When the wind blows the tree outside your house inside your house then
thats when they'll bother to tell you.

The fact is the presenters shouldn't be forced to learn how best to use
the new overpriced system, they should have already received training
before inflicting it onto us, the customer, the paying public.

When I was incarcerated in UKMO (10 year sentence, but I dug a tunnel
and escaped) IT kit would regularly arrive with the instructions get on
with it, no training nothing, has that happened this time, you decide?

Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:50:51 +0100, "Will Hand"
wrote:


Then later we had David Braine he did show the paper aeroplanes and mentioned
gales tomorrow, but if he had not mentioned gales the paper aeroplanes would not
have indicated that. I consider this a very serious issue now if potential gales
either do not get mentioned or are not shown properly on a forecast.
How much did the BBC pay for this package? £1 million quid :-O I would have
thought that for that price we could have better graphics for wind than paper
aeroplanes.


And it's not just about gales: I've seen it suggested that winds are
somehow of little interest to Joe Public but I don't think that's
right. Looking outside now, here, the most noticeable thing is how
breezy it is. It's certainly windy enough to make you think twice
about taking a child out for a bike ride and there are many other
activities ("will the grass dry in time for a cut after the rain
stops?") where windspeed is at least as important as, say, amount of
sunshine.


Full marks to the Met Office presenters again though, keeping smiling.


Especially as they are probably still wrestling with the system
intricacies. For example, I'd be loathe to show the wind arrow
diagrams onscreen until I'd found a way to stop them looking silly -
which is how they look to me at the moment. Francis's wind arrows on
Sky News are about 10 times bigger and inspite of having only two or
three wind "streams" over the UK, they give much more useful
information, easy to absorb, than the BBC's wriggling tiddlers.

I'm looking for one or two small improvements every week now, as the
presenters learn how to handle what they, too, must see as problems to
be solved.

When the wind blows the tree outside your house inside your house then
thats when they'll bother to tell you.

The fact is the presenters shouldn't be forced to learn how best to use
the new overpriced system, they should have already received training
before inflicting it onto us, the customer, the paying public.

When I was incarcerated in UKMO (10 year sentence, but I dug a tunnel
and escaped) IT kit would regularly arrive with the instructions get on
with it, no training nothing, has that happened this time, you decide?

Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:50:51 +0100, "Will Hand"
wrote:


Then later we had David Braine he did show the paper aeroplanes and mentioned
gales tomorrow, but if he had not mentioned gales the paper aeroplanes would not
have indicated that. I consider this a very serious issue now if potential gales
either do not get mentioned or are not shown properly on a forecast.
How much did the BBC pay for this package? £1 million quid :-O I would have
thought that for that price we could have better graphics for wind than paper
aeroplanes.


And it's not just about gales: I've seen it suggested that winds are
somehow of little interest to Joe Public but I don't think that's
right. Looking outside now, here, the most noticeable thing is how
breezy it is. It's certainly windy enough to make you think twice
about taking a child out for a bike ride and there are many other
activities ("will the grass dry in time for a cut after the rain
stops?") where windspeed is at least as important as, say, amount of
sunshine.


Full marks to the Met Office presenters again though, keeping smiling.


Especially as they are probably still wrestling with the system
intricacies. For example, I'd be loathe to show the wind arrow
diagrams onscreen until I'd found a way to stop them looking silly -
which is how they look to me at the moment. Francis's wind arrows on
Sky News are about 10 times bigger and inspite of having only two or
three wind "streams" over the UK, they give much more useful
information, easy to absorb, than the BBC's wriggling tiddlers.

I'm looking for one or two small improvements every week now, as the
presenters learn how to handle what they, too, must see as problems to
be solved.

When the wind blows the tree outside your house inside your house then
thats when they'll bother to tell you.

The fact is the presenters shouldn't be forced to learn how best to use
the new overpriced system, they should have already received training
before inflicting it onto us, the customer, the paying public.

