Crisps and Sandwiches

Lord Tyler

At the end of the Earl of Sandwich’s speech last Thursday on the Millennium Development programme, before he gave way to Lord Crisp, the printed Hansard records the following:

“I was going to say a word about health targets, but in this environment, it seems very appropriate that a Crisp should replace a Sandwich.”

Yes, it appears in ITALICS.  I have never seen such splendid presentation of a joke, even as good as one as this, in the Hansard for either House.  The rules by which the wonderful composers of the Official Report operate are usually very comprehensive and very precise.  Can anyone explain how a joke, comment or witticism qualifies for this italicised treatment?

7 comments for “Crisps and Sandwiches

  1. Dave H
    28/11/2012 at 5:56 pm

    There’s always the possibility that it’s an amazingly appropriate typo. The first character in the italicised sentence is a capital I, so it may be that instead of shift-I, the typist managed to nudge something else instead of the shift key that got interpreted along with the I to generate the italics? You’d have to ask them how they create the web pages.

  2. MilesJSD
    29/11/2012 at 6:41 pm

    Uaually sandwiches are healthier for you then salt-laced crisps;

    also, don’t many people use italics just to emphasise or ‘highlight’ something ?

    but in the case of the Highly & Officially Correct HANSARD
    I imagine a sub-editor thought
    “this is off-the-cuff repartee-joke sort-of-stuff, not to be taken seriously, so I’d better put it obviously differently, such as in italics”.
    But the whole context seems to my unversed mind to be not just “culture-bound” but even “sub-sub-sub-culture-bound” [under UK Parliamentary];

    therefore we are entitled to either sit-it-out or look up the answer from the back of the book

    (the latter response having little doubt already been undertaken by numerous Lords- of-the-Blog readers, by your leave await ‘knowledge’ from one or more of them).

  3. Nazma FOURRE
    29/11/2012 at 10:07 pm

    Dear Lord Tyler,
    I would tend to think dear lord Tyler that the joke makes the joker.If we look at the litteral meaning of a sandwich, it would simply mean bread and the crip is what is in the sandwich . The sandwich is nothing without the inner fillings which form part of the crisp. The real meaning is that the crisp which forms part of the inner reforms should replace the bigger ones. Yes it is a joke for the one who writes it and the reason why it is written in italics.
    God save the Queen and the beloved Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
    Nazma FOURRE

  4. MilesJSD
    30/11/2012 at 10:29 am

    Surely the traditional English countryside word for a peripatetic worker’s essential snack, carried with him/her, and not-necessarily a sandwich, is “crib”:

    but “crisp” has a quite different adjectival, adverbial and nominal sense (and meaning) I believe;
    and it is not abbreviated to “crip” that I’ve ever heard (or seen in print
    except by NF above).

    Quite right to separate-out confusion and conflation; go ahead please.

  5. Croft
    30/11/2012 at 1:00 pm

    Lord Tyler: Lord Norton noted on his website in 2010 that [laughter] had been added in Hansard instead of the usual Noble Lords: Oh He thought this a first so perhaps things are changing. Having said that anyone who has done any proofreading might find Dave H’s suggestion all too plausible.

    The solution is surely for you to ask!

    • MilesJSD
      01/12/2012 at 3:36 pm

      ? ? ? ?
      If David H’s solution has the typist(e) NOT pressing the shift-key
      then surely there would have been no initial capital “I” ?
      the sentence would have started with “i” ;

      and further, since you seem to support that DH solution, which fails to give whatever alternative and/or erroneous key(s) might have been pressed in order to result in the (problem)-italics –
      but also to ensure the initial capital “I …” not “I” –

      then surely you (Croft) need to tell out what that alternative probably (if not indubitantly) was, don’t you ?
      For the originator [Lord Tyler] to be sent off on a chase to “Ask (someone ((again alas! both ‘what’ and ‘whom’ have been neither specified nor even suggested )))”
      is another matter altogether,

      surely ?

  6. Nazma FOURRE
    01/12/2012 at 12:50 am

    Dar MSLD,
    Still so tender to my comments as usual. I was just refering to the litteral meaning of crips. Pity you feel so intimidated and shy that you cited me as NF, only my initials.I note it with a little smile knowingly that you have learnt to be shy. Please don’t.
    God bless the United Kingdom. God save the Queen and the beloved Lords.
    Nazma FOURRE

Comments are closed.