sunbeam

Absolutely brilliant. Why can't the other papers employ someone as good? They must be out there, all they have to do is look beyond the tired dinosaurs they've been employing since Delia was a girl. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...penComment=true I read all the reviewers - at the office we get all the Sundays on a Monday morning - and Gill consistently shines out. Mind you he is good at whatever he writes about, maybe that's the secret, he's a writer first and a food critic second. S

It's never stopped <INSERT NAME HERE> ← AA gill is supposed to be dyslexic, he still writes some of the sharpest copy around though. A lot sharper than that egomaniac <insert name here>

I don't see how you can not let personal likes and dislikes creep in. The trick is to let your reader know them in advance and judge your comments on that basis. Take Halliwell for instance, as a film critic he clearly stated what he liked and disliked 'in general and was consistent enough for that to work to the readers advantage. A restaurant critic without personal likes, dislikes and prejudices is surely a very boring critic? S

I hear Mr Sexton is a bit of a sneaky so and so in many ways . Last I heard, the standard already had a perfectly good, if increasingly eccentric, restaurant critic. Perhaps now the vultures are beginning to circle her and staking claims with an easy knocking job? S

I enjoy Kevin Thornton’s column (a nice read last week on sea urchins), but this all sounds a bit ‘Painted Word’. ← Thats straight into private eye's pseuds corner. Mind you I had a dish in Mallorca last year where the dry ice was apparently supposed to be the early morning mist over the fields. Ole S

The words 'fully booked' say it all. This kind of entertainment is not for me, but I say let people have what they want if they enjoy it. S

it did in the post franco years. ← that lasted long! ← Spain was crying out for decent Italian food in those heady times. or have i misunderstood! S

Apparently this series is actually filmed in her kitchen, not the studio set up in her conservatory, and I understand that we'll be treated to some docu day-in-the-life-with-Delia segments, since this seems to be the only way to make a cookery programme these days. ← Oh its not going to be the same if not in her conservatory! The one the BBC built for her didn't they? S

It is said to be bad luck to change the name of buildings that were pubs - I don't know if The Walnut Tree was or not but given its location I think it must have been. Even if they did change the name it would always be known as 'that place that used to be the Walnut Tree'. I don't think you would have Ford changing the name of Jaguar or Volkswagen changing the name of Bentley. ← Jaguar et al are brands, marques, it's not the same thing at all. If it was a pub with that name originally, as you say, then there be a valid historical/heritage reason to keep the name. Only if that name goes back further than, say, 100 years though. s

People. people, please stop saying 'I'm loving....' A) you're too old, as am I, to talk teen B) It's Maccy D's advertising strapline. C) it's dodgy use of English Is Jamie's country home built in the same studio as his trendy London flat was all those years ago? Say what you like about Blessed Delia, at least it's her own conservatory S

They should just attach a blue plaque saying 'Franco cooked here' and turn it into a private house. Or if a restaurant, change the name. The Walnut Tree was a unique place in time. It's gone. S ← so does that mean that it is no longer worthy of having a good reputation and serving good food under another chef(s)? ← Did I say that? Franco and Anne created the Tree, so I think that a new chef should trade under a new name and make his/her own reputation. That's what I would want to do anyway. S

I rather like her too, her big black book was certainly more use to me at Uni than FR Leavis'. Mind you I hear the old man did a mean spag bog s

They should just attach a blue plaque saying 'Franco cooked here' and turn it into a private house. Or if a restaurant, change the name. The Walnut Tree was a unique place in time. It's gone. S

I wouldn't 'defend her' per se, but she is in her way as shrewd and as cynical as any one else in the business. She has spotted a market opportunity and seized it. Knowing Delia and her publishers there's a fair chance her book is in a readable, well chosen, well leaded font too, something some of our more trendy chefs-writers would do well to copy. s

Someone told me the whole thing was designed to appeal to the tastes of simple men who had suddenly become very rich in ways that perhaps weren't best discussed, and whose tastes were for the 'bling' end of demonstrable wealth. Someone else suggested the place was a laundromat, if you know what I mean. No one ever mentioned the food S

