The £6.99 Robert Dyas gadget that gets rid of weeds instantly and Alan Titchmarsh is a fan
Alan Titchmarsh has revealed his go-to gadget that instantly destroys weeds.
2
The handy tool can be snatched up for just £6.99, and is currently being sold at Robert Dyas.
And it's bound to help Brits fix up their gardens just in time of summer.
Renowned gardening expert Titchmarsh unveiled his secret device writing for Country Life.
His neat planning trick means that he "never has to do any weeding".
Titchmarsh revealed that he uses a handy weed grubber.
The broadcaster said that his tidiness on the lawn was "confined to weekly mowing and fortnightly edging in spring and summer".
Highlighting the key timings, he also told of what fertiliser is best to use.
But he cautioned to use it only at the correct times.
He explained: "I feed with the ubiquitous blood, fish and bone in April and again in June, and extract any large rosettes of plantain or dandelion with a daisy grubber."
The Wilkinson Sword Stainless Steel Weed Grubber can be bought for under £7.
I hate my new build garden being overlooked so found a 5 METRE privacy fence to block out nosy neighbours for under £30
According to Robert Dyas, the gardening gadget is weatherproofed and rust-resistant.
One shopper who bought the grubber branded it a "brilliant little tool".
They said: "This works well for smaller weeds, and does not remove too much of your lawn!"
Another said: "Perfect for weeding my strawberry patch and great value for money."
They recommended the product and rated it five stars.
Titshmarsh added that ubiquitous blood fish and bone was the best fertiliser for this job.
An organic fertiliser, this all-natural mix of dried animal by-products gives grass a steady dose of nutrients without scorching it or harming the soil.
It can feed lawns slowly over time, helping roots grow deep and strong, while boosting the health of the soil underneath.
As opposed to commercial lawn feed, it can prove to be a great substitute and one that old-school gardeners love to go for.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Why the beach is the new red carpet... for It-bags
For most women, the prospect of possessing a £35,000 handbag is a glorious pipe dream. But if they did own such an expensive item, they'd likely treat it with care – particularly if it was a Hermes Kelly. Like its close relation the Birkin, which was designed much later in 1984, the Kelly (named after actress Grace Kelly) is one of the most coveted and hard-to-purchase handbags in the pantheon, on whose waiting lists even the wealthiest customers can languish for years. Were they ever fortunate enough to have a fabled Kelly, you'd best believe they'd treat it with more deference than their pet – and possibly even their children. They might take it to a cafe, but it would have its own chair to avoid blemishing its pristine leather underside. What they certainly wouldn't do is take it to a beach. Unless, that is, they are Kate Moss. The 51-year-old supermodel was recently spotted in Ibiza, blithely walking across the sand toting a brown leather Kelly, as though cheap local basket bags didn't exist and the trend for cloth bags-for-life never happened. Dressed in a beige bikini, a white peasant blouse, oversized sunglasses and a slew of chunky bangles, Moss looked like any other holidaymaker – bar her fiendishly expensive arm candy. But Moss is just the latest in a long line of celebrities who seem to have repurposed Churchill's famous war cry and made it into their own. Indeed, when it comes to designer handbags, 'We will flaunt them on the beaches!' is shaping up to be something of a summer mantra. Whisper it, but the ultimate status symbol isn't a gym-honed body or a subtle facelift: it's an expensive handbag that you're willing to trash. No matter that sand is a ruinously abrasive substance that will scratch its delicate leather hide and leave gritty residues in each of its corners – you have hundreds more handbags at home, and can afford to ruin one or two so long as it means your gloopy, greasy SPF30 is carried in fine style. As for which four-figure tote to choose, opinion – and taste – is divided. Model and actress Emily Ratajkowski favours a large Gucci Giglio tote, costing £1,600, in highly stainable monogrammed canvas. Actress Dakota Johnson, 35, raises the stakes even higher with a bamboo-handled eau de nil shopper from Gucci's autumn/winter 2025 collection that isn't even available to buy yet. For the singer Dua Lipa, 29, it's a £4,930 Chanel 25 handbag in gold, a popular choice thanks to its slouchy silhouette and numerous pockets. Other celebrities carrying expensive leather bags on their seaside holidays include sisters Kendall and Kylie Jenner, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and Naomi Campbell, whose tiny white Hermes Birkin would struggle to fit a smartphone, never mind a towel. Last week, Lauren Sanchez Bezos, 55, was seen tottering along a