Brother-in-law been on the phone about the fuss being made on Scottish
news about 40th anniversary of a major storm in Glasgow. Like the
October 1987 one it was incorrectly called a hurricane at the time.
If true, sounds to have been more severe than 1987, and to have caused
a much greater loss of life.
But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the Met.O.
web site!

Brother-in-law been on the phone about the fuss being made on
Scottish
news about 40th anniversary of a major storm in Glasgow. Like
the
October 1987 one it was incorrectly called a hurricane at the
time.
If true, sounds to have been more severe than 1987, and to
have caused
a much greater loss of life.
But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special
documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially
mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the
Met.O.
web site!

You forget. It was in Scotland so if didn't affect anyone in the
London area, so it wasn't and isn't newsworthy enough for all
that attention. Even if 19 people were killed.

Anne

If we in the south are so anti-Scot, why does the BBC always start their TV
forecasts in Scotland, and why do we have a Scottish Prime Minister along
with various other Scottish ministers in our government. Get my drift?
"Anne Burgess" wrote in message
...
Brother-in-law been on the phone about the fuss being made on Scottish
news about 40th anniversary of a major storm in Glasgow. Like the
October 1987 one it was incorrectly called a hurricane at the time.
If true, sounds to have been more severe than 1987, and to have caused
a much greater loss of life.
But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the Met.O.
web site!

You forget. It was in Scotland so if didn't affect anyone in the London
area, so it wasn't and isn't newsworthy enough for all that attention.
Even if 19 people were killed.

Anne

"Mike Waller" wrote in message
...
Brother-in-law been on the phone about the fuss being made on Scottish
news about 40th anniversary of a major storm in Glasgow. Like the
October 1987 one it was incorrectly called a hurricane at the time.
If true, sounds to have been more severe than 1987, and to have caused
a much greater loss of life.
But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the Met.O.
web site!

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...anuary1990.pdf

Dae ye no have your own Television in Scotland ?
Tom

"Anne Burgess" wrote in message
...
Brother-in-law been on the phone about the fuss being made on Scottish
news about 40th anniversary of a major storm in Glasgow. Like the
October 1987 one it was incorrectly called a hurricane at the time.
If true, sounds to have been more severe than 1987, and to have caused
a much greater loss of life.
But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the Met.O.
web site!

You forget. It was in Scotland so if didn't affect anyone in the London
area, so it wasn't and isn't newsworthy enough for all that attention.
Even if 19 people were killed.

Anne
------------------------
We suffer this quietly, despite the regular monotony and try not to mention
that at 3.00am there are not many people about, even in that hell hole that
is the South East of England.
Dave

On Jan 15, 8:11 pm, "GKN" wrote:

If we in the south are so anti-Scot, why does the BBC always start their TV
forecasts in Scotland, and why do we have a Scottish Prime Minister along
with various other Scottish ministers in our government.

I didn't know George Bush is Scottish. No wonder the BBC weather
forecast starts there. They can't wait to get the hell out.

In article ,
Tom Allen writes:

"Mike Waller" wrote in message
...
Brother-in-law been on the phone about the fuss being made on Scottish
news about 40th anniversary of a major storm in Glasgow. Like the
October 1987 one it was incorrectly called a hurricane at the time.
If true, sounds to have been more severe than 1987, and to have caused
a much greater loss of life.
But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the Met.O.
web site!

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...yStorm25Januar
y1990.pdf

Which is the wrong storm by over twenty years, 10 days, and several
hundred miles.

Try this link instead:

http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~ta...68_weather.htm
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
.uk...

"Anne Burgess" wrote in message
...
Brother-in-law been on the phone about the fuss being made on Scottish
news about 40th anniversary of a major storm in Glasgow. Like the
October 1987 one it was incorrectly called a hurricane at the time.
If true, sounds to have been more severe than 1987, and to have caused
a much greater loss of life.
But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the Met.O.
web site!

You forget. It was in Scotland so if didn't affect anyone in the London
area, so it wasn't and isn't newsworthy enough for all that attention.
Even if 19 people were killed.

Anne
------------------------
We suffer this quietly, despite the regular monotony and try not to
mention that at 3.00am there are not many people about, even in that hell
hole that is the South East of England.
Dave





Out of interest, have you actually been to the South East of England?

"Mike Waller" wrote in message
...
Brother-in-law been on the phone about the fuss being made on Scottish
news about 40th anniversary of a major storm in Glasgow. Like the
October 1987 one it was incorrectly called a hurricane at the time.
If true, sounds to have been more severe than 1987, and to have caused
a much greater loss of life.
But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the Met.O.
web site!


Having spent 15 years in London my impression of such things is that it is
not any anti-Scottishness as much as indifference. With 10 times more people
in England than Scotland it just does not register. Most of media is in
London and places like Scotland and NI are just regions.

It is like the word British that in most cases is read as England by 99.99%
of the world. Again it is not anti anything it is just that as one country
in "Britain" is much much bigger then it becomes the sum of the parts, as it
were.

The MO is English really, as is the BBC etc. With one country in a foursome
being so much bigger it was bound to happen and all the claptrap spouted by
GB about us all being one big equal family is not borne out by reality.
Animosity is always quoted when it is not, it is the politics of quantity.
Political gravity, perhaps.



brian
aberfeldy

On 15 Jan, 19:55, Mike Waller wrote:

But it can't be true, otherwise there would be special documentary
programmes about it on the TV, it would have been especially mentioned
on the weather bulletins, and it would have an article on the Met.O.
web site!

Bitterness aside, here's some charts from the event:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive...1968011500.gif

Richard