"Norman" wrote in message
...
Stan wrote:

Looked to me every time he was asked a question and started to answer he
just
got shouted over.

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8443687.stm



He was in true politician mode - giving the answers to the questions he
would
like to have been asked rather than the questions he was actually asked.

I thought the questions put to him were pretty fair, albeit asked in a
rather
agressive manner by Andrew Neil. I wonder if the production of the
seasonal
forecasts results in a net cost to the taxpayer.

Norman

It says that the seasonal forecasts are in development and has been raised
before. The Winter forecast I remember was issued as probs:
50% mild 30% normal or 20% cold, I may be wrong but I believe the current
method is based on comparing the Ocean temps with similar patterns in past
during the Spring and basing on that.

I believe the questions were fair but there was no chance given for the
questions to be answered because as John Hirst started to answer, another
question would be thrown at him. One unfair thing he kept shouting at him
was that Met Office keeps saying temperatures are rising when comparing
temps with end 90's the temp has fallen. When John started to answer about
the spike he would then shout over him again asking him about his bonus
payment (which I can't comment on as I have been told it was 2 years put
together).

I do think it was fair to ask the questions asked, but unfair to do so in
manner done. However I don't think it was just to show John Hirst in poor
light as it is Andrew Neils interview style. i think he does it to
intimidate his interviewees, so they may let something slip. I don't like it
as you don't get to hear what they have to say for themselves, and I am
sometimes interested in what they say. because of this I don't think I
learnt anything new. It is all just done for showmanship.

Stan

In message
, Tom
Bennett writes
On 7 Jan, 21:20, "Stan" wrote:
Looked to me every time he was asked a question and started to answer he
just got shouted over.

Looked at it earlier this evening and didn't like it one bit.
Bullying for the sake of it and cheap jibes from a presenter who's
parrotting potted "facts" whilst clearly only out to make one cheap
point.

Whatever one's own opinions on the matter, the truth of it all (even
if that were possible to discern in such a complex subject) were
completely lost in a 6-minute pseudo-scientific rant by Neil, all
courtesy of his notes.

And did I detect a snort of derision from the Hirst offstage when, in
the last 2 secs of the clip, Neil said he's like to ask him back on
the programme sometime? Or was he just wanting to pickle Neil in
formalin ............. no, hang on, that's a different
Hirst ............ isn't it?


Did Neil, A in fact perhaps start out with the intention of being a
barrister, and if so, what happened? Charmless character, isn't he?



--
Peter Thomas