±«Óãtv

Dear Newsnight

Do you think there is a danger that due to a lack of material or things to laugh about the monty python team have taken to parodying themselves in a parody too far? John Cleese has gone off to 'teach' comedy so things must be serious! Do were really want our idles -sorry a slip there -taking themselves too seriously
or is it when the money talks the spam walks? Only that too much spam is not a good thing.
I wonder if Mr Sewell will see the funny side tonight-

best wishes
Bob Goodall

Why did you have to cut off the programme just as Brian Sewell was about to comment further on the Velasquez exhibition. Typical of the ±«Óãtv. If it had been snooker, tennis or football the programme would have been extended

Dear Newsnight

A great panel tonight who complimented each other very well. I was also impressed by the space they gave each other and this helped the debate. I have noticed people interupting other panel members and obtrusive body language in previous discusions.

I also like open thinking and the willingness of people to change their minds such as David Aaronvitch's view on Lord Longford.

I deeply loathe criminals but we must never lose our sense of mercy. I admire Lord Longford for his compassion, and a life spent helping others -your debate tonight was very interesting in terms of exploring the different facets of his personality and psyche. He also had a deep concern for German civilians -shared by another hero of mine Victor Gollancz -a German Jew, and this must have been equally unfashionable as his care for Myra Hindley.

But when the world has set its face against people or countries we need others to show compassion and put the other side.

We feel compassion, but if lives have being cruelly ended what else do we do but imprison them for life. We see the personal suffering of the person imprisoned but the witness of the victim remains forever silent. They must never be forgotten.

great thing about history is that it gives us a perspective on things. Lord Longford might have been vilified in his time because of his campaigning for Myra Hindley but my feeling is that deep down where it matters, it would not have bothered him too much or in a way that would have deterred him, because when it came down to it, he believed he was doing the right thing, and that is a most compelling motivator and driving force in a life.

Great show tonight, thanks

best wishes

Bob Goodall

How refreshing to have a panel so disciplined that they listen quietly to one another and only comment when asked to do so. I got so annoyed with previous Reviews when four particularly egotistical panelists seem to think that their views are so important (or clever) that they try to talk over one another. It made those programme unwatchable. By contrast this was a delight. Lets have more please.

I agree with George Leckie: could the ±«Óãtv ask Brian Sewell to tell us what he was about to say when he was cut off and post the answer on the website? It would be of great interest to those who plan to visit the exhibition.

Martha Kearney, Brian Sewell, Valazquez and I had a bloody migraine. I find myself wondering how Mr Perry was turned out? Sewell is one hooray henry muppet I read although I dont much care for some of the stuff he has said on photography, but thanks for the education anyway.

Monty Python - its not that I dont get it I just dont find them humorous, just more oxbridge types who got a break at the beeb. But then I dont find Lenny Henry funny either.

Good heavens! Yes. Excellent panel. Real people with multi-facetted minds. Excellent fortnight for Grayson Perry to have brought Clare too.
Agree with those above who appreciate being able to hear contributions and grateful not to have to suffer cocktail party personae. Many thanks.

I completely agree.But why is the standard of panellists so erratic? There seems no rhyme or reason to it.
I must also add my voice to the chorus of woeful Sewell fans who were deprived of some genuine insights into Valesquez' work.Talk about ending the programme on a cliffhanger...

Add one more to the 'Positive about the Panel' cause, please. I thought the Longford discussion was particularly rich. Shame the programme came to such a clunky end.

More Aaronovitch, please.

Re: George Leckie (No.2).

Possibly precisely because 'Brian Sewell was about to comment further on the Velasquez exhibition'?

Who knows what Longford's motives were with Hindley.They may have been religious,narcissistic or in the British tradition of lending a hand to the underdog.I find it astonishing ,however, that the ±«Óãtv has devoted any air time at all to Hindley.Thanks to the tabloids her name has surely been ubiquitous enough.