Thought it wise to get the first salvo in, although, at the time of being questioned by the Express, this really did look a distinct possibility and to some extent, still does. Granted, it was only 2% of the actual over all statistical readout, right on the extreme far edge of foreecasts, as the other 298 models saw a less severe look to matters, however, I couldn't ignore the 2%. It would have been a Mr Fish incident, the storms that weren't supposed to but actually did. I didn't, (to the best of my knowledge), call it a "beast" either. As for Piers, well, he might be right, but I don't think it's going to sink that far south. All models pointed toward disruption, I think I've said enough for now, I'll get me coat Jonathan PWS How it's compiled: 300 plus computer models that I run from self written software, collating data of my own since 1979.