UK Rainfall 2012-The Report The Met Office Should Have Produced

Guest post by Paul Homewood

Annual 2012 Rainfall 1981 - 2010 anomaly

According to the Met Office,  UK has just had the second wettest year on record, just behind 2000. These claims, however, are based on records dating back to 1910. The Met Office also keep a rainfall series for England & Wales, which date back to 1766, and these cast a slightly different light on the matter.

(As Scotland and N Ireland have been drier than normal, the England & Wales portion becomes particularly relevant).

Figures 1 and 2 show the annual rainfall for this series, with 10 and 30 year running averages.


Figure 1


Figure 2

The following points stand out:-

1) The wettest year was 1872, when there was 1284mm, compared to 1244mm in 2012. It was also wetter in 1768. Clearly the impression given by the Met Office, that the rainfall last year, and in 2000, is somehow “unprecedented” is not true. One is entitled to wonder why they made it.

2) The 30 year trend would suggest that rainfall was lower for most of the 19thC, but that it has been relatively stable since.

3) Both on 10 and 30 year trends, there have been many years previously at the same level as now. The wettest spell was during the 1870’s and 80’s. The 1920’s were also comparatively wet.

4) Inter-annual variability, of the sort seen in the last two years, is not uncommon, for instance 1871-72.

Seasonal Variations



Figure 3

The winter graph, of course, is for Dec 2011 – Feb 2012, but shows the trend in recent years to drier winters, (not withstanding December 2012, which was much wetter). In contrast, summer rainfall has been on an increasing trend. (Figures for Spring and Autumn seem not to offer much of a trend).

The change in Winter and Summer patterns is significant because they run counter to projections made in the UK government’s Climate Change Risk Assessment, presumably put together with the help of the best brains that the Met and CRU can offer, and which forecast much reduced summer, and much higher winter precipitation.

Either their models are hopelessly wrong, or the global warming, they are predicated on, has stopped.

North v South

As the map at the top indicates, Scotland has been relatively dry, suggesting that rain belts have shifted southwards, bringing some of the rain Scotland normally gets down to England. And, of course, it is no secret to Brits that the jet stream has been shifted south of its normal position for much of the year.

Rainfall in Scotland is much higher normally than in England. Scotland usually receives about 1600mm of rain each year, compared to 855mm for England. Last year, England’s total was 1123mm, so it can be seen that Scotland has still been, by far, the wetter of the two.

Julia Slingo has been quick to blame higher rainfall on warmer temperatures. But does Scotland receive more rain than England because it is warmer? Is it surrounded by warmer seas? Her argument simply does not hold water.

I mentioned the jet stream moving south, but it would be more accurate to describe it as a meridional pattern.


Low pressure systems, that tend to move faster with a zonal flow, often become blocked with a meridional flow. for much of the year, the UK has been stuck in the “bulge” coming down from the north, at the same time, of course, as parts of the US has seen a block of high pressure.

It is pretty much par for the course, that many climatologists have been linking this phenomenon with the melting of Arctic ice. It is, however, worth bearing in mind that Hubert Lamb found exactly the same meridional jet flow in the 1960’s and early 70’s. In his volume, “Climate: Present, Past & Future”, he describes the effects of the changing climate at that time, when Arctic ice was expanding:-

…….much smaller changes over middle latitudes, where the most significant feature has been the very awkward type of variability from year to year, associated with the behaviour of blocking systems and meridional circulation patterns.

 Examples of the consequences of these features include a number of serious items besides the extremes of cold and warmth, drought and flood associated with the occurrences of blocking in middle latitudes.

I cannot leave this North v South topic without highlighting what the Met Office themselves have projected. In 2011, they published a report called “Climate: Observations,projections and impacts”, which was written by a team led by a certain J Slingo. This report is absolutely clear:-

Europe shows a strong contrast in projected precipitation changes, with large decreases in the south and large increases in the north. The UK falls towards the northern region with generally increasing precipitation, with projected increases of up to 10%, though some southern parts of the UK may experience decreases of up to 5%. There is generally good agreement between ensemble members over the north of UK, but moderate agreement further south, indicating uncertainty in the position of the transition zone between increasing and decreasing precipitation over Europe.

While the exact demarcation line is not certain, they are sure that the North will be wetter, and the South drier. This is the opposite of what has happened in 2012.

It would appear that the Met have very little idea as to what will actually happen.

