|
Home > Archive > UK gardening > December 2005 > Heseltine arboretum
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Heseltine arboretum
|
|
|
| Did anyone see the programme on the Heseltine's arboretum? I thought it
very good because I love seeing what inspires people and how they make their
gardens. But nine gardeners.........!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
| Janet Baraclough 2005-12-29, 11:21 am |
| The message <BFD96F41.26F35%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk>
from Sacha <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Did anyone see the programme on the Heseltine's arboretum? I thought it
> very good because I love seeing what inspires people and how they make their
> gardens. But nine gardeners.........!
Yes I did, I thought he was insufferable, and the soul-less "garden"
deeply disappointing (considering what a fortune in money, labour and
equipment had been put into creating it). Not so much a garden, more of
a swankery.
Janet
| |
| Sacha 2005-12-29, 12:21 pm |
| On 29/12/05 2:13 pm, in article 313030303930323943B3EEEF55@zetnet.co.uk,
"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <BFD96F41.26F35%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk>
> from Sacha <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>
> Yes I did, I thought he was insufferable, and the soul-less "garden"
> deeply disappointing (considering what a fortune in money, labour and
> equipment had been put into creating it). Not so much a garden, more of
> a swankery.
>
It IS meant to be an arboretum more than a garden, though! Their passion
seems to be for trees, rather than perennials etc., so I didn't see it as
swanking because the passion seemed genuine. This doesn't mean that I don't
think he gets a helluva kick out of showing it off, either!
Funnily enough, I expected to find him insufferable and actually though he
came over better than I'd anticipated, though I'm unlikely to be president
of his fan club. However, I thought he dealt rather well with the slight
and occasional pushiness of his interviewer who tried to solicit his views
on politics and Mrs Thatcher etc. It was, after all, meant to be about his
planting and not his political life so I thought her questions in that
regard rather cheeky.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
| michael adams 2005-12-29, 12:21 pm |
|
"Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BFD96F41.26F35%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
> Did anyone see the programme on the Heseltine's arboretum?
An upstart, who not only had to buy all his own furniture*, but
also had to plant all his own trees.
michael adams
*a remark made by Michael Jopling in respect of Heseltine, quoted
in Alan Clark's Diaries and often misattributed to Clarke himself.
Clark's grandfather was in fact a Glasgow Cotton maunufacturer who
founded the family fortune. While his father Sir Kenneth "Civilisation"
Clark had to buy his own Castle, Saltwood in Kent, from Bill Deede's
family who lost all their money in the Wall St Crash,
> --
>
> Sacha
> www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
> South Devon
> (remove the weeds to email me)
>
| |
| Janet Baraclough 2005-12-29, 1:21 pm |
| The message <BFD9B0E9.26F60%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk>
from Sacha <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> On 29/12/05 2:13 pm, in article 313030303930323943B3EEEF55@zetnet.co.uk,
> "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> It IS meant to be an arboretum more than a garden, though! Their passion
> seems to be for trees, rather than perennials etc., so I didn't see it as
> swanking because the passion seemed genuine. This doesn't mean that I don't
> think he gets a helluva kick out of showing it off, either!
Ha, if I'd seen more of the trees (or better grown trees), I might
have enjoyed it more. I didn't think it did come across as "passion for
trees", so much as "passion for one-upmanship". He seemed much more
interested in boasting repeatedly that he had the most important
arboretum (questionable!) ; more (or rarer) varieties of oak (etc etc)
than anyone else, than in actually showing the trees he was boasting
about, and frankly I didn't think the planting was designed to show each
tree to its best advantage either. It was like a tree-zoo, or tree
circus, with sad captive inmates.
When it came to the sculpture, both H's were more interested in
reminding us "It's a Frink", than in showing off the piece itself, and
the main thing he wanted to mention about the (awful) waterfeecher, was
the high cost.
> However, I thought he dealt rather well with the slight
> and occasional pushiness of his interviewer who tried to solicit his views
> on politics and Mrs Thatcher etc. It was, after all, meant to be about his
> planting and not his political life so I thought her questions in that
> regard rather cheeky.
