I hope you all saw this post today from Andy?


"This is why Tony Bennett's anti-metric organisation has been allowed to get away with changing road signs from metric to imperial. The signs in metric are technically illegal so Mr Bennett is effectively altering them so they comply with the law".

"This is why Tony Bennett's anti-metric organisation has been allowed to get away with changing road signs from metric to imperial. The signs in metric are technically illegal so Mr Bennett is effectively altering them so they comply with the law".

"This is why Tony Bennett's anti-metric organisation has been allowed to get away with changing road signs from metric to imperial. The signs in metric are technically illegal so Mr Bennett is effectively altering them so they comply with the law".

Have you got something wrong with your computer Tony? You keep posting chunks of text 3 times.

re (Stan): "Have you got something wrong with your computer Tony? You keep posting chunks of text 3 times".


REPLY: No. I am adopting the celebrated advice George Bernard Shaw gave to those making a speech with a message, or writing an essay with a message, which runs like this:

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

Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em,
Tell 'em it,
And then tell 'em you've told 'em it

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

"This is why Tony Bennett's anti-metric organisation has been allowed to get away with changing road signs from metric to imperial. The signs in metric are technically illegal so Mr Bennett is effectively altering them so they comply with the law".

I was simply trying to explain to our American friend what the situation was here. I don't quite understand how you think my post was in any way condoning the actions of ARM.

I find it incredible that your actions are tolerated. Tampering with road signs should be a serious offence, regardless of what alterations you are making.

Andy wrote

<<
The signs in metric are technically illegal
>>

No Andy - they are unlawful. There is a sublte difference between "unlawful" and "illegal". Tony is trying to con everybody into thinking that he was modifying "illegal" signs whereas in fact he was modifying "unlawful" signs.

To put things into perspective. If you put a "30 mph" sign up outside your house which complies exactly with the speicifactions for the sign, the sign is illegal since nobody is permitted to erect road signs without the express authorisation of the highway authority concerend. On the other hand a weather-beaten and semi-legible "30 mph" sign that was erected by the Council thirty years ago is unlawful because it is longer complies with the specifications, but it is not illegal because the COuncil has the right (if not the duty) to erect road signs.

re (martin): "Tony is trying to con everybody into thinking that he was modifying 'illegal' signs whereas in fact he was modifying 'unlawful' signs".


REPLY: Quite a strong allegation, martin! You appear to be taking a leaf out of Beranger's book of unwarranted accusations.

Look at the dictionary - in fact, look at a range of dictionaries - and you will see that there is little difference in definition between 'illegal' and 'unlawful'. One might as well say 'illicit' -again, it would be hard to unravel the distinction between the various definitions for these three words. 'Forbidden' is another. These different words have little, if any, practical effect in the civil and criminal law of this country - and are often used interchangeably.

Let me give you a simple practical example. 'Unlawful sexual intercourse' is, er, illegal.

But, actually, I'm quite content to rely on the statement - which you and Andy concede - that the metric-only signs are 'unlawful'.

And remember that Section 131(2) of the Highways Act 1980 gives A.R.M. supporters every right to remove (and 'obliterate') any sign 'unlawfully placed on the highway'.

And Andy might care to recall that the sentence handed down by Maidstone Crown Court for removing dozens of road signs, placing them in hollows, and amending some of them, was an Absolute Discharge.

So the campaign goes on

OK, I see what you're saying Martin. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the exact legal status of the sign is. A member of the public does not have the authority to alter it!

<<<A member of the public does not have the authority to alter it!>>>

Or SHOULDN'T have. It seems from Tony's post above that they do.

Sorry if this has been covered many times before, but what is the legal status of a footpath sign using metric? Is that illegal/unlawful and do the public have the right to obliterate it if not?

Andy, this is the wording of Section 131(2) Highways Act 1980:

"If a person without lawful authority or excuse pulls down or obliterates a traffic sign placed on or over the highway - he is guilty of an offence; but it is a defence in any proceedings under this subsection to show that the traffic sign was not lawfully placed".

To answer your later query, metric signs along footpaths are on the public highway [see DPP -v- Jones 1999], are consequently unlawful as they must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, and therefore can be, have been and will be removed or amended by A.R.M. supporters.

Lea Valley Park Authority, after finding 130 of their signs amended to miles and yards by A.R.M. supporters, have recognised this by replacing all their old signs in kilometres with new ones in miles and yards. They look really good!

OK, from a legal point of view I can now see where you are coming from.

In principle it is the same as if I went round removing imperial-only price markings from market stalls and supermarket shelves and replacing them with metric or dual ones to comply with the law.

But although I would be ensuring compliance of one law, I would no doubt be breaking others in order to do that.