Extreme Rainfall

According to Slingo, “The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is one we are seeing around the world, in countries such as India and China, and now potentially here in the UK”. But is rainfall really becoming more extreme in the UK?

While UK rainfall was 15% higher than the 1981-2010 baseline, rain days were 10% higher, so two thirds of the extra rain can be attributed to more rain days, rather than “heavier” rainfall.

Nevertheless, average rainfall has increased from 7.4mm to 7.8mm per day, but this does not necessarily mean that individual days have become  more extreme. For instance, swap a day, when you get a short shower, for a day when you get an inch of rain, and the average goes up. Yet an inch of rain is neither extreme nor unprecedented.

So to test these “extreme rainfall” claims, I have analysed daily rainfall records dating back to 1931 and provided by the Met,  for Oxford, which lies in the very wet belt seen on the above map , in the south of England and to the west of London. Across this part of the country, rainfall last year was 31% above normal.


Figure 4

Figure 4 plots the days when rainfall exceeded 26.0mm, of which there have been 99 since 1931. The following points stand out:-

1) There appear to be more days in the lower band, up to 40mm, during the past decade.

2) During 2011 and 2012, only two days appear, at 37.0mm and 32.8mm. With 99 such days over 82 years, an average of one a year is exactly what you would expect!

3) Most significantly though, the really “extreme” days happened decades ago. The six wettest days were :-

Date mm
10th July 1968 87.9
6th Sep 1951 84.8
22nd June 1960 81.3
27th June 1973 67.3
12th Aug 1957 56.1
6th Aug 1962 53.3


Figure 5

Figure 5 shows the average number of days above 26.0mm for each decade, and also for the last two years. It bears out the suggestion that there has been an increase in such days between 2001 and 2010, but that the last two years are back to normal.


This is the detailed sort of analysis that you won’t see from the Met Office. Instead, Slingo obsesses about global air temperatures and extreme rainfall events.

Slingo herself admits that more work needs to be done to predict long term trends. I would question, however, whether she is the right person to lead this work, if she cannot take off her blinkers.

After Note

I found a couple of pictures, drawn in 1872, of the floods at Windsor at that time. One was in January of that year and was published in the “The Graphic Magazine”. The second relates to the floods in December 1872/January 1873 and was published in the Illustrated London News on 4th January 1873.

Floods January 1872

Thursday and Friday 25th and 26th January 1872.

A view from the GWR railway viaduct towards Windsor, with the floodwater reaching the lower areas of the town.

1873 from round tower

The Floods of early January 1873 from The Round Tower

Plus ca change!


1) All data on rainfall and raindays is from the Met Office.

2) Climate Averages

3) The England & Wales precipitation series is also from the Met.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

When rainfall was low, they said global warming would bring worse drought.
Now rainfall is high they tell us global warming will cause more floods.
Credibility of AGW scientists now < zero.


Julia Slingo has been quick to blame higher rainfall on warmer temperatures.
in the UK!!!!
it’s getting cooler,

didn’t they also have a state of drought while the floods were happening?

Billy Liar

What’s the betting Julia Slingo gets to spend more time with her family soon.


How regrettable that UK taxpayers are funding such incompetence as is the Met Office.
We are no more advanced than when the tribal leader called upon the witch doctor to caste bones.
CAGW alarmists are just a modern day reincarnation of the primative witch doctor/priests…they have answers for everything of course as they need to maintain their illusions of a higher knowledge.


Yes, nice post. Nothing much is going on. When the history of this mania is written it will be classified under the history of hysteria, not climate.

M Seward

I think all we are really seeing is that the Met Office, having established a media relations unit/officer/whatever, now is captive to the interests of that unit/officer/whatever in appearing ‘relevent’ and ‘on the job’ and with an appetite for issuing press releases. Any old crap will do so long as it gets a media run. Nothing to see really folks, its just a self serving beat up. Ditto for material coming out of most public organisations these days.

Tony B (another one)

Excellent post. It demonstrates the continuing cherry picking of data with which such AGW-obsessed organisations and groups as the Met Office are irretrievably linked.
The massive fraud continues – time for a letter to one of the (few) sane MPs who might actually raise this in Parliament, with the question “The Met Office – can this country afford it?”


Julia Slingo was given an honorary PhD from Bristol University and well deserved. It is quite clear she did not need to do a real one as her brilliance with figures is undeniable!

