On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:36:50 +0000, David Hill
wrote:



Do you really think we will be allowed to see it in Wales Jake.
It will probably be replaced by Rugby or Dragons Eye or some other
Nationally important Welsh programme.
David@the sunny end of Swansea Bay

Yikes, I hadn't thought of that. But it'll be broadcast on Thursdays
in Scotland from 4 April at 7.30pm (BBC2 Scotland) and on the BBC2
network on Sundays from Sunday 7 April. No time has been announced for
the network screening so this may vary by region. AFAIK, Sundays have
been relatively free of rescheduling for national events (other than
the rescheduling of GW when Scrum Half is on Fridays). Something in
the back of my mind says it's going to be mornings - which would be
even safer of course - but I can't remember where I read that.

Fingers crossed - you have been missing a treat.

(Currently sunny at this end too but ground still sodden so getting
out will be counter-productive on my clay soil, dammit!)

And I checked this morning. All my dahlia tubers have rot. A first but
a pain in the proverbial! Some are over 10 years old. Still, a chance
for renewal.

Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East End of Swansea Bay where sometimes
it's raining and sometimes it's not.

On 2013-02-14 10:08:56 +0000, Granity said:

'Martin[_2_ Wrote:
;978163']On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:30:55 +0000, Janet Tweedy

wrote:
-
On 13/02/2013 10:57, David Hill wrote:-
This is now so far off topic an of little interest to all but a couple
of people, can't we let it die a death?-


still doesn't explain why they thought it was a Good Idea haeing yet
ANOTHER Chris Beardshaw appearance in a perfectly good gardening
programme. I shall now tape BG and skip his part...................-

LOL we will do the same.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

Reading through this thread I've come to the conclusion that most of you
only watch gardening programmes so that you can criticise . If the
presenter is not dressed like a scarecrow with mud and cow $hit on his
boots and doesn't speak with a broad local accent, preferably a northern
one, then he's/she's no good.
You are criticising Monty Don for being rude, you have no way of knowing
what the conversation between the two was immediately before the bit you
saw because it probably ended up on the cutting room floor. If you take
something out of context then it can sound rude, nice, stupid etc.
That's a problem with the editor/director not the presenter.

Since you all seem to know exactly how a gardening programme should be
presented, I'll issue a challenge. All of you get together for a weekend
and make a gardening programme and put it on U-Tube so the rest of us
can look at it and praise/criticise it and the presentation as required.

Don't you think the people who watch the programmes and actually do
garden, are those most qualified to criticise? Certainly, changes were
made to GW because so many people disliked the format of 3 or 4
presenters all pretending to be the best of friends in a shed. And
when plenty was said on here (and elsewhere) about the way Chelsea was
being turned into a celeb slot, that format altered for the better, too.

Of course, you may well be right that the problems start with the
editing and direction, much of which seems to be done by people who
know little about gardening and care less about the target audience! I
think there's a lot of truth in that and the 'talent' doesn't always
get what he or she wants. But if you take this to its conclusion,
there would be no art, theatre or literary critics, merely on the
grounds that they're not professionals. And the people making and
fronting the programmes are paid good salaries to do it, while we pay
to watch (in most cases). Surely the paying customer has a right to
criticise a product that isn't delivering what they think it should? I
don't agree with ripping someone to shreds for the sake of it but I
think criticism that's constructive is a good thing and can be
effective.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

And I checked this morning. All my dahlia tubers have rot. A first but
a pain in the proverbial! Some are over 10 years old. Still, a chance
for renewal.


What a bummer! Sorry to hear that. Will you be able to salvage anything?

On 14/02/2013 16:54, Sacha wrote:
On 2013-02-14 10:08:56 +0000, Granity said:

'Martin[_2_ Wrote:
;978163']On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:30:55 +0000, Janet Tweedy

wrote:
-
On 13/02/2013 10:57, David Hill wrote:-
This is now so far off topic an of little interest to all but a couple
of people, can't we let it die a death?-


still doesn't explain why they thought it was a Good Idea haeing yet
ANOTHER Chris Beardshaw appearance in a perfectly good gardening
programme. I shall now tape BG and skip his part...................-

LOL we will do the same.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

Reading through this thread I've come to the conclusion that most of you
only watch gardening programmes so that you can criticise . If the
presenter is not dressed like a scarecrow with mud and cow $hit on his
boots and doesn't speak with a broad local accent, preferably a northern
one, then he's/she's no good.
You are criticising Monty Don for being rude, you have no way of knowing
what the conversation between the two was immediately before the bit you
saw because it probably ended up on the cutting room floor. If you take
something out of context then it can sound rude, nice, stupid etc.
That's a problem with the editor/director not the presenter.

