The content of a weather warning is of little use if it
is not communicated accurately. When lives - as we
have been told - are at risk there is no excuse for
badly expressed warnings containing imprecise detail,
fudged geography and sloppy English.

When such warnings are broadcast by people who
are supposed to be professional communicators,
there should be no place for emotional presentation,
gratuitous personal advice, or personal opinion, all
of which have been heard on radio and television
today.

Those who deride the need for accurate communication
are sometimes scientists who would not tolerate for
one moment the smallest error in a formula or an
equation. When those scientists represent, disclaimer
or no, a national institution, then their attitude to accuracy
reflects on that institution.

Philip Eden

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
...
The content of a weather warning is of little use if it
is not communicated accurately. When lives - as we
have been told - are at risk there is no excuse for
badly expressed warnings containing imprecise detail,
fudged geography and sloppy English.

What imprecise detail & fudged geography?
And if the sloppy English to which you refer is the debate
between a singuar/plural public then wasn't the general
consensus that they were right to say it was singular?

When such warnings are broadcast by people who
are supposed to be professional communicators,
there should be no place for emotional presentation,
gratuitous personal advice, or personal opinion, all
of which have been heard on radio and television
today.

Agreed wholeheartedly

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
...
The content of a weather warning is of little use if it
is not communicated accurately. When lives - as we
have been told - are at risk there is no excuse for
badly expressed warnings containing imprecise detail,
fudged geography and sloppy English.

When such warnings are broadcast by people who
are supposed to be professional communicators,
there should be no place for emotional presentation,
gratuitous personal advice, or personal opinion, all
of which have been heard on radio and television
today.

Those who deride the need for accurate communication
are sometimes scientists who would not tolerate for
one moment the smallest error in a formula or an
equation. When those scientists represent, disclaimer
or no, a national institution, then their attitude to accuracy
reflects on that institution.

Philip Eden


You should try *forecasting* (as opposed to presenting) and issuing tens of
warnings with very little time to spare in a rapidly changing situation Philip,
then you may understand just a bit why it is not important that someone says
*is* instead of *are*. The senior forecasters in the Met Office Ops Centre are
not journalists but they do have *immense responsibility* as regards the weather
forecast and I know do their best in difficult circumstances. A little bit of
tolerance and understanding would not go amiss I think.

Will.
--

" Visit Haytor meteorological office at
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...met_office.htm "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
...
The content of a weather warning is of little use if it
is not communicated accurately. When lives - as we
have been told - are at risk there is no excuse for
badly expressed warnings containing imprecise detail,
fudged geography and sloppy English.

When such warnings are broadcast by people who
are supposed to be professional communicators,
there should be no place for emotional presentation,
gratuitous personal advice, or personal opinion, all
of which have been heard on radio and television
today.

Those who deride the need for accurate communication
are sometimes scientists who would not tolerate for
one moment the smallest error in a formula or an
equation. When those scientists represent, disclaimer
or no, a national institution, then their attitude to accuracy
reflects on that institution.

Philip Eden


Philip you are indeed correct, however I wonder how many lives would have
been saved by the unscientific adjective "get of this ****ing beech now,
there's a tsunami coming!"



Regards

Seean B

"Mr Blowman" S@not here.karoo.co.uk wrote in message
...

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
...
The content of a weather warning is of little use if it
is not communicated accurately. When lives - as we
have been told - are at risk there is no excuse for
badly expressed warnings containing imprecise detail,
fudged geography and sloppy English.

When such warnings are broadcast by people who
are supposed to be professional communicators,
there should be no place for emotional presentation,
gratuitous personal advice, or personal opinion, all
of which have been heard on radio and television
today.

Those who deride the need for accurate communication
are sometimes scientists who would not tolerate for
one moment the smallest error in a formula or an
equation. When those scientists represent, disclaimer
or no, a national institution, then their attitude to accuracy
reflects on that institution.

Philip Eden


Philip you are indeed correct, however I wonder how many lives would have
been saved by the unscientific adjective "get of this ****ing beech now,
there's a tsunami coming!"



Regards

Seean B


PS

Sorry for the typing errors in my previous and rather haunting "lets stop
the pretentious bull****" comment!

Regards

Sean B

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:22:12 -0000, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

The content of a weather warning is of little use if it
is not communicated accurately. When lives - as we
have been told - are at risk there is no excuse for
badly expressed warnings containing imprecise detail,
fudged geography and sloppy English.

When such warnings are broadcast by people who
are supposed to be professional communicators,
there should be no place for emotional presentation,
gratuitous personal advice, or personal opinion, all
of which have been heard on radio and television
today.