pebble beach in Ibiza wearing sky-high heels, a white crochet dress and a cream Schiaparelli Mini Bijoux Secret bag worth £5,000. This summer she's also been spotted holidaying with a £15,000 Lady Dior Mini, as well as a tan suede Anahi bag by Isabel Marant, worth £890. Margot Robbie has traded filming Wuthering Heights on the bleak Yorkshire moors for the sunny Balearic islands with a La Croisiere model Clearly, this is small change to the newly minted Mrs Bezos. When you are married to one of the world's richest men, it wouldn't do to rock up to the beach with a tatty wicker basket. While practicality and fashion have never been cosy bedfellows, it's especially puzzling to put your soggy swimsuit into a heavy leather tote given designers have been offering holiday-friendly wardrobes ever since the advent of their Cruise collections. It was Coco Chanel who first introduced Cruise (also known as 'resort') in 1919, designing capsule collections of light dresses and knits for wealthy clients who would holiday in Biarritz. In the intervening years, the Cruise collections have only grown in size and prominence – as has the choice of beach bags offered by luxury brands keen to cash in on vacation style. Rare is the designer who doesn't offer a wicker beach bag emblazoned with its logo, the most popular of which, Loewe's £775 Anagram tote, is as ubiquitous a sight in St Tropez, Marbella and Ibiza as an Aperol Spritz (and only marginally less of a summer cliche). Which is probably why the chicest vacationers have swapped stiff straw for slouchier raffia. The actress Margot Robbie, 35, was recently spotted in Ibiza with a £560 circular La Croisiere bag by cult French label Jacquemus. Meanwhile, Modern Family actress Sofia Vergara, 53, has sported a £4,120 raffia Icare bag, by Yves Saint Laurent, this summer. While they may be only marginally more affordable than their wintery leather counterparts, at least these summer bags are lighter to carry and more forgiving of stains. Then again, when even Jane Birkin used her namesake Hermes bag to carry everything from nail clippers to nappies, perhaps its natural evolution is to be worn insouciantly on a beach.
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
A&E waits fuel 4,000 attacks on NHS staff a year: One worker is attacked every two hours in 'tinder box' hospitals as nurses face violence and gun threats
NHS staff are facing 'utterly abhorrent' levels of violence in A&E – with one worker attacked every two hours, damning figures reveal today. Middle-class patients and their families are among those driven to rage by long waits and dehumanising care in corridors, the Royal College of Nursing said. It warned that its members were physically and mentally scarred after being punched, spat at – and even threatened with guns. Many have been forced to take time off to recover, with some too traumatised to return. The nurses' union warned that the Government's ten-year plan to reform the Health Service will 'fail completely' without action to protect and retain staff. In all, 89 hospital trusts responded to a Freedom of Information request from the RCN, revealing that they recorded 4,054 reports of physical violence against A&E staff last year – almost double the 2,093 in 2019. It means 11 members of A&E staff are attacked on average every day in England. However, the true figure is likely to be even higher as just 69 per cent of NHS acute trusts responded to the RCN, and they were only asked for figures for their biggest A&E. Meanwhile, a separate analysis by the RCN shows that incidents of patients having to wait more than 12 hours in A&E increased 20-fold between 2019 and 2024. The news comes as: Nine in ten pharmacies are victims of shoplifting, with strong painkillers among the drugs being targeted. Victims' minister Alex Davies-Jones admitted shoplifting had 'got out of hand' after police ordered a store to remove a sign calling thieves 'scumbags'. Sarah Pochin, Reform UK's only female MP, said it was 'no surprise' that vigilante groups were patrolling the streets as immigration led to fears for women's safety. Rachelle McCarthy, a senior charge nurse from the East Midlands, was punched 'square in the face' by a 'drunk, 6ft 2in bloke'. She said: 'Even patients you would expect to be placid are becoming irate because of just how long they have to wait. You can only imagine the behaviour of those who are already prone to violence.' A senior A&E nurse based in east London said her hospital was a 'tinder box' for violence. She has seen colleagues punched, kicked and had a gun pointed at them, while she had been spat at by a patient and threatened with an acid attack. She said she became depressed and anxious and took a research role to take a break from nursing, adding: 'The violence I saw made me become more fearful outside work. I saw how volatile people can be.' Sarah Pochin (pictured), Reform UK's only female MP, said it was 'no surprise' that vigilante groups were patrolling the streets as immigration led to fears for women's safety A senior A&E nurse in the South West said a patient 'pinned a nurse up against a wall' and another punched a member of staff 'in the groin and stomach'. She added: 'It's not going to help with our retention and recruitment if you think you're going to be clobbered every shift.' Sarah Tappy, a senior A&E sister in east London, was punched in the head and knocked unconscious by a patient, leaving her with anxiety and PTSD. 