One of the more absurd - and unlawful - signs in Imperial units was spotted recently in the lovely Shropshire village of Stoke St. Milborough, Shropshire. It said: "Bends for 547 yds'. Clearly a conversion of 500 metres into yards; 500 metres is just over 546 yards and 2 feet.

Just as absurd as the fingerpost sign at the Robert Burns Centre in Ayrshire pointing out that the distance to the nearny church is '787 metres'

The authorities in question probably used an ordinance survey map to estimate the distance and in all likihood they find it an absolute pain up the **** to have to change all their calculations into yards because some all-knowing civil servant is convinced that the average mototrist is incapable of understanding metres.

re (martin): "...to have to change all their calculations into yards because some all-knowing civil servant is convinced that the average motorist is incapable of understanding metres..."

REPLY: Let's summarise the reasons why British road and footpath signs remain in miles, yards, feet and inches:

1. 86% of us prefer it that way, as against only 8% who want to change (2002 survey)

2. 98% understand Imperial distances and dimensions, as against 27% who (claim to) understand metric distances and dimensions (2004 survey)

3. It would cost £1 billion or more - even the government admits 'several hundred millions'

4. It's confusing to mix units of measurement on road signs - successive Secretaries of State for Transport have said so

5. It's unnecessary to change them.

PLUS it will upset the three-and-a-half men, one woman and a dog who constitute UKMA

<<find it an absolute pain up the **** to have to change all their calculations into yards because some all-knowing civil servant is convinced that the average mototrist is incapable of understanding metres.
>>

Martin - did you know that you could reverse that around and make the law requiring the initial measuring of those roads forced to be metric then converted for the public absurd? Hmm?

BTW- noticed one of those daft "for 4000yds" signs the other day. If they're gonna be that daft they may as well use metres!

<<<did you know that you could reverse that around and make the law requiring the initial measuring of those roads forced to be metric then converted for the public absurd? Hmm?>>>

Maybe there was a law decades ago requiring plans to be metric, but there have been considerable advances in the equipment used since then and NO road designers, surveyers etc would ever work in imperial even if they had the choice.

re (Andy): "NO road designers, surveyors etc. would ever work in imperial even if they had the choice..."

REPLY: Wanna bet? Any sum you like

I'll bet you 100 virtual dollars

I thought even some of you lot admitted that for technical stuff, metric had advantages over imperial?

<<
BTW- noticed one of those daft "for 4000yds" signs the other day. If they're gonna be that daft they may as well use metres!
>>

Once they are used to seeing such signs, people can convert 4000m = 4km in their heads with ease (either that or the Italains are a lot brighter that the Brits).

re (Stimpy): "If they're gonna be that daft..."

REPLY: What this thread is beginning to reveal is that officials charged with observing the law don't always get it right - not by a long way...

<<Once they are used to seeing such signs, people can convert 4000m = 4km in their heads with ease (either that or the Italains are a lot brighter that the Brits).>>

Apart from the massive difference, lets also assume that all Italian visitors will stop crashing now since they'll recognise 4000 yds as 4000 mtrs. That's GREAT NEWS! We won't need to spend -erm- "mega pounds" (yes, "he" did do that on the USMA site) on new signs!

Trap - clunk.

<<
REPLY: What this thread is beginning to reveal is that officials charged with observing the law don't always get it right - not by a long way...
>>

... refering no doubt to the DoT who use "T" for tonnes when to the rest of the world, "T" is the symbol for Teslas; a single and double appostrophe for feet and inches respectively when to the rest of the world they are minutes and seconds of arc and the symbol "m" for miles when to the rest of the world it is the symbol for metres.

All I can say is - thank God there's no "Daniel equivelent" on the pro-imperial side to answer that!

<<
refering no doubt to the DoT who use ... a single and double appostrophe for feet and inches respectively when to the rest of the world they are minutes and seconds of arc
>>

So the US doesn't count as part of the rest of the world?