Since you all seem to know exactly how a gardening programme should be
presented, I'll issue a challenge. All of you get together for a weekend
and make a gardening programme and put it on U-Tube so the rest of us
can look at it and praise/criticise it and the presentation as required.

Don't you think the people who watch the programmes and actually do
garden, are those most qualified to criticise? Certainly, changes were
made to GW because so many people disliked the format of 3 or 4
presenters all pretending to be the best of friends in a shed. And when
plenty was said on here (and elsewhere) about the way Chelsea was being
turned into a celeb slot, that format altered for the better, too.

Of course, you may well be right that the problems start with the
editing and direction, much of which seems to be done by people who know
little about gardening and care less about the target audience! I think
there's a lot of truth in that and the 'talent' doesn't always get what
he or she wants. But if you take this to its conclusion, there would be
no art, theatre or literary critics, merely on the grounds that they're
not professionals. And the people making and fronting the programmes
are paid good salaries to do it, while we pay to watch (in most cases).
Surely the paying customer has a right to criticise a product that isn't
delivering what they think it should? I don't agree with ripping someone
to shreds for the sake of it but I think criticism that's constructive
is a good thing and can be effective.


But some people seem to forget that it isn't compulsory to watch.
If you don't like him change channel, I NEVER watch Top Gear and several
other progs because of their presenters and or the format of the progs.
But I find I can watch some progs and just blank out the presenter.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:08:56 +0000, Granity
wrote:



Reading through this thread I've come to the conclusion that most of you
only watch gardening programmes so that you can criticise . If the
presenter is not dressed like a scarecrow with mud and cow $hit on his
boots and doesn't speak with a broad local accent, preferably a northern
one, then he's/she's no good.
You are criticising Monty Don for being rude, you have no way of knowing
what the conversation between the two was immediately before the bit you
saw because it probably ended up on the cutting room floor. If you take
something out of context then it can sound rude, nice, stupid etc.
That's a problem with the editor/director not the presenter.

Since you all seem to know exactly how a gardening programme should be
presented, I'll issue a challenge. All of you get together for a weekend
and make a gardening programme and put it on U-Tube so the rest of us
can look at it and praise/criticise it and the presentation as required.

I nearly missed your post because it came at the end of a "diversion"
about language more than the programme.

But I think you've got it wrong.

Whilst I can remember the likes of Percy Thrower (who dressed better
to garden than I to go to work!), or Clay Jones wanting a good pea
(sounds better heard than read) in his garden, my abiding Gardeners'
World memory is of Geoff Hamilton. He actually taught people how to
garden and to garden on a budget. He didn't preach but, rather cajoled
us to try to be more organic. I like Alan Titchmarsh but, following
Geoff, he was onto a loser perhaps. Monty's first incarnation as
presenter was, for many, disastrous as he adopted the preaching
approach. We move forward to that idiotic period of potting sheds and
a manufactured garden which turned a lot of people off GW, including
me despite the fact that I like Toby Buckland. It seemed someone in
Beeb Towers had decided what the programme was to be and Toby didn't
stand a chance.

Then we had the Monty return. I was hopeful and, indeed, the tone of
his presentation was very different. The preaching had gone. But, over
time, for me, things went downhill as I realised that what we were now
getting was largely Monty gardening in his garden, tweaking the edges
but not actually developing anything in the way that Geoff did. The
viewer has become, essentially, a fly on the wall as Monty does, in
his garden, what he wants to do in his garden. It says something that
Nigel, his dog, attracted more interest than he.

I like Carol Klein both as a presenter and a writer. But others get
irritated by her constantly effusive presentational style - she is
almost too enthusiastic about everything. Similarly, people are often
polarised in their opinions of Joe Swift (perhaps another throwback to
that disastrous potting shed period). Such divergence of opinion is
both natural and healthy.