I had the distinct impression that the presenter found him
insufferable too, and couldn't resist the temptation to prick the
inflated balloon with one or two reminiscent put-downs.
Janet
| |
|
| On 29/12/05 4:10 pm, in article 41ig06F1eo91qU1@individual.net, "michael
adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BFD96F41.26F35%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
>
>
>
> An upstart, who not only had to buy all his own furniture*, but
> also had to plant all his own trees.
But good heavens above, so were many of those who employed Capability Brown
or Adam, for example! Where would gardens in this country be now if the
rich, landed, nouveau riche etc. etc. hadn't sent plant hunters abroad on
their behalf and funded entirely by their own fortunes? You don't have to
LIKE someone to admire the work they do, the legacy they leave, do you? Or
do you?
>
>
> michael adams
>
>
> *a remark made by Michael Jopling in respect of Heseltine, quoted
> in Alan Clark's Diaries and often misattributed to Clarke himself.
> Clark's grandfather was in fact a Glasgow Cotton maunufacturer who
> founded the family fortune. While his father Sir Kenneth "Civilisation"
> Clark had to buy his own Castle, Saltwood in Kent, from Bill Deede's
> family who lost all their money in the Wall St Crash,
>
Tsk. Imagine being successful.......... The whole of English history is
full of such stories and incidents. I think it's wonderful - makes it all
the richer. Upstart to Duke in two generations - three if they're a bit
slow with the hooks and eyes.
Remember that old saying about rags to riches to rags in three generations?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
|
| On 29/12/05 4:39 pm, in article 313030303930323943B4113B06@zetnet.co.uk,
"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <BFD9B0E9.26F60%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk>
> from Sacha <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>
>
> Ha, if I'd seen more of the trees (or better grown trees), I might
> have enjoyed it more. I didn't think it did come across as "passion for
> trees", so much as "passion for one-upmanship". He seemed much more
> interested in boasting repeatedly that he had the most important
> arboretum (questionable!) ; more (or rarer) varieties of oak (etc etc)
> than anyone else, than in actually showing the trees he was boasting
> about, and frankly I didn't think the planting was designed to show each
> tree to its best advantage either. It was like a tree-zoo, or tree
> circus, with sad captive inmates.
I don't think I can agree with that. I didn't think the camera work was
good or sympathetic and I wonder why. Or perhaps I don't. My feeling at
the end of it all was that they, the Heseltines, had a real interest and
belief in what they were doing but that it had not been shown to its best
advantage and that there might have been some hidden agenda, related to the
interviewer's needling, that would explain that. I could be wrong but I'm
not at all sure that I am.
>
> When it came to the sculpture, both H's were more interested in
> reminding us "It's a Frink", than in showing off the piece itself, and
> the main thing he wanted to mention about the (awful) waterfeecher, was
> the high cost.
Yes, I do agree about the Frink thing - I thought that rather awful but then
I don't like that sort of thing so perhaps that makes me less sympathetic.
I'd forgotten that bit - must have blocked it out!
>
>
> I had the distinct impression that the presenter found him
> insufferable too, and couldn't resist the temptation to prick the
> inflated balloon with one or two reminiscent put-downs.
>
That might well be so but it was unprofessional of her, and was not her job,
IMO and he handled it well, also IMO. I would not have expected him to do
so, frankly. If someone comes to interview you about your arboretum or your
garden or your window box, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they will
stick to that subject and not try to make themselves a reputation as a 'hard
nosed interviewer' on the back of a soft subject. I thought her behaviour
was cheap.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
| michael adams 2005-12-29, 4:21 pm |
|
"Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BFD9E318.26FA4%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
> On 29/12/05 4:10 pm, in article 41ig06F1eo91qU1@individual.net, "michael
> adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> But good heavens above, so were many of those who employed Capability
> Brown or Adam, for example! Where would gardens in this country be now
> if the rich, landed, nouveau riche etc. etc. hadn't sent plant hunters
> abroad on their behalf and funded entirely by their own fortunes? You
> don't have to LIKE someone to admire the work they do, the legacy they
> leave, do you? Or do you?
