# Explain to me this joke in "Yes Minister" **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 13, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993 "2004-03-13T00:38:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aankh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@Aankh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aankh)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/1 "2004-03-13T00:38:54Z")
I don’t know if this was included in the TV adaptation, so I’ll just quote directly from the book. Equal Opportunities, pp.353-354 > [@](#): > > I waved the papers from my meeting with Sarah. ‘Sarah says this complaint is complete nonsense,’ I informed him ‘And she’s done a reply.’ > Bernard was pleased. ‘Fine, we can CGSM it.’ > ‘CGSM?’ I asked. > ‘Civil service code,’ he explained. ‘It stands for Consignment of Geriatric Shoe Manufacturers.’ I waited for the explanation. ‘A load of old cobblers,’ he added helpfully. > I took the paper from him. > ‘I am not a civil servant,’ I remarked loftily. ‘I shall write my own code on it.’ > I wrote ‘Round Objects’ in the margin. Questions: Why are they writing a code on it at all? How does that fit with the context? What do Geriatric Shoe Manufacturers (or old cobblers) have to do with anything? And ‘Round Objects’? What ‘round objects’? What on earth are Bernard and Hacker referring to? This is the one joke in the entire _Yes Minister_ series that I simply cannot understand. I know analysing it will probably kill the chuckle-value, but it’s driving me nuts! Help me! ---
**Author:** ![Iguana\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@Iguana\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iguana_Boy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/2 "2004-03-13T00:44:20Z")
“Load of old cobblers” is slang for “load of rubbish.” “Round objects” = “balls.” Why are they writing in code? Well you can’t just put the unadorned truth in a Goverment document… ---
**Author:** ![Armilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e19b73/32.png) [@Armilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Armilla)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/3 "2004-03-13T01:20:40Z")
Who is Round, and to what does he object? As for the code, well, they’re government documents and will likely be kept on file. It would be improper to see that the Minister for Administrative Affairs, or his private secretary, had been scrawling derisive obscenities over the paperwork during their tenure. It’s the kind of thing that could really come back and haunt someone about 30 years down the road. ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/4 "2004-03-13T01:55:30Z")
I can fill in the blanks, though I’m not British. “Cobblers” is cockney rhyming slang: Cobblers =\> cobblers’ awls =\> balls. “balls” is a rude expression equivalent to “bullshit” on this side of the Atlantic. So a “Load of old cobblers” is a “load of balls” is a “load of bullshit”. And “round objects” are balls. Which means bullshit. There ya go. ---
**Author:** ![Aankh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@Aankh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aankh)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/5 "2004-03-13T06:18:57Z")
Oh thank you! Thank you all! My soul is finally at rest… ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/6 "2004-03-13T16:44:22Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > I can fill in the blanks, though I’m not British. > > “Cobblers” is cockney rhyming slang: Cobblers =\> cobblers’ awls =\> balls. > “balls” is a rude expression equivalent to “bullshit” on this side of the Atlantic. So a “Load of old cobblers” is a “load of balls” is a “load of bullshit”. And “round objects” are balls. Which means bullshit. There ya go. Hmmmm, would “balls” really be equivalent to "bullsh_t"? I think you can say balls and not offend someone as much as saying sh_t or bullsh\*t in the UK. Well to me anyway 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/7 "2004-03-13T16:48:46Z")
> [@Pushkin](#): > > Hmmmm, would “balls” really be equivalent to "bullsh_t"? I think you can say balls and not offend someone as much as saying sh_t or bullsh\*t in the UK. Well to me anyway 🙂 I’d say “bullshit” and “balls” in that context are about equal. Given that this was a 1970s TV show, that joke was probably considered quite racy at the time - also, the humour lies in the euphemistic way in which they reveal the rude expression. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/8 "2004-03-13T17:06:40Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > Given that this was a 1970s TV show Not that I’m one of those pain in the arse, nitpicky kinda guys, but… It was a 1980s show, the first season being broadcast between February 25th - April 7th 1980. And, yes, I know that means the first season must have been written and filmed in the 1970s, but that does not a 1970s TV show make. So there. ---
