@@benzienugent2010 just because filler words don't add meaning to a conversation, doesn't mean they don't have purpose. Every single word uttered had a distinct purpose, and this was how the scriptwriters told the joke well before it was even told. You could get the intended mood of a scene simply by comparing how much rambling they did, and quite how overly complex the vernacular became
I was a Civil Servant for 25 years and every episode was like being back at my old office. All civil servants adopt a no fault policy. That means you must not make a mistake and therefore get a more rapid promotion. The downside is that you therefore don't actually do anything and in doing nothing you cannot make a mistake. Easy isn't it!
There are some schools of thought that equate the value of governmental deadlock to the value of legislative inaction, deriving theories of economic stability from them.
Ah Trevor, such wise words. I started working in a wool store in my v.early 20s. We had wool packs in bale stands for floor sweepings. In the rush to get home at the end of the day they were often left full, much to the chagrin of the next shift. One day, in a burst of youthful enthusiasm i made sure to empty them. Along came another chap with a longer work history. He started to remove the wool packs. I watched carefully, conscious i may have got it wrong. No, he just put them back exactly the same way as i had already done. He was just apearing to be busy so he didnt get sent home, or get another dirtier job and no doubt would claim the credit for my good deed.....people say there is no I in team. They are right, but that taught me there isn't a YOU either.
e.g Pakistani Army running the country stealing from the poor and pointing to the Kashmir problem which technically and realistically is not a problem except in the minds of the puppets and the cronies of the Pakistani Army so as to create an optical illusion and political dilemma thus creating an international conundrum unable to be resolved and the culprits brought to justice who deliberately have ruined a peaceful state of existence within the Indian Union.
In Cryptography and Computer Security, we have Kerckhoff's principle, which states that any security system should not be broken by transparency. You should always assume everyone else knows how your security systems work. With that assumption you should make a system that they cannot break while knowing of its inner workings. Politics has not yet reached this insight. And yes, sometimes secrecy is needed. But it needs to be done for the right reasons. Keeping military strategy, espionage, or internal telephone numbers secret is good, as they are needed for functional operations. Keeping the poverty rates among the employed secret to prevent people from seeing the number of working poor, that is just corrupt dishonesty, as its only purpose is to stop government accountability, the most important part of democracy.
Jesus, I missed that. Can't believe it, so many people involved with this show are now dead but it is an amazing testament to them that it is still being watched.
"Apparently, the fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need-to-know was known. And therefore, those that needed to advise and inform the home secretary perhaps felt that the information that he needed, as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information, was not yet known. And therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed, because the need-to-know was not at that time known or needed." I love how Humphrey and Bernard have different ways of being incomprehensible; Humphrey relies on his immense vocabulary to draw on words Hacker won't understand, while Bernard uses a simple vocabulary with ridiculously contorted sentence structures and the repetition of certain words. Personally, I've never had trouble with Humphrey (I'm a fan of obscure vocabulary so I usually understand each word he uses,) but with Bernard I really have to concentrate.
I have to listen closely to make sense of Sir Humphrey's convoluted dialogue, but some reason its really fun. One of the things that makes Yes Minister and Yes PM one of my favourite shows of all time.
"Apparently, the fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need-to-know was known. And therefore, those that needed to advise and inform the home secretary perhaps felt that the information that he needed, as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information, was not yet known. And therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed, because the need-to-know was not at that time known or needed." I'm proud I understood this the first time through.
"Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement inasmuch as 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." BRILLIANT!!!
Hawthorne and Eddington get a lot of credit for their acting and their monologues, But the guy who played Bernard had one hell of a tongue twister in this scene and he delivered it perfectly while at the same time infusing it with Bernard's personality. Superb acting and much underrated.
Yes .. Bernard was brilliant as well and had some amazing tongue twister dialogue. The three of them were without parallel. What an incredibly clever series with genius writers. Those were the days .
As much as the attention goes to Sir Humphrey taking a paragraph to say "You lied," I think I like Bernard's word juggle even more. Both brilliantly written and performed.
"The trouble today has arisen because of your own error of judgment in making this denial." and "You should not have denied something about which you did not know." So good.
Bernard's contribution sounds remarkably like Donald Rumsfeld's "known unknowns etc" comments during the second Iraq war 14 years after this episode was first shown. Was he a fan of "Yes, Prime Minister"?
"Bernard Wooley" was a "high-flyer", a brilliant graduate from Oxford university, fast-tracked through the Civil Service and given the difficult post of Principal Private Secretary to a minister (Hacker). In that post, he had to carefully balance the confidentiality of the Minister with the requirements of the Civil Service. Being adept at handling this proved that he was destined for high office, eventually (according to the books which accompanied the TV series) becoming Sir Bernard Wooley, Cabinet Secretary. He learned quickly from Sir Humphrey Appleby and developed his linguistic gymnastics from observing him in action.
@@auto27user longer still even, the Britons against the Romans (with the help of the Gauls who'd been 'civilised' and served as Auxilia), and before that still the tribes of Britannia against the tribes of Gaul. Our two peoples have ever been at war, ever since the English Channel was formed thousands of years ago.
