I expect we all realised that, Nigel, but even spoofs that are not intended to be any way factual rely on references, taken to the extreme, to things that occurred in reality. So the 13m paid to Chess Pizza, for example, refers the terms and conditions of Seaborne being adapted from those for a fast food delivery.

Taking of stating the obvious, Seaborne said those Terms and Conditions were "an error." Yes, we can all see that. But what is this specific error? Is it, for example, that the web developer had two sets of T+Cs, both mentioning Sherborne, one of which was for a takeaway and the other the real set, and somehow he uploaded the wrong set? Or was the error that the board of Sherborne had not p4oduced a proper set of T+Cs? Let's drop this anodyne reference to an error, and spell out what the error really is.

And why were these oddities not spotted in the "thorough" due diligence process undertaken by Grayling's department? The spoof rightly compares that failure - while taking to deliberately absurd extremes - to failing to spot a fake offer from a Prince.

There can be truth in simile and metaphor, you know.