**Author:** ![Patr100](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Patr100](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patr100)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/9 "2004-03-13T17:44:11Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > I’d say “bullshit” and “balls” in that context are about equal. Given that this was a 1970s TV show, that joke was probably considered quite racy at the time - also, the humour lies in the euphemistic way in which they reveal the rude expression. Round objects = balls =" bollocks "- as discussed in this thread > **[Bollocks? what are they?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=234267)** > > I have heard the term time and time again. I always assumed it was the british equilivent of “aw crap”. Then I heard a British program using it as a noun. I dunno but my best guess from the context was “ass cheeks” Any of our UK dopers care to shed... ---
**Author:** ![Shill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@Shill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shill)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/10 "2004-03-13T23:15:28Z")
It could be ‘bollocks’ instead, couldn’t it? That’s a little less acceptable than ‘balls’. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/11 "2004-03-13T23:25:31Z")
And “bollocks” is generally accepted as a term for “a bunch of crap” (among other things), whereas you’d hardly ever hear “balls” meaning untruth. ---
**Author:** ![Patr100](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Patr100](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patr100)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2004, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/12 "2004-03-13T23:50:51Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > I can fill in the blanks, though I’m not British. > > “Cobblers” is cockney rhyming slang: Cobblers =\> cobblers’ awls =\> balls. > “balls” is a rude expression equivalent to “bullshit” on this side of the Atlantic. So a “Load of old cobblers” is a “load of balls” is a “load of bullshit”. And “round objects” are balls. Which means bullshit. There ya go. Also, though it might be less common elsewhere, when we were kids (in the East End of London) we sometimes referred to the testicles as “cobblers”. ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/13 "2004-03-14T03:46:59Z")
> [@Shill](#): > > It could be ‘bollocks’ instead, couldn’t it? That’s a little less acceptable than ‘balls’. No, because that doesn’t work with the rhyming slang (“bollocks” doesn’t rhyme with “awls”). ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/14 "2004-03-14T04:11:36Z")
Irrespective of the derivation ‘load of old cobblers’ has been a very common expression in England for many years. It will be cheerfully used in almost any circumstances, which means that, like the word ‘burk’, most people don’t have any idea where it comes form and hence what it means. I have used it and heard it used frequently and had no idea that was where it derived from until now. It’s just a generally accepted expression meaning ‘a load of rubbish’. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/15 "2004-03-14T12:21:18Z")
> [@Kal](#): > > Not that I’m one of those pain in the arse, nitpicky kinda guys, but… Oh _really_? :dubious: 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Patr100](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Patr100](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patr100)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/16 "2004-03-14T12:46:39Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > No, because that doesn’t work with the rhyming slang (“bollocks” doesn’t rhyme with “awls”). From a character point of view, a British Civill Servant in the late 70s/early 80s might possibly be less likely to use rhyming slang in the late 70s , however the implication that he is saying “bollocks” is ironically more “learned” as it implies knowledge of the origins of the original obscured meaning of the offensive word. Bollocks laterallly means “balls” as well as rubbish or sophistry.If you look at the earlier thread I indicated Use of the word had become more prominant due to the publicity of the SeX Pistols case - from around 1977. Of course you can read it as “balls” as well. ---
**Author:** ![Patr100](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Patr100](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patr100)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/17 "2004-03-14T12:52:40Z")
Looking back at the openinng post quote, it’s the civil servant who is using “cobblers” (rhyming slang) in an obscure way while the PM (of all people) is saying " Bollocks". ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/18 "2004-03-14T15:03:39Z")
Ah, but he was only the Minister of Administrative Affairs then. ---
**Author:** ![Patr100](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Patr100](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patr100)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/19 "2004-03-14T15:10:59Z")
> [@hawthorne](#): > > Ah, but he was only the Minister of Administrative Affairs then. Yes, you are right , still a notch up from the civil servants, he is only demonstrating the diplomatic linquistic skills that would one day take him to the top job! ---
**Author:** ![Aankh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@Aankh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aankh)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993/20 "2004-03-14T15:36:32Z")
> [@Patr100](#): > > Yes, you are right , still a notch up from the civil servants, he is only demonstrating the diplomatic linquistic skills that would one day take him to the top job! Actually, it was pretty much blind luck that got him the top job. The right people were at the wrong place at the right time so far as Hacker was concerned, and he took full political advantage of it. By blundering along in his typical way, of course. On a related note, am I the only one who thinks that _iYes Minister_ and _Yes Prime Minister_ are the absolute pinnacle of humourous wordplay? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-this-joke-in-yes-minister/233993.md?page=2)