On 12/01/2013 16:59, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:03:25 -0800 (PST), willie eckerslike
wrote:

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:05:54 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article ,


But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous

conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a
frost

following a wet one is.


I know this, you know this - and I suspect that many millions of
other people know this.

Is it necessary to have blanket warnings for half the country, just
to tell people what they know? Just so that the media can have a
"field day" exaggerating everything to extremes?

Sorry, I know that I am being a kind of Devils Advocate here, but do
not the proliferation of ordinary warnings reduce the impact of
severe warnings?

Half the problem is that the yellow awareness 'warnings' aren't really
warnings at all, they are just "keep an eye on tomorrow's forecast"
bulletins. They should call them something less dramatic than warnings
IMO, to lessen the "cry wolf" syndrome.


I agree. Alerts would be better. But hey, I said so at the time they
were being re-vamped but the powers that be go their own merry way
usually :-( They justify it by saying that they have "stakeholder
agreement", whatever that really means!

It means they want promotion and have to use certain terms a particular
number of times a day. It is their way of showing membership of the clique.

The workers can then play management bingo. The first person to spot a
certain number of management speak words, wins the pot.


--
Howard Neil