Daniel Kitson made a very amusing remark at his Regent’s Park gig on Sunday. Well, of course the comedy wunderkind made a lot of very amusing remarks, as per usual, but one opening offhand riff in particular struck a chord. He unapologetically explained that his monologue lasted about 100 minutes and there would be no interval. We were grown-ups, after all, and could sit for that long, surely?

He went on to explain that on his recent national tour he had had problems persuading venues to let him perform without breaks. In Huddersfield the theatre had made him agree that if anyone demanded a refund because there was no interval Kitson himself would foot the bill. As he pointed out so brilliantly, were there really people who went out for an evening of art whose favourite point in the evening was the 20 minutes in the middle when there was no art?

This whole intervals thing has always bothered me though. I presume venues want them simply to top up their bar takings and not to make the culture go down more smoothly. As a critic I don’t really like them because i don’t really like chewing over the show before I’ve seen it all and I can’t think of anything else to talk about in the middle when I’m working. Personally my philosophy here is What Would Daniel Do? If he doesn’t want them they must be bad.

There are other acts who dispense with half-times. Billy Connolly deprives the bar staff of work by talking non-stop. I suspect this is because once he hits his stride he finds it hard to stop and keep all of his conversational balls in the air. Then again, Ross Noble, who can also digress for England (Scotland in Connolly's case), prefers a breather.

As for punters, do they want intervals? I suspect if we took a vote they would be in favour, either because of strong thirsts or weak bladders. In fact serial democratic Mark Thomas did just that a few years ago, asking for a show of hands to decide whether to take a break. The vote was in favour of a pause in the proceedings, which might not have been good for his ego but must have been great for the bar. Or maybe not. For reasons lost in the mists of time but no doubt to do with his determination to overthrow the Blair regime, Thomas advised his followers to boycott the in-house hostelry in favour of the pub down the road.