When I was incarcerated in UKMO (10 year sentence, but I dug a tunnel
and escaped) IT kit would regularly arrive with the instructions get on
with it, no training nothing, has that happened this time, you decide?

Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:50:51 +0100, "Will Hand"
wrote:


Then later we had David Braine he did show the paper aeroplanes and mentioned
gales tomorrow, but if he had not mentioned gales the paper aeroplanes would not
have indicated that. I consider this a very serious issue now if potential gales
either do not get mentioned or are not shown properly on a forecast.
How much did the BBC pay for this package? £1 million quid :-O I would have
thought that for that price we could have better graphics for wind than paper
aeroplanes.


And it's not just about gales: I've seen it suggested that winds are
somehow of little interest to Joe Public but I don't think that's
right. Looking outside now, here, the most noticeable thing is how
breezy it is. It's certainly windy enough to make you think twice
about taking a child out for a bike ride and there are many other
activities ("will the grass dry in time for a cut after the rain
stops?") where windspeed is at least as important as, say, amount of
sunshine.


Full marks to the Met Office presenters again though, keeping smiling.


Especially as they are probably still wrestling with the system
intricacies. For example, I'd be loathe to show the wind arrow
diagrams onscreen until I'd found a way to stop them looking silly -
which is how they look to me at the moment. Francis's wind arrows on
Sky News are about 10 times bigger and inspite of having only two or
three wind "streams" over the UK, they give much more useful
information, easy to absorb, than the BBC's wriggling tiddlers.

I'm looking for one or two small improvements every week now, as the
presenters learn how to handle what they, too, must see as problems to
be solved.

"Martin Rowley" m wrote in
message ...

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
And it's not just about gales: I've seen it suggested that winds are
somehow of little interest to Joe Public but I don't think that's
right. Looking outside now, here, the most noticeable thing is how
breezy it is. snip
For example, I'd be loathe to show the wind arrow
diagrams onscreen until I'd found a way to stop them looking silly -
which is how they look to me at the moment. Francis's wind arrows on
Sky News are about 10 times bigger and inspite of having only two or
three wind "streams" over the UK, they give much more useful
information, easy to absorb, than the BBC's wriggling tiddlers.

... this was one of the facets I complained about in my submission to
the BBC; in fact, the *previous* wind-flow output was quite adequate and
gave a useful indication (coupled with voice-over) of the change in the
wind field during the forecast period.

Of all the aspects of the changes, I can't understand how this one has
slipped through; *if* it is based on NZ experience, I know for a fact
that they are just as interested in such data as we are - so I suspect
that someone made a decision based on little or no knowledge, and is now
desperately digging their heels in (if still in post) to deny us the
information.


================================================== ==================
This posting expresses the personal view and opinions of the author.
Something which everyone on this planet should be able to do.
================================================== ==================

Martin re-read my post about focus groups, and the desperate need for projects
to complete on time and within budget and you will soon understand why "things
slip through". IMO FWIW nowadays, this project should have been spread over
THREE YEARS to test things out and get it right BEFORE LAUNCH. People are far
too impatient for change nowadays.

Will.
--

" I'm lost for words :-)"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Martin Rowley" m wrote in
message ...

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
And it's not just about gales: I've seen it suggested that winds are
somehow of little interest to Joe Public but I don't think that's
right. Looking outside now, here, the most noticeable thing is how
breezy it is. snip
For example, I'd be loathe to show the wind arrow
diagrams onscreen until I'd found a way to stop them looking silly -
which is how they look to me at the moment. Francis's wind arrows on
Sky News are about 10 times bigger and inspite of having only two or
three wind "streams" over the UK, they give much more useful
information, easy to absorb, than the BBC's wriggling tiddlers.

... this was one of the facets I complained about in my submission to
the BBC; in fact, the *previous* wind-flow output was quite adequate and
gave a useful indication (coupled with voice-over) of the change in the
wind field during the forecast period.

