If you fancy a laugh online, try a look at Conservapedia. This website and those behind it genuinely believe it is a serious alternative to Wikipedia, providing a "conservative" perspective on the universe, but is actually a hilarious parody of the most extreme attitudes of Bush Republicans. (See my previous post Is conservapedia serious or a parody?)
But it's amazing to find in some places it has accepted left-wing mythology in place of truth. One that stands out is the claim that the Greater London Council was abolished, in the words of Conservapedia, "for political rather than administrative convenience", (Conservapedia: Greater London) because Ken Livingstone "pursued a high-profile campaign of opposition to government policy, so infuriating Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" (Conservapedia: Ken Livingstone).
It is amazing when a socialist does more to dispel left wing mythology than Conservapedia, but that has happened here. The Greater London Council wasn't abolished for political reasons because of Ken Livingstone, it was abolished for administrative reasons because it had become an excessive tier of bureaucracy that delivered a low proportion of services and was especially resented by outer London borough councils. It would have been abolished regardless of leadership. The best page I can recommend is: United Kingdom Election Results: Electoral History of the Greater London Council. See also the author's comments (under two separate handles) at Wikipedia: Talk:Ken Livingstone: Abolition of the GLC and Wikipedia: Talk:Greater London Council: Politics.
So since Conservapedia can't even stick to the right when recycling old political myths, can it be trusted by the comedians behind it, let alone anyone else?