I'm no expert on law, but I have always wondered why it is so difficult to amend legislation that is clearly inappropriate - allowing the public the right to tear down perfectly good signs and change them to how they prefer them to look.

I find it particularly offensive that a council which is forward-thinking enough to erect signs using units that will not be obsolete at some point in the future, can legitimately have its carefully designed signs torn down by a minority activist group.

And don't give me the figures from some survey saying x% of people prefer imperial. The question is how many people OBJECT to the metric signs.

re (Andy): "...Councils who are forward-thinking enough to erect signs using units that will not be obsolete at some point in the future..."


REPLY: LOL! I call them 'law-breakers'

<<I find it particularly offensive that a council which is forward-thinking enough to erect signs using units that will not be obsolete at some point in the future, can legitimately have its carefully designed signs torn down by a minority activist group.>>

I don't live there, so my opinion won't (shouldn't) count for much, but I think that is VERY well stated.

re (Andy): "carefully designed signs..."


REPLY: Unlike those two million or so carelessly-designed signs all in Imperial measures on British roads and footpaths. LOL!

When those signs were designed, the choice of unit was probably appropriate.

When a council erects NEW footpath signs they might well be there for the next 50 years or so. That is why some common sense has been applied as to the units used.

<<When a council erects NEW footpath signs they might well be there for the next 50 years or so.>>

I wonder how many pro-mets felt this way over 30 yrs ago.

re (Andy): "When a council erects NEW footpath signs they might well be there for the next 50 years or so. That is why some common sense has been applied as to the units used".


REPLY: Fascinating. Decisions are now to be based on 'common sense'?

Obviously, Andy, not on public opinion, otherwise they would erect the signs in miles and yards, given that 86% of British people in a survey in 2002 (carried out by ICM) said that they preferred their road and footpath signs in miles - with only 8% preferring kilometres and metres. And that was in line with many other surveys, as Warwick Cairns showed convincingly in 'The Weight of Public Opinion'.

And obviously not on the law, either, in your brave new world of common sense.

Just think, we could scrap all our laws. You could start a new political party, Andy: "We are the Party of common snese. All our decisions will henceforth be based on common sense. If our laws are not based on common sense, we'll simply ignore them".

Zimbabwe operates a bit like that at the moment

Tony said

"re (martin): "Tony is trying to con everybody into thinking that he was modifying 'illegal' signs whereas in fact he was modifying 'unlawful' signs".

REPLY: Quite a strong allegation, martin! You appear to be taking a leaf out of Beranger's book of unwarranted accusations."

Tony

1) Please point out any of my "unwarranted accusations", and we will revisit the subject matter of the thread......

2) Was this quote by the same Tony that later said "there is little difference in definition between 'illegal' and 'unlawful'? There is quite a difference between "strong allegation" and "little difference in definition"

Does the difference widen when you wish to suggest that the words mean different things (as in "strong allegation") and then shrink when you want to suggest that "unlawful" and "illegal" mean the same thing?

Tony also said

"And Andy might care to recall that the sentence handed down by Maidstone Crown Court for removing dozens of road signs, placing them in hollows, and amending some of them, was an Absolute Discharge"

Tony, I'm sorry to use the word "duplicitous" again, but my memory was that you were found Not Guilty of theft, but Guilty of (at least?) one charge of criminal damage. The sentence is not the same thing as the verdict!

Anyway, the main point of my post.....

The Forestry Commission seem to be using new signs. They are placed by the tree-line at the side of roads. I have no idea whether they are "on or over" the highway, as I don't happen to carry a map showing all land owned by the local Highways Authority.

In addition, I'm aware that the Forestry Commission are an agency of the Crown, who are not subject to many Acts of the UK Parliament.

Should I report their signage stating "Forestry Operations, Caution, Lorries Turning 100m" to ARM?

Can we have some guidance as to ARM's views as to the legality of these signs?

re (Beranger): "The sentence is not the same thing as the verdict!"

REPLY: Well, well, you learn something new every day.

(But not from Beranger)

re (Beranger): "The Forestry Commission seem to be using new signs. They are placed by the tree-line at the side of roads. I have no idea whether they are 'on or over' the highway, as I don't happen to carry a map showing all land owned by the local Highways Authority. In addition, I'm aware that the Forestry Commission are an agency of the Crown, who are not subject to many Acts of the UK Parliament. Should I report their signage stating 'Forestry Operations, Caution, Lorries Turning 100m' to ARM?"


REPLY: The Council of Active Resistance to Metrication has extensive correspondence with the Forestry Commission precisely on this issue.

The Forestry Commission (their Scotland Head Office) have twice conceded in writing that their various metric-only signs break the law. On both occasions, they have promised to ensure that their signs comply with the law, i.e. are in Imperial only.

