Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
December 15 2005 at 5:22 PM
Tony Bennett
Yesterday, one of the largest-ever metric signs was amended.
The multi-storey car park at London Road, Barking, Essex (just next to the 'bus station), proclaimed - until yesterday - its maximum height as ' 2.08m ', in lettering 7" high.
A white plastic sheet 24" x 8" and 1/8th inch thick has now been affixed over it to read: 6' 9", which will be much better understood. After all, in a recent survey, 98% of Britons said they understood Imperial and a meagre 29% said they understood metric.
A yellow-and-black dual height car park sign at Warley Hill, Great Warley, near Brentwood, Essex, read - until yesterday - 2.0m (6' 7"). The metric height has now been permanently covered over.
Car park height signs across the U.K. are gradually becoming more uniform, more 'harmonised', more, er, consistent, should we say. Gradually, they're appearing in Imperial only.
And the same goes for Britain's road and footpath distance and dimension signs.
Some good news off with which to finish the year.
Happy Christmas - and health and success in the New Year - to all members and supporters of Active Resistance to Metrication.
Re: Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
December 24 2005, 9:28 AM
Tony,
Have you a photo of your new sign?
You are so so very wrong
December 29 2005, 11:41 AM
Mr Bennett, you are so so very wrong. Firstly, Barking is NOT in Essex, it is in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham, with a Council of the same name.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with metric signage in car parks. The signs are NOT illegal, and when you cover them up, you are acting illegally. You are the one who is wrong, not the person who put a metric sign in a car park. Besides, what is the point in putting in all that time, effort and resources to cover up a small sign in a car park? What do you hope to achieve? Are you trying to change the world for the better or just trying to prove to yourself that you are important?
You seem to be obsessed with changing signs, including those of the County of Lancashire. When an authority erects a sign, such as one welcoming people to their county, or a just a small sign in a car park, what right do you have, Mr Bennett, for opposing these signs, removing them or defacing them? None at all.
Whether you agree with the signs or not is up to you. No one can tell you what to think. But, you have no right to deface other people's property, and I would say that what you have done is criminal damage and you are likely to end up in court. One day there will be a price to pay, a reckoning for your actions. I suggest you desist from your illegal activities and try to find something useful to do with your time.
Stimpy
Re: Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
December 30 2005, 12:57 PM
Personally I like the one that's near me (a car park one).
It has it in imperial then in brackets after it has it in metres down to 3 decimal places! That must look bewilderingly accurate to visiting Europeans.
Tony Bennett
Replies to Kiloquad's rant
December 30 2005, 1:26 PM
Mr Bennett, you are so so very wrong. Firstly, Barking is NOT in Essex, it is in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham, with a Council of the same name.
REPLY: Barking is in the historic, geographical, true, real County of Essex, formerly the Kingdom of the East Saxons. It was, some time ago, and in the face of continuing hostility from its residents, placed into the administrative London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with metric signage in car parks.
REPLY: The sign in question was at the entrance to the car park. The law requires that on any highway to which the public has access (see D.P.P. v. Jones, 1999, House of Lords), signs including height signs must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. This has been held, for example, to include signs within a privately-run airport.
and when you cover them up, you are acting illegally.
REPLY: The law allows for the removal or amendment of signs - like a sign in unlawful metres which breaches TSRGD 2002 - which have been ‘unlawfully placed on the highway’. Please see Section 131 (2) of the Highways Act 1980, which allows the public to ‘pull down’ or ‘obliterate’ any sign so unlawfully placed.
Besides, what is the point in putting in all that time, effort and resources to cover up a small sign in a car park? What do you hope to achieve?
REPLY: It took about 5 minutes, using two pieces of white plastic sheeting costing around £2.00, industrial glue costing around £1.50, and lettering costing around £2.50 in this particular case. Actions like this aim to achieve consistency on British road signs. All heights must under British law be in Imperial units. This one wasn’t.
Are you trying to change the world for the better or just trying to prove to yourself that you are important?
REPLY: Our key aim is to achieve consistency of signage on Britain’s roads and compliance with the law. In addition, we aim to stop the government wasting around £1 billion of taxpayers’ money on a completely unnecessary planned wholesale conversion of all our road signs into metric. I am absolutely sure that when you stop for a moment to think of needs in our society like housing, health and education you will agree with us that there are hundreds of better ways of spending public money than this.
