The Supreme Court has launched a campaign to promote itself as a venue for private events, but has drawn the line at a Satanist dinner party.

This week the highest court in the UK, which opened in 2009 with a £77 million construction bill and which costs £13.5 million a year to run, unveiled a new website pimping itself out to paying guests. According to the brochure, 'The Lawyers Suite' is a "beautiful" room "perfect for smaller intimate dinners". Meanwhile, larger events can be catered for in a "setting of distinction" with a "sense of grandeur". Namely, the second floor lobby. "Situated directly outside Courtroom One", it reads, "the lobby has a wealth of interesting features that include wooden panelling and intricate stained glass".

However, the cash-strapped Ministry of Justice may be interested to learn that the court has its limits when it comes to recouping the running costs. An undercover RollOnFriday reporter who attempted to hire the lobby to celebrate Walpurgisnacht, the highlight of the Satanist calendar, was refused permission (read the full conversation) on the grounds that an elite gathering of devil-worshippers was "not a suitable event for the Supreme Court".

    How it will look
     
     How it will not look

A spokesman for the Supreme Court said that over £100,000 per year has been raised from events, tours and souvenirs and that he hoped the new website would boost sales which would, "over the long term, reduce our net call on public finances". He added, however, that it would be "misleading to suggest the website launch is due to recent reductions in public expenditure".
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Roll On Friday 24 March 16 10:39

Does it say what strain of Satanism? For example, LaVeyan Satanism is actually fairly sensible, if you ignore rule7 about magic. The other 10 are fairly civilised, if phrased like something from a heavy metal album. Check them out on Wiki. Probably not a surprise to some regular ROFfers that I'm something of a fan ;)

Anonymous 24 March 16 11:39

Is it very tedious of me to point out that by refusing venue hire on the basis of religion or belief, the MoJ has acted unlawfully?

Yes, it is.