Philip Eden wrote:
"John wrote:
In article Phil writes:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....tainment/tv_an
d_radio/article6991064.ece

Though the article goes on about forecast accuracy - including the
seasonal forecasts, even though those are totally irrelevant since the
BBC doesn't broadcast them - it seems that if the BBC *does* decide to
change its forecast provider it will be on grounds of cost. As the
forecasts on the BBC could be argued to be important in providing the
Met Office with a high profile with the public, one could argue that it
is actually the Met Office that should be paying the BBC rather than the
other way round.
--
The key is this line:

A BBC spokesman said: "It is common practice to look at the options
available when a contract is about to expire to ensure we get the best value
for money for our licence fee payers."

Put another way he is saying: "When a contract is up for a renewal
we always try to put the fear of god into our suppliers by threatening
to take the contract elsewhere even though we've no intention of
changing. It's standard practice to ensure they don't put the price up."

And, yes, I do have some knowledge of these procedures.

Philip


Can we put the fear of god into the Ordnance Survey, British Admiralty,
UKHO as well please. Those monopoly, government controlled,
organisations need some competition as well to shake them out of their
wee hallowed protected niches. There is a phrase (i forget +50 :-) ) for
info we have paid for as taxpayers but have to pay for again as
"consumers". What makes it worse is the info is behind the times and
science available - much like the MO I fear.
The BBC should dump the MO - as should that other fart arse, empire
building, organisation the MCA.

Where is all this accountability when the taxpayer wants it? If I am
paying for a service I want accuracy - sorry that is the effing bottom
line - is that too much to ask?

Rant over.....