After A.R.M. supporters discovered and amended Forestry Commission signs at Cannock Chaase, Shefford (Bedfordshire) and at Dinas Mawddy that did not comply with the law and amended them, the Forestry Commission wrote a letter to the Council of A.R.M. virtually begging - certainly pleading - to be told of any other metric signs, which they said they would prefer to amend themselves, rather than have them done by A.R.M supporters.

The brand spanking new Imperial-only Forestry Commission signs at Shefford are a classic example of the Forestry Commission's new drive for Imperial-only signs which comply with the law.

An A.R.M. supporter will shortly be making a spring-time inspection (it's a good time for spring cleaning) of certain Scottish Forestry Commission forests and their accompanying signage.

And the two metric highway signs reported in Thetford Forest, Norfolk, along the A11 [so many m----s to the nearest car park], which remain unchanged despite the Council of A.R.M.'s warning letters, will be dealt with shortly by other A.R.M. supporters.

So, yes, you should contact either A.R.M. - or the Forestry Commission, referring them to correspondence with Mr Bennett and Mr Norman of A.R.M.

After all, now, a Trading Standards Officer is a professional who, above all, insists on zero tolerance of measurement crime and (doffs cap to martin) measurement unlawfulness

<<<a Trading Standards Officer is a professional who, above all, insists on zero tolerance of measurement crime and (doffs cap to martin) measurement unlawfulness>>>

So who's the real "little Hitler" then?

Is it the TSO, who is simply doing his job?

Or is it the person who uses his own leisure time to ensure everyone complies with government regulations?

Hmmmm...

Tony states

"Tony Bennett's post said: 'The sentence handed down'

Agreed Tony. I'm sure that you would also agree that the paragraph finished with the words "an Absolute Discharge."

You have previously shown your lack of knowledge of Scots Law. But did you know that Absolute Discharge has an totally different meaning in US Law when compared with English law?

If the prosecutor makes an error, the defence can ask for an Absolute Discharge. If this is granted, the defendant does not face trial.

For an example, see

State v. Knudtson, 262 Neb. 917 (Filed December 14, 2001. No. S-00-1307.)

1. Judgments: Speedy Trial: Appeal and Error. Ordinarily, a trial court’s determination as to whether charges should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds is a factual question which will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

2. Speedy Trial. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207 (Reissue 1995) provides that every person indicted or informed against for any offense shall be brought to trial within 6 months.

3. ____. The primary burden of bringing an accused person to trial within the time provided by law is upon the State, and the failure to do so entitles the defendant to an absolute discharge.



Either you knew this (in which case, I would suggest that your original post was definitely duplicitous), or you used the phrase to avoid admitting that you were found guilty on one (or more?) charges (duplicitous language)

And yes, I am aware that this is a UK site, but I would suggest that there are more US posters than Scots or Welsh posters here. Perhaps one of them could state what they thought Tony's "Absolute Discharge" actually meant?

<<but I would suggest that there are more US posters than Scots or Welsh posters here. Perhaps one of them could state what they thought Tony's "Absolute Discharge" actually meant?>>

I could only guess, as I am completely lost:
*First, you have laws that make your preferred system of measurement illegal for some things.
*Second, the subtle distinction between illegal and unlawful told me this was about semantic minutiae, and understanding it would take more knowledge of the British legal system than I have.
I know how Alice felt.

However, guessing, I assume the charges were dismissed for some technical reason and that no determination of guilt/innocence was made. I might further guess that the technical reason precludes bringing the charges again, with better evidence (the American counterpart would be "dismissed with prejudice.")

But then again, most of us are pretty sure OJ got away with murder in our system.

"However, guessing, I assume the charges were dismissed for some technical reason and that no determination of guilt/innocence was made."

See what I mean, Tony?

JohnS-MI

In the Scottish courts, an "absolute discharge" is one of the options open to the Sheriff after the accused is found guilty. He gets a criminal record, but no further punishment (i.e. community service, or a fine, or worse!) is imposed.

The court can also impose a conditional discharge or a suspended sentence. If this option is chosen, no further punishment is imposed as long as the guilty party is not convicted of a similar offence for a specified period of time.

I believe that a similar system applies in England. I'm sure that Tony will explain in detail if what happens south of the border is substantially different.

I know very little of the English system of "Costs" - Scots Law has no similar system in criminal cases - each side pays their own costs.

Maybe Tony could enlighten us as to whether he recovered his costs, or whether the Police recovered costs from him or whether no costs were awarded to either side?

I note that Tony pasted today. I also note that he didn't reply to my questions on this thread.

Again.

I'm putting the thread back to the top of the board, just in case he missed it.

Sorry to have to do this!