[Tubby Isaacs]

[Arrowhead]

Glorious stuff. That entire Sir Michael Take account makes for very funny reading.

[Samanfur]

[Bones McCoy]

Glorious stuff. That entire Sir Michael Take account makes for very funny reading.

Just imagining Dacre's expletive tornado when he finds out.

Consider how many lame satirists the Mail employs: Littlejohn, Letts.
You'd think they could at least spot somebody who does it better.

[Yug]

They can't. That's why they employ tossers like Letts and Littlejohn.

[Andy McDandy]

Two options as to how the press establishment will react:

1. A bit like when Joe Lycett was on Kuennesberg and showed them all up. Court jesters have their place, but should remember when to shut up and let the serious people talk.

2. The game show host response - gently remind the punter that they're not there to be funny, and most certainly should not upstage the host.

Whatever the case, it's always good to remember something that's been more and more apparent since social media (especially Twitter) came about - that journalists are no funnier than anyone else. For years, serving as the gatekeeper to the corridors of power, the journalist could pass off other people's jokes as their own and take advantage of the delay between publication and response to formulate witty quips. Then suddenly along comes Twitter et al and it's apparent that there are proles out there who are just as sharp and on the money as any journalist, or "telly jester"/"rubber faced funnyman" or other person in the cool kids club. Suddenly the journalese subtext ("know your fucking place, pleb") is looking very shaky.

My dad always used to say that the best indicator of a sense of humour was an ability to laugh at oneself. On that score, nobody in the newspaper business has one.

[Andy McDandy]

They can't. That's why they employ tossers like Letts and Littlejohn.

Too much humour in this country can be traced back to kids writing for the school magazine and trying to impress the teacher they needed backing from, who considered Punch the beginning and end of funny.

[The Weeping Angel]

Two options as to how the press establishment will react:

1. A bit like when Joe Lycett was on Kuennesberg and showed them all up. Court jesters have their place, but should remember when to shut up and let the serious people talk.

2. The game show host response - gently remind the punter that they're not there to be funny, and most certainly should not upstage the host.

Whatever the case, it's always good to remember something that's been more and more apparent since social media (especially Twitter) came about - that journalists are no funnier than anyone else. For years, serving as the gatekeeper to the corridors of power, the journalist could pass off other people's jokes as their own and take advantage of the delay between publication and response to formulate witty quips. Then suddenly along comes Twitter et al and it's apparent that there are proles out there who are just as sharp and on the money as any journalist, or "telly jester"/"rubber faced funnyman" or other person in the cool kids club. Suddenly the journalese subtext ("know your fucking place, pleb") is looking very shaky.

My dad always used to say that the best indicator of a sense of humour was an ability to laugh at oneself. On that score, nobody in the newspaper business has one.

They're people on twitter who think they're as sharp and on the money as any journalist but usually aren't.