Sir Humphrey: "The identity of the Official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical oversight has been the subject of recent discussion, is NOT shrouded in quite such impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have led you to assume, but not to put too fine a point on it, the individual in question is, it may surprise you to learn, one whom you present interlocutor is in the habit of defining by means of the perpendicular pronoun."
Jim Hacker: "I beg your pardon?"
Sir Humphrey: "It was...I."
Sir Humphrey: "...the precise correlation between the information you communicated, and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear."
Jim Hacker: "Epistemological, what are you talking about?"
Sir Humphrey: "You told a lie."
Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Certain informal discussions took place, involving a full and frank exchange of views, from which there rose a series of proposals, which on examination proved to indicate certain promising lines of enquiry, which, when pursued, led to the realization that the alternative courses of action might, in fact, in certain circumstances, be susceptible of discrete modification, leading to a reappraisal of the original areas of difference and pointing the way to encouraging possibilities of compromise and cooperation which, if bilaterally implemented with appropriate give and take on both sides might, if the climate were right, have a reasonable possibility at the end of the day, of leading, rightly or wrongly, to a mutually satisfactory resolution."
Jim Hacker: "What the hell are you talking about?"
Sir Humphrey Appleby: "We did a deal."
Jim: Humphrey, do you see it as part of your job to help Ministers make fools of themselves.
Sir Humphrey: Well, I've never met one that needed any help.
Sir Humphrey: Minister I have something to say to you which you may not like to hear.
Jim: Why should today be any different.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the Ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position.
Jim: Now, whatever made you think I wouldn't want to hear that.
Sir Humphrey: Well I though it might upset you.
Jim: How could it, I didn't understand a single word. Humphrey for God's sake, for once in your life put it into plain English.
Sir Humphrey: If you insist. You are not here to run this Department.
Sir Humphrey: To put it absolutely bluntly, confidential investigations have proved the existence of certain documents whose provenance is currently unestablished, but whose effect if realised would be to precipitate a by-election.
Jim: What do you mean?
Sir Humphrey: You're on a death list, Minister.
Sir Humphrey: Well it was a conversation to the effect that in view of the somewhat nebulous and inexplicit nature of your remit and the arguably marginal and peripheral nature of your influence on the central deliberations and decisions within the political process, that there could be a case for restructuring their action priorities in such a way as to eliminate your liquidation from their immediate agenda.
Jim: They said that?
Sir Humphrey: That was the gist of it.
Jim: What does it mean, in English.
Sir Humphrey: Well it means that, they don't think you're really important enough for it to be worth assassinating you.
Jim: Five standard excuses?
Sir Humphrey: Yes. First there's the excuse we used for instance in the Anthony Blunt case.
Jim: Which was?
Sir Humphrey: That there is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything, but security forbids its disclosure. Second there is the excuse we used for comprehensive schools, that it only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limits.
Jim: But that's not true is it?
Sir Humphrey: No, but it's a good excuse. Then there's the excuse we used for Concorde, it was a worthwhile experiment, now abandoned, but not before it had provided much valuable data and considerable employment.
Jim: But that is true isn't it? Oh no, of course it isn't.
Sir Humphrey: The fourth, there's the excuse we used for the Munich agreement. It occurred before certain important facts were known, and couldn't happen again
Jim: What important facts?
Sir Humphrey: Well, that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe.
Jim: I thought everybody knew that.
Sir Humphrey: Not the Foreign Office.
Jim: Five?
Sir Humphrey: Five, there's the Charge of the Light Brigade excuse. It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual which has now been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures.
Bernard: You remember that letter you wrote Round Objects on?
Jim: Oh yes.
Bernard: It's come back from Sir Humphrey's office, he's commented on it.
Jim: What does he say?
Bernard: Who is Round and to what does he object?
Jim: I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country. The Times is read by people who actually do run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who own the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about people who read the Sun.
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
