Agreed Sheila Hancock would make a much better Prime Minister than the unelected Gordon Brown but sadly she isn't a politician. And it is quite beyond me how some could like the talentless and obnoxiously rude Jason Gardiner and not respect Andrew Lloyd Webber as a composer and entrepreneur. Different horses - different courses. One man's meat is another man's poisson and all that.

I see that Jason agrees that the right person was eliminated from 'Dorothy' - I sure Andrew Lloyd Webber is mightily relieved at that, as are the rest of us.

AND he wants to give Gordon Brown and colleagues a fashion makeover - I'd love to see that; the whole of parliament dressing in the same manner as Jason and looking as if they'd raided the local fancy dress shops and then picked items at random in the dark.

Actually I agree with Jason on the first point, the right person was eliminated, totally wrong for the part, and the politicians could do with some help, but probably not from Jason!!

Yes, I agree the right person went, but only Jason would keep himself in the headlines by saying so - which other well-know people have said it publicly? None, I think. As I said, we can all sleep safely in our beds now that we know that Jason agrees that the right person was eliminated.

The mind boggles!! The thought at Jason Gardiner being let loose in Westminster!!!! I am sure Gordon Brown would look lovely in an Alice band. Davod Cameron divine in an off the shoulder number and Nick Clegg wearing a suit made from his Mother's old curtains and wearing a button for a tie - if not that one the dog had shredded to bits.

From a psychological point of view it is fascinating that people complain about Jason's remarks only to make similar ones about Jason. Is it because he's in the public eye that makes this acceptable? People say all kinds of things in front of their television sets about characters, actors and celebrities and no-one bats an eyelid. Children pick up far more from those around them then what they see on the television. This is all really interesting I must remember to make a note of this for my essay.

My own particular opinion is one of frustration. If Jason could cut out the overly dramatic marks and just give his opinion in a impersonal manner then he'd be a good judge. He makes good points but they are often lost in his desire to be heard more then the others. They do say that the nail that sticks out is the one that gets hammered down. Should they sack him? My opinion is that he shouldn't and not because of his over dramatic whining but because most of the time he does have a decent point.

Does that mean he watches OTR - does that mean he might actually take on board the factors contributing to a constructive critique?

One can but wish!