"Alan Gardiner" wrote in message
...

"Phil Layton" wrote in message
. ..
The bit that has surprised me is that there was no recordable rain here
in
Guildford at all from this Low.

Phil


I only recorded 1.3mm here in St Albans so I am not surprised as the
fronts
were quite fragmented by the time they reached the South East. Got a
little
rain from th bent back occlusion which just brushed past to the north.

Alan

...........and only 0.3mm of rain here with a gust to 37mph.

All the best
--
George in Epping, West Essex (107m asl)
www.eppingweather.co.uk

On 15 Nov 2003 00:07:03 GMT, David Buttery
wrote:

"Will" wrote here on 14 Nov 2003:

snip
But in these days of litigation, auditors and bean-counters breathing
down your neck what would you do ?
snip
Yes, but (though IANAL and all that) I think it might be dangerous to
assume that only under-forecasting would be subject to that sort of
thing. It's not hard to imagine over-forecasting having the same
problems.

This old chestnut keeps popping up... but has anyone actually heard of
a successful prosecution against *any* UK forecasting service or
forecaster? It would not be easy for a prosecution of this kind to
succeed (there are many high hurdles to get over) and until one has,
it seems a waste of time, effort and money for it to be taken into
account when issuing forecasts.

According to this 2003 American report:
http://www.rbs2.com/forecast.pdf on page 48,
"There have been only two reported cases that went to trial in which
the plaintiffs made a convincing proof of negligence against the
National Weather Service". And that is in the litigation mad USA!

So, has this ever happened in the UK? I haven't heard of it and if
not, the "litigation" explanation for "over the top" forecasting
sounds like an excuse, does it not?

--
Dave

In article ,
Dave Ludlow writes:
[re litigation over an incorrect forecast]
So, has this ever happened in the UK? I haven't heard of it and if
not, the "litigation" explanation for "over the top" forecasting
sounds like an excuse, does it not?

I don't think that it has happened _yet_, but that does not mean that
forecasters may not be genuinely worried about the possibility of it
happening in future. (Sorry about the double negative in that sentence,
but hopefully you get the drift.)
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Ludlow writes:
[re litigation over an incorrect forecast]
So, has this ever happened in the UK? I haven't heard of it and if
not, the "litigation" explanation for "over the top" forecasting
sounds like an excuse, does it not?

I don't think that it has happened _yet_, but that does not mean that
forecasters may not be genuinely worried about the possibility of it
happening in future. (Sorry about the double negative in that sentence,
but hopefully you get the drift.)

but surely you would be more open to litigation if you knowingly overstated
a weather event as you would be if you just got the forecast wrong.

After all, if it was an genuine mistake then the court might well decide
that you did your best under the circumstances. But if someone cancels a
function because the forecast was so dreadful, and it comes out that the
forecast was overstated as part of a stratagy to cover the forecasters back,
then I would have thought the court would take a pretty dim view of it.

Jim Webster

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:44:42 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

"John Hall" wrote in message

I don't think that it has happened _yet_, but that does not mean that
forecasters may not be genuinely worried about the possibility of it
happening in future. (Sorry about the double negative in that sentence,
but hopefully you get the drift.)

but surely you would be more open to litigation if you knowingly overstated
a weather event as you would be if you just got the forecast wrong.

After all, if it was an genuine mistake then the court might well decide
that you did your best under the circumstances. But if someone cancels a
function because the forecast was so dreadful, and it comes out that the
forecast was overstated as part of a stratagy to cover the forecasters back,
then I would have thought the court would take a pretty dim view of it.

Quite. A good defence against an action for negligence is to show that
you did your best i.e. in this case, issued the forecast it was
thought most likely to occur (or a range of possibilities with
probabilities). Anything other than that is potentially negligent.

My main point though is that *if* policy is to "play safe" by
overstating things for fear of litigation, you are doing the public
and industry a disservice to protect against a court case that may not
occur for another 10 or 20 years. Compared to the total budget of the
Met Office over that period, whatever damages are paid will be tiny.
Anyway, that's the job of Insurance or, in the case of Government
agencies, "self-insurance" (Government contingency funds).

The Met Office should simply get on with issuing the best forecasts
they can and if they need to cover themselves, do it with
probabilities - the real probabilities! I really do think that the
litigation/overegging forecasts argument simply doesn't hold water.

But maybe that's what they do anyway....

--
Dave