Or Australia, New Zealand, India, etc etc

I want a "real map" Please showing the real Counties of England!!, so far I cannot get one only an artificial one showing the political County Council Boundaries!!, I DEMAND an Historically corect Map forthwith!!!

Rob

Send a polite e-mail to Association of British Counties members R.S. at bcp1549@yahoo.co.uk or robert@railfuture.org.uk OR to R.H. at clh@clhawley.co.uk - OR e-mail the ABC themselves at abc@abcounties.co.uk

Or visit these websites: www.abcounties.co.uk OR www.forl.co.uk

<<
want a "real map" Please showing the real Counties of England!!,
>>

... showing the pre-1891 boundaries?

If you enter London on the A3/A316, you will see a poor-quality sign claiming to mark the boundary of Middlesex. This sign is about 2km from Junction 1 of the A3 going into London. Whoever erected the sign fialed to recognise that the boundary of Middlesex was at that point from 1891 until 1965. From before the Norman Conquest until 1891, the boundary of Middlesex was the Thames River, midway between Junction 1 and Junction 2 of the M3.

Rob:
"I want a "real map" Please showing the real Counties of England!!, so far I cannot get one only an artificial one showing the political County Council Boundaries!!, I DEMAND an Historically corect Map forthwith!!!"


Tony Bennett:
"Send a polite e-mail to Association of British Counties members R.S. at bcp1549@yahoo.co.uk or robert@railfuture.org.uk OR to R.H. at clh@clhawley.co.uk - OR e-mail the ABC themselves at abc@abcounties.co.uk

Or visit these websites: www.abcounties.co.uk OR www.forl.co.uk"


Stan:
Check out Rob's e-mail address:

manitee.20.oldgit2002@spamgourmet.com

Methinks the request was a wind up :-)

or that he simply does not like spam (its a common method to prevent it, Stan).

Martin - well done for altering the post about boundaries (a grudge therein) in order to say the term "km" (a term understood or used by very few people in the UK).

Unfortunatly it looked pathetic, rather than informative. Which is a shame.

Tony

Re "Bends for 547 yds"

Why don't ARM deal with this sign? By their interpretation of the TSAGD it is just as illegal/unlawful/whatever as a metric one?

Is this another example of ARM's two-faced stance?

re (Beranger): "547 yards - Why don't ARM deal with this sign? By their interpretation of the TSRGD it is just as illegal/unlawful/whatever as a metric one? Is this another example of ARM's two-faced stance?"

REPLY: Even by your standards, Beranager, this is one of your poorer points.

1. re: "By their interpretation of the TSRGD it is just as illegal/unlawful/whatever as a metric one?"

REPLY: To adapt a phrase from George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', some highway signs are more unlawful than others

2. re: "Is this another example of ARM's two-faced stance?"

REPLY: ARM faces towards customary measurements - and faces away from metric, so far as highway signs are concerned. The purpose of its campaign is to prevent the British government wasting up to £1 billion of taxpayers' money on a wholly unnecessary conversion exercise. In this campaign we have the support of 92% of the public who expressed a preference [ICM survey April 2002]

P.S. Looking for a *really* two-faced policy? Then try the Scottish National Party, which tries to persuade nationalistic Scots that it supports 'independence' whilst at the same time cheerfully giving away more and more power every week to the institutions of Europe!

<<REPLY: ARM faces towards customary measurements - and faces away from metric, so far as highway signs are concerned. The purpose of its campaign is to prevent the British government wasting up to £1 billion of taxpayers' money on a wholly unnecessary conversion exercise. In this campaign we have the support of 92% of the public who expressed a preference [ICM survey April 2002]>>

What makes you think that your ludicrous campaign will affect the ultimate decision whether or not to metricate road signs?

The ICM survey did not ask people if they support the actions of ARM.

re (Stan): "your ludicrous campaign..."

