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

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.

GKN wrote:

If we in the south are so anti-Scot, why does the BBC always start their
TV forecasts in Scotland,

Isn't that limited to Radio Five? Anyway, I prefer that order as my brain
doesn't really switch on until I've heard the forecast for Scotland and I
get really annoyed if they get the order the wrong way round so I miss the
forecast for this area.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

If we in the south are so anti-Scot
Nothing to do with being "anti-Scot". More a case of ignorance
or indifference.

The London media perceive Scotland's weather as being gale force
winds most of the time, so one storm more or less in Scotland
isn't news in the south-east of England.

why does the BBC always start their TV forecasts in Scotland
They always start their radio forecasts in England. So what?

and why do we have a Scottish Prime Minister along with
various other Scottish ministers in our government. Get my
drift?
OT - Nothing to do with weather. But there are ten times as many
voters in England as there are in Scotland, so if there really
were an "anti-Scot" feeling, they wouldn't have been elected.

Anne

"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

"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?

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"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?
---------------------------
Sarcasm? Only for the last 57 years. ;-)

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

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"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?
---------------------------
Sarcasm? Only for the last 57 years. ;-)




Fair enough, you probably have a right to comment on it then ;-)

If you hadn't been there I would have pointed out that it is not all
congested transport and commuter towns.