You seem to be obsessed with changing signs, including those of the County of Lancashire.
REPLY: There are many comments that I could make in relation to the removal of the (probably unlawful) ‘Welcome to Lancashire‘ signs. The one comment I shall confine myself to at this stage is to point out that when film of us removing the signs was shown on BBC’s ‘North West Tonight’ on 14 November, there was the biggest response ever by viewers to any news item shown on a North West Regional News Bulletin and that according to the presenter Peter Marshall, on 15 November, an ‘overwhelming majority‘ of callers ‘phoning or e-mailing their comments to the programme said that they supported our action.
When an authority erects a sign, such as one welcoming people to their county,
REPLY: The trouble is, the signs welcomed travellers to the administrative unit misleadingly called Lancashire County Council, which covers barely one-third of the area of the real County of Lancashire. The signs confuse the public as to the true boundaries of real Lancashire.
Whether you agree with the signs or not is up to you. No one can tell you what to think. But, you have no right to deface other people's property, and I would say that what you have done is criminal damage and you are likely to end up in court. One day there will be a price to pay, a reckoning for your actions. I suggest you desist from your illegal activities and try to find something useful to do with your time.
REPLY: Your suggestion is noted.
Guardian
nutter
January 3 2006, 4:23 PM
Is it just me, or does anything think that Tony Bennett is taking things too far and is making himself look like a complete nutter?
Stimpy
Re: Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
January 4 2006, 11:30 AM
Don't you mean "anyone" ?
Tony Bennett
Guardian Readers and Complete Nutters
January 6 2006, 1:28 PM
re: 'Guardian'): "Is it just me, or does anything [sic] think that Tony Bennett is taking things too far and is making himself look like a complete nutter?"
A QUESTION: Were the Welsh Language Society members who used aerosol spray to obliterate English Language signs on Welsh roads in the 1960s and 1970s 'complete nutters'? What they did was certainly a breach of the law, whereas the careful amendment of an illegal metric road sign into a legal Imperial one is not considered to be a breach of the law.
I bet if you talk to the Welsh Nationalist Party and the Welsh Language Society today, these men would be considered heroes and worthy of praise. They helped to arrest the decline of spoken and written Welsh in their country, after a period in the nineteenth century when, very unwisely, English officials attempted actively to suppress spoken and written Welsh.
The campaign of Active Resistance to Metrication has also been widely praised, though not by 'Guardian' readers.
It has also been very successful. Nearly 3,000 illegal metric signs have been put back into Imperial. Many authorities now erect new distance signs in Imperial, rather than in metric, e.g. Lea Valley Park, East Cambridgeshire Council. And the government's plans to metricate all Britain's 1.5 million Imperial distance, dimension and speed limit signs have been shelved indefinitely.
Not bad for 'complete nutters'.
I believe the Soviet Union labelled dissenters as 'complete nutters', by the way
Stimpy
Re: Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
January 9 2006, 1:23 PM
NB.
It's not just Welsh Nationalists who are proud of and want to see the Welsh language continuing to be the fastest growing language in Europe.
Anonymous
Re: Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
January 9 2006, 4:15 PM
" And the government's plans to metricate all Britain's 1.5 million Imperial distance, dimension and speed limit signs have been shelved indefinitely. "
Have they?
Stimpy
Re: Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
January 10 2006, 10:03 AM
Haven't they?
Anonymous
Re: Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
January 10 2006, 10:27 AM
Well, If plans haven't been officially shelved, then I expect the governments plan remains the same: To change road signs to metric *at some point in the future*
Tony Bennett
Shelved Indefinitely
January 12 2006, 8:26 AM
"...the government's plan remains the same: To change road signs to metric *at some point in the future*"
= shelved indefinitely
= in the pending tray
= sine die
= this week, next week, sometime, never
= when I win the Lottery
= when the boat comes in
Stimpy
Re: Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)
January 12 2006, 10:27 AM
Having thought about it - it's probably true to say that the Earth will end "at some point in the future"
Current Topic - Better in Barking (and Warley Hill for that matter)