Court rules banks can bugger you provided they warn you first

Millions of bank customers have been told by a Supreme Court judgement that banks can take them roughly from behind, just as long as the banks tell them it is coming in their small print.

The court has overturned earlier court rulings that allowed the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the fairness of them taking everything you own simply because you borrowed a tenner without getting written consent in advance.

A bankers union representative told us, “This is obviously a victory for common sense. Well, common sense and billion pound commercial enterprises.”

Banks were keen to stress that they had done nothing wrong in applying extortionate punitive fees to people who unexpectedly went overdrawn.

“Look, if there was a sign on dark alley that said you were very likely to get raped if you used it, then you can’t blame the rapist when you get attacked and repeatedly violated.”

“He made it very clear what was going to happen, and it doesn’t matter if your other routes home were all on fire - he gave you fair notice, and therefore did nothing wrong.”

“So we’re a bit like that rapist, and you’re a bit like the victim who hasn’t had the foresight to plan a better route home.”

Fair

The courts have issued a statement claiming that the ruling has nothing to do with the the Government owning a significant interest in pretty much all of the banks at risk in the case.

“Of course not,” said Supreme court president Lord Phillips.

“Banks cannot be held to the standards you or I adhere to.”

“If we mismanage our finances, we should get financially raped, but if the banks mismanage their finances, they should get billions in support from the Government - it’s only fair.”

“The fact that the Government pays my wages, decides if I keep a job, and provides me with an excellent pension, has nothing to do with my decision in this case whatsoever.”