REPLY: Hmmmm. Let's see:

1. Over 3,000 metric road and footpath signs back into miles and yards already, either by direct action or by authorities admitting their error and replacing the signs themselves

2. Department for Transport in July 2002 forced to write to all Chief Executives in England and Wales reminding them that all distance and dimension signs must be in Imperial

2. Several authorities forced to reconsider their intention to erect metric footpath signs

4. Other authorities changed their policies; Lee Valley Park, East Cambridgeshire, York City and others, from metric to Imperial, Portsmouth from metric to dual

5. Good TV, radio and press coverage for all our raids, like last week in York

6. Government plans to metricate road signs in 2006 now completely off the agenda with not even a provisional date set for metric conversion.


Got news of any more 'ludicrous' campaigns, Stan?

A few points regarding Tony's posting of September 28 2005, 8:58 PM

"some highway signs are more unlawful than others"

Your original post plainly states that you consider it to be unlawful. Obviously ARM have their "enforcement" priorities, but if you consider it to be worth posting here, then surely it must be high up the list for "direct action"

Or has the number of metric signs overwhelmed ARM's overworked team?

At least you have finally provided some corroboration of your survey that claims 92% (or 86%, depending on which of Tony's claims you read!) support for imperial road signage.

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2002/distances-poll-april-2002.htm

Well, it is 2 1/2 years old, and Tony has added the "Don't Knows" into the "Prefer Imperial" camp to get his 92% figure. Either that or he has made a mistake in calculating the percentage that expressed a preference (funny how Tony's mistakes always favour imperial)

Note also that it refers only to kilometres & miles - it doesn't mention yards or metres at all!

But Tony has previously stated that the survey said "given that 86% of the country do not want our system of miles, yards, feet and inches on our road signs disturbed"

Where were the survey questions about yards, feet & inches?

If the poll had asked "Would you prefer to see yards or metres on footpath signs", does anyone really believe that imperial would get 86% - I suspect that "don't care" would probably get the largest vote!

And look - Tony's usual diversionary tactic of <<try to turn the debate into a discussion regarding the EC>>

A classic Bennett post - numbers that don't add up, misleading use of statistics & trying to change the subject. If only he could have found a way to mention the Euro too!

So my post of yesterday 8.58pm was a classic, was it? Let's unpick Beranger's post and we'll see revealed for all to see some absolutely classic Bewrangerisms...

1. "A few points regarding Tony's posting of September 28 2005, 8:58 PM - re 'some highway signs are more unlawful than others' - Breanger: Your original post plainly states that you consider it to be unlawful. Obviously ARM have their 'enforcement' priorities, but if you consider it to be worth posting here, then surely it must be high up the list for 'direct action'

REPLY: A classic example of a Beranger 'non sequitur'. The fact that I mention a strange '547 yards' signs does not imply that it is high up on ARM's prorities for direct action. That's a simple statement of fact. Your reasoning, Berahger, was false. And that's a fact

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

2. Or has the number of metric signs overwhelmed ARM's overworked team?

REPLY: You must be joking! Fifteen distances in Yorkshire converted last week, seventeen in Haringey and sixteen in the Lea Valley Park the week before; that's 48 in a fortnight. I can assure you that the number of metric distance signs in Britain is diminishing all the time

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

3. At least you have finally provided some corroboration of your survey that claims 92% (or 86%, depending on which of Tony's claims you read!) support for imperial road signage.

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2002/distances-poll-april-2002.htm

Well, it is 2 1/2 years old, and Tony has added the 'Don't Knows' into the 'Prefer Imperial' camp to get his 92% figure. Either that or he has made a mistake in calculating the percentage that expressed a preference (funny how Tony's mistakes always favour imperial)

REPLY: You say: "Tony has added the 'Don't Knows' into the 'Prefer Imperial' camp to get his 92% figure. Either that or he has made a mistake in calculating the percentage that expressed a preference". This is mischievous. What I have done is excluded the 'Don't Knows' - 4% from memory and 'Don't Cares' - 2% from memory. They're 6% in total, anyway.

