Misstored

A MAN IS ON TRIAL

JUDGE
Mr Arthur Felt, I put it to you, that on Septmebr 19th live on BBC1, you did repeatedly stab a Mr Chris Moyles to death with a kitchen knife. An act witnessed by 2 studio technsicians, 7 flunkies, and 15 listeners.

MAN
I did.

JUDGE
You are aware you are confessing to murder, Mr Felt.

MAN
With respect your honour, no, I merely misstored the knife.

JUDGE
Do not try, this courts patience explain yourself.

MAN
Well sir on 2 occaisons last year, the US airforce accidentally placed live nuclear war heads on bombers. At least one of which over flew the White House.
In a separate incident Taiwan was accidentally sent top secret US nuclear weapons.

JUDGE
So what Mr Felt?

MAN
Well sir the crews that misplaced, these wepaons felt they were storing them ib the right place. Well yesterday whilst listening to that insufferable git Chris Moyles on radio 1, and slicing bread. I thought should I put the knife in the the knife rack. Then Mr Moyles made an ironic racist joke, and I thought I know where to store this knife.

JUDGE
Case dismissed, Mr Felt do you ever listen to Terry Wogan?

MAN
No your hnour.

JUDGE
Please do Mr Felt, but only when slcing bread.

I quite like it, but it needs a huge leap of faith in that this guy is slicing bread, hears Moyles and then is able to stab him. Is he in the next studio?!

Also not quite sure the whole Moyles things works. Maybe if you're talking about mis-storing it should be to do with parking a car illegally or something, that would seem to tie in slightly better IMO.

A final small point - can listeners witness? Witnessing is to see...

I think listeners can witness.

Otherwise all fair, I think it's lumpen as I'm switching from my standup act.

I think if the basic idea works, I'll trim it, and make the guy a BBC canteen staff member.

Listeners can't witness, despite what a teenager on wikipedia might say! It's historic use is legal - a witness to a crime. And hearing something wouldn't be seen as reliable, where as seeing something is.

Sorry to be a smart arse, but if it grates for me, chances are it will for someone else.

Don't slate the BBC - it's the best organisation in the world ;-)

I think making him a canteen member would be a better idea. maybe cut the "15 listners" bit. It's a well known fact that he has millions of listeners so doesn't really work. Also does he make racist jokes? I listen to him quite a bit and have never heard him make one.

aside to barbs:

does that mean that a blind person could never give evidence in court as a "witness" to something?

Took 5 minutes

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16181

smarty pants!

I'd fix on if a joke/skit is funny and stop fixing on minutiae.

As for the BBC. High standards should be expected from a virtually uncountable agency with a multi billion pond budget, paid for by a deeply unfair poll tax (which it even has it's own rather sinister agency to enforce).

http://spiderbomb.com/tv/womenprison.html

Quote: wayne lewis @ March 28, 2008, 4:31 PM

I think making him a canteen member would be a better idea. maybe cut the "15 listners" bit. It's a well known fact that he has millions of listeners so doesn't really work. Also does he make racist jokes? I listen to him quite a bit and have never heard him make one.

He was caught making n word jokes at one point, and pretending to be a big black man when interviewing some one.

aside to barbs:

does that mean that a blind person could never give evidence in court as a "witness" to something?

View original

Also I'm exaggerating BBC Radio's habit of hiring clapped out stars, for 6-7 figures and then watching the listening figure plummet (115, is just funnier than 2,500,000)

Quote: sootyj @ March 28, 2008, 4:39 PM

Took 5 minutes

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16181

smart pants!

I'd fix on if a joke/skit is funny and stop fixing on minutiae.

View original

Is this for me? If so then sometime the minutiae are what make a joke funny. If you write something that isn't true, and the majority of people know it's not true, then it distracts from the joke. Making it pointless and not very funny.

For me, the inherent problem in the sketch is this line.

Quote: sootyj @ March 28, 2008, 1:03 PM

MAN
Well sir on 2 occaisons last year, the US airforce accidentally placed live nuclear war heads on bombers. At least one of which over flew the White House.
In a separate incident Taiwan was accidentally sent top secret US nuclear weapons.

View original

It shows you lack the confidence in your audience being up to date on that particular news. Of course without it, people like me will have no idea what the misstored story is. And there's the rub.

Quote: wayne lewis @ March 28, 2008, 4:48 PM

Is this for me? If so then sometime the minutiae are what make a joke funny. If you write something that isn't true, and the majority of people know it's not true, then it distracts from the joke. Making it pointless and not very funny.

View original

Not aimed at you at all, I think one is entitled to some suspension of disbelief.

And yes listeners can be witness's.

Quote: David Bussell @ March 28, 2008, 4:49 PM

For me, the inherent problem in the sketch is this line.

It shows you lack the confidence in your audience being up to date on that particular news. Of course without it, people like me will have no idea what the misstored story is. And there's the rub.

View original

That's kinda the crux of the joke, if it doesn't work then the skit doesn't.

Oh well it worked on stage, but not as a skit.

[quote name="sootyj
That's kinda the crux of the joke, if it doesn't work then the skit doesn't.

Oh well it worked on stage, but not as a skit.
[/quote]

Fair eough. Who can say without seeing it performed, eh?

I think it works well as it is sooty.

Thanks, Dave, it's quite a nice standup. But standup doesn't always make for a good skit, this ones a bit pompous-polemical.

Quote: sootyj @ March 28, 2008, 4:47 PM

Took 5 minutes

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16181

smarty pants!

I'd fix on if a joke/skit is funny and stop fixing on minutiae.

View original

(Sighs)

I don't think I'll bother commenting on your sketches again sooty, not really worth my time.

You say don't focus on the minutiae, but, unless you expect me to re-write your 30+ sketches per day, what else is there to focus on? I said I liked this sketch overall, but tried to advise on where it didn't work in my opinion. But if you don't want help on fine tuning, then so be it.

Your habit of finding online resources to back-up arguments is quite tiresome, especially when you chose to google a completely random forum on a site that could have been made by complete morons. And the thread you chose isn't even unanimous - there are people who argue as to the use of witness both ways.

Can witness be used in a way that doesn't refer to seeing something? Yes, I suppose so. Expert witnesses don't see things, they analyse and I'm sure there are rare cases in the annuls of legal history where a witness has been a blind, deaf dumb mute who felt the criminal touch them and could identify them by the length of their fingernails. But, that's not the normal use of witness. Listeners hear, witnesses see - end of.

I tried to help with your sketch but, seriously, f--k it. What's the point? If you want to argue semantics, then let's find another forum – given my journalism training, status as a published author and employment at the BBC I'm fairly sure of my ground. If you want comments on your sketches, find some other mug.

The sketch was a bit laboured Sootyj. And because of this the sketch doesn't really work.

P.S. Listeners can be witnesses.

Fine by me Barbs. I never listened to the Parrot Skit, and wandered why the shop owner didn't ask for a receipt.

I certainly don't expect you to rewrite any of my skits. Feedback on what works is welcome, endless sniping reference on minor factual details? Well if it makes you happy.

As for the Beeb, the day a national institution with a multi billion pound budget is beyond question, or mockery. That's a sad day for democracy.

n.b. actually now I'm curious? If you were reporting on the court case of a blind person who was burgled, and who gave detailed evidence, of accent, vocal ticks, etc of the criminal. How would you describe him, if not as the witness?