Well, I was one of the people who arrived at Hampton Court yesterday
lunchtime and got booted out at 3pm. Pretty expensive 2 hours we
thought. However there is good news. If anyone else was there and is
grumbling, the RHS has said on its website:


"Closure of Hampton Court Palace Flower Show due to severe weather

Wednesday 7th July 2004 ONLY

Due to increasing wind speed and a high risk of heavy rain it became
necessary to close Hampton Court at 3 pm on on 7 July.
1) Customers with unused tickets can be advised that the can use these
on any other day of the show on a like by like basis (Eg. 3pm
Wednesday can be used at 3pm on any other day of the Show). If they
can't make another day they are to write in for a refund enclosing
their unused tickets.

2) Customers who have used their tickets and wish to re-visit are
being told that they will need to buy tickets for their re-visit and
then write in requesting a refund including proof of purchase (ticket
stubs etc) for both sets of tickets (Refunds will only be considered
in exceptional circumstances).

The address to write to for both options is The RHS, PO Box 38529,
London, SW1P 2WZ.

3) Customers who request a refund for Parking are being asked to
follow the same procedure."

I think I shall try again on Saturday!


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

"jane" wrote in message
...
Well, I was one of the people who arrived at Hampton Court yesterday
lunchtime and got booted out at 3pm.

snip

I think I shall try again on Saturday!


& you got a bit mucky I reckon. We (4 of us) certainly did. Mucky shoes, and
almost up to our knees with muddy-spray
Nevertheless, a lovely visit.
The gardens had stood up very well to the weather. But I can't say I'm
surprised. I had seen the coverage of previous shows when occasionally just
such weather intervened on the creation and yet, on the show dates the
gardens were fine.
Those ferry guys did well with the showers.
I note not a lot of grumbling about the BBC coverage. Does that mean they've
done something right? (-;

Patrick

In message , tuin man
writes
I note not a lot of grumbling about the BBC coverage. Does that mean
they've done something right?

Couldn't watch all of it, but what I did see wasn't so much about
Hampton Court as about other places sort of linked to what was at the
show. The field trips are good and I wouldn't mind seeing them on some
other program, but if I tune in to watch the Hampton Court Show, then I
would rather like to see what is on the packet! I can't believe that
there wasn't enough there of interest to fill the programs!

--
Klara, Gatwick basin

"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
.209...
"tuin man" wrote in
:

I note not a lot of grumbling about the BBC coverage. Does that mean
they've done something right? (-;

It was truly terrible - I'm usually pretty tolerant of poor telly, but I
turned this off.

If the program is supposed to be about Hampton Court, I don't expect
lengthy extracts from The Good Life and documentaries about pottery.
I have satellite: if I want those things they are available on other
channels.

I got the impression that the director was deeply bored with gardening,
the
show, the presenters and just wanted to show something - anything - else.

Victoria
--
gardening on a north-facing hill
in South-East Cornwall

I only saw snippets, so can't comment (but I like the music). I just noticed
the silence here.
Outside of flower show telly, I have noticed something which may show some
light on the issue. Some time back, on a news item concerning some of
London's market gardening history, one particular site was mentioned.
The reporter commented on the difference between the bustle of everyday live
outside the site compared with the hidden treasures within. At which point
she seemed to enter and what I expected to follow was just such treasure
revealed.

But no. Oh no... I guess that would never do.
I guess the photographer wanted to show a keen ability to show s/he can film
a clock tower, then a kerb and a seat and then something else. Eventually
there were small bits of plant, but never was the whole picture included.
It was about the art of photography! The very kind of things I have reams
off, but do not presume to bore the general public with. Where the
photograph matters as much if not more than the content.
What was on show was more about the meja types career advancement training
exercise, or similar ambitions via portfolio enhancement. & Not about the
actual content of the report.

Is this what's happening to RHS telly?

Patrick

The message
from "tuin man" contains these words:

It was truly terrible - I'm usually pretty tolerant of poor telly, but I
turned this off.

Victoria

I only saw snippets, so can't comment (but I like the music). I just noticed
the silence here.

I noticed the resounding silence too. What's more, I've been asking RL
gardening acquaintances of they watched it, and no they didn't..same as
me. Chelsea was bad; the thought of Diarmuid Gavin as HC presenter was
the final straw. I knew what that would mean :-(.

TV media are in deep, deep trouble when prime-time programming is
ignored by a target audience which happens to be the largest, highest
spending leisure activity group in the UK. We are hugely valuable to TV
advertisers; they won't pay to be ignored by us. That's terrible news to
production companies, including the BBC, who hope to sell their
programmes to the worldwide market.

