My main reason for being annoyed over the issue of whether it was 60 or as
we later found out 133 mm of rain, was that I saw it reported in an overseas
newspaper that "British West Country suffers floods after 60 mm of rain" in
one foreign paper. That makes us as a nation look a bit stupid.
I am delighted to see that not only has it been resolved, that also the
Met office have had discussions to see how they can improve forecasts and
warnings with some new radar that they have.



"TudorHgh" wrote in message
...
I am delighted to see that someone has come up with some realistic
figures
for this. It annoyed me to see in the media 60 mm (just over 2 inches in
2
hours). It was damned obvious from this damage that it was much more than
this.
I would like Philip Eden to make something of this important issue in
his next column in the telegraph as I feel ( as I am sure other do ) that
an
event like this is extremely important and significant.


Gavin Staples.

The hasty reporting of an inappropriate rainfall figure can
hardly be
called an "important issue". The media thought they had to come up with a
figure so they grabbed the first one they got. That's what they do. And
what
does it matter? I can't quite visualise the rescue services saying "2
inches
in 2 hours? - they can sort that themselves".
To the people of Boscastle the event itself will remain in their
memories for ever, but in a larger meteorological context it is not
siginificant. The south-west is known to be prone to these rare but
devasting
downpours. Even the dear old Guardian has yet to attribute it to Global
Warming but I've got my beady eye on them.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.