....
Yes but that was 200 years ago. Those people were true innovators at
the time. Nobody objects to that.
The point is that by their very nature, trees take time to mature.
And so any such scheme will probably need at least 50 years before it
will look anything like at its best.
It will probably take at least 20 years even, before anyone is any position
to decide whether particular plantings or groupings are a success or
not. Regardless of who was responsible.
Or to put it another way -
"Arboretums can make a poor choice for short-term self-aggrandisement"
michael adams
....
>
> Tsk. Imagine being successful.......... The whole of English history is
> full of such stories and incidents. I think it's wonderful - makes it all
> the richer. Upstart to Duke in two generations - three if they're a bit
> slow with the hooks and eyes.
>
> Remember that old saying about rags to riches to rags in three
generations?
>
> --
>
> Sacha
> www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
> South Devon
> (remove the weeds to email me)
>
| |
| Tiger303 2005-12-29, 4:21 pm |
|
looked interesting, anyone know if its open the public like on national
garden scheme for example? The lenin statue certainly made me chuckle
--
Tiger303
| |
| Mike Lyle 2005-12-29, 8:21 pm |
| Sacha wrote:
> On 29/12/05 4:39 pm, in article
> 313030303930323943B4113B06@zetnet.co.uk, "Janet Baraclough"
> <janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>
> Yes, I do agree about the Frink thing - I thought that rather awful
> but then I don't like that sort of thing so perhaps that makes me
> less sympathetic. I'd forgotten that bit - must have blocked it
out!
> That might well be so but it was unprofessional of her, and was not
> her job, IMO and he handled it well, also IMO. I would not have
> expected him to do so, frankly. If someone comes to interview you
> about your arboretum or your garden or your window box, it is not
> unreasonable to suppose that they will stick to that subject and
not
> try to make themselves a reputation as a 'hard nosed interviewer'
on
> the back of a soft subject. I thought her behaviour was cheap.
I'm still not entirely clear what I thought about the prog. It left
me with an an uncomfortable feeling, and I'm still not sure why. Yes,
I did want to see the trees, not the people (I can get people any
day, and I can get politicians simply by switching on the telly or
going into the tired old journalist mode). But I did get a strong
sense that he was thinking of having produced something beautiful
which would last far longer than anything he might have produced if
he'd ever been Prime Minister: I respect that unreservedly -- we
gardeners, however small, are like that, I hope. For a veteran
politician, he seemed surprisingly stiff, to the point of
haughtiness, before the camera. I wonder if it was simply that he
knew his family were going to be involved, breaking a tabu we should
all subscribe to: nobody's children and grandchildren deserve that.
Or were we seeing something about the man himself? And, yes, Tiger, I
admired the Lenin sculpture too: totalitarian art has an energy we
ignore at our peril -- it's seductively scary, and we'd better
understand it or we could be swept up by it.
--
Mike.
| |
|
| On 29/12/05 8:04 pm, in article 41itmdF1eep7vU1@individual.net, "michael
adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BFD9E318.26FA4%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
>
> ...
>
> Yes but that was 200 years ago. Those people were true innovators at
> the time. Nobody objects to that.
I bet they did at the time. "Bringing in nasty foreign plants; taking the
native apples and fruits out of the mouths of locals........" etc. etc.
>
> The point is that by their very nature, trees take time to mature.
> And so any such scheme will probably need at least 50 years before it
> will look anything like at its best.
And? Don't you plant trees for future generations to enjoy? We do. You
seem to be saying that nobody over 20 or 30 at the most, should be planting
trees that take any time to mature. I simply cannot grasp that nor do I
want to.
>
> It will probably take at least 20 years even, before anyone is any position
> to decide whether particular plantings or groupings are a success or
> not. Regardless of who was responsible.