'The violence is awful,' she said. 'And it's just constant. None of us feel safe.' At Maidstone Hospital in Kent, incidents rose by more than 500 per cent, from 13 in 2019 to 89 in 2024, while at Manchester Royal Infirmary, attacks rose from 39 to 79. In April, Health Secretary Wes Streeting pledged to 'keep NHS staff safe' by implementing mandatory hospital-level reporting of violence against staff, saying that 'protecting staff from violence is not an optional extra'. However, the RCN says the Government 'needs to do more than just record the shocking levels of violence'. Professor Nicola Ranger, RCN general secretary, said: 'Behind these shocking figures lies an ugly truth. Dedicated and hard-working staff face rising attacks because of systemic failures that are no fault of their own. Nursing staff not only go to work underpaid and undervalued but face a rising tide of violence. It leads to physical and mental scarring, lengthy time off and sometimes staff never returning. 'You can't fix the Health Service when vital staff are too scared to go into work. 'Unless the Government does something about lengthy waits, corridor care and understaffed nursing teams, more staff will become victims of this utterly abhorrent behaviour. Left unaddressed, this could see plans to reform the NHS fail.' Daniel Elkeles, chief executive of NHS Providers, which represents trusts said: 'These findings are absolutely shocking.' Rebecca Smith, of NHS Employers, said: 'No one should have to face violence at work – it is totally unacceptable.' Mr Streeting said: 'I am appalled. Nurses dedicate their lives to helping others and deserve to go about their jobs free from violence. Anyone who violates this core principle will feel the full force of the law.'
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
My view from the captain's chair aboard Britain's 65,000-ton leviathan facing down war-hungry Chinese despot: DAVID PATRIKARAKOS
When it comes to expressions of British military pride, nothing does the job quite like the HMS Prince of Wales. The flight deck of the aircraft carrier that is the flagship of the Royal Navy stretches out before me. A vast slab of grey steel more than 900ft long. From my vantage point near the stern I can see a line of F-35 fighter jet noses fan out like a row of arrows ready to pierce the sky. These supersonic, stealth combat aircraft, renowned for their 'short take-off and vertical landing' capabilities, accelerate to 170mph as they head for the elevated runway ramp that juts off the end of the carrier to generate sufficient lift to begin their climb. Once airborne, they can take out targets on land or sea using an array of firepower that includes Sidewinder missiles for air-to-air combat and 100kg Spear bombs for ground attacks. These masters of the air are housed on a 65,000-ton leviathan that carries a 1,600-strong crew. And today, I'm one of them. I'm aboard the Prince of Wales in the port of Darwin, northern Australia, having flown from London to meet Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Defence Secretary John Healey on the vessel. Lammy and Healey are here because the carrier strike group – the Prince of Wales and its escort vessels – along with 3,000 British troops, are taking part in Exercise Talisman Sabre. With more than 35,000 military personnel from 19 nations involved in the manoeuvres, it's the largest military exercise ever hosted by Australia. For the UK and our cousins Down Under, Talisman Sabre symbolises a deepening military partnership, designed for a world more dangerous and terrifying than for more than 80 years. The day begins with an inspection of the troops. In the background, a band strikes up a military tune. Lammy and Healey make their way down a row of sailors dressed in white ceremonial uniform, making small talk. Australia's Northern Territory is in the grip of a 30C heatwave made the more uncomfortable by 65 per cent humidity. Perspiration crosses my forehead. My eyes sting. My shirt becomes sticky. 'It's hot, isn't it?' Lammy says to one sailor, who's also struggling. Later, the three of us meet inside the hangar. 'The UK's Modern Industrial Strategy: Defence', reads a sign behind us. Healey makes clear how important today's proceedings are. 'It's the first time a British aircraft carrier has come to Australia since 1997,' he says. 