The Bishop wrote: 
Did I seriously read that? What a totally unsavoury post.
Your Grace,
You never cease to amaze me. I honestly fail to understand how anyone could take offense at my post!
As E B White put it "Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it."
Firstly the fact that a joke refers to a persons colour/race/religion does not per se mean it is necessarily in any way offensive. If you think otherwise you are a fool.
Try this on any year 9 and you will they shout 'Waaaaycist' in an almost Pavlovian response-
Q) Why do black men have baggy trousers?
A) Because they're Negroes (their knee grows)
It's NOT waaaycist. It's simple word play. No-one has said black people are in anyway inferior to anyone else. The term is somewhat dated I admit but you try getting a laugh where the punchline is 'persons of colour'. It's a joke. No more and no less.
As with most two part jokes we have set up an world view initially, which is shown to be totally different in the 'reveal', and the laugher comes from dealing with the cognitive dissonance.
In Jezza's case I purposefully did not put in a simple screen shot so the reader would instead firstly input the information about the sweeties, internalising a self made narrative, before being thrown with the sight of Jezza a 'white man' having sat two black ladies either side of him in some mad epic fail to show just how right-on and inclusive he is, and the obvious parallels with Bassetts excellent offerings.
Lighten up. The way things are going I'm going to end up praying for you!
(And before you say it, yes, I'm well aware that God cares for us all whether we believe in him or not)
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
