in this realm to answer this kind of question. The point of order contained in this application is whether or not The Chizza needs to exist. Before we can get to that point of order, we need to know what a Chizza is.

These then are the facts as the court sees them:

The Chizza appears to be no more than a flattish piece of chicken which is fried in the fast-food chain's signature batter of 11 herbs and spices, topped with pizza sauce, mozzarella cheese and pepperoni slices.

The 'what' of this case is pretty easy to establish. The 'why' of this case, became the subject of a Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2024/02/27/kfc-chizza-review-chicken-pizza/

KFC’s Chizza is a chicken-pizza mashup with one looming question: Why?

- Emily Heil, Washington Post, 27th Feb 2024.

The article is quite reasonable in trying to attack both of the questions of 'what' and 'why'; so it doesn't need much in the way of discovery by this court. Let's not beat about the bush and attempt to call a 'spade' a 'square headed digging and hauling hand tool'; let's call this out for what it is. KFC have just invented a chicken parmi with a proprietary name.

Before judgement is pronounced, this court would like to thank our learned friends and esteemed colleagues, Hen Solo acting as counsel for The People and Marsha Mellow who acted as counsel for the defence.

With these known facts, the court is more than adequately armed to be able to make judgement.

Final Judgement:

Anyone who has been to an Ari in Australia or New Zealand in the past 50 years knows exactly what a chicken parmi is. We all know that a chicken parmi is an act of magic where you take a big chicken nugget and with the addition of sauce and cheese, are able to charge $18 for it. All that KFC have done here is made a slightly fancier chicken parmi and added it to their menu.

Maybe this is novel and new to an American audience but as someone who has been to many Aris, the fact that KFC has done this looks so blatantly obvious that it should have already been a fait accompli.

The art of putting things on top of other things is not new; nor is the art of putting food on top of other kinds of food. A long long time ago, in a land called 'the 90s', a pie shop on my way home from school sold a 'pizza meat pie'; which was the same idea as a Shepherds' Pie but with a layer of pizza on top instead of potato. This was brilliant. When the pie shop closed forever, all that was left was the idea, the memory, and the hope, that one day someone would reinvent pizza meat pie. Nobody has but chicken parmi is a very fine substitute. 

It is the opinion of this court that The Chizza despite its ridiculous name, is inherently a brilliant idea. If as the Washington Post suggests, that The Chizza is disappointing, then that's fine as well and should be expected. What do you seriously expect from a fast-food chain which has disinterested teenagers working behind the counter? In some respects this court applauds poor customer service and quality because that equates to something being cheap. 

If the Chizza ever comes to Australia then the name is already perfect. People have no problem in calling a proprietary object a weird name. KFC have sold a burger in the past called a 'Zinger'; so the name 'Chizza' doesn't seem at all out of place. Where this name excels is that it sounds like the nickname that you might give to someone called Charles, or who has the surname of Cheesman. If this was sold by KFC in Penrith, or Spotswood, immediately after closing time for pubs in the area, it is very easy to imagine a lot of drunk bogans yelling "Chizza!" at 1am in the morning. The fact that said bogans might have been kicked out of Panthers, where they could have already gotten an $18 chicken parmi, is a lesson in dramatic irony.

To answer the general point of order of whether or not the Chizza needs to exist. Probably nothing needs to exist but walking back from the concept of causa sui to the less absolute position of 'should' as opposed to 'need', then The Chizza is not a thing that does exist and should not. I am unlikely to ever come across a Chizza in person (because the truth is that even though I live within walking distance of a KFC, I have never been to that KFC); so it seems churlish to rule against it. The whole idea of proprietary parmi is likely inevitable and unless it actually is disgusting, this fake internet court is uninclined to rule against it.

Judgement is hereby made in favour of the continued existence of The Chizza, with absolute unqualified ambivalence towards it. In the words of Icona Pop as used in the KFC adverts "I don't care." That is all.

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3309/1 - Ed)