This is an interesting case in which the evaluator of a prediction. like a judge, may choose
to interpret a prediction either literally or try to get into the mind of the predictor and
determine what he "really" meant.
Roger is correct that 500 - 600 km is a long way off for a prediction, especially when
the predictor clearly stated parameters for his prediction which did not match the occurring
event. In the strict sense, Don's prediction did not match this event.
Hypothetically, it seems unlikely that a predictor would choose to predict for an area,
however, if the predictor did not feel the potential for a large quake did not exist -
consider Roger's previous arguments against prediction of small quakes. It seems
reasonable that, although Don did not so state, he considered the possibility that
a larger regional event was more likely at this time than at other times.
If the predictor had chosen a much larger area and size for the event, his choice
of date alone would have made this prediction quite spectacular.
His advisory (he stated it was not a prediction) seems to have been for a small event
in a localized area, but his underlying meaning is somewhat less clear.
It is too bad that Don did not reply to Roger's question regarding the time window
of this advisory. On June 5 a microearthquake (Ml 1.2) was reported on the BGS
web site about 120 km from Don's predicted epicenter. While still outside the
radius of 80 km Don gave, it is within the magnitude limits and general area.
I would advise posters to look carefully at this case. Don made a statement
which while he noted it was not a prediction could be construed as a prediction.
His statement did not include vital information for evaluation such as time window
of occurrence. This has led to the current discussion. Each reader can thus make
their own subjective evaluation of Don's statement.
Even though the prediction was incorrect in detail, it certainly did point to
a time and a general location where an unusual event occurred and it was the
first and only such prediction Don has made for the region - that is, he
doesn't predict such events every day like some predictors are prone to do.
Hypothetically, had he said something like a moderate earthquake in the northern France/southern England region between 8-10 June, 2001 we would all jump on the Kudo bandwagon.The chance of predicting an event of Ml>=4.9 in this region within 3 days is about
the same as of predicting a Ms>=7 in the region of California within 3 days, and we
all know how easy that is.

• Recent earthquakes in area of Britain