But the viewing figures speak for themselves. GW has a niche audience
- those interested in gardening. If we accept that the overall numbers
of the population interested in gardening is fairly constant, the drop
during Monty's tenure says something.

For me, the last straw came when he lied - yes LIED. He said that the
ONLY way to kill lily beetle was pick and squash. There is a pesticide
alternative. Whilst I avoid pesticides and herbicides as much as
possible, I will utilise glyphosate when necessary and, when the lily
beetle infestation gets too great I will use Provado. In sticking to
his Soil Association approach, Monty not only lied but missed a great
educational opportunity - to explain why pesticides are potentially an
issue and to educate people on their proper use. I spray only late in
the evening when bees are not flying. Pollen risks are avoided because
I routinely remove the reproductive bits of lilies as the flowers
start to open (the pollen can be fatal to cats plus the flowers last
longer!). But thanks to Monty, a lot of "learners" will not learn
this.

So I have a perhaps non-changeable antipathy towards Monty. And I no
longer watch Gardeners' World. But I lap up every episode of
Beechgrove, watch and record it and revisit the recordings regularly.

I enjoyed Monty's Italian Gardens series. But this French one has left
me cold. Antipathy towards Monty may be a factor but I do get the
impression that the programmes are more about him than about the
gardens.

I have neither the skill nor the time to make my own gardening
programme. But that does not deny me the right to form an opinion and
to express it.

Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East End of Swansea Bay where sometimes
it's raining and sometimes it's not.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:34:58 +0000, stuart noble
wrote:


And I checked this morning. All my dahlia tubers have rot. A first but
a pain in the proverbial! Some are over 10 years old. Still, a chance
for renewal.


What a bummer! Sorry to hear that. Will you be able to salvage anything?

I tried cutting off the rotten bits and ended up with virtually
nothing. They were prepped and stored in their usual dry coir (I don't
use peat) but I'm wondering if, perhaps, the coir wasn't totally dry.
The bulk of the tubers were a squishy mess, not the fungussy stuff all
over them but real smelly decomposition.

TBH they didn't perform that well last year (weather probably) and I
was half thinking that I wouldn't bother this year but grow something
more wet tolerant instead. But that didn't make the discovery today
any more palatable.

On a happier note, my stored fuchsias are starting to bud and I think
my pelargoniums have mostly come through OK - no sign of anything
untoward at least.

Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East End of Swansea Bay where sometimes
it's raining and sometimes it's not.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 Sacha wrote:

Don't you think the people who watch the programmes and actually do
garden, are those most qualified to criticise? Certainly, changes were
made to GW because so many people disliked the format of 3 or 4
presenters all pretending to be the best of friends in a shed. And
when plenty was said on here (and elsewhere) about the way Chelsea was
being turned into a celeb slot, that format altered for the better, too.

Of course, you may well be right that the problems start with the
editing and direction, much of which seems to be done by people who
know little about gardening and care less about the target audience! I
think there's a lot of truth in that and the 'talent' doesn't always
get what he or she wants. But if you take this to its conclusion,
there would be no art, theatre or literary critics, merely on the
grounds that they're not professionals. And the people making and
fronting the programmes are paid good salaries to do it, while we pay
to watch (in most cases). Surely the paying customer has a right to
criticise a product that isn't delivering what they think it should? I
don't agree with ripping someone to shreds for the sake of it but I
think criticism that's constructive is a good thing and can be effective.

I completely agree with you, providing that criticism is based on fact.
Of course we have a right to criticise. And if the programme we are
watching doesn't provide us with what we find useful then, fair enough,
let the broadcasters know. And you're right, it has made a difference.

Such a programme is Gardeners' World. The programme makers have tried
different formats in the past to try to appeal to different kinds of
audiences. We know what we want to get out of the programme and so we
are within our rights to complain if we don't get it, if, that is, we
are the target audience. The presenters who have achieved greatest
popularity are those with experience, common sense, and an ability to
impart knowledge without "talking down" to us, people like Percy
Thrower, Geoff Hamilton, etc.

Monty, although not lacking enthusiasm, had not proved to be a very good
presenter of Gardeners' World, mainly, I think, on account of his lack
of experience. He got a lot of stick here and probably deserved it. He
didn't last very long.

But his series on the history of French gardens is a different matter.
He has tried to explain the difference in approach that the French and
the British have to gardening both large and small scale, both formal
and informal. It may not be what urglers want - but you can't please all
of the people all the time.

