Gaz:

and.... Once again he gains publicity. 

Yup, and that is the reasoning behind all this, plain and simple

.

Trickster:

Tempting. Just a pity he would start  'slander legal proceedings' against anyone who confronts him

I happen to be acquainted with someone who, jokingly, referred to a former teacher as a paedophile on a website (a few years back, it was something like friends reunited), and his former teacher was able to to sue him and the website, and he won £5K out of them both. I certainly know that if Facebook become aware you have published potentially defamatory or inciteful content on their website they'll simply delete it and may even ban you from holding an account.

So I wouldn't, if I were you.

Apart from being defamatory, it is harassing to publish stuff on the internet calling someone 4 letter words, where the general public can read it. You wouldn't put stuff like that in print. Why should anyone (even Piers - we're not talking Josef Fritzl here) have to tolerate it?

Whatever you think of his forecasting he clearly excites something in the contributors to this forum, so I personally hope we don't see the end of him either!.......

gert83:

Whatever you think of his forecasting he clearly excites something in the contributors to this forum,

Usually a combination of anger, frustration and despair in my experience.

Speaking of slander, doesn't Piers frequently state, in a rather unprofessional manner, that the Met Office and global warming scientists are simply lying and duping everyone about potential climate change? What's good for the goose and all that.

Incidentally, I don't subscribe to slander and name calling either and wouldn't defend anyone who personally insults Piers. For the record though, I haven't missed him during his rather low profile recently.

There can be a fine line between free speech and slander, the trouble is as far as I can see (and I'm not legally qualified, but I have some knowledge of these issues) that Piers actually has a business based on his reputation as a forecaster.

Now Piers does get it wrong, but he also does get it right (even the most churlish sceptic has to admit that). The question mark lies over whether he simply guesses the likeliest weather using a combination of ambiguous language and a good knowledge of normal weather patterns, or forecasts on the basis of a technique.

He claims he bases it on a technique, and the only peer reviewed study of his accuracy concluded his forecasts were better than chance.

So I would say on that basis you're definitely asking for trouble if you publish stuff which damages him.....a half decent lawyer could probably make mince of you, and give him plenty of potentially positive publicity in the process.

+ simple namecalling and insulting - well that's just straightforward harrassment.

Sorry Gert, accusing an organisation of lying, especially when it's a competitor, meets every definition of slander. I don't know why you're off again on a mission to tell us how Piers does his forecasting, as it has nothing to do with anything. There's no way I can even begin to start talking about weather industries and legal obligations, but what I will say is that the likes of the MO etc have been extremely professional, perhaps even kind, by ignoring the potentially slanderous comments Piers makes about their work. Your comment of "making mince" would just be a start!

Just to add, your last post has come perilously close to suggesting that we are all at risk here on TWO by writing anything which may damage his public reputation. I'm not at all surprised that you're taking this line. Damaging his reputation would be as simple as saying "I don't think he's a very good forecaster". So in essence, you're suggesting that anyone who suggests anything negative about Piers is opening themselves up to trouble. How very 'Piers' of you

gert83:

There can be a fine line between free speech and slander, the trouble is as far as I can see (and I'm not legally qualified, but I have some knowledge of these issues) that Piers actually has a business based on his reputation as a forecaster.

Now Piers does get it wrong, but he also does get it right (even the most churlish sceptic has to admit that). The question mark lies over whether he simply guesses the likeliest weather using a combination of ambiguous language and a good knowledge of normal weather patterns, or forecasts on the basis of a technique.

He claims he bases it on a technique, and the only peer reviewed study of his accuracy concluded his forecasts were better than chance.

So I would say on that basis you're definitely asking for trouble if you publish stuff which damages him.....a half decent lawyer could probably make mince of you, and give him plenty of potentially positive publicity in the process.

+ simple namecalling and insulting - well that's just straightforward harrassment.

Any half decent lawyer would need to prove that on recent perfromance his forecasts were indeed better than guesswork. Is that evidence available anywhere?

Any time I've seen his own sensationalist claims posted in advance they have totally failed to materialise. That's not slander, that's observation. I admit I have only paid attention to the the high profile claims and can't comment on the more day-to-day type forecasts, if he produces them.

I won't comment on Piers as an individual as it doesn't interest me, but I will comment on his forecasts. If they were better than the Met Office or even as good given the difference in resources he would be both very rich and very famous as people will pay very good money especially for accurate LRFs.

Bren, you seem convinced I am Piers. I'm not.

I just think it's a bit off calling him 4 letter words and suggesting we start a facebook site ridiculing him.

That's really nasty behaviour - you deserve to get in trouble for doing stuff like that. I think, however, you might agree with me.

Taking the 18z at face value tonight Mr Corbyn might not be far off!! Ironically.. Although not the weekend in question, the end of this week and into next week end is showing a northerly, albeit weak and unlikely to produce snow it would still be a shock to the system brrr

 

Aaron

Maybe I shouldn't post on TWO when i've had an annoying weekend and am in a bad mood ....

< comments deleted >

CreweCold:

Taking the 18z at face value tonight Mr Corbyn might not be far off!! Ironically.. Although not the weekend in question, the end of this week and into next week end is showing a northerly, albeit weak and unlikely to produce snow it would still be a shock to the system brrr

 

Aaron

 

Hmm yes I saw that, although in summer a northerly usually results in another heatwave after it.

If someone brought up his name in conversation, i would change the subject

The biggest way to hurt him, is to not read any articles by him, that are published, and leave it at that

There are radio presenters in this country, that i can't stand. I simply don't listen to them

The 'shock jocks' want to get a reaction from their 'over the top' pieces of writing... but life is too short 

ElusivePolarLow:

If someone brought up his name in conversation, i would change the subject

The biggest way to hurt him, is to not read any articles by him, that are published, and leave it at that

There are radio presenters in this country, that i can't stand. I simply don't listen to them

The 'shock jocks' want to get a reaction from their 'over the top' pieces of writing... but life is too short 

My sentiments exactly! I only ever know he's said anything publically when I read it here. Most of the time he doesn't affect me

gert83:

Bren, you seem convinced I am Piers. I'm not.

I just think it's a bit off calling him 4 letter words and suggesting we start a facebook site ridiculing him.

That's really nasty behaviour - you deserve to get in trouble for doing stuff like that. I think, however, you might agree with me.

I don't think you're Piers, Gert, and you're in saying that I agree. It just seemed to me that you were hinting that any comments made in public which may damage his business would open that person to prosecution. On the basis that calling his forecasts into question could have just that effect, it appeared to be a subtle attempt at censorship.

Bren, I'm not an expert in libel laws, but if you asserted that he simply guesses his forecasts and the results are no better than chance - which is what some people do on this forum - then he might legitimately have an issue with that - you're basically telling his customers they're paying for something they could do themselves. He claims to have a technique of forecasting based on solar activity, and the only peer reviewed study of his LRFs concluded they had a better accuracy than could be achieved by guessing. If you wanted to assert that recent sensationalist forecasts attributed to him have often been inaccurate, then that's self evident. And calling him 4 letter words or starting Facebook sites dedicated to ridiculing him is pure harrassment, although i don't think you need convincing of that. It's not censorship, people pen abuse on the internet without thinking, about either what they are making themselves liable for, or, more importantly, the effect it has on the person they're abusing.