Janet.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "tuin man" contains these
words:

It was truly terrible - I'm usually pretty tolerant of poor telly, but
I
turned this off.

Victoria

I only saw snippets, so can't comment (but I like the music). I just
noticed
the silence here.

I noticed the resounding silence too. What's more, I've been asking RL
gardening acquaintances of they watched it, and no they didn't..same as
me. Chelsea was bad; the thought of Diarmuid Gavin as HC presenter was
the final straw. I knew what that would mean :-(.

TV media are in deep, deep trouble when prime-time programming is
ignored by a target audience which happens to be the largest, highest
spending leisure activity group in the UK. We are hugely valuable to TV
advertisers; they won't pay to be ignored by us. That's terrible news to
production companies, including the BBC, who hope to sell their
programmes to the worldwide market.

Janet.


Yes but what is it that has started the rot.
In my prevoius post, what I was getting elluding to and enquiring is
whether or not, there is a possibility that the interests of the target
audience is being attended to in a kind of secondary chore manner by the
production companies, staffed as they may be, by those who are more
interested in fawning over their own field of expertise in a blinkered, sort
of; navel gazing kind of way?
If so, then should not the target of our grumbling be directed at specific
(naming) directors etc, rather than the Diarmuids & co?

Patrick

The message
from "tuin man" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...

TV media are in deep, deep trouble when prime-time programming is
ignored by a target audience which happens to be the largest, highest
spending leisure activity group in the UK. We are hugely valuable to TV
advertisers; they won't pay to be ignored by us. That's terrible news to
production companies, including the BBC, who hope to sell their
programmes to the worldwide market.

Janet.


Yes but what is it that has started the rot.

True, but it's also what will bring them to their senses. They'd
better be quick, because at the rate TV is declining, zillions of
disaffected viewers won't bother converting to digital when analogue
broadcasts stop. Goodbye, meeja numpties. Goodbye, advertisers and
commercial sponsors. Goodbye, BBC licence fee.

should not the target of our grumbling be directed at specific
(naming) directors etc, rather than the Diarmuids & co?

Programme producer.

Janet.

The message
from "tuin man" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...

TV media are in deep, deep trouble when prime-time programming is
ignored by a target audience which happens to be the largest, highest
spending leisure activity group in the UK. We are hugely valuable to TV
advertisers; they won't pay to be ignored by us. That's terrible news to
production companies, including the BBC, who hope to sell their
programmes to the worldwide market.

Janet.


Yes but what is it that has started the rot.

True, but it's also what will bring them to their senses. They'd
better be quick, because at the rate TV is declining, zillions of
disaffected viewers won't bother converting to digital when analogue
broadcasts stop. Goodbye, meeja numpties. Goodbye, advertisers and
commercial sponsors. Goodbye, BBC licence fee.

should not the target of our grumbling be directed at specific
(naming) directors etc, rather than the Diarmuids & co?

Programme producer.

Janet.

The message
from "tuin man" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...

TV media are in deep, deep trouble when prime-time programming is
ignored by a target audience which happens to be the largest, highest
spending leisure activity group in the UK. We are hugely valuable to TV
advertisers; they won't pay to be ignored by us. That's terrible news to
production companies, including the BBC, who hope to sell their
programmes to the worldwide market.

Janet.


Yes but what is it that has started the rot.

True, but it's also what will bring them to their senses. They'd
better be quick, because at the rate TV is declining, zillions of
disaffected viewers won't bother converting to digital when analogue
broadcasts stop. Goodbye, meeja numpties. Goodbye, advertisers and
commercial sponsors. Goodbye, BBC licence fee.

should not the target of our grumbling be directed at specific
(naming) directors etc, rather than the Diarmuids & co?

Programme producer.

Janet.

The message
from "tuin man" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...

TV media are in deep, deep trouble when prime-time programming is
ignored by a target audience which happens to be the largest, highest
spending leisure activity group in the UK. We are hugely valuable to TV
advertisers; they won't pay to be ignored by us. That's terrible news to
production companies, including the BBC, who hope to sell their
programmes to the worldwide market.

Janet.


Yes but what is it that has started the rot.

True, but it's also what will bring them to their senses. They'd
better be quick, because at the rate TV is declining, zillions of
disaffected viewers won't bother converting to digital when analogue
broadcasts stop. Goodbye, meeja numpties. Goodbye, advertisers and
commercial sponsors. Goodbye, BBC licence fee.

should not the target of our grumbling be directed at specific
(naming) directors etc, rather than the Diarmuids & co?

Programme producer.

Janet.