Who you asked? Well, it seemed related in a way. While I was waiting for ITT to show up in iplayer last night I caught Giles Coren and Sue Perkins reliving 'The Good Life'. It was a scream.

They were genuinely funny and the programme was informative at the same time.

Have caught Sue's dry humour in 'The Great British Bake-Off' as well. Don't know Giles well beyond him writing food-critique columns. But they were quite watchable together. You can catch the first ep here.

So what do you think, will Sue be genuinely funny or will she turn out to be another Jan Ravans? Will Giles become a latin sex-god on the dancefloor?

Well, anything you wish to discuss besides A&A threads that're mushrooming in this forum?

They did another series together about food through the ages. Thoroughly informative and very entertaining...plus she come from Croydon, so me must be a star!

That was "The Supersizers Go..."

They bounce off each other like mad, great chemistry and should be recognised for making good television, IMO.

Giles is a mouthy, if loveable, little sod - couldn't see him being that popular. Sue's sense of humour is desert-dry, can't see many warming to that either - if they were to appear.

They've both been employed by the BBC for a couple of years now, I wouldn't be all that surprised if they had at some point been asked..

Why unless they can be partnered with each other?

Maybe that's the direction Strictly should go. Or at least a spin-off for the screen husbands and wives.

Giles and Sue partnered and trained by both Darren and Lilia.

Another example, say, Dick and Dom doing a mango trained by Ian and Matt.

I am a bit weird today, must be my diet!

Well, competition between on-screen partnerships. Not a bad idea, IMO.

I fast every couple of months or so (just for health reasons) and I get quite silly for a few days!

There wouldn't be the same rapport. They'd be training apart and would only meet up on show day.

Wouldn't work imo.

It would certainly fit the 'entertainment' criteria.

*Keep taking the tablets.

I guess, though it might be more entertaining for the ITT viewer than people who just watch the main show.

FWIW, Sue did Big Brother a few years back and didn't exactly win over the viewers. Giles would probably lob his shoes at Craig if he cussed him out.

I liked her on CBB.

She won Maestro though.

Giles would definitely lose his rag.

His Anger Management Book for beginners. This one I found in youtube just now is funny too: click here.

As for the diet. I am on a 7-day detox programme. Have lost 'massive' amount of weight (5kgs to be exact) and am feeling sometimes very 'light', for lack of a better word.

I think that would be an excellant idea and think they could seperatley be very entertaining

Others I would love to see do the show would be

Stephen Fry he is so witty yet suprisingly vunerable ( I would like to see him learn to do someothing he thpught he couldn't do)

Marion keyes Stritcly superfan and it would be a lovely thing for her to do if she has got over her depression

Claudia - never going to happen now she is presenting the main show and maybe she perhaps finally after so many series learn a couple of steps

Johhny Depp for obvious reasons and I also think he moves his body well and think he could be a delightful dancer

The masterchef couple Greg and Jon just so someone else can judge them and find them lacking

After watching a clip posted by one forumite showing two female dancers, I think that two odious 'how not to wear your clothes' girls should be lumped together and then have Craig criticising them, it would fun!

Seriously, I think I am getting a little nutty! Another thirty minutes before I 'clear' myself in the loo...

too much information

Too much information!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry! *burp* *breaks wind*

The more I dig about Giles and funnier he becomes. Here's an e-mail he wrote to his sub-editors published by the Guardian original link here:

Chaps,

I am mightily pissed off. I have addressed this to Owen, Amanda and Ben because I don't know who i am supposed to be pissed off with (i'm assuming owen, but i filed to amanda and ben so it's only fair), and also to Tony, who wasn't here - if he had been I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened.

I don't really like people tinkering with my copy for the sake of tinkering. I do not enjoy the suggestion that you have a better ear or eye for how I want my words to read than I do. Owen, we discussed your turning three of my long sentences into six short ones in a single piece, and how that wasn't going to happen anymore, so I'm really hoping it wasn't you that ****ed up my review on saturday.

It was the final sentence. Final sentences are very, very important. A piece builds to them, they are the little jingle that the reader takes with him into the weekend.

I wrote: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for a nosh."

It appeared as: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for nosh."