So:

86% prefer miles
8% prefer kilometres
6% Dont' Know/Don't Care

Therefore 86 out of 94 prefer miles.

That's 91.5% - say 92%, but 91.5% if you want to have it that way - who express a preference, preferring miles to kilometres.

It would also be true to say that 92% are content with the way things are, and do *not* want a switch to kilometres - another way of reporting the results, therefore, would be so say that 'only 8 out of 100 want a change to kilometres'.

Can we agree that that is a fair statement based on the ICM survey? Yes or No?

By the way, the ICM survey reference has been given many many times previously on these boards; I'm amazed Beranger hasn't looked up the reference before yesterday

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

4. Note also that it refers only to kilometres & miles - it doesn't mention yards or metres at all!

REPLY: A familiar Beranger technique - hair-splitting. It is pretty plain that if people prefer kilometres, they prefer metres, and if they prefer miles, they prefer yards. How many people in the survey do you think said: "Well, I'm not too keen on kilometres, but give me metres over yards any day"? LOL!

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

5. But Tony has previously stated that the survey said 'given that 86% of the country do not want our system of miles, yards, feet and inches on our road signs disturbed'

REPLY: More hair-splitting

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

6. Where were the survey questions about yards, feet & inches?

REPLY: Still more hair-splitting

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

7. If the poll had asked "Would you prefer to see yards or metres on footpath signs", does anyone really believe that imperial would get 86% - I suspect that "don't care" would probably get the largest vote!

REPLY: Speculation - nothing more. Name me one survey, Beranger, that has ever shown 'Don't Cares' - on any subject you like - at over 50%!

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

8. And look - Tony's usual diversionary tactic of <<try to turn the debate into a discussion regarding the EC>>

REPLY: Given that the UKMA has been involved a couple of weeks ago in some jiggery pokery with the European Commission to talk up the pathetically weak case for changing 1.5 million road signs, by stoking up journalists to make a false claim that 'Europe is pressing Britain to give up its derogation on the mile and the pint', I think at least a brief mention of the E.U.'s powers was relevant.

To which I would add that it's pathetic that, given that public opinion is 11 to 1 against metric road and footpath signs, given that absolutely no-one is calling for change, given that it would cost £1 billion or so to convert all the signs, the three men, one woman and a dog of UKMA have to resort to two 'Directives', in 1980 and 1989, to assert that there must be this unwanted, expensive conversion exercise. At a time when the EC has just set up a group to 'reduce bureaucracy, red tape and regulation' - LOL!

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

9. A classic Bennett post - numbers that don't add up...

REPLY: Wrong, as shown above

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

10. ...misleading use of statistics

REPLY: Wrong again, see above

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

11. & trying to change the subject.

REPLY: A justified reference to te EC Directives of 1980 and 1989, perfectly valid in context

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

12. If only he could have found a way to mention the Euro too!

Who brought the euro into this discussion? Beranger, or me?

<<<It is pretty plain that if people prefer kilometres, they prefer metres, and if they prefer miles, they prefer yards. How many people in the survey do you think said: "Well, I'm not too keen on kilometres, but give me metres over yards any day"? LOL!>>>

Tony - try listening to the way people talk. Almost everyone uses miles over kilometres (99% plus)

But you hear people use metres every day. We can disagree to what extent (not going into that again) But you cannot argue that they are far more familiar than kilometres.

Andy,

I accept that metres have been gaining ground over the yard (well, about 3 3/8 inches, actually) in some spheres in recent years and that they are used more than kilometres in the U.K.

But I do not accept for one moment that if people had been asked in the 2002 ICM survey if they preferred 'kilometres and metres' to 'miles and yards' on British road and footpath signs, that the result of their preference - nearly 11 to 1 in favour of Imperial - would have been any different

1) TB "The fact that I mention a strange '547 yards' signs does not imply that it is high up on ARM's prorities for direct action"

ARM claims to be an "enforcement" body for the TSRGD. Does the above mean that ARM has one rule for metric & another for imperial? This contrasts poorly with other bodies that have enforcement duties in both systems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) TB "that's 48 <<metric signs>> in a fortnight. I can assure you that the number of metric distance signs in Britain is diminishing all the time."

