So, the compulsory eradication of British weights and measures [see Local Government Association Public Protection Bulletin, below] comes under 'public protection'.

Why is it that this Orwellian phrase comes to mind:

Ignorance is Knowledge

Slavery is Freedom

War is Peace


_________________________________________________________

The Local Government Association has recently sent out a ‘public protection bulletin’ to all councils. The bulletin calls for councils to start prosecuting shopkeepers who may be serving customers in imperial weights and measures. It states, ‘LACORS is now encouraging Trading Standards to re-commence their enforcement of metrication regulations. Many local authorities have been justifiably cautious in their approach to the enforcement whilst waiting the outcome of the [European Court] appeal, but may now deal with offences in an appropriate manner with full confidence in the vires of UK law’ (LGA, Public Protection Bulletin, March 2004).

http://www.lga.gov.uk/NewsLetter.asp?lSection=0&id=-A78216E8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. I wonder what the Trading Standards Commissar will do if a local authority ignores his 'guidance' and doesn't 'enforce' compulsory metrication with sufficient rigour. Send in the troops?

If George Orwell ever imagined that criminalising traders for using the 'wrong' units was part of his nightmare scenario 50 years on, then he was already too late.

Laws controlling units for trade purposes had long been in existence even in his day.

It's funny how Tony is dead keen on the law being enforced when it comes to road signs but doesn't have quite the same enthusiasm for the law when it comes to weights and measures.

Why is that funny? That's what interest groups do. They lobby for laws that are favorable to them, and then fight for their enforcement. Why would anyone in their right mind urge enforcement of a law that they don't like?

Re: Extermination is 'Protection' May 17 2004, 12:45 AM


Why is that funny? That's what interest groups do. They lobby for laws that are favorable to them, and then fight for their enforcement. Why would anyone in their right mind urge enforcement of a law that they don't like?


metre:
Who would listen to maybe 6 or 7 hundred misguided people? The majority couldn't care less what measurements they use, so why not the good ones?

The majority would not like it if the change was made and that majority had to change too - with no consultation

The reason it's funny is because when a trading standards officer tries to ensure that the law is complied with it's petty-minded vindictiveness.

However, when Tony alters a road sign as part of his self appointed crusade to enforce a different law it isn't.

What's the difference ?

We need to separate two distinct philosophies here:

(i) The law should be obeyed even when it isn't popular for the sake of order in society and respect for democracy. If a law is bad then it should be changed using democratic means involving those empowered to change them.

(ii) Laws are selectively obeyed according to personal preference. If an individual accepts a law as reasonable they obey it, if not they defy it and face the consequences. Changes in law are brought about when defiance proves to be more popular than compliance.

These two ideals are incompatible.

Anyone who uses either (i) or (ii) for convenience is unprincipled.

Those who support both the Metric Martyr's campaign and ARM reflect!

Stan, people are not idealistic. Most people agree with some laws and not others. If you agree with the law because it matches your principles, you advocate enforcement. If you don't agree with the law because it goes against your principles, you either urge change or disobey. In either case you are upholding your principles.

re (Stan): "We need to separate two distinct philosophies here:

(i) The law should be obeyed even when it isn't popular for the sake of order in society and respect for democracy. If a law is bad then it should be changed using democratic means involving those empowered to change them..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: Of course, we would all agree to this first 'philosophy' rather than the second one you mention, i.e. obeying laws selectively.

However, as I have said elsewhere on this board, all sensible laws restricting certain kinds of behaviour are supported by the majority in a democratic society.

No-one disputes that there must be laws against, for example, murder, violence, robbery, burglary, theft etc.

However, many independent surveys showed that around 90% of British people (97% in one survey) do not believe it should be a crime to sell in pounds and ounces. Thus there is a good *democratic* basis for 'defying' this law, which was decided on by today's political elite - always assuming that it *is* the law, which is highly questionable.

On the subject of enforcing the law requiring all road, pedestrian and footpath signs to be in Imperial, amazing - is it not? - how Council officials can refuse to obey the law against metric-only road signs by saying things like:
'it doesn't matter', or
'we haven't got enough money to put it right' or even
'we're looking to the future when we understand metric will be permitted'

Furthermore, the most recent Acts of Parliament say that lb/oz are lawful in shops, and that only miles/yards/ft/ins may be used on road signs. So, BWMA and groups like ARM are entirely consistent in their calls.

This is the 198x act. I read it, and whilst it allows many Imperial weights and measures, it effectively abolished a load of them too, such as gills, as I recall.

Re: Extermination is 'Protection' May 17 2004, 6:28 PM


The reason it's funny is because when a trading standards officer tries to ensure that the law is complied with it's petty-minded vindictiveness.

However, when Tony alters a road sign as part of his self appointed crusade to enforce a different law it isn't.

What's the difference ?

metre:
You are asking the impossible. To answer your question logic is required, a faculty noted for its absence in imperialists.

Undemocratic Laws May 19 2004, 1:59 PM


re (Stan): "We need to separate two distinct philosophies here:

(i) The law should be obeyed even when it isn't popular for the sake of order in society and respect for democracy. If a law is bad then it should be changed using democratic means involving those empowered to change them..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: Of course, we would all agree to this first 'philosophy' rather than the second one you mention, i.e. obeying laws selectively.

However, as I have said elsewhere on this board, all SENSIBLE laws restricting certain kinds of behaviour are supported by the majority in a democratic society.

No-one disputes that there must be laws against, for example, murder, violence, robbery, burglary, theft etc.

However, many independent surveys showed that around 90% of British people (97% in one survey) do not believe it should be a crime to sell in pounds and ounces. Thus there is a good *democratic* basis for 'defying' this law, which was decided on by today's political elite - always assuming that it *is* the law, which is highly questionable.

On the subject of enforcing the law requiring all road, pedestrian and footpath signs to be in Imperial, amazing - is it not? - how Council officials can refuse to obey the law against metric-only road signs by saying things like:
'it doesn't matter', or
'we haven't got enough money to put it right' or even
'we're looking to the future when we understand metric will be permitted'


metre:
Related to measurements that diatribe loses its meaning for one simple word, SENSIBLE. Nothing about imperial units is SENSIBLE. Habitually convinient, patriotically tinged yes, but not SENSIBLE. How many more devastating examples do imperialists need to see the light?

Surely road signs, labelling and -to be honest- everything should be "convinient" ?

What's the point in divising things to be "inconvinient"?

Twit