Judge Kelly's written judgement is now available on the internet. For convenience, here is the link:

http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Trial%20of%20Mr%20Bennett.htm

Immediately after the judgement is a BWMA analysis which identifies and explains its discrepancies and omissions. The texts are quite long so people are advised to download the page and then disconnect from the telephone.

People are, of course, invited to give their own judgements and verdicts via these forums.

Re - the BWMA claim that Judge Kelly ignored section 131(2) of the 1980 Highways act.

"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".

The real problem here could be the overzealous interpretation of this section of the act, by the defence.

There are two aspects to this, one is to do with the literal interpretation and the other the more common sense view which assess the spirit and intention.

Firstly a lot could hang on that phrase "lawfully placed". Does this mean any sign not complying with regulations, no matter how minor the infringement, or does it really mean a sign erected without proper authority?

The defense did not challenge the authority of the contractor to erect proper signs, so if the latter is the correct interpretation then there is no basis for an appeal.

On the second point one has to ask why this sub-section was put into the act at all. The concerns here will almost certainly have been to do with public safety and convenience when erecting signs on public highways. If someone erects a sign which is seriously misleading or even dangerous then it makes sense to empower others to remove it quickly rather than have to wait for legal authority involving delays which might put people at risk or cause serious inconvenience. In the event the individual would have to subsequently show no doubt that their actions were justified in order to shelter behind subsection 131(2).

So it remains to consider whether Mr Bennetts actions were justified in the above sense. The contention here was merely that the signs were informing motorists of the hazard using metric measures rather than imperial. It hardly seems likely that this would be regarded as justified in terms of causing a public safety hazard or inconvenience. Mr Bennett did not challenge the accuracy of the signs in terms of the units used or that they were otherwise misleading, and since everyone knows what a metre is they gave adequate information and were proper as metric warning signs.
If anything it was Mr Bennett who created a potential hazard by removing them.

Now of course all of the above is (I would say reasonable) speculation about the validity of the defenses claims. But in the end the law is there to protect people not to be exploited as a weapon by pressure groups such as ARM to further its cause.

A sign that does not conform to the requirements of the law cannot be "lawfully placed". There cannot be ANY lawful authority, on the part of the contractor or anyone else, to place signs contravening the provisions of the Highways Act upon the public highway. So the Bennett defence is sound in law.

OK. Thank you Paul. I can on reflection see that your literal interpretation is the correct one.

I stand by what I said however in terms of its spirit and intent. It was not put there to sanction the sudden and unexpected removal or obliteration of hazard warning signs just because they show metric instead of Imperial measures. That, potentially, would be downright dangerous.

If signs need to be ammended to make them comply with the 1994 regulations it should be done in an orderly manner, not by someone taking the law into his own hands.

I have said previously that I do not in general terms approve of people 'taking the law into their own hands', but there is an unusual context here, which includes the following:

1. The law bans all metric distance signs on British roads and highways.

2. There is a very good reason for that - confusion. Quite apart from the fact that many motorists do not know the length of a metre, it is confusing to have two systems of measurement in operation at the same time. No other country in the world does.

3. Transco had been warned about their use of illegal metric signs in 1997 (Sussex) and twice in 2001 (Cheshire and Lancashire). Although they conceded in a letter in 1997 and a 'phone call in 2001 that their signs were illegal, they had done nothing about it for over 4 years.

4. ARM now has details of 109 separate authorities and transport companies that have used illegal metric distance signs. That is a very significant breach of the law.

5. The 'proper authority' for enforcing consistency with and conformity to the Traffic Signs Regulations on our roads and highways is the Department of Transport. It would not be unfair to say that they have done nothing to ensure that the law on metric signs is obeyed. Their routine response is "It's nothing to do with us, it's down to local authorities to interpret the law". This is a lame excuse when one compares the amount of government diktats issued for example in the fields of health, education, race relations etc.