'And it's a big day because of the global context. Where threats are increasing, allies are important, and reinforcing the deep alliance that we've had with Australia is more vital than ever.' Lammy agrees: 'I spend a lot of time on the Europe-North America relationship, particularly within the context of Nato, and here in the Indo-Pacific – it's a critical theatre. With Australia, we have had the deepest of enduring relationships. We're here to renew that relationship.' Lammy is right about the Indo-Pacific. If there is to be a major global war in the years ahead, the region will be a key battlefield. China is already challenging the US for global hegemony and this means, first and foremost, dominating what it believes is its 'backyard'. Many believe that Chinese leader Xi Jinping will launch his much-vaunted invasion of Taiwan in 2027 to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). If that happens, the US is committed (albeit ambiguously) to Taiwan's defence. The UK and Australia will almost certainly follow suit. Neither Lammy nor Healey will comment on any possible war with China. But being in a state of readiness in this region is now clearly top of Britain's agenda. And when I speak to a senior government source, the message is clear. Britain ' challenges' China. It will continue to confront Beijing's dangerous and destabilising activity in the South China Sea: 'From the Red Sea to the South China Sea — the high seas are more dangerous than at any point in generations.' The truth of these words is plain to see. Earlier this year, the Chinese navy conducted live-fire naval exercises in the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, in the first recorded operational engagement in the area. The People's Republic tested new landing barges on ships that would be used in any amphibious assault on Taiwan, as well as cable cutters that could cut off the island's internet. It has been ratcheting up drills in the Taiwan Strait and targeting countries with which it has territorial disputes, such as the Philippines and Japan. Only yesterday, the Daily Mail reported how two Chinese vessels collided in the South China Sea while chasing a Philippine patrol boat at high speeds – just the latest in an increasing number of incidents between the two countries. The Australians have no choice but to be at the top of their game. All of which explains the urgency and importance of cementing the Western alliance in these waters. Once, Britain was at the heart of Australian security. But after the Second World War, the Aussies knew we were spent. In 1951 they signed the ANZUS Treaty with the United States, cutting Britain out of Australian defence – and leaving Churchill heartbroken. But our historic alliance has now been revived, most significantly via the 2021 trilateral AUKUS agreement, under which Britain and the US agreed to share nuclear propulsion technology with Australia with a view to cooperating on the design and build of a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines. This was the first time that America and Britain had shared such sensitive technology with anyone else. 'Today, the UK and Australia are two nations intertwined by shared goals, particularly in the Indo-Pacific,' a Foreign Office source told me. 'That means a level of integration unprecedented since the end of the British Empire.' But modern defence means reckoning with new technology that enables Davids to attack Goliaths. I have been deeply wary of Britain spending colossal sums on huge carriers that could be vulnerable to the sort of drone tech that, as I have seen first-hand in Ukraine, enabled Kyiv to destroy Russia's Black Sea fleet without any real navy of their own. It even took out Moscow's colossal flagship, the Moskva, near Odesa. And let's not forget, the Houthis of Yemen, backed by the mullahs of Tehran, have succeeded in terrorising Western cargo ships passing through the Red Sea using a range of cheap drones. Yet Healey assures me that the military fully understands these challenges. 'We learned from Ukraine how the accelerating development of technology is changing the nature of warfare,' he tells me. 'For your war fighters to have an edge in the future, you've got to harness the power of that new tech, and we are. The aircraft carrier is increasingly hybrid, with traditional fixed-wing aircraft taking their place alongside the latest in drone technology, just as the Strategic Defence Review said it should.' The proof of this is all around me. It's there as I sit in the captain's chair, surrounded byan array of winking interfaces, feeling as if I'm piloting the Starship Enterprise. But most of all, it's in the ship's hanger where I see the drones. Black circles amid a grey patina on the front of one make it resemble a human face. It almost seems to stare at me. Another drone resembles a small plane. Nearby are a couple of small D40s, Australian drones that can be launched manually or via a grenade-launcher. These so-called 'loitering' munitions buzz and swarm like lethal metallic wasps until they lock on to their target - and unload. It's clear that the British goal is to further develop capabilities that are now key to the future of war: detecting and striking adversaries autonomously. But does all this mean that the target of 5 per cent defence spending, demanded by both Donald Trump and Nato will, finally, be met? Healey cannot be clearer: 'Will we hit that target?' he replies. 