Pure speculation. Unless ARM have a network of spotters covering every highway in the UK, how do they know that 50 new signs did not appear during the same period. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)TB - "That's 91.5% - say 92%, but 91.5% if you want to have it that way - who express a preference, preferring miles to kilometres."

No, Tony. 91.5% is spurious accuracy. You are already using rounded figures. 86/94 is very slightly less than 91.5. It rounds to 91%

TB - "only 8 out of 100 want a change to kilometres. Can we agree that that is a fair statement based on the ICM survey? Yes or No?

No, Tony. 8/96 is slightly more than 8.5. It rounds to 9%

I still don't understand why you felt it necessary to amend the figures. They were quite simple to understand in their original form. I do note, however, that you have found it necessary to invent two new figures - Where do your "Don't know" & "Don't Care" figures come from?

TB - "By the way, the ICM survey reference has been given many many times previously on these boards"

Please direct me to any reference that has been made to the "ICM survey April 2002" (apart from the one above) since I joined the boards. Just over a month ago, I asked you to provide details of the survey. You ignored the question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) TB - "It is pretty plain that if people prefer kilometres, they prefer metres" etc

I believe that Stimpy has recently said that he used millimetres instead of fractions of an inch.

Bud said "Metres and yards don't pose any confusion threat, but miles and kilometres do. That is probably why there are so many road signs in Britain in metres but very few in kilometres, if any."

These are two people I would consider to be on the pro-imperial side of pro-choice

The actual survey question was

Q2. If you are driving,, cycling or walking, how do you prefer to see the distances on road signs?
Metric units like kilometres 8%
Imperial units like miles 86%
Don't know 6%

The average person surveyed will probably never heard of ARM, and even if they have, are unlikely to know the exact definition of traffic sign.

I believe that many of the people surveyed would be very surprised that their preference for miles was being used as justification for a campaign of criminal damage against metric footpath signs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) & 6) TB - "Hairsplitting"

I disagree. As usual, Tony, you are seeing everything in black & white. I use miles on a daily basis & have not suggested that I wish to see them replaced with kilometres. I have no problem, however, with tonnes & metres appearing on our roads.

For Road Traffic purposes, the Ton/Tonne & the Yard/Metre are close enough to be considered equivalent. I didn't crash my car the other day when I passed countdown signs to roadworks that read 400m, 200yds & 100yds. The 100yd marker could have been no more than 50 yds from the traffic light.

The question was asked purely in reference terms of miles & kilometres - pure & simple.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) TB - "Speculation - nothing more"

Yes Tony. The clue is in the words "I suspect".

I don't assure anything (see point 2) unless I can provide some sort of proof.

TB - "Name me one survey, Beranger, that has ever shown 'Don't Cares' - on any subject you like - at over 50%!"

No problem, Tony.

The ultimate survey of public opinion is an election to public office. Any voter that fails in his civic duty to vote obviously does not care who is elected.

Result for the Election of a County Councillor in the Little Parndon and Town Centre Electoral Division

Bennett, Anthony John Stuart (UKIP) 261
Byrne, Patricia (Hoop!) 195
Dangerfield, Lee Tony (Cons) 715
Danvers, Michael Ralph (Lab) 1082
Millington, Christopher (Lib Dem) 213
Tilbrook, Robin Charles William (English Democrats) 21

17 votes were rejected.
Total electorate 9,160
2,504 total vote
27.34% turnout

I make that

Don't Care 72.66%
Others/rejected votes 24.49%
Tony 2.85%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

8) " I think at least a brief mention of the E.U.'s powers was relevant."

How is the SNP's policy on Europe relevant to a debate on preferred measurement on roads? Your actual point was regarding two-faced attitudes.