6. The Department of Transport has consistently refused reasonable requests from BWMA to meet with them to discuss how to stop the continuing erection of illegal metric signs.

7. 86% of the people want signs to stay in miles and yards against only 8% who want them in kilometres and metres.

8. There is specific authority in the law (Section 131(2), Highways Act 1980) for people to 'pull down' or 'obliterate' signs 'placed unlawfully on the highway'.


There would be no need for ARM to act if the 'proper authorities' were doing their job.


T Bennett

Did what you did put anyone at risk - by not seeing a warning sign about roadworks for example?

This website shows pictures of the signs that were removed/amended (see 'Trial of 'Guard the Yard' Campaigner').

The main warning signs consisted of a large triangular 'Danger - Men at Work' sign, under which was a much smaller sign giving the distance in either yards or metres. The smaller distance signs showing metres were removed by me. On the smaller approach roads, there were two 'Danger - Men at Work' signs before the pipeline, on medium-sized roads three and on the main roads four (at 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile, 220 yds and 110 yds). So cars had plenty of advance warning. The Judge was plain wrong to suggest that any danger whatsoever was created by the removal of the signs.

Some larger signs on two main roads read 'Site Entrance Ahead - 800 metres' (or similar). The words '800 metres' were covered over. Transco/McAlpine arranged for labels showing the correct distance in yards to be placed over the covered-over distances 2 or 3 days later. This they would not have done but for my actions on 1 July.

T Bennett

T Bennett

Re:
"8. There is specific authority in the law (Section 131(2), Highways Act 1980) for people to 'pull down' or 'obliterate' signs 'placed unlawfully on the highway'."

This does not authorise you or anyone else to steal or damage other peoples property. The higways act has no connection with those relating to theft or criminal damage. That is why Judge Kelly rejected your claim.

BWMA:

Re:
"2. There is a very good reason for that - confusion. Quite apart from the fact that many motorists do not know the length of a metre, it is confusing to have two systems of measurement in operation at the same time. No other country in the world does."

Would the BMWA care to comment? Do you agree with this?

We agree on the element of confusion. While we do not see a problem with using different units/systems for different purposes, problems arise when different units/systems are used for the SAME purpose.

On the point about dual usage overseas, we understand that Ireland has haphazard metric/mile signing. A few American states still have dual distance signs (eg Maine), although most have reverted to mile-only signs.

T Bennett

Re:
"The Judge was plain wrong to suggest that any danger whatsoever was created by the removal of the signs."

I am unimpressed by your claim that your actions didn't compromise public safety.

Messing around with warning signs is a dangerous business. Some indication of distance would have been better than none at all.

In any case you had no right whatever to interfere with those signs, they had nothing to do with you. You did not have the right or the expertise to decide what constitued safe signing at or around that site.

You and all your fellow members of ARM who go around interfering with public signs just because of an obsession with the yard, coupled with an arrogant interpretation of British law, are nothing more than a public menace!

If people can work this out-
"I lost five pounds this week"

They should be able to know what
"Work access 100m ahead" means.
Why? because we are not stupid.
The first statement could mean a fiver dropped out of my pocket or I was busy on the stairmaster all week.
Go figure nitwits.

The issue with the road signs is not merely that they were metric - the key point is that they were unauthorised. They had no lawful validity and should not have been there.

Otherwise, the roads will end up like the rivers, with some signs in kph and others in mph.

Is it me or are "Victoria"s posts simply being ignored these days?

RL:

The issue is indeed that the distance indications are in metres on some British signs. Don't be fooled by the 'Guard The Yard' campaigners claim that they are merely enforcing traffic sign regulations.

Irrespective of what the regulations say everybody knows what a metre is, unless that is they have buried their heads in the sand over the last 30 years.

Similarly, everybody knows what feet and inches, but submissions for planning applications that use them are still rejected by local authorities.

This is because it is irrelevant in law whether people, in a private capacity, know they mean - the question is whether the LAW recognises the units.

