>rights and wrongs of humour

I think that one of the things that alternative comedy has tried to do is to shift the butt of a joke from something that one has no choice about (eg being a mother-in-law (tired humour), different religions or races (no choice)) to something which has involved a choice (being a politician (fair game), being a member of a particular profession (a lawyer - they can take it)). Hence the Irish joke in Britain and the Polish joke in America appear to been replaced, in many (but not all)circles, by jokes about lawyers, Tony Blair or Bill Clinton.

Jokes about religion, gender, or race tend to be told these days, more by people where they themselves are the but of the joke, not others. In the same way clowning, slapstick and visual humour tends to focus on the person appearing to be foolish.

I suppose humour is society's way of discussing difficult issues. We can tell a lot about whether people have similar views to ourselves by their reaction to different kinds of humour.

I suspect that the people of Eastbourne would be amused by the play in words in the joke mentioned earlier and would tell the story about themselves.

>dictators hate comedians

I'm sure they do!