Julia Slingo hails from the met office in exeter. I Visit it frequently in order to use their excellent archives for my fact I will be there tomorrow.
Whilst there I have read through hundreds of books and references to the climate in the UK and exeter itself with records and observations back 1000 years. I have also looked through the archives of the excellent library at the medieval cathedral in exeter
What is perfectly obvious is that we live in a very benign age. The rain and flood episodes in previous centuries makes it seem that 2012 was a drought in comparison.
Julia and her fellow scientists should walk the few yards to their own archives-where I understand they are strangers–and read some of their own documents expensively brought from their previous hq in Bracknell.
As Paul homewood demonstrates the record does not support the met office assertions

Tim Walker

AGW is mostly just about politics and propaganda, but then most of us on here already know that. Still articles like this are important, because we have to keep the toes of these propogandists in the fire.


In England, we have weather. Weather varies; always has done, and always will.
Stack statistics together, and you can call it climate – but you need the right statistics to separate out places with three or four milimetres of rain, virtually ever day, from those with a couple of heavy storms – two or three inches each – each month for eight months if the year. They will have ‘similar’ average annual rainfall.
Paul Homewood has done a very good job getting all this data together.
Many thanks, Paul!
We see that we have had weather, for the last quarter-millennium or more. And before then, too, remember.
It is not absolutely clear – although maybe I could make a guess – why the Met. Office ignored the England rainfall series when they trumpeted ‘unprecedented’ rainfall for 2012.
[My patch of England was in drought until mid-July!]
But when they have the data themselves, available on their website [per references], it doesn’t take an ocean-going conspiracist to smell – well – a rat!
Others can make their own comments, and draw their own conclusions.
I know what I think one problem is.
Dick in Shakespear’s Henry VI – ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers!’ – goes too far, but can we not seek to penalise all who promoted the CAGW religion?
Loss of tenure; even docking their pension by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent if private sector, perhaps up to 33% if public sector?
Can we claim back the sovereignty casually handed to various quasi-global bodies – in politicians’ desire to be seen to be dooing [sic. A typo that looks good to me, actually!] ‘something’, even if that something [oh, fuel from crops, say] kills poor people from starvation – whilst not mitigating the perceived problem, let lone the real one!?
Again, heartfelt thanks to Paul Homewood.


Post Fact Science. Cherry picking data and rewriting science, after the fact, is now standard practice for climate scientists & the modeling techniques they use.
The crystal ball and palm reading crowd must be sitting back thinking they’ve had it extraordinary unfair all along when they see what climate scientists get away with.


Slingo had better wrap up warm. That thing children aren’t supposed to know is back.

Forecasters have predicted temperatures could plunge to -5C in some parts of the country next week with snow storms arriving as early as Saturday.


On the temperature front the UK Met Office has just announced that there will be no further warming of the globe for the next five years of 0.43 C above the 1971-2000 average (of course). And of course they maintain that the warming trend has “not gone away”.
And here in Oz the heat wave and bushfires we have just had over the last few days “is entirely consistent with extreme events” according to the BOM spokesperson and “unprecedented” and caused by “climate change” according to the Prime Minister.
The drivel keeps on flowing at every opportunity.

Tim Clark

I saw her last 7 predictions. 0 for 7. She needs a new model.

This is a nice job. The Met office like many others of its kind around the world should and aught to be presenting sound, well documented, accurate information. That is job one. Job two is providing the public with clear, meaningful and useful analysis. Job three is making your political masters look good. The Met Office like so many others has the job priority order out of sequence. When that order is dictated by the politicians, instead of, in this case, the sound principals of Popper’s science, dishonesty generally results.

Stephen Richards

In ‘her ‘ paper, Slingo quotes the Brit assurance group as a technical reference. That says it all.

Myron Mesecke

Slingo herself admits that more work needs to be done to predict long term trends. I would question, however, whether she is the right person to lead this work, if she cannot take off her blinkers.
Should the last word be blinders?


The Met Office had constantly warned us about increased frequency of droughts in the UK caused by global warming. Now they warn us of more floods and a temperature standstill caused by global warming and natural climate variation. What is going on with these jokers?
Slingo should be fired.

26 May 2010 – Met Office
“Number of droughts likely to increase under climate change
A Met Office study on how climate change could affect the frequency of extreme droughts in the UK has found a range of possibilities — the majority of them showing such droughts will become more common.”