I've told you before that I vote SNP but certainally do not agree with all of their policies. The rest of your point is just more of the usual diversionary nonsense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

9), 10) & 11) I stand by my points - and will emphasise again. You did not mention any EC directives in the post I was responding to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

12) TB "Who brought the euro into this discussion? Beranger, or me?"

Yes Tony it was me. It was a joke.

Probably the first & last time I'll mention it. I wish that you, Daniel & certain others could say the same.

The same sentiments also apply to the "A's economy is doing better than Z's economy" discussions that I'm sure most posters skip.

It's meant to be a site about Weights & Measures

<<5. Good TV, radio and press coverage for all our raids, like last week in York

6. Government plans to metricate road signs in 2006 now completely off the agenda with not even a provisional date set for metric conversion.


Got news of any more 'ludicrous' campaigns, Stan?>>

You rarely get TV coverage of your so called raids.

Whether the prospect of Britain metricating road signs is off the agenda is pure speculation. Senior politicians will say anything to silence the press. But whatever the truth of that it has little or nothing to do with your silly campaign.

In any case if you are so successful why do you need an army of "spotters" to keep a look out for those naughty metric signs that keep popping up all over the place?

re (Tony): "Only 8 out of 100 want a change to kilometres. Can we agree that that is a fair statement based on the ICM survey? Yes or No?"

re (Beranger): "No, Tony. 8/96 is slightly more than 8.5. It rounds to 9%"


REPLY:

Point 1: Well, you say that 8/96 is 'slightly more than 8.5'. My calculator says it is 8.3333recurring.

Point 2: You have completely missed my point anyway, B.

Let me spell it out.

86% preferred miles on signs
8% preferred kilometres on signs
6% didn't know.

Therefore 92 out of 100 preferred miles or didn't know.

And only 8 out of every 100 wanted kilometres.

Which is precisely what I said. "Only 8 out of 100 want a change to kilometres".

Absolutley correct.

No twisting.

You will have to agree

re (Beranger): "ARM claims to be an 'enforcement' body for the TSRGD"

REPLY: No it doesn't. Words Beranger is trying to put into ARM's mouth

re: "I believe that many of the people surveyed would be very surprised that their preference for miles was being used as justification for a campaign of criminal damage against metric footpath signs"

REPLY: I'm sure you're right. "Do you know, Madge, I told this bloke from ICM a couple of years ago that I preferred miles on our road and footpath signs. The other day, I read in the 'Yorkshire Post' about some crowd called ARM amending a footpath sign reading 'Tockwith 6.9km' to read '4 1/2 miles'. That's outrageous. I reckon it's criminal damage. Who do they think they are"

LOL!

re (Beranger): "I have not suggested that I wish to see [miles] replaced with kilometres"

REPLY: An equivocal statement. Do you wish to see miles replaced by kilometres? Or are you just not saying?

<<<I believe that many of the people surveyed would be very surprised that their preference for miles was being used as justification for a campaign of criminal damage against metric footpath signs>>>

Totally agree.

There is a BIG difference between preferring imperial and objecting to metric.

As you point out so often, most prefer imperial - but only a tiny minority object to metric.

Tony - September 30 2005, 7:17 AM

Point 1: Well, you say that 8/96 is 'slightly more than 8.5'. My calculator says it is 8.3333recurring.

My apologies. We were working in 94ths. I typed 96ths by mistake

Please substitute "8/94ths is slightly more than 8.5".

Point 2 "And only 8 out of every 100 wanted kilometres.........You will have to agree"

Yes Tony. I agree totally. I should give up now. What an absolutely marvellous trap. I bow to your rapier-like & incisive use of statistics. Who would have thought of it - discussing 94ths, then switching back to percentages. I'm sure you'll wipe the floor with the opposition when you become PM & lead us out of Europe.

Talking of which, I hope that you will agree that the views & policies of Bennett, Anthony John Stuart (UKIP) are rejected by 97.15% of the population?

