Register with us or sign in
in The potting shed
It is absolutely beautiful. I think it is also about the same size as my entire garden
I think if we start analysing what programmes cost we could be all day-so what he has a new greenhouse-do we actually know who paid for what?
So unless someone can actually prove to me that all these extras are provided free of charge to him-with no return then the point is irrelevant
I could point out that the Archers messageboard was paid for out of the licence fee-but I never used it-but that would be petty
must remember to point the dish in the direction of bbc2 tomorrow morning for the repeat.
Can't see any link with The Archers message-board, but that was in fact funded by the program's budget....alas, it closed down when it suited them.
"so what he has a new greenhouse-do we actually know who paid for what?"...be assured, you won't know!
Enjoyed GW tonight, too short as always.
As others have said each to own regarding their preference of presenters. I don't find Monty objectional at all. I agree marshmello with reference to the path.
For me the only person on the show who isn't in touch with real gardeners is Joe Swift, to me his slot is a complete waste of time, he says exactly the same thing re structure, texture etc and then cherry picks plants that would look good.
The green house looks amazing. I do think it's unfair to pick on this as a cost to the license fee payer though David. I don't watch much TV but if you are going down that line, more credible arguements of waste of money could be said about the awful presenters of other programmes, soap actors, comedies etc. They get paid a lot of money for stuff I don't even watch.
I'm more than happy for Radio 4 for my cost of license fee. GW is a bonus
At the risk of sounding controversial, I'm starting to think that the license fee is good value for money. No adverts, great radio and some great programmes
Hollie hock - I think it's a valid point. Just look at the amount of money spent & wasted in creating Greenacres, just to cast it off on a whim.
David K wrote (see)
Can't see any link with The Archers message-board, but that was in fact funded by the program's budget....alas, it closed down when it suited them. "so what he has a new greenhouse-do we actually know who paid for what?"...be assured, you won't know!
Which was funded out of the licence fee-David this is a silly argument-we know you don't like MD-so are we now going to analyse what Geoff Hamilton did or did not pay for as well?
I don't listen to Radio 3 either-or Radio 1
It will never happen, but I would like to know how much money the BBC (license fee payers) have spent on Longacres.
I don't see much evidence of huge investments at Glebe Cottage.
Yes she presents it for free and when she visits those gardens she pays all the costs out of her own pocket
Television programmes cost-this is just silly-let GW come from a car park then- on a charge free Sunday afternoon
Yeh, I agree - far too short.
As for the greenhouse, just lush - i'd love one. As for who payed for it, couldn't give a flying fig. No amount of moaning is going to change the outcome.
Sad but true.
Neither do I Bunny, but I have radio 4 or 6 on all day which I love. I enjoy BBC4 and loved all the Scandinavian thrillers like the killing, the bridge, borgen as well as the french one Spiral. Great natural world and science programmes. No rubbish adverts trying to sell you something you don't want/need. I do listen to other commercial radio stations as well but the adverts really get on my nerves as does the ones on itv etc.
Monty will be earning plenty for being at the top of his game. A letter to the BBC asking about what has been spent on his garden should elicit a response. I guess having made the decision to present the programme from his garden, the Beeb must now spend whatever is needed to make the prog a success in their eyes.
Silence can be good bunny, in some ways that's what I crave