In article ,
Phil Layton writes:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....tainment/tv_an
d_radio/article6991064.ece

Phil

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.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

"John Hall" wrote:
In article Phil Layton 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

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.....

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
...
"John Hall" wrote:
In article Phil Layton 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


Ah Philip the contract culture of thepast 25 years. Ludicrous to say the
least

On 17 Jan, 10:42, John Hall wrote:
The Telegraph gets its forecasts from Accuweather. They seem to be
generally inferior to the Met Office forecasts, and every so often are
wildly wrong.

At the risk of attracting ire, I think that the Met Office forecasts
(which I get directly from their web page, and not via the beeb) are
generally pretty good!

Are there any commercial suppliers which are considered to be more
accurate?

On Jan 16, 11:57*pm, Phil Layton wrote:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....ertainment/tv_...

What does it say you extract of sunspurge?

On Jan 17, 6:08*am, "Darren Prescott"
wrote:
"Phil Layton" wrote in ...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....ertainment/tv_...

Oh no - they're the bunch of muppets who came up with the derisible
Weatherscape XT, the 1998-era graphics engine that powers the BBC's "turd
brown" forecasts. Words cannot express how much I loathe that graphics
package, which compared to the old "Weather 2000" symbol maps is a world
away. Just looking at the low-res, ill-defined mush after 36 hours makes the
whole thing a mockery.

The BBC forked out large amounts of money for that waste-of-space graphics
system and thus (having been a soft target) I'm not surprised the owners of
that system are pushing for even more of the Beeb's money.

Costs to a public company that still haven't been disclosed.

I wouldn't trust them with your bargepole. If I had to touch them with
mine, I'd burn it.

On Jan 17, 9:27*am, "David Haggas" wrote:

Why does the BBC have to sub everything out?

Thatcherism.

She tried to do the same with the Falklands despite all the obstacles
the Royal Navy then the Welsh units of the British Army put in her
way. But hell, what's the deaths of a few Welshies?

No wonder Diana went effing daft. I'm surprised Our Madge never said
anything.

But themn, who could she say it to?