Sir Roy Strong has declared a year after his death his garden The Laskett created by himself and his late wife over thirty years will be torn up after the National Trust turned down the bequest and a substantial sum to keep it going.
I have no idea why the Trust turned it down with such a generous dowry with it, but the say “it was not up to the standard we aspire to” or words to that effect.
Sir Roy has thrown his toys out of the pram and declared he will tear it down now as they wont take it, this from a man who spent thirty years creating it ?
I have never been a fan of Sir Roy, he has always come across as an effete up his own backside sort of person, but each to his own, and he hasn’t helped his cause with self promoting comments about his garden, the biggest formal garden created in Britain since WW11, better than Hidcote etc etc.
He also managed at a time of severe box blight that affected thousands of gardens across the UK to seemingly convince the world he alone was suffering from this affliction and would have to grub up years of work, whoe is me.
If he had waited and selectively replanted he may have well seen the blight out as many others did , but not (Sir Roy out with it all) but then maybe it was all self hype and basically he could afford it, I have no idea.
Not having – outside of photographs – seen the garden I cannot give a professional opinion, it’s large, well planned, or appears to be and has obviously given him and his late wife great pleasure creating it and enjoying it.
Gardens come and go are lost found and sometimes recreated, Sir Roys is no different, he claims there were millions to go with the garden to maintain it in perpetuity, in that case what is wrong as several people have done with setting up a trust and sod the NT, I think it is the cache, the seal of approval from the considered guardian of all national treasures that he wanted and nothing else was good enough, a vanity project ?
Haiku reports on some more food research:
This is the most extensive analysis of the nutrient content in organic vs conventionally-produced foods ever undertaken and is the result of a groundbreaking new systematic literature review and meta-analysis by the international team.
The findings contradict those of a 2009 UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned study which found there were no substantial differences or significant nutritional benefits from organic food.
The FSA commissioned study based its conclusions on only 46 publications covering crops, meat and dairy, while Newcastle led meta-analysis is based on data from 343 peer-reviewed publications on composition difference between organic and conventional crops now available.
“The main difference between the two studies is time,” explains Professor Leifert, who is Professor of Ecological Agriculture at Newcastle University.
“Research in this area has been slow to take off the ground and we have far more data available to us now than five years ago”.
Chuckles reports on that unfortunate Nobel winner stopped by officialdom:
“They’re like, ‘Sir, there’s something in your bag.’
I said, ‘Yes, I think it’s this box.’
They said, ‘What’s in the box?’
I said, ‘a large gold medal,’ as one does.
So they opened it up and they said, ‘What’s it made out of?’
I said, ‘gold.’
And they’re like, ‘Uhhhh. Who gave this to you?’
‘The King of Sweden.’
‘Why did he give this to you?’
‘Because I helped discover the expansion rate of the universe was accelerating.’
At which point, they were beginning to lose their sense of humor. I explained to them it was a Nobel Prize, and their main question was, ‘Why were you in Fargo?’”
As one does. The answer to that question, of course, is, ‘Looking for wells.’
Sackerson brings us an interesting take on UKIP:
It was interesting even over a decade ago that UKIP had a tendency to drift leftwards, and it was commented upon internally even while I was in the party and on its NEC (1997 to 2006). From my own experience of being elected the London Assembly, I made the point earlier this year on OpenDemocracy of my own surprise at the degree to which, while elected, my colleague Peter Hulme Cross and I often opposed the establishment in areas where they were threatening civil liberties and workers’ rights. It wasn’t for show, we felt very awkward doing it, but we just felt we were right.
And surely this is a liberating opportunity for progressive politics. At present, many Labour voters remain loyal simply because of a tribal belief that “at least a Labour government would be better than the present one”. Simply returning to the example of the NHS and TTIP, it is a powerful argument for the irritated left that “if even UKIP can openly support Unite and say the NHS has to be completely excluded, period, why can’t we?” Does the left not fear that Labour in office will simply retreat into sophistry and hide behind supposed ‘reassurances’ from the EU Chief Negotiator (which appear to be almost meaningless)? This surely is how it is lining up. What are ‘safeguards’?