>
> Or to put it another way -
>
> "Arboretums can make a poor choice for short-term self-aggrandisement"
>
But why do you *assume* that planting an arboretum by an intelligent man and
his wife are 'short-term self-aggrandisement'? I might not care much for
M. Heseltine but I don't think him to be stupid! And why would you assume
he will not have 20 years in which to see his arboretum come to fruition?
It seems to me that your pov is negative in the extreme. Planting trees
for the future to enjoy is why many plant them. We planted a mulberry 4
years ago to commemorate the birth of Ray's grand daughter. We will never
see that tree in its wonderful maturity but it appealed rather more than a
leylandii, frankly! We are currently planning the planting of some silver
birches and starting to think about what might take over from the Cedrus
atlanticus when it turns its toes up - and it's at least 150 years old and
we are getting the benefit of it, so it seems only fair to try to plant its
successor for whoever is here in another 150 years time. That's what
planting trees, as opposed to a garden, is about. I don't know if you saw
it but there was a programme about Althorp in which Lord Spencer showed a
wood of oak trees his xxxtimes grandfather had planted in a patriotic
gesture to provide masts for the Royal Naval ships. By the time the trees
matured to that point, technology had moved on somewhat but there was this
*wonderful* stand of oaks for this generation to enjoy. Talk about thinking
ahead, however!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
| Janet Baraclough 2005-12-29, 10:21 pm |
| The message <41itmdF1eep7vU1@individual.net>
from "michael adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> contains these words:
> The point is that by their very nature, trees take time to mature.
> And so any such scheme will probably need at least 50 years before it
> will look anything like at its best.
> It will probably take at least 20 years even, before anyone is any position
> to decide whether particular plantings or groupings are a success or
> not. Regardless of who was responsible.
> Or to put it another way -
> "Arboretums can make a poor choice for short-term self-aggrandisement"
There were already many examples, of valuable young trees having been
distorted by bad positioning (close to full-grown conifers etc). That's
an error any amateur might make, but harder to understand when done by
someone who boasts of advice from the country's top experts and has a
staff of 9 gardeners. There were other instances of really poor
practice, such as the cherry grove, of young trees planted far too close
together. And the large transplanted yews (which died). In 20 years
time, a lot of that very expensive collection will be dead or
distorted.
I can think of several youngish woodland gardens, of similar size
and age, planted from scratch by their current owner with no paid help
at all, which demonstrate a lot more taste, knowledge and care for
trees. Where 25 yr old plantings already look wonderful , and have the
proper space, and surroundings, to achieve their full potential at 50.
Janet.
| |
|
| On 30/12/05 12:42 am, in article 313030303930323943B4826B28@zetnet.co.uk,
"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I can think of several youngish woodland gardens, of similar size
> and age, planted from scratch by their current owner with no paid help
> at all, which demonstrate a lot more taste, knowledge and care for
> trees. Where 25 yr old plantings already look wonderful , and have the
> proper space, and surroundings, to achieve their full potential at 50.
>
It's only an idle thought and may be quite wrong but when they started, I
don't think they, personally, were any sort of experts. In fact, didn't
Heseltine come perilously close to going entirely broke and then recovered
by going into publishing - not sure. But what I'm thinking is if they
*weren't* experts when they started, maybe they did not, in fact, get what
was the good advice they thought and perhaps they were 'over sold'
deliberately.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
| michael adams 2005-12-30, 7:21 am |
|
"Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BFDA1F36.26FBD%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
> On 29/12/05 8:04 pm, in article 41itmdF1eep7vU1@individual.net, "michael
> adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
"michael[color=darkred]
>
> I bet they did at the time. "Bringing in nasty foreign plants; taking the
> native apples and fruits out of the mouths of locals........" etc. etc.
>
> And? Don't you plant trees for future generations to enjoy? We do. You
> seem to be saying that nobody over 20 or 30 at the most, should be
planting
> trees that take any time to mature. I simply cannot grasp that nor do I
> want to.
....
I'm not saying that at all.
What I'm saying is that if you plant an arboretum now which you expect
to look at its best in 20 or 50 years time, you don't invite vistors
around in the meantime, in the expectation of recieving plaudits.
position[color=darkred]
> But why do you *assume* that planting an arboretum by an intelligent man
and
> his wife are 'short-term self-aggrandisement'?
....
Why else would he invite in a television crew to make a one hour programme
around 20 years too soon ?
Heseltines aroboretum has featured in numerous newspaper articles since
it was first mooted around 20 years ago in any case. His whole political
career has been an exercise in self-aggrandisement, which is why he
always aroused suspicions among the Tory Grandees - he not only
tried too hard, but far, far worse, was seen to be be trying too hard.
Unlike say the likes of the similarly middle class Heath, Thatcher,
or John Major who simply blended in.
....
I might not care much for
> M. Heseltine but I don't think him to be stupid! And why would you assume
> he will not have 20 years in which to see his arboretum come to fruition?
....
Which is the time to invite in the television crew. Not now.
That's my point.
It's like having cosmetic surgery and expecting everyone to admire the
surgeon's handiwork on the day after the operation when your face is maybe
swollen to the size of a football and is bright purple in colour.
Which somewhat misses the point. Which is what leads one to question
the motives of the person having the operation.
If Hezza had already been beavering away in secret at his arboretum for
the past 50 years without telling anyone about it, and it was now
coming to glorious fruition, then if he invited the TV crew in to show
off his handiwork and good taste, then good for him. But he didn't.
(Not that I actually saw the programme, but when has that ever stopped
anyone?) As I understand it, what we got instead was something out of
"World of Arboretums" or "Aroboretums R Us".
....
> It seems to me that your pov is negative in the extreme. Planting trees
> for the future to enjoy is why many plant them. We planted a mulberry 4
> years ago to commemorate the birth of Ray's grand daughter. We will never
> see that tree in its wonderful maturity but it appealed rather more than a
> leylandii, frankly! We are currently planning the planting of some silver
> birches and starting to think about what might take over from the Cedrus
> atlanticus when it turns its toes up - and it's at least 150 years old
and
> we are getting the benefit of it, so it seems only fair to try to plant
its
> successor for whoever is here in another 150 years time. That's what
> planting trees, as opposed to a garden, is about. I don't know if you saw
> it but there was a programme about Althorp in which Lord Spencer showed a
> wood of oak trees his xxxtimes grandfather had planted in a patriotic
> gesture to provide masts for the Royal Naval ships. By the time the trees
> matured to that point, technology had moved on somewhat but there was this
> *wonderful* stand of oaks for this generation to enjoy. Talk about
thinking
> ahead, however!
>
....
Which makes fitting subject matter for TV programes in 20, 50, or even 200
years time, in other words.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Spencers expected to turn
a good profit on those oak trees, at the time they planted them either.
Despite appearences to the contrary nowadays,(leaking roofs, servant
problems, woe is them) magnanimity never came easily to such people
at the time, otherwise they would never have amassed the wealth
they did.
michael adams
....
> --
>
> Sacha
> www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
> South Devon
> (remove the weeds to email me)
>
| |
| Janet Baraclough 2005-12-30, 8:21 am |
| The message <BFDABB55.2700F%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk>
from Sacha <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> On 30/12/05 12:42 am, in article 313030303930323943B4826B28@zetnet.co.uk,
> "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
[color=darkred]
> It's only an idle thought and may be quite wrong but when they started, I
> don't think they, personally, were any sort of experts. In fact, didn't
> Heseltine come perilously close to going entirely broke and then recovered
> by going into publishing - not sure.
He's certainly self-made, but my understanding is that he made his
publishing fortune before buying that place. He mentioned on the prog,
several property steps along the way. When he started the arboretum, he
"only" employed one fulltime gardener (which might be "close to broke"
in his terms, but not in most peoples :-))
Janet
| |
| Janet Baraclough 2005-12-30, 8:21 am |
| The message <41j930F1ev48tU1@individual.net>
from "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> contains these words:
For a veteran
> politician, he seemed surprisingly stiff, to the point of
> haughtiness, before the camera. I wonder if it was simply that he
> knew his family were going to be involved, breaking a tabu we should
> all subscribe to: nobody's children and grandchildren deserve that.
