There's no doubt that these forecasts are poorly written and constructed from a plain English and grammar perspective.
At @johnholmes, it's not the meteorological content that's the issue, it's the words that are chosen to convey the message.
I really feel that as a supposedly premier met organisation, and with this being their main public facing content, they should take more care to ensure that the wording is appropriate. It needs to be clear, relatively easy to understand, and coherent. Too often it isn't, and frankly, whatever the quality of the underlying science, the presentation of the message is very poor and that's not good enough.