@@greypilgrim228 Britannia tribes were Scots and Irish today, don't think they count. The earliest feud that i know of is around the three emperor crisis round 3rd century
@@auto27user Britannia would not have been exclusively Scots and Irish, many English and Welsh still have traces of ancient Britons ancestry in their DNA. That's like saying because the Scots and Irish bred with Vikings that they're no longer proper Celts. Of course we're still the descendants of the ancient Britons, it's just some of us are closer than others.
@@auto27user Britannia tribes were mainly welsh with scots being a mixture of irish anglo saxon and welsh and irish being welsh. English have british ancestors but are more germanic expecially in the south east while welsh are most similar to neolithic inhabitants (the first people who lived there) though that's mainly the north welsh, with the south welsh having more foreign influence due to migration.
Brilliance beyond Brilliance. There is absolutely no communication today let alone this crisp English speaking that is music to my hears. Sir Humphrey was most gifted Naturally in speech.
Ah yes the English language, of which I am a native speaker with a local accent where I grew up. Being a native speaker I have been interested in the language and it's history and the more you learn about the language, it is a language a native speaker can have pride in. Stay well and ciao for now
The fact that this was the final episode always made me hungry for more. Whilst the episode ended favorably for the PM, and while we did touch on everything that made the series the apex of intellectualism insofar as comedy shows are concerned, it didn't feel like a fitting finale to the lives of these three individuals, not to mention all of their colleagues and acquaintances.
If you compare the first epidode of "yes, Prime Minister" and this one (the last one) you notice Paul Eddington's declining health (which is also why in most of the second season simply sits behind his desk and does not move around a lot) Yet he still manages to put on a stellar performance
"Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" were the brilliantly conceived versions and written comic chronicles correlating nicely to Tory Chief Whip, Francis Urquhart, and his subsequently memorable and duplicitous reign as Prime Minister in "House of Cards," "To Play A King," and "Final Cut." Both are masterworks of political intrigue, biting satire, willful political public contempt and class social derision.
I met a couple on a train in days gone by, and the husband happened to work for the Australian Civil Service, and he said of this show "Its not a comedy, its a documentary" hahaha
Margaret Thatcher loved this show , and she admitted to giving the writers material based on her experiences of dealing with the civil service. So yeah its pretty true to life.
@@guguigugu Ive been crazy about this show for 20 years, and as far as I know, apart from 20 yrs ago when it was on the TV, I only could find full episodes by and very sparcely, so I just decided to buy the whole box of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Best buy and cheap at that.
@Edward Walters , trust me, speaking from experience, it NEVER grows old, Ive watched on a loop and every time I still laugh like it was the first time. I mean, where can you find jokes like "Then why did the Germans go into the European Union? to cleanse themselves of genocide and reapply to join the human race" in the Episode where they explain de EEC ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rvYuoWyk8iU.html Tho' if you know the UK, there's another one that makes me cry with laughter, the "Who reads the papers" ep: that's just Sheer Genius! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DGscoaUWW2M.html
@randomguy8196 - It wasn't just bad. Ministers would be expected to resign over such matters. They sometimes did and sometimes didn't but it always damaged their careers.
Nobody seems to mention the writers, they are the ones that came up with the dialogue, brilliant though the delivery and cast are, don’t forget they made it brilliant for the actors.
@Cliff UK I dont think ANYONE forgets the script writers: there would be no show without them, its a group effort, between the most genius of writers and the best actors, but all of us who are crazy about this show, love it BECAUSE of its amazingly timless scripts!! I found out some episodes are shown and debated in Political Science courses, which is not surprising at all, given the inmense quality of its writing. WE NEVER FORGET THE WRITERS, that's why we have been watching on a loop for almost 20 years, in my case!!
Any one who is the head of an organisation - be it government, business, charity or family - who is expected to exercise due care, skill and diligence based on their individual capacity, to exercise their own judgment in making decisions; will always, always have something to be discrete about. Such persons often confuse what they ASSUME or THINK they know with what they ACTUALLY know; and what they WANT to say with what they NEED to say. Excellent writing, Tony Jay & Jon Lynn.
I have a philosophy degree, did some epistemology too, I know many complicated words and can speak about abstract concepts, yet I still have to do a double take despite having watched this many times this since I was 14. Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds are brilliant.
Coming from an American-English language perspective, I had to seriously focus on what was being said to follow it, but found no British-English terms (not counting official titles, etc. of course) that I did not immediately understand. Absolutely well done! Definitely understandable and long-winded, but hilarious nonetheless! 😅
I generally understood Sir Humphrey's paragraph-length sentences, but Bernard and Sir Frank Gordon (I think the latter has only one such instance of circumlocution) were difficult.
What I find most telling about this scene is that Hacker was primarily bothered about being seen to have misled the House and that things were being kept from him but he didn't seem at all concerned (let alone outraged) that Halifax was being bugged. Hypocrisy at its finest - someone who had their priorities right would've demanded the answer to that first. But Hacker had been completely and utterly house-trained by this point; he'd long gone native.
@@lachyt5247 very practical indeed. Those who believe that bugging is reprehensible are the same people who believe in equality and justice; all perfectly good ideas, of course, but ideas hopelessly unrealistic in politics.
