"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message
oups.com...


Tuesday night I was chatting to a jazz singer at the end of a pub
gig and it turned out he worked for Electricité de France, who seem to
own rather a lot of the Grid, etc in the southeast. "I seriously
shouldn't be showing you this," he said, "it's not intended for the
public," and got out his mobile with a very specific severe weather
warning message for electricity companies on it. Presumably the
company pay heavily for this service, which he couldn't confirm, being
an engineer and not an accountant. My guess is that there are careful
considered warnings for paying customers and a slapdash cover-your-arse
one for the general public. Whenever I see one I just say "yeah, yeah"
etc etc. It's pointless we weather enthusiasts getting hot under the
collar over these, because can draw our own conclusions from the data.
Joe Public, though, may have more justifiable reasons for complaint.
The Met Office cries wolf far too often.

A certain amount of 'arse covering' would be expected, possibly even
desirable for general forecasts. After all, it is better to be warned of
something that doesn't happen than to not be warned of something that
*does*. You have to remember that the 'customer' for these forecasts
aren't us weather enthusiasts but the great unwashed public who wouldn't
know orographic rainfall from a slap in the face with a wet fish.

However......
Take it too far and err too much on the side of caution and the 'cry wolf'
scenario raise it's ugly head as you quite rightly point out. It's a difficult
balance to get right, but conditions *do* appear to have quite severe,
at least locally in parts of E.Yorkshire although that can hardly justify the
much more widespread severe weather warnings.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:09:38 +0000 (UTC), "Col"
wrote:

...
After all, it is better to be warned of
something that doesn't happen than to not be warned of something that
*does*.

Unless you get very worried about the something that doesn't happen as
happened to me in January. When it didn't, instead of a feeling of
relief, I felt quite cross that it hadn't because I was expecting it.

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam and weather:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co....her/kabcam.htm
Some walks and treks:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks/

"BlueLightning" wrote in message
oups.com...
Plenty of people getting disappointed away from the south-east

Some people are looking for instant blame, but maybe the professionals
will explain the situation during the day.


And what about all the previous times they totally went over the top with
snow warnings? They have never to my knowledge accepted they were
forecasting out of their backsides or IMO lying.

Look at the facts. UKMO is now being increasingly guided by the most
dishonest lying Government in the history of British politics. This
Governments lives for media manipulation too "bury bad news". Only recently
when plans to increase the private sector retirement age for men to 67 there
was open criticism of the fact the Civil service had been left untouched at
55 I believe.

Now UKMO=MOD=Civil Servants? Hey go do the math.

Mark my words

In article ,
lawrence Jenkins writes:
Look at the facts. UKMO is now being increasingly guided by the most
dishonest lying Government in the history of British politics.


I would be very worried if I thought that UKMO forecasts were
government-influenced, but I don't believe it.

This
Governments lives for media manipulation too "bury bad news". Only recently
when plans to increase the private sector retirement age for men to 67

Surely that's the state pension age that is planned to be increased, and
has nothing to do with what age people get their occupational pensions
at. Obviously those who don't have a good occupational pension scheme
may not be able to afford to retire until they are 67, though.

there
was open criticism of the fact the Civil service had been left untouched at
55 I believe.

60. Yes, civil servants have a good pension scheme, but in
"compensation" they tend not to be that well paid in comparison to the
private sector.

But this is getting very OT for usw, so I'll try not to go on at greater
length.
--
John Hall

"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
lawrence Jenkins writes:
Look at the facts. UKMO is now being increasingly guided by the most
dishonest lying Government in the history of British politics.


I would be very worried if I thought that UKMO forecasts were
government-influenced, but I don't believe it.

This
Governments lives for media manipulation too "bury bad news". Only
recently
when plans to increase the private sector retirement age for men to 67

Surely that's the state pension age that is planned to be increased, and
has nothing to do with what age people get their occupational pensions
at. Obviously those who don't have a good occupational pension scheme
may not be able to afford to retire until they are 67, though.

there
was open criticism of the fact the Civil service had been left untouched
at
55 I believe.

60. Yes, civil servants have a good pension scheme, but in
"compensation" they tend not to be that well paid in comparison to the
private sector.

But this is getting very OT for usw, so I'll try not to go on at greater
length.
--
John Hall

"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

So it's sixty then John, well that defeats my point as there's only a seven
years difference. Didn't Will take up the option for a much earlier
retirement.

As for Goverment interference . I get this impression John that once upon a
time UKMO just beavered away and got on with it's job now of course there's
spin in most things.

lawrence Jenkins wrote:
This Governments lives for media manipulation too "bury bad news". Only
recently when plans to increase the private sector retirement age for
men
to 67
John wrote ...
Surely that's the state pension age that is planned to be
increased, and has nothing to do with what age people get their
occupational pensions at. Obviously those who don't have a good
occupational pension scheme may not be able to afford to retire
until they are 67, though.
Lawrence wrote..
there was open criticism of the fact the Civil service had been left
untouched at 55 I believe.
John wrote
60. Yes, civil servants have a good pension scheme, but in
"compensation" they tend not to be that well paid in comparison to
the private sector.

So it's sixty then John, well that defeats my point as there's only a
seven years difference.
You missed the point Lawrence. The state retirement pension age for Civil
Servants (male) is 65, the same as all others who receive the state
retirement pension and will change if/when this age is changed for all.
John
--
York,
North Yorkshire.
(c.20 metre AMSL)

John Whitby wrote:

lawrence Jenkins wrote:
This Governments lives for media manipulation too "bury bad news". Only
recently when plans to increase the private sector retirement age for
men
to 67
John wrote ...
Surely that's the state pension age that is planned to be
increased, and has nothing to do with what age people get their
occupational pensions at. Obviously those who don't have a good
occupational pension scheme may not be able to afford to retire
until they are 67, though.
Lawrence wrote..
there was open criticism of the fact the Civil service had been left
untouched at 55 I believe.
John wrote
60. Yes, civil servants have a good pension scheme, but in
"compensation" they tend not to be that well paid in comparison to
the private sector.

So it's sixty then John, well that defeats my point as there's only a
seven years difference.
You missed the point Lawrence. The state retirement pension age for Civil
Servants (male) is 65, the same as all others who receive the state
retirement pension and will change if/when this age is changed for all.
John

Some years ago, in a Civil Service pay round, where pay was compared with
the private sector, the "non-contributory" pensions scheme was taken as
being worth 7%. At the time I wished that the 7% had at least appeared in
my pay slip, then removed.

After I'd been working for the Civil Service for about five years, and had
been promoted, I found I was earning less than the tea-boy and floor
sweeper in a local factory. I consoled myself by thinking that I'd get an
early retirement and a reasonable pension.

If the proposed state-pension changes go ahead, in 40 years the state
retirement age will have increased to 67. By that time, all Public Sector
workers will be retiring at 65, so the gap will have reduced from 5 to 2
years.


--
Graham Davis
Bracknell

lawrence Jenkins wrote:


"BlueLightning" wrote in message
oups.com...
Plenty of people getting disappointed away from the south-east

Some people are looking for instant blame, but maybe the professionals
will explain the situation during the day.


And what about all the previous times they totally went over the top with
snow warnings? They have never to my knowledge accepted they were
forecasting out of their backsides or IMO lying.


A forecaster's "over-the-top" warning would be marked as a failure, the same
as a missed warning, so what reason would there be for "lying"?


--
Graham Davis
Bracknell