From the Trial page:

>For a sign to be classed as a distance sign, it must
>be in yards and/or miles. The signs taken down by Mr
>Bennett did not have yards and miles; in law,
>therefore, they were not distance signs.

>A sign that says "400 metres" is not providing a
>distance in law. It says merely "400", followed by
>some letters: m-e-t-r-e-s that have no legal meaning

How can a sign without meaning be illegal ?

Ralf

...because it's not permitted by Parliament; the relevant Regulations specify only miles and yards for distance signs. When attempts are made by various authorities to erect illegal metric signs, the lettering used has included:

'metres', 'mtrs', 'mts', 'mt', and 'm' -

the last of which is routinely seen on British traffic signs and means 'miles'

T Bennett

Yes, but my point is, if the sign doesn't show a distance (according to your argument), than it's just a metal plate with funny letters on it and is therefore rather private property of Transco.

Ralf

The answer to the paradox is that they are signs which falsely and unlawfully purport to be lawful distance signs.

I see so if a motorist saw a sign saying 'Road Works 800m ahead' he might think that meant road works 800 miles ahead would he?

Another case of the 'Bennettists' thinking they know best?

Why not just say "I hate public opinion" ?

I stick with what my mother told me:
"Just because everybody does/thinks it, it doesn't mean that it's right"

In fact, when a government does something unpopular and thereby risking their next election, it's usually an indicator that they're really doing something good for the public and that they are extremely sure that it IS good.

Ralf

Of course it all depends on whether it's actually worth voting at all at the next election!

Ralf: "When the government is doing something unpopular...usually a sign it's doing good for the public..."

Like the Poll Tax?

T Bennett