But that was his (very experienced) choice. His extended family were
featured on TV, not by accident or chance, but because he chose to
parade them, their ponies, their homes provided by him, and an entire
stable of garden machinery, like stage props. Similarly, he could have
declined the inclusion of any political questions, and didn't. It wasn't
live or impromptu or real time, we were being shown what MH chose to
reveal.
Self-styled emperors often fail to appreciate that public exposure
reveals the nakedness of their vanity :-)
Earlier in your post you said
>I'm still not entirely clear what I thought about the prog. It left
>me with an an uncomfortable feeling, and I'm still not sure why.
I agree. I think it's because the programme (supposedly about an
arboretum) was being used as vehicles for two quite different agendas
by Heseltine and the director.
Janet
| |
| La Puce 2005-12-30, 8:21 am |
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
For a veteran
> politician, he seemed surprisingly stiff, to the point of
> haughtiness, before the camera.
(snip)
That's the way he is. I've met him three times, though never in his
garden, and in three different location, situation and circumstance he
was as stiff as an ironing board. The last time I saw him was during a
rally we had organised in his honnour years after I had met him at the
bbc. I was then a very anxious fighting housing activist during the
Shity, sorry, City Challenge 'competition' Heseltine had set up for the
undesirable communities in his dearest country. He recognised me from
somewhere then and I thought he would perhaps then descend from his
high and mighty horse and talk to me as a human being. But sadly no.
However, I felt I could talk to him and I could see he knew me and that
was enough to shut him up. The local paper felt that there was
something there too as they took a picture of me carrying my baby,
standing in front of Heseltine pointing a finger at me, with the
caption "Fighting Maureen tells the Minister the grim reality". I'm not
called Maureen though ;o)
| |
|
| >
> For a veteran
>
> But that was his (very experienced) choice. His extended family were
> featured on TV, not by accident or chance, but because he chose to
> parade them, their ponies, their homes provided by him, and an entire
> stable of garden machinery, like stage props. Similarly, he could have
> declined the inclusion of any political questions, and didn't. It wasn't
> live or impromptu or real time, we were being shown what MH chose to
> reveal.
>
> Self-styled emperors often fail to appreciate that public exposure
> reveals the nakedness of their vanity :-)
>
> Earlier in your post you said
>
>
> I agree. I think it's because the programme (supposedly about an
> arboretum) was being used as vehicles for two quite different agendas
> by Heseltine and the director.
>
> Janet
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
| |
| Sacha 2005-12-30, 10:21 am |
| On 30/12/05 10:59 am, in article 41ki5vF1dfeitU1@individual.net, "michael
adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BFDA1F36.26FBD%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> ...
>
> I'm not saying that at all.
Then I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
>
> What I'm saying is that if you plant an arboretum now which you expect
> to look at its best in 20 or 50 years time, you don't invite vistors
> around in the meantime, in the expectation of recieving plaudits.
But he didn't. Expect to receive plaudits, I mean. To me, the programme
conveyed that - whatever one may think of the man or his methods - we were
looking at a work very much in progress.
>
>
>
> position
> and
>
> ...
>
> Why else would he invite in a television crew to make a one hour programme
> around 20 years too soon ?
As I've said - to see a work in progress. To be honest, anyone can go to
e.g. Westonbirt and film mature trees. IMO, to see what is happening and
how it is happening is more interesting and as we see here, does spark
interest and debate, even if it's of the "I wouldn't do it that way myself"
type.
>
> Heseltines aroboretum has featured in numerous newspaper articles since
> it was first mooted around 20 years ago in any case. His whole political
> career has been an exercise in self-aggrandisement, which is why he
> always aroused suspicions among the Tory Grandees - he not only
> tried too hard, but far, far worse, was seen to be be trying too hard.