I suppose what made me cross was that a few people here hadn't watched
the programme properly and, as a result, were making sarcastic
criticisms that were not based on fact, as, for instance, in the matter
of whether the onions were "best" or "sweet". The programme, and Monty,
had their faults. (e.g. Monty saying that the cucumber, because it was
bitter, was unripe. Yes, that was crass.) But on the whole there was a
great deal of very enjoyable content, showing me things that I hadn't
known before and confirming some of the things I did know.

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

On 14/02/2013 19:03, David Rance wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 Sacha wrote:

Don't you think the people who watch the programmes and actually do
garden, are those most qualified to criticise? Certainly, changes
were made to GW because so many people disliked the format of 3 or 4
presenters all pretending to be the best of friends in a shed. And
when plenty was said on here (and elsewhere) about the way Chelsea was
being turned into a celeb slot, that format altered for the better, too.

Of course, you may well be right that the problems start with the
editing and direction, much of which seems to be done by people who
know little about gardening and care less about the target audience! I
think there's a lot of truth in that and the 'talent' doesn't always
get what he or she wants. But if you take this to its conclusion,
there would be no art, theatre or literary critics, merely on the
grounds that they're not professionals. And the people making and
fronting the programmes are paid good salaries to do it, while we pay
to watch (in most cases). Surely the paying customer has a right to
criticise a product that isn't delivering what they think it should? I
don't agree with ripping someone to shreds for the sake of it but I
think criticism that's constructive is a good thing and can be effective.

I completely agree with you, providing that criticism is based on fact.
Of course we have a right to criticise. And if the programme we are
watching doesn't provide us with what we find useful then, fair enough,
let the broadcasters know. And you're right, it has made a difference.

Such a programme is Gardeners' World. The programme makers have tried
different formats in the past to try to appeal to different kinds of
audiences. We know what we want to get out of the programme and so we
are within our rights to complain if we don't get it, if, that is, we
are the target audience. The presenters who have achieved greatest
popularity are those with experience, common sense, and an ability to
impart knowledge without "talking down" to us, people like Percy
Thrower, Geoff Hamilton, etc.

Monty, although not lacking enthusiasm, had not proved to be a very good
presenter of Gardeners' World, mainly, I think, on account of his lack
of experience. He got a lot of stick here and probably deserved it. He
didn't last very long.

But his series on the history of French gardens is a different matter.
He has tried to explain the difference in approach that the French and
the British have to gardening both large and small scale, both formal
and informal. It may not be what urglers want - but you can't please all
of the people all the time.

I suppose what made me cross was that a few people here hadn't watched
the programme properly and, as a result, were making sarcastic
criticisms that were not based on fact, as, for instance, in the matter
of whether the onions were "best" or "sweet". The programme, and Monty,
had their faults. (e.g. saying that the cucumber, because it was
bitter, was unripe. Yes, that was crass.) But on the whole there was a
great deal of very enjoyable content, showing me things that I hadn't
known before and confirming some of the things I did know.

David

But actualy Monty is right, we don't eat ripe cucumbers, we pick them
immature and eat them that way.
Just think about it for a minute.
Hard for some of you to admit it.
BUT HE IS RIGHT.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 David Hill wrote:

On 14/02/2013 19:03, David Rance wrote:

I suppose what made me cross was that a few people here hadn't watched
the programme properly and, as a result, were making sarcastic
criticisms that were not based on fact, as, for instance, in the matter
of whether the onions were "best" or "sweet". The programme, and Monty,
had their faults. (e.g. saying that the cucumber, because it was
bitter, was unripe. Yes, that was crass.) But on the whole there was a
great deal of very enjoyable content, showing me things that I hadn't
known before and confirming some of the things I did know.

But actualy Monty is right, we don't eat ripe cucumbers, we pick them
immature and eat them that way.
Just think about it for a minute.
Hard for some of you to admit it.
BUT HE IS RIGHT.

But that's not what he said. He said that because it was bitter it was
unripe and followed it up by saying that he then felt guilty about
cutting into something that wasn't ready and that it was now wasted (or
words to that effect).

