Their frozen vegetables are doing a lot of weighing rather suspicious quantities e.g. 800g. Some of their products are still in imperial quantities e.g. 454g packets of petits pois, 907g packets of straight cut fries, 227g gammon steaks, 454g packets of sausages (although there is a type of sausage already weighing 400g and costing the same price.

I asked them if they were shrinking their products and, if so, whether the prices were being reduced in correspondence, and they just baffled me with what the law is now and what it was ‘going to’ become of it (which would be if the Metric Martyrs lose). They did not answer my question about whether they were shrinking their products or if in correspondence to that, if they were reducing the prices of them. Please complain to them, asking them about whether their products are being shrunk and try to ask whether the prices might be getting kept constant meanwhile. You can email them at info@Nisa-Todays.com or write to them at
NisaChill / NisaFreeze
c/o Exel Logistics
Vernon Road
Stoke on Trent
Staffordshire
ST4 2QF

"what it was ‘going to’ become of it (which would be if the Metric Martyrs lose)"

'If' they lose?

The case is under Appeal.

A case (not "the" case) has been referred to the Court of Human Rights.

The ruling to date of the ordinary British judiciary remains valid is not pending the outcome of the ECHR verdict.

The case put before the ECHR is not the same as the legal challenge put before the High Court or House of Lords.

Trading in lb, oz remains illegal on British Markets and all who flout it are liable to prosecution.

This is indeed correct.

The case originally brought by Sunderland Borough Council et al against various traders ended up in the Court of Appeal and then Thoburn alone was denied leave to appeal to the Lords. Thus the legal position is now clear and the law is sound, whatever disagreements there might be about who was right.

As I understand it, Thoburn alone has made an application to ECHR alleging breaches of human rights. I remain puzzled why he did not bring that case under the HRA 1998.

I remain puzzled at the zealousy of TSO's in one town to prosecute people for selling some things on lb/oz in prefrence to people selling dangerous goods while in another town those selling in lb/oz are overlooked completely as a waste of time - ie they can be tracking down sellers of dangerous goods!

In my home town, both the street sellers and the private butchers/grocers continue to sell in lb/oz!

SteveH: "In my home town, both the street sellers and the private butchers/grocers continue to sell in lb/oz!"

Where's that ?

Goosingham
Near Greater Twodmonshire

Yeah, as if I'm going to give my address away on a discussion board!

SteveH: "Yeah, as if I'm going to give my address away on a discussion board!"

I don't want your address, I just want to report a "pounds and ounces crime" against progression. ;-)

you'll be a busy person.

look at your local butcher/grocer if you don't believe me (unless you live in sunderland)

"look at your local butcher/grocer if you don't believe me (unless you live in sunderland)"

Speak for yourself!

There is actually widespread compliance with the law.

Real world makes me say "I don't agree"

Tesco claim to be compliant with the law.

I would agree that "behind the scenes" they are not breaking any laws (you ask for a lb and they weigh it out on a scale with kg calibration to exactly a lb).

However there's a big questionmark of the huge hanging signs that show prices in instantly recognisable lb's but no kg equiv. I'm talling about signs measuring apprx 4ft X 2ft rather than the small shelf edge signs that always show both.

I'm no expert on this, but I understand that Tesco are exploiting certain woolley areas in the PMO (Price Marking Order).

The PMO deals with price labelling, but the giant sign is (or could be) classed as advertising material. I'm not sure whether the PMO covers that.

We won't know until it is tested in court which will require an attempted prosecution. But Trading Standards have so far been reluctant to pursue this possibly because of the uncertainty and their sense of priority.

But who knows, one day...

This is exactly the point which should be addressed. At a guess, such advertising boards are not in violation of any UK law or regulation.

The problem arises when considering the fact that Directive 80/181/EEC requires the use of SI units for "indications of quantity expressed in units of measurement for economic...purposes".

The UK transposition of the Directive therefore appears to be incomplete.

We probably agree with the above view.

"We won't know until it is tested in court which will require an attempted prosecution."

An interesting thought that someone would want to prosecute the most popular supermarket in the UK for displaying signs that people want to see!


"But Trading Standards have so far been reluctant to pursue this possibly because of the uncertainty and their sense of priority"

Or possibly because:

Steve Thoburn - local shop owner - income for treasury= '000s of £/yr

Tesco - National Supermarket - income for treasury= ',000,000s of £/yr

I think that if a firm is advertising unlawful signs (be them metric or imperial!), it should only go to court as a last resort. Taking the example of Tesco, in my opinion, I think dual signs should be shown (lbs and kgs) and therefore everyone is happy. Trading standards officers should tell them to make them dual signs. If Tesco persist in showing imperial only signs, then a fine should be put in place. If they continue to persist, that is when it would go to court. BTW, I was using Tesco as an example; while the law states certain things about metric and imperial, the same process should happen everywhere.

<<
"But Trading Standards have so far been reluctant to pursue this possibly because of the uncertainty and their sense of priority"

Or possibly because:

Steve Thoburn - local shop owner - income for treasury= '000s of £/yr

Tesco - National Supermarket - income for treasury= ',000,000s of £/yr
>>

Yes, I was waiting for that one!

The breach of law was clear and uneqivocal in the Thoburn case. The case was brought mainly because of the use of non-approved scales.

The practices of Tesco are not as blatant as that. They use only approved scales and do always dual price at least at the point where the goods are themselves are displayed.

Meter Man - Yes, but it's still interesting how the small man is pounced on with supreme aggression but Tesco - who may be exploiting a grey area millions of times up and down the land - are given the "arms length/ it doesn't really matter" point of view.

Richard:

"I think that if a firm is advertising unlawful signs"
Think of what we are talking about here! This is not an offensive sign, it's also not a sign advertising cocaine at 4 quid a snort! It's a pound of potatoes for heaven's sake! Who's going to "suffer" because of this? Can't you see that the whole EU driven thing is a complete farce? Tesco are merely responding to what customers have asked them to do via a survey.

Do you realise that the logical extension of what you appear to be condoning would be customs going through your suitcase looking for "imperial only" marked products to be confiscated having holiday'd in the US?!?

At some point you'll recognise what a dangerous thin edge this wedge could become!

Correction: has become. In 2010, the EC says it will be illegal to express weights in measures in anything other than metric - even outside a retail transaction.

Forum Owner wrote

<<
Correction: has become. In 2010, the EC says it will be illegal to express weights in measures in anything other than metric - even outside a retail transaction.
>>

Wrong - the EU directive 80/181/EEC applies to "economic, public health, public safety or adminstrative purposes".

The directive sanctions the use of non-metric weights in certain circumstances (eg miles on UK roads, aircraft altitudes in feet etc). The directive also make no mention of the use of non-metric measures for purposes other than those specified above.

So what does the word "economic" mean? It means, among other things, retail transactions. And, as we all know, the EC 2010 ban applies to the expression of weights and measures, even though these have not been recognised in EC law as trading units since January 1st, 2000.

The final phrase of Forum Owner's posting was

<<
in anything other than metric - even outside a retail transaction.
>>

I was showing that there were areas outside retail transactions where it is not necessary to use metric measures, thereby refuting what FOrum Owner had written.

Forum owner was also incorrect in stating that it will be illegal to use "metric" measure - as I have pointed out the EU directive permits those non-metric measures that are recognised by the International Bureau for Weigths and Measures to be used indefinitely. Such measures include hours, minutes, days, degrees of arc and so on for general use and certain other units such as feet for specific use such as heights in aviation.

Forum Owner should be a little more careful in phrasing his/her statements.

Martin is, of course, quite correct. The IBWM is indeed to be praised for allowing us to use minutes, days and years. Were this organisation not to exist, who would there be to allow us to do anything?

I was, of course, referring to uses caught by EC directive 80/181, and quite forgot about uses to which EC directives do not apply, such as international agreements outside the EC. We are indeed grateful that the EC allows non-EC countries to use non-metric units.

The real point is that, WITHIN the EC, from 2010, no expression of quantity or dimensions may be made, even outside of a retail transaction.

Replies to Forum Owner:

<<
Martin is, of course, quite correct. The IBWM is indeed to be praised for allowing us to use minutes, days and years. Were this organisation not to exist, who would there be to allow us to do anything?
>>

The abreviation for the International Bureau for Weights and Measures is IBPM (using its "offical" Freench name). It should be noted that the offical language used by the IBPM is French (after all Britain was not present at the origianl meting in 1875 so we lost out in setting up the ground rules).

If you read the pre-amble to the EU directive 80/181/EEC you will see that the EU makes an indirect reference to the work done by the BIPM.

<<
I was, of course, referring to uses caught by EC directive 80/181, and quite forgot about uses to which EC directives do not apply, such as international agreements outside the EC. We are indeed grateful that the EC allows non-EC countries to use non-metric units.
>>

If you read both the SI definitons published by the BIPM and the EU directive 80/181/EEC you would see the EU directive is in fact a copy of the BIPM recomendations with a bit tagged on at Mrs Thatcher's insistance regarding the use of miles and pints.


<<
The real point is that, WITHIN the EC, from 2010, no expression of quantity or dimensions may be made, even outside of a retail transaction.
>>
I presume that you forgot to add the words "other than using metric quantites" at the end of the above sentence. THis is a gross exageration because:

1) It will still be legal to sell beeer by the pint. (Which is certainly a retail activity)

2) It will be legal to use non-metric units for private use (this is a non-retail use).

Forum Owner - I believe that you are being over dramatic. You overstated your case and that if you continue to argue this point you will only make a fool of yourself. Why do you not cut your losses and stop replying.

Steve, you must understand I am not anti lbs/ozs even I might come across that way. I have stated that I don't believe Britain is currently ready for metric only signs in supermarkets yet. I would just like to see dual signs on advertising signs in supermarkets then no one can complain.

People should feel free to ask for something in pounds and ounces if they want to but equally, one should be allowed to ask for something in kilos too. Surely therefore the logical compromise is both measurements!

BTW, on your comment about these signs not being offensive, I wouldn't call the roadsigns showing metres offensive but ARM persists in demetricating them.

>>> 1) It will still be legal to sell beer by the pint. (Which is certainly a retail activity)

Martin,
Do not persuade us that people can use customary measurements simply because of one "derogation". Selling a pint of beer is an extremely narrow application and is a token concession.


>>> 2) It will be legal to use non-metric units for private use (this is a non-retail use).

No it won't; from 2010, it will be illegal. I think you need to rethink your understanding of "supplementary indications".

A supplementary indication is not recognised as a unit of trade and is not part of the transaction. It is private information, surplus to the legal requirement and extraneous. It is like saying, "Bananas are yellow". It is additional information that passes between two private individuals and has nothing to do with the retail exchange as regulated in law. From 2010, the EC says it will be illegal to express information in any terms other than the metric system, even though this lies outside any economic purpose.

It is not therefore possible to distinguish between saying "ounce" on a label, and referring to ounce in, say, a domestic capacity. Neither are part of any retail sale. To try and make a distinction would replace rule of law with rule of men.

Forum Owner seem sto persist in missing the point.

Let me start again. Forum Owner wrote

<<
Correction: has become. In 2010, the EC says it will be illegal to express weights in measures in anything other than metric - even outside a retail transaction.
>>

Fact - After 2010 it will still be legal to sell beer in the UK by the pint. This means that Forum Owner's use of the phrase "anything other than metric" is an exageration.

Fact - The EU directive 80/181/EEC only applies to "economic, public health, public safety or adminstrative purposes". Since this does not cover, for example, domestic use, this means that Forum Owner's use of the phrse "even outside a retail transaction" is an exageration.

Richard wrote

<<
Steve, you must understand I am not anti lbs/ozs even I might come across that way. I have stated that I don't believe Britain is currently ready for metric only signs in supermarkets yet. I would just like to see dual signs on advertising signs in supermarkets then no one can complain.

People should feel free to ask for something in pounds and ounces if they want to but equally, one should be allowed to ask for something in kilos too. Surely therefore the logical compromise is both measurements!
>>

This begs the question "How long should there be a requirement for dual signs"? From the point of view of an honest shopkeeper - as short as possible because it is a pain having to make dual signs all the time.

From the point of view of the lazy shopper "As long as possible" because he cannot be bothered to face up to the change.

From the point of view of the suspicious shopper "Long enough for me to get used to the metric equivalents so that I will not be ripped off by dishonest shop-keepers"

These opposing points of view mean that an arbitrator is needed. That arbitrator is the Government who shouldseek to make rules that in effect broker a compromise between all the parties described above. Unfortunately HMG has proved itself spinelss in this task.

>>> Let me start again. Forum Owner wrote

Martin,
You may start again as many times as you wish. Yes, after 2010, people may still buy draft beer by the pint but, if I exaggerate, it is a 0.0001% exaggeration. This is because buying draft beer by the pint is, frankly, trite. The pint will NOT be permitted for GENERAL retail use, let alone other UK units. It is nonsense to suggest that imperial units can still be used simply because of one exception made for the sake of public relations.

>>>> Fact - The EU directive 80/181/EEC only applies to "economic, public health, public safety or adminstrative purposes".

In that case, Martin, why will it be become illegal in 2010 to express weights and measures OUTSIDE economic purposes, such as putting an lb/oz equivalent on the side of a bag of sweets?

In your mind's eye, you see a difference between using lb/oz for, say "cooking", and as information on the side of a can. In law, however, there is no difference because neither are regulated by the state. Whether people PRIVATELY express dimensions in a kitchen, on a race-track, or in a shop MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. It is simply information expressed in a personal and private way.

What you need to address is how someone expressing the word "inch" privately in a clothes shop is legally different than saying "inch" while working, say, on their sewing machine at home. If neither expression is part of a retail transaction, then why is the EC insisting on banning the former?

"OUTSIDE economic purposes, such as putting an lb/oz equivalent on the side of a bag of sweets?"

Sounds like an economic purpose: a trade description.

Unless of course you're suggesting that trade descriptions do not have an economic purpose, in which case one of the most important Acts of the 20th century was entirely mistaken.

It is a trade description in the same was as saying "shandy is wet". It is information provided by the seller which, once offered, must be accurate. It is not, however, part of the transction as regulated in law.

lb/oz units are not recognised for economic purposes under the EC direcive. All a seller does by providing an equivalent is to provide a piece of information that USED to be part of the regulated transaction.

"It is a trade description in the same was as saying "shandy is wet". It is information provided by the seller which, once offered, must be accurate. It is not, however, part of the transction as regulated in law."

Which is exactly my point: it is not regulated but under the Directive it should be. This is what BWMA said they 'probably agreed with' in an earlier post.

Why should it be illegal to provide information?

I am not saying that it should be; I am saying that it is.

Ross,
Rereading what you've put above, you are confusing two separate issues. In your above post (around ten messages back), you said that the Directive had not been transposed entirely in UK law. This was in relation to advertising laws.

What I am referring to is quite separate. This is the private expression of information in non-metric terms outside any economic purpose (such as advertsing).

<<
Rereading what you've put above, you are confusing two separate issues. In your above post (around ten messages back), you said that the Directive had not been transposed entirely in UK law.
>>

The directive has been transposed into UK law - The Weights and Measures Order 1995.

But not, apparently, for advertising, nor for economic purposes not captured by the 1994 regulations (ie the so-called descriptive uses).

The Neil Hamilton Deregulation Order solution, discussed during 1995-1997, was to take per unit transactions out of the coverage of the 1985 Act.

Richard: "People should feel free to ask for something in pounds and ounces if they want to but equally, one should be allowed to ask for something in kilos too. Surely therefore the logical compromise is both measurements! "

I agree with you totally.
Remind me - what are we disagreeing upon? ;)

There have been many instruments, the primary one is in fact the Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/1804). The problem is that there have never been any instruments to:

1. Require descriptions having an economic purpose to use prescribed units.
2. Require public administration to be conducted in prescribed units.
3. Fix the date required for the conclusion of the use of Chapter II units.

As for what constitutes an economic purpose, I believe that the provision of a trade description accompanying goods does so as this information is designed to provide information to the consumer in their choice of purchase.

I do not know what the Neil Hamilton Order is/was/might have been, please advise.

I am afraid I must disagree with the idea of a dual system being a permanent fixture as this can only lead to confusion, expense and the maintenance of a 'limbo' solution.

Richard wrote:
<<
People should feel free to ask for something in pounds and ounces if they want to but equally, one should be allowed to ask for something in kilos too. Surely therefore the logical compromise is both measurements!
>>

The law allows this. There are no legal constraints on the customer.

Traders on the other hand have a responsibility to adhere to legal standards. They must price weigh and sell in grams and kg.

Customers need to be aware though that if they ask in lb or oz they rely on the trader accurately converting this to g or kg.

In a modern supermarket with price computing scales the customer will always be charged correctly for the amount supplied. So they will get what they pay for but not neccesarily what they ask for.

Customers are better advised to learn to aquaint themselves with their purchase requirements in grams and kilos. That way there will be no mistakes caused by conversion errors.

Responding to Ross:

The Neil Hamilton Order was, before his fall from grace, a proposal to take "per unit" transactions out of the remit of the 1985 Act. In effect, pricing per pound would become like selling single pieces of furniture - the units would be defined in law, but the law would not state what units would be used. The effect of this would have been to allow a choice between lbs and kilos.

>>> I am afraid I must disagree with the idea of a dual system being a permanent fixture...

We do not have dual labelling in the UK/EU.

<<
The Neil Hamilton Order was, before his fall from grace, a proposal to take "per unit" transactions out of the remit of the 1985 Act. In effect, pricing per pound would become like selling single pieces of furniture - the units would be defined in law, but the law would not state what units would be used. The effect of this would have been to allow a choice between lbs and kilos.
>>

Prices per lb and prices/kg are difficult to compare without the aid of a calulator or pencil and paper. People out shopping don't tend to have these things hand. Traders are inclined to exploit this.

Sanctioning this in law is irresponsible.

How does a trader exploit this? How do they profit from it?

If the country is to go metric, then all traders should quote prices in metric units. If this is not done, then traders will pick and choose whichever unit they wish so as to make their prices look cheaper than their competitors. For example, we would see the more popular cheeses at a particiar counter being priced per pound, while the exotic cheeses on the same counter would be priced per 100g.

hey - why not have both? Then we all win! Not just you lot!

Ah but that would simply be unacceptable to you lot eh?

"No compromise" - the true home of the intolerant

>>> "...then traders will pick and choose whichever unit they wish so as to make their prices look cheaper than their competitors"

But if it is clear that the price is per UNIT and the unit is clearly displayed (eg per kilo), then the consumer will know the prices are not comparable, anyway. ie they will know that 50/lb is not the same as 50/kg

Unfortunately a reasonable proportion of the public are stupid and need to be guided through these things.

Even for the more intelligent people, the price numbers can be made very large and the units very small so that people say something like '50p or £1.19? I think I'll go for 50p'. This is similar to children's toys and trade descriptions, where the child will probably be more likely to go for 'water pistol: fires 30 feet' than 'water pistol: fires 9 metres', simply because the number is bigger.

As for the Neil Hamilton Order, surely such a move would render the 1985 Act next to pointless?

Re: 1985 Act - not certain, but you could be right. Perhaps the 1985 Act does other things.