> Unlike say the likes of the similarly middle class Heath, Thatcher,
> or John Major who simply blended in.
But this was not about his political career and AFAIK, he hasn't got one any
more! Surely he's allowed a private life and interest, even if one doesn't
like the man himself? And to be fair, he absolutely refused to discuss his
political life, even though the interviewer tried to trip him into doing
so.
>
> ...
>
> I might not care much for
>
> ...
>
> Which is the time to invite in the television crew. Not now.
> That's my point.
>
> It's like having cosmetic surgery and expecting everyone to admire the
> surgeon's handiwork on the day after the operation when your face is maybe
> swollen to the size of a football and is bright purple in colour.
> Which somewhat misses the point. Which is what leads one to question
> the motives of the person having the operation.
>
> If Hezza had already been beavering away in secret at his arboretum for
> the past 50 years without telling anyone about it, and it was now
> coming to glorious fruition, then if he invited the TV crew in to show
> off his handiwork and good taste, then good for him. But he didn't.
> (Not that I actually saw the programme, but when has that ever stopped
> anyone?) As I understand it, what we got instead was something out of
> "World of Arboretums" or "Aroboretums R Us".
Well, honestly - if you didn't even see the programme and are now
criticising his arboretum for being immature............! It does strike
me, perhaps wrongly, that you're going for Heseltine because he's Heseltine
the politician-you-don't-like, rather than Heseltine who is creating an
arboretum! And the whole *point*, IMO is that it is NOT a mature, finished
product. If *I* had to wait another 20 years or whatever to see it, I might
not see it at all because I shall be 60 next month! I fully intend to be a
blasted nuisance for another thirty years, but who knows...........
>
> ...
>
> and
> its
> thinking
>
> ...
>
> Which makes fitting subject matter for TV programes in 20, 50, or even 200
> years time, in other words.
See above. Not everyone on this group is 20 or 30 or even 40 years old.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Spencers expected to turn
> a good profit on those oak trees, at the time they planted them either.
> Despite appearences to the contrary nowadays,(leaking roofs, servant
> problems, woe is them) magnanimity never came easily to such people
> at the time, otherwise they would never have amassed the wealth
> they did.
>
We will never know, will we? And contrary to your clear prejudice, some of
'such people' were indeed very magnanimous in all sorts of ways and are
still. Unlike many celebs however, they don't advertise their good works or
generosity quite so openly so perhaps you don't hear about them. It does
sound to me as if your pretty vehement criticism of a programme you didn't
see and your contempt for the subject itself, even though you haven't seen
the arboretum, is a matter of class prejudice and perhaps political, too. I
can respect your point of view but I don't agree with it and I think it's
moving away from the matter of 'did anyone see/enjoy/dislike the TV
PROGRAMME' (which you didn't watch) and into the realms of politics and
personal beliefs, so I hope you will excuse me from discussing it with you
any further.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
| Sacha 2005-12-30, 10:21 am |
| On 30/12/05 11:16 am, in article 313030303930323943B5171884@zetnet.co.uk,
"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <BFDABB55.2700F%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk>
> from Sacha <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>
>
>
> He's certainly self-made, but my understanding is that he made his
> publishing fortune before buying that place. He mentioned on the prog,
> several property steps along the way. When he started the arboretum, he
> "only" employed one fulltime gardener (which might be "close to broke"
> in his terms, but not in most peoples :-))
>
I've never followed British politics very closely in the past - and not the
individuals much either, because in Jersey where I lived most of my adult
life, we are autonomous and have a totally different system of government.