The same Damned practice if every President of the U.S. since FDR who 'secretly bugged' his own conversations (for future protection--LoL). Presidents all claim the Moral High-ground to Defend the 4 Freedoms of FDR...then meet with the G-7, or G-20 to sell that concept OUT!!..
I have watched a lot of these marvelous scenes, but this is easily my favorite! I particularly love his final line, "in government, there is always something to be discreet about" -- take that Wikileaks!
You are very insulting, but not very convincing. Unless you assume that it is always wrong for the government to use surveillance (bugging telephones, for example), this is in no way an argument for indiscrimate leaking of government secrets, let alone Wikileaks in particular. Surveillance can be done to detect wrongdoing; is it your belief that only governments engage in wrongdoing? I wish life were that simple. And since Wikileaks has facilitated the rise to power of an authoritarian clique you are in no position to lecture others about facilitating despotism.
You are very insulting, but not very convincing. Unless you assume that it is always wrong for the government to use surveillance (bugging telephones, for example), this is in no way an argument for indiscrimate leaking of government secrets, let alone Wikileaks in particular. Surveillance can be done to detect wrongdoing; is it your belief that only governments engage in wrongdoing? I wish life were that simple. And since Wikileaks has facilitated the rise to power of an authoritarian clique you are in no position to lecture others about facilitating despotism.
You are very insulting, but not very convincing. Unless you assume that it is always wrong for the government to use surveillance (bugging telephones, for example), this is in no way an argument for indiscrimate leaking of government secrets, let alone Wikileaks in particular. Surveillance can be done to detect wrongdoing; is it your belief that only governments engage in wrongdoing? I wish life were that simple. And since Wikileaks has facilitated the rise to power of an authoritarian clique you are in no position to lecture others about facilitating despotism.
@@keswarnathragbar8225 not a laugh track - live audiance. Just because you don't understand it enough to see the humour don't start thinking none of us understand it.
Sir Bernard. The resident expert of needing to know the need to know on a need to know basis for the need to know in the proper discourse of the need to know in a need to know basis.
Should have included a minute or so earlier, as Hacker's "clear, simple, straightforward, honest answer", was exactly what Sir Humphrey served back at him "You should only ask him to resign when he has made a mistake which could have been foreseen at the time and not with the benefit of foresight."
This is the verbal equivalent of a Macross Missile Massacre... words fired at unimaginable rate and in quantities that far exceed what's really needed to hit the target.
Donald Trump is certainly humbler than socialist placating Biden and actual socialist Harris. By definition, a socialist is arrogant, racist, classist, and hypocritical. They want to do away with the Constitution itself. Reputations can be repaired, a country's government not so much...
@Neville Abbott there is one episode which I love in which I caught the brilliant and never ever breaking character Sir Nigel Hawthorne (Sir Humphrey ) laughing under his nose: its at the beggining of the episode "Who reads the Papers" on Yes, Prime Minister. And when Derek Fowlds says his final line, I think he buries his head on the table bc he too is laughing out loud. :D .I can see that episode on a loop and it always makes me smile bc you can see theyre hardly able to hold their laughter. GENIUS everyone! Script, reseachers, production, actors, everything!
It is. It was so popular that many of the plots for episodes actually came from members of parliment/civil service personal experiences in government. This show is closer to being a documentary of how things run than the original show runners might have intended.
The best show ever written that line when did we stop bugging Humphrey replies straight face looks at his watch 17minutes ago brilliant today's comedy writers need too look at what makes viewers laugh😀😀😀
Sir Humphrey is right. Hacker lied because he claimed a certainty of knowledge that he did not in fact possess. A politician like Hacker should have known better.
He told an untruth and misled the House, but he did not lie. If you look at virtually any definition of lie it includes both untruth and malicious/intent or something similar.
@@brontewcat While I would normally agree, there is also a burden on someone making a denial actually to have a basis for that denial. If I throw a brick off a motorway bridge and cause an accident, it’s no use saying that I didn’t know it would cause an accident. It’s enough to know that I didn’t know it wouldn’t for me to be culpable.
@@joshuarosen6242 If a person does something and then claims that they did not know that their action would have certain consequences, it may not be a lie. The "basis for that denial" is simply that they did not know. You are assuming that everybody thinks like you and that is a mistake. To build upon your analogy, if that was a person with the mental ability of a child, would you say they are a liar or do they merely lack the understanding that their actions have consequences?
It is incredible how this show deals with such astonishing corruption and evil in such a light and humorous way. They make the lowest corrupticrats into likable characters. Genius.
In case anybody wants to copy and paste it to use elsewhere to point out a lie - Unfortunately, although the statement you made was indeed clear, simple and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it to the epithets you applied to the statement, in as much as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts in so far 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,
@Nebris, they actually show episodes in Political Sciences courses to debate. Its THAT good, bc it is a timless Master Class in Politics, with the added plus of having a good laugh. That's why I bought the whole DVD pack, Yes Minister, and Yes, Prime Minister, bc I knew I was going to watch the dialogues forever and ever. In this Netflix, HBO etc era, Best buy EVER! : D