:-) :-) :-)

September 30 2005, 7:19 AM

"re (Beranger): "ARM claims to be an 'enforcement' body for the TSRGD"

REPLY: No it doesn't. Words Beranger is trying to put into ARM's mouth"

"Yesterday (27 July), two members of the Council of Active Resistance to Metrication carried out an official operation to remove two unlawful distance signs, using powers available to them under Section 131(2) Highways Act 1980."

An official operation using powers under statute? Sounds like a claim to be an enforcement agency to me! And note the sarcastic 'quotation' marks round the word enforcement in my original post.

It's one or the other Tony - you are either enforcing statute law or you're a bunch of vandals. I know what I think.

September 30 2005, 7:35 AM

"re (Beranger): "I have not suggested that I wish to see [miles] replaced with kilometres"

REPLY: An equivocal statement. Do you wish to see miles replaced by kilometres? Or are you just not saying?"

As I say on the other thread where we are having the same argument, I believe that for distances over 1/2 mile/800m, we should only use 1 system. I don't care which one is used. I can work with either.

I apologised above for the typo "8/96" instead of "8/94" after Tony posted;

"Point 1: Well, you say that 8/96 is 'slightly more than 8.5'. My calculator says it is 8.3333recurring."

Tony - you continually claim that fractions are superior to decimals & pride yourself on your ability to work in duodecimal, yet fail to notice that 8/96 reduces to 1/12?

Your calculator works out 8/96 in percentage terms rather than as 0.083333repeated?

You needed a calculator to decimalise a fraction that must be common to anyone that works in inches?

Can we ever believe your intuitive "that's just a bit short of 6 square yards" calculations again?

BRICKBATS

Brickbat 1

Talking of which, I hope that you will agree that the views & policies of Bennett, Anthony John Stuart (UKIP) are rejected by 97.15% of the population?

REPLY AND CHALLENGE: I got 20% of the vote (364 votes) in a Harlow Council election in Netteswell ward in June 2004. You'll have to look up what the turnout was to find out how many 'rejected my views and policies' (I note that you have conveniently included all those who didn't vote as 'rejecting my views and policies' but then of course I have the very greatest respect for your handling of statistics, Beranger). I think you'll find that the figure was quite a lot lower than 97.15%*. The result's on the Internet

Brickbat 2

note the sarcastic 'quotation' marks round the word enforcement in my original post.

Brickbat 3

It's one or the other Tony - you are either enforcing statute law or you're a bunch of vandals. I know what I think.

Brickbat 4

Tony - you continually claim that fractions are superior to decimals & pride yourself on your ability to work in duodecimal, yet fail to notice that 8/96 reduces to 1/12?

Brickbat 5

Can we ever believe your intuitive "that's just a bit short of 6 square yards" calculations again?

BOUQUETS

Yes Tony. I agree totally. I should give up now. What an absolutely marvellous trap. I bow to your rapier-like & incisive use of statistics. Who would have thought of it - discussing 94ths, then switching back to percentages. I'm sure you'll wipe the floor with the opposition when you become PM & lead us out of Europe.

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

* NOTE: In the same election to which Beranger refers, the Liberal Democrat candidate came well behind me and, according to Beranger's, er, ahem, 'creative' use of statistics the LibDem candidate's 'views and policies' were rejected by 98% of the electorate

Tony

Who cares what percentage you got in Netteswell. I'll bet you didn't get elected. In fact, I'll bet you weren't even the runner-up (unless there were only 2 candidates)

"I note that you have conveniently included all those who didn't vote as 'rejecting my views and policies'"

In exactly the same way that you include the "don't knows" & "prefer miles" in the opinion poll as supporting ARM's views.

Do you get my point now?

<<<<Talking of which, I hope that you will agree that the views & policies of Bennett, Anthony John Stuart (UKIP) are rejected by 97.15% of the population?>>>>

A worryingly low figure..