Einar Rønbeck Evensen says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:22 pm

didn’t they also have a state of drought while the floods were happening?

Yep. And it produced the funniest image I’ve seen for years.

Mike Smith

Very nice simple paper. Excellent presentation of actual data sans models!
All of these variations from the normal/average… they’re called weather! A concept that the Met Office appears to have missed because their heads are up in the clouds (or possibly a much darker place).


First it was drought. Now ‘extreme’ rain fall. Next we will hear that absolutely average weather is caused by CAGW.


Excellent post. I have just one criticism about Figs 1 and 2in that they appear to have running averages which are trailing averages, ie the average curve point is the average for the preceding period. I think it would be more sensible to show the running average as a centred mean as this then picks out the actual pattern in the time series better, putting highs and lows in the running average in alignment with the actual data values. Still a fantastic post though!
[I plead guilty!! Paul]

Two major UK university centres measure local rainfall and as ever they do compete
Oxford wins on rainfall (Atlantic) good for industry (Midlands), Cambridge wins on sunshine (North Sea) good for agriculture (Anglia).

Lil Fella from OZ

When was the shift in the media and public office between reporting facts and applying them, to advocacy to herald something in regardless of the truth. Better known in the old days as propaganda.
Then again I have to admit, I am probably getting slower with age. Slow down!!!
We are thankful for the efforts of all those attempting to uphold the truth regardless of the degrading tactics of the GWS mob. Keep at it!!!!

Matt G

“I mentioned the jet stream moving south, but it would be more accurate to describe it as a meridional pattern.”
Very good article, just one issue regarding this.
The jet stream further south can be part of the meridional pattern, but this it not the only reason. The jet stream has literally moved further south across the entire NH at times. A meridional pattern never becomes this large and below highlights this observation.
The Jet stream is further south than normal along the entire NH shown on this graph.
This is a typical meridional pattern shown below with large section moved from south to north and two sections north to south.
Overall the movement of the jet stream over recent years has been to a much more southern position, but this has be even with the absence of a meridional pattern.

Ian W

Myron Mesecke says:
January 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm
“”Slingo herself admits that more work needs to be done to predict long term trends. I would question, however, whether she is the right person to lead this work, if she cannot take off her blinkers.””
Should the last word be blinders?

In UK English – blinkers; in American English – blinders. Both are correct
[Reply: a colloquial Americanism: to be “blinkered” means to have blinders on. Blinders = leather cups that only allow a horse to see in one direction. — mod.]

Matt G

ThinkingScientist says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:45 pm
I noticed that too, but the advantage this way could be explained by having the mean over recent years that we are particular interested in. The other method would lose the recent 15 year period with no mean.

Green Sand

vukcevic says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Two major UK university centres measure local rainfall and as ever they do compete

Fascinating, thanks, but you really do need to change the chart lines to Light and Dark Blue:-)


Julia Slingo is doing her job , feeding the government what she thinks it needs to keep them feeding the MET . Is not ‘science’ in the first place .


Only someone that has not studied the weather, could ever imagine they might control it.
Yet, here we are.
Babes (or would that be wolves) making the first venture into the wood.

Allen B. Eltor

Well, at least the infrared astronomy fields on the earth and in space are tracking the ever rising atmospheric infrared in the earthshine frequencies, right along with the rise in manmade gases.
That way we can at least, eventually have accurate attribution and forecasting.
Oh – that’s right – there’s LESS atmospheric infrared after the past 15(ish) years, at the same time the overall volume of gases being pumped out is larger and larger.
Doh. Just checking – what does it mean when they told me “greenhouse gases” were going to “make for more water vapor as atmospheric infrared climbed” and
“greenhouse gases rising by a third in fifteen years results in a DROP in atmospheric infrared, and a DROP in atmospheric water vapor,
and a total FAIL on every projection made about primary signals of greenhouse gas heat handling.
What does that mean?
It means “the connection between greenhouse gases and rising temperatures is unquestionable.”
It means when I do an experiment, adding CO2 to one jar of atmospheric air while leaving another as is, and then the one with added CO2 COOLS, that CO2 heats the jar that cools.
And if I catch Al Gore doing that experiment online, and with easily found video artifacts determine he switched the thermometers when HE did that experiment, and the jar with the added CO2 COOLS,
that’s called “the jar with the CO2 with that COOLED, got WARMERCOOLER.
Then if someone else does that same experiment, and the jar THEY added CO2 COOLED, it means the jar that cooled, got warmer.
That’s what the people of this planet are being told to swallow. That when world famous people associated with this go online and do experiments which show CO2-added jars of atmospheric air COOL,
that it had better be very plain to everyone that if you add more CO2 to a jar and it cools,
and if you add 4,000 ppm to the air in submarines and there’s no discernible change, that’s called WARMING and that I had better get used to it.
I venture to say before it’s over, there’s going to be so much proof this tree-ring circus is a hoax, people will be ADMITTING they believed in it, rather than BRAGGING they believed in it.
The entire scientific power of all mankind, can’t make one, experiment show up a warmer CO2-laden environment: in a jar, in a submarine, in a greenhouse, in the earth’s entire atmosphere.
The giant heater in the sky folks.
It’s too sophisticated a concept for me to measure and be right.
Because government employees said so.
That’s more than a bald faced lie.
That’s crime.

“The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is one we are seeing around the world, in countries such as India and China, and now potentially here in the UK”. J. Slingo.
This looks like an elementary, non-scientific mistake. Find some regional changes and apply them to the global, i.e. mistake details for the general, or some yamals for the forest.
It is interesting that localized “positive” extremes carry the message, while localized “negatives” are part of the background variability. I understand the 3X standard deviation rule for differentiating noise from data. But that presumes we understand the true range of “noise” and background patterns in noise.
It is said that random events don’t happen randomly, that there is a clustering. Even the concentration of galaxies shows clustering, let alone our personal experience that gave rise during WWI to the expression “clusterf**k”. We also experience the odd event at a significant level: Gallup polls state “This survey is considered accurate to +/- 3%, 19 out of 20 times”, that is, one in twenty times some other result different from their observation would have come out.
We have just one temperature record, and only one, 140-year instrumental period, and we are in an argument about only the last 37 years, since 1975 (though the eco-green consistently think the story starts about 1850). Our ability to recognize what trees define the forest, or even what we mean by a forest, is limited.
If Slingo et al were not committed to having The Answer, cause and effect nicely and neatly packaged up with a pretty green bow on top, warmist and skeptic would be at each others’ throats. But then, the bureaucrats and Goreists wouldn’t be fighting at the trough of frightened consumers and taxpayers, either.

Peter Miller

I see snow is falling in Jerusalem today – further incontrovertible proof of global warming.


Early last month the MET Office admitted there had been no warming for 15 years….but Sligo maintains continued AGW. The warmist agenda seems to start at he end of the “Littel Ice Age”, when the sun became warmer and then along came the beginings of modern life and a bit more CO2. However they miss the point. We are in a Holocene, one that has been cooling for 10,000 years. Apart from their lack of understanding of the science they have no appreciation of context and scale.

Allen B. Eltor

All of our money and intellectual effort –
put into hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars’ research, when including the relevant, peripheral, atmospheric research done for Mars, and our probes, etc –
when the total CO2 in the atmosphere rose by a full third in about the last fifty years –
when the total man made CO2 in the atmosphere rose by a full third, about the past fifteen –
And all mankind has looked for the giant heater with everything we have,
people are so intimidated by government employees
that the entire western world is being told ‘Shhhh you don’t want to spoil our credibility.’
“we don’t want to be called silly by saying we don’t believe in, the giant heater in the sky.”
That’s what life in the Western world has come to.
You don’t have PERMISSION to claim you “don’t believe in the giant heater in the sky.”
The giant heater in the sky is there, you just what – ?
You just refuse to ”believe it.
Actually I believe the entire spread of instruments from Galileo’s optical astronomy field: they haven’t said added heat in the atmosphere is occluding their ability to view the sky, and they have computer controlled mirror flexing machines to take away the effects of atmospheric infrared from the earth at night: wavering of the atmosphere. Scintillation aka the twinkling of the stars.
Heat on gas is motion. Why isn’t there increased motion with increased heat?
I believe in the thousands upon thousands of radiosondes whose measurements were made fun of by the same people who thought Mannian Statistics might have been math.
I believe in the atmospheric research equipment launched into space that samples the spectrum of light coming from the earth: it hasn’t ever issued one peep there’s additional earth shine frequency infrared, in the atmosphere. Even though the equipment’s designed for just such tasks.
I believe in the fact that men in submarines for fifty years have lived in submarines which go from atmospheric air to 4,000 ppm CO2 because it doesn’t have to be combed out: I believe all the electrical and electronic and nuclear and hydraulic and thermodynamical engineers on those boats underwater for months on end, would have noticed when the atmospheric heat started climbing like crazy.
I believe in the fact there’s not one word from those men with nothing to do but fixate on their equipment and instrumentation’s functions, about how ‘Air with more CO2 handles heat differently than air with lower levels.’
I believe in the fact the greenhouse industry researchers in universities for a hundred years never discovered a single unusual thing about the way their thermostats and thermometers handled when they raised CO2 levels to 1500 and whatever (think of the number of times fans were accidentally left off and CO2 allowed to accumulate).
I believe in that.
I “believe” in what the instrumentation record all across mankind’s history says, and said.
I believe that in all the thousands of years mankind has been fermenting alcohol, with CO2 a pure, byproduct thereof, never – not once – remarking that when the CO2 was in certain conditions, heat was handled differently by the air impinged upon by such raised levels.
So I believe till somebody shows me a test proving to me CO2 has anything to do with air handling heat differently, they had better do more than “believe” there’s no way I can check on their story.

Paul Homewood
Many thanks for an excellent analysis of a very strange PR campaign.
Julia Slingo has form:
and she doesn’t seemed to have changed her ways since she moved to the Met Office.

Allen B. Eltor

Maybe Julia Slingo would like to come over here and explain her ‘scientific’ rationale, on her own. Maybe she needs to be invited to tell her side: after all, there’s a lot of obviously baseless ‘unbelief’ going on in here.
And this is the world’s largest climate reference blog/scientific discussion site.
She could clear this whole thing up once and for all, and between us all: statisticians, mathematicians, applied science majors, applied science professionals – we would probably be able to put that all together, since apparently it’s so complicated that once you work for government, it’s simultaneously obvious it’s too complicated for human language to encompass, but so simple it’s “silly” not to believe in it.
Maybe Anthony Watts would, or we could, invite her to tell her side?

Old England

The UK met office have all the data which shows the position of the jet stream. I asked them the other day if they could publish this – they said thay had a few requests for this and that they are considering doing this and certainly will if there were enough requests for it.
I think it would be interesting to plot this against both precipitation and temperatures as I suspect some correlations might appear. If you think the data would be interesting then maybe you could email the Met Office (or call them if you are in the UK) and ask for the data.
[Reply: Got a contact link for the Met Office? — mod.]

Hot off the press:
Satellite-Era Model-Data Precipitation Comparison for the UK and US
It would be nice if the models at least got the signs of the trends correct. So far the models have had no success in that:
I think I’ll look at Australia and Canada next, and then, the continents.

Mac the Knife

Very well done, analyses and presentation!
Send the Bunko Squad for Ms. Slingo…..


“There is generally good agreement between ensemble members…”
Hopefully, they won’t take up chamber music, though individual busking might be on the cards.


At January 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm in response to a suggestion that Dr Slingo be invited to contribute to WUWT you ask
“[Reply: Got a contact link for the Met Office? — mod.]”
Tony b is visiting the Met Office tomorrow. Perhaps you could provide him with the invitation so it can be personally delivered?


I don’t understand the problem here. Its a wet-drought. see completely in keeping with the models. It goes with the warm-cold the dry-rain and the less frequent-increase in storms.

I respect the qualities of the female gender but it seems that there are a lot of women around the world that have been promoted above their level of competence (a la Peter Principle This is more likely to happen when there are calls for equality and quotas. A consequence of the Peter Principle is that the incompetent administrators surround themselves with even more incompetent people so that their incompetence is not so obvious and they have someone to blame. The answer is to get rid of a lot of people at the top and change the culture. The Met seems to be a candidate. Sometimes the rot is so deep that it maybe better to scrap the lot and start again. Unfortunately, when that happens with the major political parties (especially when government and major opposition are infested with incompetents ) it is hard to turn around and the public suffers for a long time.

RobW says at 5:05 pm…
In other words, it’s the same difference.
Yogi Berra would be proud.

John F. Hultquist

Well done, Paul.
Perhaps this will find its way to Julia Slingo’s desk**. One could attach a Post-it® note saying “Just the facts, ma’am.” [Dragnet]
“. . . I understand they are strangers ”
Oops. You’d better carry along a box of nice chocolates tomorrow.