I only saw the end of Mr. Fish's guest forecast presenter spot on the 6
o'clock news last evening. He seemed very comfortable.

It was as though he had never been away. So nice to hear about temperatures
and not "the numbers".

Bring back the oldies I say!

Paulus

"paulus" wrote in message
...
I only saw the end of Mr. Fish's guest forecast presenter spot on the 6
o'clock news last evening. He seemed very comfortable.

It was as though he had never been away. So nice to hear about
temperatures and not "the numbers".

Bring back the oldies I say!

Paulus

Interesting thing was that on the lunchtime news
he explained, at some length, that he was referring
to Florida when he made the the 'no hurricane'
remark. On the evening news this explanation was
not forthcoming. Perhaps the BBC did not like the
idea of him publicly impugning their integrity :-)

Alan

"paulus" wrote in message
...
I only saw the end of Mr. Fish's guest forecast presenter spot on the 6
o'clock news last evening. He seemed very comfortable.

It was as though he had never been away. So nice to hear about
temperatures and not "the numbers".

Bring back the oldies I say!

Paulus


I saw him on the 1300 news. Would have been good if the old graphics could
have been used - a reminder of just how good they were.

I thought he would at least have shown a synoptic run to indicate the high
pressure building again. Do any of these presenters agree with the use of
two wasteful fixed time 'tours' per forecast slot?

On 16 Oct, 09:52, "Alan Murphy" wrote:

Interesting thing was that on the lunchtime news
he explained, at some length, that he was referring
to Florida when he made the the 'no hurricane'
remark. On the evening news this explanation was
not forthcoming. Perhaps the BBC did not like the
idea of him publicly impugning their integrity :-)

Fish was also cut off mid-sentence - after the "don't worry, there
isn't" - he also says that we are expecting some very windy weather. I
think it was an error on Fish's part to expect the nation to
distinguish between a hurricane and an extratropical storm. Giles in
my mind was more palpable 6 hours before it happened, if we're looking
into shooting the messenger! I get the impression that Giles v Fish at
the London Weather Centre was a battle of egos given some of their
responses in recent days regarding the incident.

Richard

On 16 Oct, 10:01, Richard Dixon wrote:
On 16 Oct, 09:52, "Alan Murphy" wrote:

Interesting thing was that on the lunchtime news
he explained, at some length, that he was referring
to Florida when he made the the 'no hurricane'
remark. On the evening news this explanation was
not forthcoming. Perhaps the BBC did not like the
idea of him publicly impugning their integrity :-)

Fish was also cut off mid-sentence - after the "don't worry, there
isn't" - he also says that we are expecting some very windy weather. I
think it was an error on Fish's part to expect the nation to
distinguish between a hurricane and an extratropical storm. Giles in
my mind was more palpable 6 hours before it happened, if we're looking
into shooting the messenger! I get the impression that Giles v Fish at
the London Weather Centre was a battle of egos given some of their
responses in recent days regarding the incident.

Richard

I think you are right. It was his perceived arrogance at the dismissal
of the 'woman from Wales' who was probably genuinely worried about
what she thought might be heading our way, that caused the main media
backlash. His idea that there should always be some kind of 'tease' at
the start of a broadcast, in order to lead into the main headline is
fine, but it should not be at the expense of a member of the public.

"crazyhorse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 16 Oct, 10:01, Richard Dixon wrote:
On 16 Oct, 09:52, "Alan Murphy" wrote:

Interesting thing was that on the lunchtime news
he explained, at some length, that he was referring
to Florida when he made the the 'no hurricane'
remark. On the evening news this explanation was
not forthcoming. Perhaps the BBC did not like the
idea of him publicly impugning their integrity :-)

Fish was also cut off mid-sentence - after the "don't worry, there
isn't" - he also says that we are expecting some very windy weather. I
think it was an error on Fish's part to expect the nation to
distinguish between a hurricane and an extratropical storm. Giles in
my mind was more palpable 6 hours before it happened, if we're looking
into shooting the messenger! I get the impression that Giles v Fish at
the London Weather Centre was a battle of egos given some of their
responses in recent days regarding the incident.

Richard

I think you are right. It was his perceived arrogance at the dismissal
of the 'woman from Wales' who was probably genuinely worried about
what she thought might be heading our way, that caused the main media
backlash. His idea that there should always be some kind of 'tease' at
the start of a broadcast, in order to lead into the main headline is
fine, but it should not be at the expense of a member of the public.

I saw this item.

Does Michael Fish's explanation work then? Was there an item on the news
about a Florida hurricane, and did a woman from Wales phone in, presumably
misinterpreting the item as being about the UK?

Perhaps a full public enquiry should be launched!

"crazyhorse" wrote in message
oups.com...


I think you are right. It was his perceived arrogance at the dismissal
of the 'woman from Wales' who was probably genuinely worried about
what she thought might be heading our way, that caused the main media
backlash. His idea that there should always be some kind of 'tease' at
the start of a broadcast, in order to lead into the main headline is
fine, but it should not be at the expense of a member of the public.


Give over,

We'll have the woman from Wales claiming compo next.

If he had named her and shamed her that would be different.

Though it was a major cock up, we should remember that even in Fishy's day,
they were first and foremost presenters. If the latest output from the MetO
had been indicating something so nasty was on the horizon I'm sure they
would have given it a slot in the news bulletin and followed with an
extended forecast slot.

Why does old Fishy get it in the neck when the MetO failed?

Paulus

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
. ..

"crazyhorse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 16 Oct, 10:01, Richard Dixon wrote:
On 16 Oct, 09:52, "Alan Murphy" wrote:

Interesting thing was that on the lunchtime news
he explained, at some length, that he was referring
to Florida when he made the the 'no hurricane'
remark. On the evening news this explanation was
not forthcoming. Perhaps the BBC did not like the
idea of him publicly impugning their integrity :-)

Fish was also cut off mid-sentence - after the "don't worry, there
isn't" - he also says that we are expecting some very windy weather.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqs1YXfdtGE

Remember it well

--
George in Epping, West Essex (107m asl)
www.eppingweather.co.uk
www.winter1947.co.uk

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:31:54 +0100, "paulus" wrote:

If he had named her and shamed her that would be different.

She and her son were interviewed on News 24 at about 17:20.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

"Alan White" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:31:54 +0100, "paulus" wrote:

If he had named her and shamed her that would be different.

She and her son were interviewed on News 24 at about 17:20.

Why am I not surprised?

She'll be on "I'm a celebrity" next :-)

Obviously though my remark about naming and shaming referred to the famous
broadcast 20 years ago.

If she's come into the limelight she must be looking for attention or
celebrity status.

I don't know if she was affected but god help us if she suffered any
non-insured losses during the storm.

Paulus