I'm starting to take a bit more interest now and am not impressed with what
I see from any quarter. However, Ray, returning to our moutons, seemed to
think Heseltine had not been wealthy until fairly recently. I can't now
remember but did he say he'd been there for thirty years or so? If so, it
would seem his fortunes have increased to enable them to employ a lot more
people and to clear and plant a lot more of the land. IOW, they didn't go
in there with nine gardeners and a fat chequebook and do the whole thing in
one fell swoop. And I do take your point about being relatively broke! I
don't know anything at all about his background but if Heseltine has made
his own fortune, good for him.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
| michael adams 2005-12-30, 11:21 am |
|
"Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BFDAE9F9.27056%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
> I can respect your point of view but I don't agree with it and
> I think it's moving away from the matter of 'did anyone see/enjoy/dislike
> the TV PROGRAMME' (which you didn't watch) and into the realms of politics
> and personal beliefs, so I hope you will excuse me from discussing it
with
> you any further.
>
I see.
michael adams
....
> --
>
> Sacha
> www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
> South Devon
> (remove the weeds to email me)
>
| |
| Rupert 2005-12-30, 12:21 pm |
|
"Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BFDABB55.2700F%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
> On 30/12/05 12:42 am, in article 313030303930323943B4826B28@zetnet.co.uk,
> "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> It's only an idle thought and may be quite wrong but when they started, I
> don't think they, personally, were any sort of experts. In fact, didn't
> Heseltine come perilously close to going entirely broke and then recovered
> by going into publishing - not sure. But what I'm thinking is if they
> *weren't* experts when they started, maybe they did not, in fact, get what
> was the good advice they thought and perhaps they were 'over sold'
> deliberately.
>
> --
>
> Sacha
> www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
> South Devon
> (remove the weeds to email me)
>
No I think Hezza made his fortunes long before entering politics in his
30's.
You are thinking of Jeffrey Archer perhaps.
With his reputed wealth there is not much excuse for getting it wrong .
Is planning an arboretum that difficult?
| |
| La Puce 2005-12-30, 1:21 pm |
|
Rupert wrote:
> No I think Hezza made his fortunes long before entering politics in his
> 30's.
Hezza? It was Tarzan in my days. And in the late 80s there was a lot of
money put into quangos managing management's management, if I recall
<g>
> You are thinking of Jeffrey Archer perhaps.
> With his reputed wealth there is not much excuse for getting it wrong .
> Is planning an arboretum that difficult?
No. It's the land that's the difficult part.
| |
|
| On 30/12/05 2:40 pm, in article 41kv4bF1eso55U1@individual.net, "michael
adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "Sacha" <sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BFDAE9F9.27056%sacha@gardenweedws506.fsnet.co.uk...
> with
>
> I see.
>
Perhaps or perhaps not. But I was brought up to know that discussing
religion or politics is potentially inflammatory and as this group doesn't
really focus on either, I just don't think it's wise to light any fuses.....
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
| |
| Jim Lesurf 2005-12-31, 5:21 am |
| In article <313030303930323943B521FD56@zetnet.co.uk>, Janet Baraclough
<janet.and.john@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I think it's because the programme (supposedly about an arboretum)
> was being used as vehicles for two quite different agendas by Heseltine
> and the director.
I had a similar impression. I felt that he'd been asked to provide (or had
suggested) a program about his arboretum, but then, the intervewer was
asking him about his (past) career.
It seemed fairly clear from his reactions that he didn't want to be
interviewed about that. However what I saw left some "chicken and egg"
questions...
Did he clam up and give the interviewer the impression that he was being
arrogant because he was not wanting to go back into this past career, and
her questions were an annoyance from his POV as he'd been told/arranged
that the program was about the arboretum?
Or did she start asking about that because (off camera) she had already
decided that he still had strong feelings about that which he was trying to
'forget' by focussing on the arboretum project, or that she already felt he
was arrogant, or using the progam for his own ego?
However the program didn't seem to me to shed any light on the answers to
the above. So any answers may be in the reporter's notebook or on the
cutting room floor.
I didn't care much, though, as I enjoyed the images and the music. so
treated it as a pleasant semi-gardening program with scenery. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Sco...ro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
| |
| La Puce 2005-12-31, 10:21 am |
|
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I didn't care much, though, as I enjoyed the images and the music. so
> treated it as a pleasant semi-gardening program with scenery. :-)
I get that watching Top Gear :o)
|
|
|
|
|