The difference is that local authorities enforce the legal requirements whatever they happen to be. If it were still feet and inches they would reject planning applications in metres.

If the transport sign regulations allowed metres but not yards, would the 'Guard the Yarders' be prepared to report or potentially take the law into their own hands to get rid of imperial signs?

I think the sad thing is that local authorities do not enforce the law and are themselves quite often breaking the law.If you or I broke the law e.g by using lbs/ozs without reference to metric weights then you can rest assuredthat Trading Standards officers backed up by the Police would be round and the Council would take you to court.However if the Council breaks the law by using metric distances then trading standards depts and the Police don't want to know as I have tried.All you can then do is to use pressure e'g publicity.

It is not surprising that the TSO or the Police expressed no concern over breaches of traffic sign regulations.

The TSO are only concerned about units used for trading purposes and since these regulations are backed by criminal law it potentially involves the police.

There are no criminal offences relating to breaches of the TSRGD and since they are not about Trading standards neither the Police or the TSO have any legitimate interest.

It's interesting to note that having to work against both Police and the Council somehow undermines your assumption that the public largely supports your cause.

After all, police officers and Council members are also everyday people, and unless you're willing to accept a strict line to be drawn between officials/public it's somehow difficult to reconcile those people (the officials) working against you.

Ralf

{After all, police officers and Council members are also everyday people,}

Council members are only small minority. The police work for the councils.

In any case, it's a well known fact that governments don't always work for the people. Often certain pressure groups will force the government to favor their interests over the rest of the public. That is how metrication got started, and that is the only reason it continues.

>Council members are only small minority. The police
>work for the councils.
>In any case, it's a well known fact that governments
>don't always work for the people.

I would say it's a well known fact that the public often doesn't grasp both the intention and benefits of certain decisions.
This sounds very much like pub politics to me; blaming "those up there" is intentionally reducing the complexity of the topic into a black/white scheme for the sake to have something to ramble about.

Ralf

The suggestion that metrication got started in Britain because a minority pressure group forced the hand of Government is complete and utter rubbish!

The lobbying for this in the sixties came (mainly but not exclusively) from the Federation of British Industries (now the CBI) on the grounds of a compelling economic case. Their surveys showed that dual working (imperial for domestic, metric for overseas) represented enormous costs to industry.

As for the assertion that the same 'minority' are responsible for its continuance, nothing could be further from the truth. Since the late seventies the political leadership over metrication has declined. Very little influence has been brought to bear by anyone. The Government(s) have back-peddled over metrication and allowed it to become totally distorted to look like an EU driven requirement from beginning to end.

Hence the ant-EU lobby has seized upon it as a convenient mantle. That is why they say they are only anti "compulsory" metrication not anti-metric, because they don't want to seem as though they are depriving us of the benefits of full metrication.

In reality the argument that keeping imperial along side metric allows the freedom to choose is complete baloney. If both are in use everybody has to know and engage both whether they like it or not. It just increases the burden on everyone and liberates no-one.

Nice !

Quote: "Hence the ant-EU lobby has seized upon it as a convenient mantle. That is why they say they are only anti "compulsory" metrication not anti-metric, because they don't want to seem as though they are depriving us of the benefits of full metrication".

The current drive for metric-compulsory and, from 2010, metric-only, labelling arises from EC directives. BWMA has no objection to metric existing as an option for people to use; it is the element of compulsion/exclusion of non-metric that we oppose.

Yes, we know that.
Stanley's point is (if I understand it correctly) that the EU law for metrication is only following the footsteps of an older, purely british, initiative to make the UK metric.
Which, of course, raises the question why noone objected the political movement at that time and why you're fighting against it only now when everything (ie the laws) are chiseled in stone.
Back then you would have had much more impact (and also legitimacy of your cause), now you have to fight against institutions, get prosecuted etc.