Of all the aspects of the changes, I can't understand how this one has
slipped through; *if* it is based on NZ experience, I know for a fact
that they are just as interested in such data as we are - so I suspect
that someone made a decision based on little or no knowledge, and is now
desperately digging their heels in (if still in post) to deny us the
information.


================================================== ==================
This posting expresses the personal view and opinions of the author.
Something which everyone on this planet should be able to do.
================================================== ==================

Martin re-read my post about focus groups, and the desperate need for projects
to complete on time and within budget and you will soon understand why "things
slip through". IMO FWIW nowadays, this project should have been spread over
THREE YEARS to test things out and get it right BEFORE LAUNCH. People are far
too impatient for change nowadays.

Will.
--

" I'm lost for words :-)"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Martin Rowley" m wrote in
message ...

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
And it's not just about gales: I've seen it suggested that winds are
somehow of little interest to Joe Public but I don't think that's
right. Looking outside now, here, the most noticeable thing is how
breezy it is. snip
For example, I'd be loathe to show the wind arrow
diagrams onscreen until I'd found a way to stop them looking silly -
which is how they look to me at the moment. Francis's wind arrows on
Sky News are about 10 times bigger and inspite of having only two or
three wind "streams" over the UK, they give much more useful
information, easy to absorb, than the BBC's wriggling tiddlers.

... this was one of the facets I complained about in my submission to
the BBC; in fact, the *previous* wind-flow output was quite adequate and
gave a useful indication (coupled with voice-over) of the change in the
wind field during the forecast period.

Of all the aspects of the changes, I can't understand how this one has
slipped through; *if* it is based on NZ experience, I know for a fact
that they are just as interested in such data as we are - so I suspect
that someone made a decision based on little or no knowledge, and is now
desperately digging their heels in (if still in post) to deny us the
information.


================================================== ==================
This posting expresses the personal view and opinions of the author.
Something which everyone on this planet should be able to do.
================================================== ==================

Martin re-read my post about focus groups, and the desperate need for projects
to complete on time and within budget and you will soon understand why "things
slip through". IMO FWIW nowadays, this project should have been spread over
THREE YEARS to test things out and get it right BEFORE LAUNCH. People are far
too impatient for change nowadays.

Will.
--

" I'm lost for words :-)"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Will Hand" wrote in message
...


20/5/05

Just watched the 1330 national forecast right through. It has been quite windy
this morning here in the SW and I was wondering if it would die down this
afternoon (I know really but you see what I mean !).
Not one mention of wind throughout the entire forecast, the only clue was the
mention of blustery showers. Come on BBC don't be shy :-)
Then later we had David Braine he did show the paper aeroplanes and mentioned
gales tomorrow, but if he had not mentioned gales the paper aeroplanes would
not
have indicated that. I consider this a very serious issue now if potential
gales
either do not get mentioned or are not shown properly on a forecast.
How much did the BBC pay for this package? £1 million quid :-O I would have
thought that for that price we could have better graphics for wind than paper
aeroplanes.

Full marks to the Met Office presenters again though, keeping smiling.

Will.
--

1830 National forecast.

No mention whatsoever of any wind. No graphics, no words, nothing.

How on earth can anyone take a decision on our behalf that the wind is not
important ?
Mr BBC *WIND IS IMPORTANT* believe me.
They have wind on ITV, I'm told they have wind on SKY so what makes the BBC
special ?

Will.
--

" Wiiiiiinnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddd puff puff "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Will Hand" wrote in message
...


20/5/05

Just watched the 1330 national forecast right through. It has been quite windy
this morning here in the SW and I was wondering if it would die down this
afternoon (I know really but you see what I mean !).
Not one mention of wind throughout the entire forecast, the only clue was the
mention of blustery showers. Come on BBC don't be shy :-)
Then later we had David Braine he did show the paper aeroplanes and mentioned
gales tomorrow, but if he had not mentioned gales the paper aeroplanes would
not
have indicated that. I consider this a very serious issue now if potential
gales
either do not get mentioned or are not shown properly on a forecast.
How much did the BBC pay for this package? £1 million quid :-O I would have
thought that for that price we could have better graphics for wind than paper
aeroplanes.