There is no length issue. This is someone thinking "I'll just remove this indefinite article because Coren is an illiterate **** and i know best".

Well, you ****ing don't.
This was shit, shit sub-editing for three reasons.
1) 'Nosh', as I'm sure you fluent Yiddish speakers know, is a noun formed from a bastardisation of the German 'naschen'. It is a verb, and can be construed into two distinct nouns. One, 'nosh', means simply 'food'. You have decided that this is what i meant and removed the 'a'. I am insulted enough that you think you have a better ear for English than me. But a better ear for Yiddish? I doubt it. Because the other noun, 'nosh' means "a session of eating" - in this sense you might think of its dual valency as being similar to that of 'scoff'. you can go for a scoff. or you can buy some scoff. the sentence you left me with is shit, and is not what i meant. Why would you change a sentnece aso that it meant something i didn't mean? I don't know, but you risk doing it every time you change something. And the way you avoid this kind of **** up is by not changing a word of my copy without asking me, okay? it's easy. Not. A. Word. Ever.

2) I will now explain why your error is even more shit than it looks. You see, i was making a joke. I do that sometimes. I have set up the street as "sexually-charged". I have described the shenanigans across the road at G.A.Y.. I have used the word 'gaily' as a gentle nudge. And "looking for a nosh" has a secondary meaning of looking for a blowjob. Not specifically gay, for this is soho, and there are plenty of girls there who take money for noshing boys. "looking for nosh" does not have that ambiguity. the joke is gone. I only wrote that sodding paragraph to make that joke. And you've ****ing stripped it out like a pissed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance fresco and thinking jesus looks shit with a bear so plastering over it. You might as well have removed the whole paragraph. I mean, ****ing christ, don't you read the copy?

3) And worst of all. Dumbest, deafest, shittest of all, you have removed the unstressed 'a' so that the stress that should have fallen on "nosh" is lost, and my piece ends on an unstressed syllable. When you're winding up a piece of prose, metre is crucial. Can't you hear? Can't you hear that it is wrong? It's not ****ing rocket science. It's ****ing pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and i have never ended on an unstressed syllable. ****. ****, ****, ****.

I am sorry if this looks petty (last time i mailed a Times sub about the change of a single word i got in all sorts of trouble) but i care deeply about my work and i hate to have it ****ed up by shit subbing. I have been away, you've been subbing joe and hugo and maybe they just file and **** off and think "hey ho, it's tomorrow's fish and chips" - well, not me. I woke up at three in the morning on sunday and ****ing lay there, furious, for two hours. weird, maybe. but that's how it is.

It strips me of all confidence in writing for the magazine. No exaggeration. i've got a review to write this morning and i really don't feel like doing it, for fear that some nuance is going to be removed from the final line, the pay-off, and i'm going to have another weekend ruined for me.

I've been writing for The Times for 15 years and i have never asked this before - i have never asked it of anyone i have written for - but I must insist, from now on, that i am sent a proof of every review i do, in pdf format, so i can check it for ****-ups. and i must be sent it in good time in case changes are needed. It is the only way i can carry on in the job.

And, just out of interest, I'd like whoever made that change to email me and tell me why. Tell me the exact reasoning which led you to remove that word from my copy.

Right,
Sorry to go on. Anger, real steaming ****ing anger can make a man verbose.
All the best
Giles

Just watching their "version" of The Good Life and it IS a scream!

The goat farmer recommending not to feed the goat cabbage too close to milking, Sue's face "Farty milk."

Shouty Rosemary was hilarious too, cheers OP.

Ooh, he has the same voice and manner (though more irate) as Derren Brown.

He's much nicer than Derren Brown, he runs away from chickens.

Yup, Derren would have hypnotised the chickens to lay thousands of eggs before making them walk into the roasting oven by themselves.

What about Alexander Armstrong for a contestant?

No, Sue to be partnered with Brendan and Giles with Ola or Flavia.

They'd be more fun partnered together.

Maybe a Spin off show, SCD Partners with pro partners teaching them?

Oh, I really feel for Giles on that one.

Nobody likes to see their prose tinkered with. I've had an international high court judge (non-English) glare me down for my proof editing (his prose was unreadable) and if he had had his way, I would still be doing time.