Don't really understand how this works - the decision as to who wins can't be left to the editing stage so the fact that they have alternative footage of the judges saying contradictory things doesn't really help that much does it? If its the producer deciding who wins, then why do they need to get three seperate takes - can't she just tell them what to say? I'm not doubting the veracity of your post, I just don't understand why on earth they would make things more complicated than they need be. ← I think it can be left until the edit, with celebs especially they know the game and are happy to be filmed doing alternates. The producer wont/cant decide until reviewing the footage later and so it is wise to leave options as open as possible. This is not complicated production; it's hand held cameras and simple lighting so the set ups are very easy. Unlike say feature films where each shot takes at least an hour to set up and so must be decided in advance. As I say above, video tape is cheap so it makes sense to cover all bases S

It took them so little effort, bish bash bosh - done - all first take stuff, and they seemed so slick at doing it that it cant have been the first time. It's not really a rigmarole, it's telly. One rule of any sort of filming is to get as much varied footage as you can at the time because it's so much cheaper than doing it again later - recreating the clothes, light, hairstyles etc etc. Plus the people might not be available. But I take your point that it may be different when celebs aren't involved, although I suspect they will still want to cover their bases in the same way. It's belt and braces. No producer wants to get caught out and most TV is made in the edit suite S

Is that true? At a time when the BBC One controller has to resign for suggesting the Queen exited a room in a huff (rather than entering a room in a huff), it seems foolhardy to say the least. I'll keep an eye out for the tabloid expose from the disgruntled loser within the next week or so. ← I was at the next table and that is honestly what I saw and heard. I would make the point that this was Celebrity Masterchef, perhaps I should have mentioned that straightaway. Sorry. I was impressed at the way the presenters were able to do it so easily, which is not the same thing as being impressed by the programme. The female producer basically called the shots, literally. But working as I do as an advertising copywriter my house is too well glazed to throw too many stones. It's telly. It's about entertainment after all. S

Now been, dull as ditchwater. Desserts very poor Didn't hear the bleeps. s

I was at a previous filming. I am not naive but even so I found it quite shocking Each of the two presenters and chef record 3 options to camera each as their verdicts, basically 1 Great loved it 2 No good 3 Not bad The decision as to what gets broadcast is left to the production company's agenda BTW Thomasina's success is ill-deserved, but she has some influential friends and is agreeably middle class. S

I assume that they always planned for such traffic when they conceived the place. Part of the demographic they were after. I'm going there for lunch later this week, the launch party was too crowded to see anything. S

North Londoners dont admit south london exists. Most of the napkin sniffers are north londoners.I live in Streatham myself. East Dulwich is far too pricey for me though. You must be getting paid a lot of gold by the sassenachs you work for! S

Apart from that Brick Lane is uniformly poor. ← You must have put many dedicated hours in to come to that unequivocal and rather dismissive conclusion and become rather jaded in the process. I've eaten in Tamarind and Benares and many, many others of course, but I still vastly prefer a Brick Lane curry for a 'fix'. It's not simply about the food on the plate. If I was an expat it would be Brick Lane or Southall I'd hurry for when the plane landed me back in Blighty. Taste is also memories rekindled. S

See what I mean? You'll never get a consensus Stick a pin in the map S

What an enormous subject, have you any idea how many 'Indian' restaurants there are in London? We could discuss 'best' or 'authentic' until HTML became extinct. If I were you I would just wander down Brick Lane and simply go in whichever place took your fancy from the scores on offer. I personally like the restaurant with the massive airbrushed mural of Princess Di on the wall. The food's as ok as anywhere else in the area but the mural makes it for me. It's eye-poppingly terrible and yet fascinating, especially if like me you deliberately sit opposite her dinner plate sized eyes and tombstone teeth. It's definitely not Amaya, that's for sure and I've never had any cause for complaint. S