'I'm absolutely confident we will. We signed up like the other 31 nations last month to that 5 per cent by 2035.' Healey is a serious man. But Britain, as we all know, is already facing financial disaster, and cannot possibly afford to put 5 per cent of GDP into defence without eye-watering sacrifices. And even if we somehow found the necessary cash, to hit the target only in a decade seems lethargic – at best. The threats we face are terrifying and imminent. Not least because Lammy correctly stresses the broader importance of this region in a global conflict. 'We see an indivisibility of security between the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic,' he tells me. 'I have seen Iranian missiles shot into Kyiv. I've been in Beijing and challenged the Chinese about their dual-use technology [which can be used for both weapons and civilian purposes] that is shipped to Russia and fired at the Ukrainians. 'I've seen satellite images of DPRK [North Korean] troops engaged in battle on behalf of Russia against Ukraine, and of course we know that shells are making their way to Russia also from the Indo-Pacific. So the indivisibility is plain to see on a day-to-day basis.' This is spot on – as I know first-hand from my reporting across several continents. I've come under attack from Iranian technology in Kyiv, eastern Ukraine and Israel. I've seen up close the damage the Iranians have done in Baghdad and what the Russians have done in Syria. We are in the midst of a battle with an axis of enemies whose influence spans the globe. That is why the HMS Prince of Wales's presence here is so important. In a speech to the Washington think-tank The Hudson Institute last year, Lammy quoted former US National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who warned that the West might one day face the danger of a 'grand coalition of China, Russia and perhaps Iran, an anti-hegemonic coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances'. 'This I think risks coming upon us,' Lammy said. Well, that day has indeed arrived. And our response must be decisive and bold. We must build a coalition of allies as resolute as the states ranged against us and it must straddle both the Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia — all these democracies want us there. The more alliances they have, the more strategic independence they maintain. Lammy points not just to Nato but the 'Indo-Pacific Four' (IP4), the alliance of Nato partners in the region – Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. He highlights the intelligence-sharing 'Five Eyes' group of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US and, of course, the G7 group of developed western nations. 'Our economic and military alliances are so multilateral. Yes, this is a time of peace through strength,' he says. 'But also peace through deepening our allied partnerships with one another.' What I saw in Darwin was merely the latest iteration of something Britain has been doing for centuries: creating and managing alliances. When we fought with our Empire in the Second World War, we sat at the centre of a web of allies. It's how we defeated not only Hitler, but the German Kaiser in 1918 and before that, Napoleon. Yes, it's been a long time since Britannia ruled the waves. But we still have global soft power, highly trained armed forces and vast geopolitical and military experience. If the world is more dangerous than ever, hyper-accelerating technology is ensuring that it's also smaller than ever. To deal with it, alliances must be global – and no one forges them better than we do. The HMS Prince of Wales is more than just a floating airbase and potent weapon. It is a movable hub: both the centre and the symbol of the type of global alliances that Britain will need in order to survive and thrive in the coming decades. 'This is what you're seeing. Allies. Arming-up. Ambition. This is our strategy for the 21st century,' says my senior government source. As I walk off the ship, slowly crossing the bridge connecting it to terra firma, I recall Lammy's words about the indivisible theatre of conflict we now face. The threat is indeed global – and at its head is China. Only it has the size, strength and resources to reorder the world in its totalitarian image. In 1962, former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson notoriously observed that 'Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.' In Darwin, perhaps I finally saw us taking on that role, and not before time. In this age of mass conflict, our future depends upon it.