Those who deride the need for accurate communication
are sometimes scientists who would not tolerate for
one moment the smallest error in a formula or an
equation. When those scientists represent, disclaimer
or no, a national institution, then their attitude to accuracy
reflects on that institution.

Philip, as an outsider observing this discussion I agree with your
general points but not with your earlier specific criticism of the the
"sloppy English" used in tonight's warning - unless you meant it to be
taken tongue-in-cheek. The meaning was clear and the British public
will neither understand nor care about about the point you raised. The
grammar is most certainly arguable both ways, with a slight advantage
to your side of the argument. If you intended to illustrate the wider
points mentioned above, you did not, perhaps, choose the best example.

Having said all that, I did think your initial remark was made
tongue-in-cheek and it made me smile. The sharp response from Will and
some others surprised me, and obviously, it did not make them smile.
Now, after reading it all again, I can see both points of view.

I think it's time to put it all down to a misunderstanding - and move
on.

--
Dave

Mr Blowman wrote:

Philip you are indeed correct, however I wonder how many lives would have
been saved by the unscientific adjective "get of this ****ing beech now,
there's a tsunami coming!"

And there you see, is the reason for requiring correct grammar and
spelling. Had someone in fact been in a beech, and had taken that
message as a command to get down, they might have been washed away,
whereas had they stayed in the tree they might have been saved.

This is not a spelling flame.

Apologies if anyone feels the need to be offended, given the subject matter.

Other disclaimers may apply.
--
Steve Loft, Wanlockhead, Dumfriesshire. 1417ft ASL
http://www.wanlockhead.org.uk/weather/
Free weather softwa http://cumulus.nybbles.co.uk/
Experimental webcam: http://www.wanlockhead.org.uk/webcam.php

"Steve Loft" wrote in message
...
Mr Blowman wrote:

Philip you are indeed correct, however I wonder how many lives would have
been saved by the unscientific adjective "get of this ****ing beech now,
there's a tsunami coming!"

And there you see, is the reason for requiring correct grammar and
spelling. Had someone in fact been in a beech, and had taken that message
as a command to get down, they might have been washed away, whereas had
they stayed in the tree they might have been saved.

This is not a spelling flame.

Apologies if anyone feels the need to be offended, given the subject
matter.

Other disclaimers may apply.
--
Steve Loft, Wanlockhead, Dumfriesshire. 1417ft ASL
http://www.wanlockhead.org.uk/weather/
Free weather softwa http://cumulus.nybbles.co.uk/
Experimental webcam: http://www.wanlockhead.org.uk/webcam.php

Eczactly Dave, maybe irony excapes yoo on this beach?


Regards Sean Blowman

In the states, they have 24/7 coverage of hurricanes during the
critical stages

Now i know that we don't get hurricanes in this country, but we do get
vicious low pressure systems

I know some people think that storm chasers are mad
but some video footage by people that know what they are doing, and
broadcast on tv, might help communicate those weather warnings.

People will be able to see excatly what's going on, and the power of
the storm

People will tend to believe video footage more than a text forecast
posted on a website

Well i just find it a tad interesting, the Americans technique in
covering severe weather (get the cameras out there, and give in-depth
coverage of the storm and have dedicated weather channels on cable to
cover the event from start to finish) to the Uk version, which is
basically to tell people to stay in their homes and not travel. Hide
until the winds abate, but Uk people turn on their tv's and see no, or
a little coverage of the storm. Maybe a small item on the news
broadcast.

We don't have to go so far as sending out Peter Sissons into the heart
of the storm, so we see him swinging from a lamp-post on the six
o'clock news, although i know some people would love to see that.

Very Dangerous Storms could do with plenty of coverage is what i'm
saying.
Rather than people sitting in their homes in the dark, hearing the
winds getting bad outside, and wondering just how bad it's going to
get. Ok, the power goes out, people can't switch on the tv, but they
could still have a battery powered radio.
Radio stations need to drop normal programming and go for coverage when
weather situations have got real bad IMHO

In article ,
Dave Ludlow writes:
Philip, as an outsider observing this discussion I agree with your
general points but not with your earlier specific criticism of the the
"sloppy English" used in tonight's warning - unless you meant it to be
taken tongue-in-cheek. The meaning was clear and the British public
will neither understand nor care about about the point you raised. The
grammar is most certainly arguable both ways, with a slight advantage
to your side of the argument. If you intended to illustrate the wider
points mentioned above, you did not, perhaps, choose the best example.

Having said all that, I did think your initial remark was made
tongue-in-cheek and it made me smile. The sharp response from Will and
some others surprised me, and obviously, it did not make them smile.
Now, after reading it all again, I can see both points of view.

I agree with all of the above. Dave has put it better than I could have
done.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde