With many smaller firms only being around for 20 years as listed above, the Met Office has experience over them. It is one of the longest established weather forecasters in the world. Its conception was in 1854. Back then the data used to be collected by ships on sea. They then upgraded to aviation techniques to collect their meteorological data. With such a wealth of experience in collecting, analysing and forecasting the data, how could the BBC even contemplate taking on a less well endowed weather forecasting company?

Whilst we may criticise the Met for its lack of accuracy in seasonal forecasts, surely these innocent mistakes are not as damaging as the deliberate misleading of the public to suit commercial purposes. For example, Metra, the most likely candidate to replace the Met Office for the BBC, also provides weather forecasts for Tesco, Sainsbury's, Marks & Spencer and Waitrose. Therefore, this firm has a bias towards supermarkets. What we could see happen is weather forecasts being published by the BBC which promote or encourage the purchase of certain items depending on the supermarkets preference. Agreements could be made between these commercial firms to stock up for umbrellas with Metra then releasing reports on the high probability of rain. This chance of commercial interference with information is the same reason why the BBC is independent of advertisements. A national enterprise should not be seen to promote any one company or influence the public’s view s or spending habits. This independence of BBC is threatened if it contracts with a firm other than the Met Office.

If this event occured, and there were commercial forecasts, I can only forsee misguided forecasts followed by adverts for that forecast. For example, a prediction of snow, followed by an advert for boots/jackets/scarves/gloves etc.