While some do damage, I have to wonder if most of these events would be called merely whirlwinds or dust devils in most of the world? I'm also guessing that in an area of often high humidity, a funnel cloud might more easily form in a relatively weak whirlwind, that if it happened elsewhere.

Also, this is south-east England ("Berkshire into London") specifically, and also the Netherlands - some of the more densely populated parts of the globe, so I see a possible correlation to the density of observers here...

Exactly, I think the same, I was just commenting this too. I think it's more a statistical anomaly.

Citation needed. Oklahoma averages over 50 per year and is 2/3rds the land area of the UK.[0]

[0] https://www.weather.gov/oun/tornadodata-ok-monthlyannual

I assume the stat is actually that the UK gets more per unit of area than any other country except the Netherlands.

But also:

> the area from Berkshire into London had the highest likelihood of a tornado - one every 17 years.

What I saw was probably your UK annual 30-50 in a single small area all at once! Not huge, but many.

Yeah I'm from the Netherlands and I've seen several "tornadoes". However they're not the ones you see in the movies. They're real whirlwinds and I've seen them kill tents at campsites but buildings are generally fine. They come and go quickly.

They're high in number but I've never heard of one having a real mass-destructive effect like you see in the tornado areas in the US. I don't think we ever get that kind of thing.

I guess what makes us seem to have so many is not the actual occurrence of these but the high population density so there's always someone around to notice it. As opposed to some whirlwinds just spinning around in the desert.