There have been various opportunities for it to be bought for the nation in recent decades, once for as little as pounds 4m.
Is it really in the interests of a healthy theatrical culture, for example, that shows like Miss Saigon can be “parked” in the West End for decades at a time? The industry of “cloned” live musical shows would be better provided on convenient new outer London sites near motorways. What was really needed was positive government assistance in finding an alternative home. However, the Tower Bridge option ceased to be realistic when the proposal was called in for planning. Professor John Steer (letter, 10 December) is right to recommend pinches of salt. Sir: The select committee report on the Royal Opera House was a journalistic exercise based on public interviews with the main players. I cannot see how the civil servants involved would admit those decisions to any inquiry without subpoenas, and without that, it would seem that it was the scientists who did not carry out the necessary research.Of course they knew in 1989 that BSE was not the same as scrapie, that it would infect different animals, that we ate large amounts of bovine brain, that a major risk had been taken, and we were doing no research into methods of treatment or diagnosis.This must not happen again and we must find out how it came about.Dr STEPHEN DEALLERConsultant MicrobiologistBurnley General HospitalBurnley, LancashireThe writer is secretary of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Research Campaign.

At the time I was one of the few “outside” people who knew enough of the subject to enable them to tell me in private what was happening, and I am now worried that they will be used as the scapegoats.
I knew that Ministry of Agriculture announcements to the public were misleading, and that the truth was much more severe than what seemed to be getting through to the House of Commons. Sir: Last Thursday’s Dispatches report on Channel 4 showed how scientists dealing with BSE tried to publish the data that they found but it was kept hidden by higher decisions. We urge ministers to be guided in their imminent policy decisions by principle rather than expediency, and by respect for the universality of human rights.IAN MacDONALD QC; NICK BLAKE QC; OWEN DAVIES; LAURIE FRANSMAN; STEPHANIE HARRISON; RAZA HUSAIN; RICK SCANNELL; DURAN SEDDON; FRANCES WEBBER; TIM TREUHERTZThe immigration groupLondon EC1. All these are further indications that, while ministers may find Tory policies abhorrent in principle, they find them expedient in practice.Reviews are currently being undertaken on many aspects of immigration and asylum law. Then came the arrival of the Czech gypsies, and the use by the Government of the same intemperate language of “abuse” and “bogus asylum seekers” rightly condemned by Labour in the past as likely to inflame racism.
We note also the extremely tough line on detention of asylum seekers (witnessed by an increase in the numbers detained by up to a hundred a day, and by the use, for the first time ever, of riot charges against asylum seekers protesting their detention); and the bureaucracy which invalidates applications for renewal of leave and renders applicants liable to deportation, for failure to tick the right box. There has been no similar sense of urgency over the restoration of basic subsistence benefits to asylum seekers (the withdrawal of which last year was held by the Court of Appeal to create for some “a life so destitute that. no civilised national can tolerate it”); no attempt has been made to resume the responsibility shouldered since then by local authorities.

On the whole, the imperatives of exclusion still dominate policy. When, in the summer, Somali asylum seekers arrived from France on Eurostar, Mike O’Brien MP was at the Gare du Nord in a flash, threatening an extension of carriers’ liability if the company continued to allow the asylum seekers to board. Sir: As lawyers defending the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers, we write to express our increasing concern at the lack of substantial change in the treatment of these groups by the Government. At least it means I go straight to heaven.Bragg: Hold on, hold on a moment Let’s define a few terms here God, for a start. And heaven.Mary Magdalene: Couldn’t we talk about Salome and the dreadful Royal Family instead?Baptist: What say you, Royal Family? There is a family greater than that of Herod’s come among us! There is a baby born to be King over us! Repent while there is time! Lo, I say unto you …Bragg: That’s all we have time for See you next week..

I can foresee, for instance, that Salome, King Herod’s daughter, will have my head cut off.Mary Magdalene: Gosh! That’s awful!Baptist: Not really. I can only tell the future because God wants me to.Mary Magdalene: Gosh! That must be wonderful!Baptist: Not really. Did I hear someone use the word “cognitive” as I came in?Bragg: No, Jonathan.Miller: Oh, sorry.EXIT JONATHAN MILLERBragg: Baptist, you believe you can see the future. Do you actually think the human brain will genetically evolve to acquire the ability to predict things?Baptist: No. Does it encompass looking into the future, as John the Baptist thinks, and proclaiming the coming kingdom of God? I think not.ENTER JONATHAN MILLER.Miller: Sorry I’m late My camel broke down.

What’s this with the “we arts people” bit, Melvyn?2nd Wise Man: We’re not “arts people”. We’re “wise” people.3rd Wise Man: That means we see truth from all angles.Pilate: Yes, but what is truth? Does it encompass following a star across the Middle East looking for a baby? I think not. But perhaps the baby is right! Perhaps astronomy and geography are, in the long run, meaningless and valueless.Bragg: That’s rubbish. I sometimes think that science is the only thing we have to cling on to. We arts people have ignored science for far too long.1st Wise Man: Hold on a moment.