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

On 2013-02-14 17:40:10 +0000, David Hill said:

On 14/02/2013 16:54, Sacha wrote:
snip
Surely the paying customer has a right to criticise a product that isn't
delivering what they think it should? I don't agree with ripping someone
to shreds for the sake of it but I think criticism that's constructive
is a good thing and can be effective.


But some people seem to forget that it isn't compulsory to watch.
If you don't like him change channel, I NEVER watch Top Gear and
several other progs because of their presenters and or the format of
the progs.
But I find I can watch some progs and just blank out the presenter.

Of course, anyone can exercise their prerogative but if programmes are
made FOR gardening people BY gardening presenters, it seems reasonable
to think we can either watch something we like and mostly find useful
and helpful, or we can say what we don't like in the hope it will
change.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Agreed, but here you are condemning a new (to England) programme before you've even seen it just because it's going to have a particular presenter in it, one that happens to be a successful garden designer as well as a RHS judge and not your idea of a gardener.

In article ,
David Rance wrote:

But actualy Monty is right, we don't eat ripe cucumbers, we pick them
immature and eat them that way.
Just think about it for a minute.
Hard for some of you to admit it.
BUT HE IS RIGHT.

Ah. Actually, I quite like ripe cucumbers, though I don't grow
them and so only occasionally eat them.

But that's not what he said. He said that because it was bitter it was
unripe and followed it up by saying that he then felt guilty about
cutting into something that wasn't ready and that it was now wasted (or
words to that effect).

A better term than "unripe" would have been "not ready".


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 15/02/2013 09:02, wrote:
In article ,
David Rance wrote:

But actualy Monty is right, we don't eat ripe cucumbers, we pick them
immature and eat them that way.
Just think about it for a minute.
Hard for some of you to admit it.
BUT HE IS RIGHT.

Ah. Actually, I quite like ripe cucumbers, though I don't grow
them and so only occasionally eat them.

But that's not what he said. He said that because it was bitter it was
unripe and followed it up by saying that he then felt guilty about
cutting into something that wasn't ready and that it was now wasted (or
words to that effect).

A better term than "unripe" would have been "not ready".


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Or Immature

On 2013-02-15 08:25:27 +0000, Granity said:

'Sacha[_10_ Wrote:
;978205']On 2013-02-14 17:40:10 +0000, David Hill said:
-
On 14/02/2013 16:54, Sacha wrote:-
snip
Surely the paying customer has a right to criticise a product that
isn't
delivering what they think it should? I don't agree with ripping
someone
to shreds for the sake of it but I think criticism that's constructive
is a good thing and can be effective.-


But some people seem to forget that it isn't compulsory to watch.
If you don't like him change channel, I NEVER watch Top Gear and
several other progs because of their presenters and or the format of
the progs.
But I find I can watch some progs and just blank out the presenter.-

Of course, anyone can exercise their prerogative but if programmes are
made FOR gardening people BY gardening presenters, it seems reasonable
to think we can either watch something we like and mostly find useful
and helpful, or we can say what we don't like in the hope it will
change.
--

Sacha
'Buy plants online, including rare and popular plant varieties from Hill
House Nursery, mail order plant specialist'
(http://www.hillhousenursery.com)
South Devon
'Help for Heroes' (http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk)

Agreed, but here you are condemning a new (to England) programme before
you've even seen it just because it's going to have a particular
presenter in it, one that happens to be a successful garden designer as
well as a RHS judge and not your idea of a gardener.

Actually, I haven't said a word on Beechgrove because I've never seen it.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
David Rance wrote:

But actualy Monty is right, we don't eat ripe cucumbers, we pick them
immature and eat them that way.
Just think about it for a minute.
Hard for some of you to admit it.
BUT HE IS RIGHT.

But that's not what he said. He said that because it was bitter it was
unripe and followed it up by saying that he then felt guilty about
cutting into something that wasn't ready and that it was now wasted (or
words to that effect).

A better term than "unripe" would have been "not ready".

His exact words, after tasting it, were "not quite ripe", then "not
quite ready, it's a little bit bitter". I've always understood that
bitterness in cucumbers was to do with irregular watering and/or uneven
temperatures, not to do with whether it's unripe or not ready.

Or am I wrong? If a cucumber is bitter when it's not ready will it lose
that bitterness when it is ready?

It's a long time since I tried growing cucumbers but, when I did, I
didn't have much success. They were bitter! So what do I know?! :-|

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK