I have just bought a packet of liquorice allsorts labelled "Half Pounders are great value", but marked as weighing e227g. The sweets are made by Halfpounders Confectionery, Eldon Street, Inverclyde, PA16 7QS.

Yes, I have a packet, also: Fruit Salad Gums.
Trebor Bassett did something similar (Fruit Salad and Black Jacks) but reduced then from 227g to 200g with no price reduction.
The fact that Half-Pounders Confectionery describe then as "Half Pounders" means they are more likely to keep to a standard packaging size than sweet producers using widely varying "milli-metric" sizes.

Memo to next BWMA Committee Meeting:

Order a decent supply of 'Halfpounders' sweets for the AGM. They'll all get sold. And get every BWMA member to call at his local confectioners asking for a packet of 'Halfpounders' - with the address ready at hand to give to any seller not already stocking them

<<
"The fact that Half-Pounders Confectionery describe them as "Half Pounders" means they are more likely to keep to a standard packaging size than sweet producers using widely varying "milli-metric" sizes."
>>

Could also mean that "Half pounders" producers will raise their prices (over time) more than their competitors who package in rational metric sizes.

Either way no manufacturer will give its customers something for nothing.

There's nothing wrong with raising prices or lowering content. The issue is transparancy to the consumer. If they can see the change and understand it, the price increase is "visible". The concern with metric is that (a) it is done surrepticiously and (b) the consumer does not relate to the three-digit number that results.

Why can't the consumer see the change and understand it, you did.

We see it because we are looking for it.

"the consumer does not relate to the three-digit number that results"

Of course, that 246 ft bungee jump is just so intuitively obvious.

I admit that I have never eaten one

(Response to last BWMA posting)

I could argue that if the consumer doesn't look for these changes how can they expect to be protected or to protect themselves, after all the manufacturer can only be required to ensure content and price are clearly and accurately marked.

The wary consumer should bear in mind that it isn't normal for the manufacturer or seller to draw attention to price increases or lowering of value for money, they only do this in the opposite case.

Having said all that I do take your point that it was probably used as an opportunity to increase the effective price with the purchaser being unlikely to notice. Sneaky in other words. Though the amounts are quite small, one or two sweets maybe.

But they can only do this once and it is a feature of the transition not the long term effect.

You would argue of course that this is wrong because metrication shouldn't have taken place anyway, but that only brings us back to the dispute over whether it is right or wrong in principle to make the change.

Finally regarding the 3 digit numbers. 200, 300 etc are easy 3 digit numbers (you only need think of the first digit) because they are rationl metric sizes, just as rational imperial sizes, i.e. whole numbers of ounces, are easy 1 or 2 digit numbers.

That is why manufacturers make the change from things like half lb to 200g, it is a natural adjustment to the new system.