Ralf

The so-called "Confederation of British Industry" IS a "minority pressure group", set up to lobby governments on behalf of big business (especially, despite its name, multinationals) for special privileges for its members. It is by no means dedicated to policies genuinely beneficial to the economy as a whole - and its propaganda deserves to be given little more credence than the self-serving emanations of ordinary politicians.

Either way, you're trying to call back the ship when it's already almost on the other side.

Ralf

But the ship is empty! There's no-one on it!

Paul: We'll just have to agree to disagree as far as the CBI are concerned. There is a little more to them than you say. I stand by what I said about there being valid economic case. The fact is the CBI are a respected source of information and evidence when it comes to formulating industrial and economic policy. They may not represent the economy as a whole, but they do represent an important part of it, namely wealth creation, which affects us all in the end. They weren't the only intersted party and the support for metrication at the time was quite widespread.

BWMA: When I referred to the anti-EU lobby I was mainly thinking of the UKIP whose main political agenda is just that. They also claim not to be anti-metric in principal (see the economy section of their manifesto).
However if the cap fits by all means wear it, at least we now know that the BWMA is also anti-EU, contrary to your claim to be non-political.

Ralph: Just to confirm, yes you did understand me correctly, and I also think that your point about the belated protest is an important one.

If the pro-imperialists think that they can wind the clock back to the pre-metric era then they are crazy. Britain is committed to full metrication eventually, and according to the DTI we are already 90% there.

BWMA is not non-political, merely non-Party political.
And we are not anti-EU. We are, however, against certain EU directives. Our above comment was not meant as a statement on behalf of Euro-sceptic movements.

QUOTE: "Stanley's point is...that the EU law for metrication is only following the footsteps of an older, purely british, initiative to make the UK metric...you're fighting against it only now when everything (ie the laws) are chiseled in stone".

ANS: At no point has the UK endorsed the EC directive. It is correct the UK government (in 1965) endorsed the move towards metric in industry. However, no legislation was passed; this process remained at the discretion of the private sector.

The last Act passed was the 1985 Weights and Measures Act that gave equal status to metric and imperial.

BWMA does not accept the view that a government can over-rule Acts of Parliament with secondary legislation passed under earlier Acts. We say, for the EC directive to be implemented, the government must go back to Parliament and either repeal or amend the 1985 Act.

I don't agree at all. The CBI, however you cut it, IS a "minority pressure group". That's a fact. It does NOT represent more than a tiny minority of people in this country. It doesn't even represent more than a small fraction of British industry or "wealth creation". Most of the wealth of this country is actually created by much smaller businesses, some of whom have their own pressure groups, often in opposition to the CBI. The CBI represents a small group of top executives, whose interests are not even identical to those of their companies' shareholders, still less with the interests of the British people as a whole.

No one was preventing companies that wished to use metric units from doing so. The demands came from those who saw an advantage to their own special interests from forcing unwanted metrification on others.

Big businesses no longer attempt to maximise profits or productivity - which merely makes them a target for confiscatory taxation and overregulation - but rather to maintain or increase market share. Compulsory metrification is proportionately less of a burden for big businesses than for small ones, which is why big business is often in favour of it; it gives them an relative advantage.

"The CBI, however .........does NOT represent more than a tiny minority of people in this country."

Not actually true. It may represent a numerical minority of businesses but those businesses employ (directly or indirectly) a majority of people in the country.

"It doesn't even represent more than a small fraction of ...........wealth creation"

Again - see above

"Most of the wealth of this country is actually created by much smaller businesses"

See above.

"The CBI represents a small group of top executives, whose interests are not even identical to those of their companies' shareholders"

Eh?


"Big businesses no longer attempt to maximise profits or productivity"

Eh? this is an opinion - not fact, and a sweeping generalisation.

"Compulsory metrification is proportionately less of a burden for big businesses than for small ones"

Why? In many cases (my own business for example) the opposite is true.


NB. Since I found out that I am acually T Bennett (see previous posts last week) my nom de plume will now be APP T Bennett from now on