Full marks to the Met Office presenters again though, keeping smiling.

Will.
--

1830 National forecast.

No mention whatsoever of any wind. No graphics, no words, nothing.

How on earth can anyone take a decision on our behalf that the wind is not
important ?
Mr BBC *WIND IS IMPORTANT* believe me.
They have wind on ITV, I'm told they have wind on SKY so what makes the BBC
special ?

Will.
--

" Wiiiiiinnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddd puff puff "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Will Hand" wrote in message
...


20/5/05

Just watched the 1330 national forecast right through. It has been quite windy
this morning here in the SW and I was wondering if it would die down this
afternoon (I know really but you see what I mean !).
Not one mention of wind throughout the entire forecast, the only clue was the
mention of blustery showers. Come on BBC don't be shy :-)
Then later we had David Braine he did show the paper aeroplanes and mentioned
gales tomorrow, but if he had not mentioned gales the paper aeroplanes would
not
have indicated that. I consider this a very serious issue now if potential
gales
either do not get mentioned or are not shown properly on a forecast.
How much did the BBC pay for this package? £1 million quid :-O I would have
thought that for that price we could have better graphics for wind than paper
aeroplanes.

Full marks to the Met Office presenters again though, keeping smiling.

Will.
--

1830 National forecast.

No mention whatsoever of any wind. No graphics, no words, nothing.

How on earth can anyone take a decision on our behalf that the wind is not
important ?
Mr BBC *WIND IS IMPORTANT* believe me.
They have wind on ITV, I'm told they have wind on SKY so what makes the BBC
special ?

Will.
--

" Wiiiiiinnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddd puff puff "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin Rowley wrote:
"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message

And it's not just about gales: I've seen it suggested that winds
are
somehow of little interest to Joe Public but I don't think that's
right. Looking outside now, here, the most noticeable thing is how
breezy it is. snip
For example, I'd be loathe to show the wind arrow
diagrams onscreen until I'd found a way to stop them looking silly
-
which is how they look to me at the moment. Francis's wind arrows
on
Sky News are about 10 times bigger and inspite of having only two
or
three wind "streams" over the UK, they give much more useful
information, easy to absorb, than the BBC's wriggling tiddlers.

... this was one of the facets I complained about in my submission to

the BBC; in fact, the *previous* wind-flow output was quite adequate
and
gave a useful indication (coupled with voice-over) of the change in
the
wind field during the forecast period.

Of all the aspects of the changes, I can't understand how this one
has
slipped through; *if* it is based on NZ experience, I know for a fact

that they are just as interested in such data as we are - so I
suspect
that someone made a decision based on little or no knowledge, and is
now
desperately digging their heels in (if still in post) to deny us the
information.

Martin.


I've been staying out of the pro/anti BBC debates, but I can no longer
ignore the continued references to NZ, for the following reason:

I went there in 2003, and fell in love with their forecasts. They used
the "zoom" thing, carefully going over the whole country and stopping
at each major town/city to give its forecast. They used images of what
did look like clouds, and at the start reviewed the max/min that day in
each of several locations. The presenters used informal language ("The
mother of all cold outbreaks" sticks in my mind for instance) but made
it clear they knew what they were on about. No wannabe Ulrika Jonssons
or anything. The weather was the best bit of NZ TV (everything else
seemed to be recycled British and Australian rubbish, they had that
Jamie Oliver teaching kids to cook thing for instance).

And the newspaper weather was even better. Huge synoptic charts, and
data for several places that had max/min reports to the nearest .1C,
rain, sunshine plus stuff like grass temperatures and evaporation.
Never seen that in the Telegraph or Guardian.

Edmund