What do you call a villain with no arms?

('Armless).

On the whole I wouldn’t imagine that divine spiritual leaders need a press office, but if I consider things more seriously I guess it is obvious that they do.

Even so, looking at the leaflet advertising the Dalai Lama’s summer visit to Toulouse I can’t help but feel that whoever directed the photo session was misguided, or having a laugh.

I mean, really, did they need to tell him to strike a reflective pose – this is a (possible) reincarnated semi-deity after all?

Of course, as predetermination would have it, I won’t be able to attend the public conference – I will be holidaying in the Scilly isles with my sister-in-law, evil incarnate.

And we will discuss roses!

Talking of the Dalai Lama I am reminded of the comedian Milton Jones who one minute and seventeen seconds into the video posted above, tells a story about the day he rang him.

Funny thing comedy isn’t it?

Though we just can’t seem to agree about it.

I find Milton Jones very funny; I find the first one-minute and forty-four seconds of this performance well funny, and I admire his comic hair.

In contrast, the film The Four Lions – according to the distributors also a comedy – really annoyed me; and can it be comedy if it’s annoying?

Well, we disagree there too.

What exactly was the role of the court jester for example – was it to make the monarch laugh or make them feel uncomfortable?

In one of his videos, Steve Martin filmed a group of people (Neil Simon the singer among them) earnestly interviewing him about comedy.

It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but at one point he answered the question – what is comedy? – Saying; “ Comedy is the art of making people laugh, without making them puke.”

I didn’t puke when I saw The Four Lions.

But I didn’t laugh either.

Obviously you can make some of the people laugh all of the time, all of the people some of the time but you can’t make all of the people laugh all of the time.

On Monday evening hardly anyone in the cinema laughed.

Ok, to be fair there weren’t many people in the cinema on Monday evening, about 10 I think, and an empty audience is deadly for comedy.

Then again, one to one can be pretty funny.

The film follows four wannabe Jihadists as they ineptly prepare to terrorise.

I understood the comedy, but I didn’t laugh.

I tried to leave halfway through, as it was clear that I was not enjoying the film but the rest of my party wished to remain – even though they weren’t laughing either.

When I did finally escape, the owner looked surprised when I answered "no" to his question “had I enjoyed it?”

Maybe because i shouted it angrily?

He asked me why?

I mumbled something incoherent about “closeness”.

He reminded me about the French philosopher who said something like “you can make comedy about anything”

Fair enough, but I would add “but not anyway”.

When I was about seven I saw a Punch and Judy show for the first time and left deeply troubled.

I just didn’t get it – here was this thug, killed his wife, killed his child, killed his baby, killed the policeman and when the devil finally turned up he killed him too and got away with the lot.

Moral?

Why are my parents taking me to this?

And to church on Sundays.

I don’t get it.

And I didn’t get The Four Lions – are they saying that these people are stupid, and the authorities for stopping them? Why is one of the four characters insanely crazy and one sympathetically crazy? Or are they sane?

I think we need another word; comedy is too linked to laugh, for me.

And I don’t get the Dalai Lama’s press office either.

Is the Dalai Lama serious?

Or are you trying to convince me that he’s serious?

And is that really his hand?