Two members of this group seem to have a big hang-up on winning arguments. One more then the other. The one who is the biggest offender actually contributes little in value to the discussions on this board. Mostly his posts never answer questions asked or responds to valid comments on points stated. He just attacks the poster.

I don't know what most of you think of this tactic of claiming won and lost arguments. But most, if not all, should ask yourself if a won or lost argument on this board means anything in real life. If someone here wins an argument, does it change anything in real life? Will all the shops start reverting their scales back to pounds because some anti-metric person won an argument on the BWMA site?

Will the product labels of which 99 % are metric only start including imperial again or revert to imperial entirely? will petrol be sold again in gallons? Will electric, gas and water meters be converted back to imperial because someone here won an argument?

What about industry that is fully converted? How will it affect them? Will an imperialist claiming to have won an argument incite them to spend billions of euros to return to imperial usage?

Will future metrications stop?

Be realistic, it means nothing to win or lose an argument here. If it would matter, the Uk would be predominately imperial and not metric as it is now.

re (metre): "...tactic of claiming won and lost arguments. But most, if not all, should ask yourself if a won or lost argument on this board means anything in real life..."


REPLY: You have a point. It isn't always a good idea to say you've won an argument even if you have.

But the very stuff of life is argument. Take Court cases - civil and criminal, the cornerstone of liberty and justice. It's all about arguments, good and bad, legal and illegal, persuasive and not persuasive, right and wrong.

I would say without too much fear of contradiction that the 'metric martyrs' won the argument under the existing law on the hated Weights and Measures (Units of Measurement) Regulations 1994 (viz., implied repeal), which is why Lord Justice Laws had to invent an entirely new doctrine, the so-called 'hierarchy of constitutional statutes'.

Government is - or should be - about winning or losing arguments. That's how good decisions should be made. It goes on in families too.

The debate is fairly healthy on this board, there is quite a lot of point-scoring but it rarely gets nasty.

Of course, on this board, overall the Imperial side of the debate has usually w.. (slaps own wrist hard)

I agree. If a antimetric person went to a company like Perkins diesel who's head quarters are in the UK and tried to get them to switch the fasteners on all their engines back to inch fasteners I believe Perkins would laugh in their face. If imperial measurements are so much better then why did Perkins spend a lot of money changeing the fasteners on their engines from standard to metric? If any member of the BWMA does work on his or her car unless it is an old British car or an American car built in the mid seventy's he or she has to pick up oh God forbid a metric wrench.

re (mercer): "Why did Perkins spend a lot of money changing the fasteners on their engines from standard to metric?"

REPLY: Almost certainly because government rules or pressure, following the 1965 announcement that we were 'going metric', required them to.

Incidentally, no-one on the 'freedom of choice' side of the argument (ours) remotely wants to persuade Perkins Diesel Engines to change their fasteners etc. back to Imperial; this is yet another 'Aunt Sally' raised by the pro-metric side.

The point we are making is that the Directors of Perkins drive on roads signed in miles and yards, they understand heights and weights of people mainly in Imperial, they have 100-foot gardens, their cars do 45 miles to the gallon, they buy 12" pizzas, eat 16oz. steaks and drink pints of beer, cider or shandy - and we'd like to keep it that way without the political elite of Europe stuffing metric down our throats with criminal penalties

>>>>>I would say without too much fear of contradiction that the 'metric martyrs' won the argument under the existing law on the hated Weights and Measures (Units of Measurement) Regulations 1994 (viz., implied repeal), which is why Lord Justice Laws had to invent an entirely new doctrine, the so-called 'hierarchy of constitutional statutes'.


Governments act (or react) to pressure. Especially economic and/or the pressure applied by businesses with big pockets. Government acted to enforce metrication because business wanted it. And none are sorry it happened. Weight and Measures Regulations are always changing. Units of measure, over time have been legalised then later removed from legal protection. This is an on-going evolution that will continue far into the future. For the time being the 1994 (latest) regulations are thelegal standard and are the ones all enforcing authorities follow.


>>>>>>The point we are making is that the Directors of Perkins drive on roads signed in miles and yards, they understand heights and weights of people mainly in Imperial, they have 100-foot gardens, their cars do 45 miles to the gallon, they buy 12" pizzas, eat 16oz. steaks and drink pints of beer, cider or shandy - and we'd like to keep it that way without the political elite of Europe stuffing metric down our throats with criminal penalties



For now. All of that will change very soon.

But they also buy petrol by the litre. But prepackacked food in metric with most products not showing a non-metric contents declaration. They hear their news and weather in metric (sometimes imperial added). They purchase a variety of goods and service in metric. And most of all they work in a metric company designing and engineering metric products.

Miles per gallon will become litres per 100 km, it it already hasn't. 12 inch pizza or 12 inch anything is just a trade name. Even if it was down-sized to 280 mm from 300 mm (it may already be), they could still call it 12 inches because the name isn't meant to reflect an actual size. Gardens can just as well be expressed in metres, as they most likely are on property deeds. Products sold by the pint can (and some are) also be sold in hundreds of millilitres, like 500 mL or 600 mL. And steaks already are sold in kilograms when you buy them at the market. Again the name may still apply as a trade name. This allows for variation in size without having to have an exact amount stated.

It is desirable to go the last millimetre and complete the conversion as soon as possible.

One of the reasons your side keeps losing, is you keep blaming metrication on the EU, the French and anyone else you think will make some difference. The fact is, your own industries are behind it and they have the money, the power and the resources to carry it through.

TB:
The point we are making is that the Directors of Perkins drive on roads signed in miles and yards, they understand heights and weights of people mainly in Imperial, they have 100-foot gardens, their cars do 45 miles to the gallon, they buy 12" pizzas, eat 16oz. steaks and drink pints of beer, cider or shandy - and we'd like to keep it that way without the political elite of Europe stuffing metric down our throats with criminal penalties

metre:
The whole world drove horse drawn carts in miles and knew all other antiquated dimensions by heart that you list as reason for keeping what you are used to. Do they miss them? Not a bit! Has their culture suffered, not a bit!
No amount of arguing will ever convince you super patriots that these cumbersome units are costly to maintain in a metric world. Essentially you still behave like people in the middle ages, when every city insisted on its particular measurements, by sticking to that anachronism in todays global village
Ever heard of good neighbours?

Okay metre, but looking at the rest of the world we see virtually very single city in France and Germany had its own system of weights and measures. In contrast, look at England and you would see one (albeit with many specialised trade units, now dead). That is the difference. The French might remember a time when going a few miles up the road meant not knowing how many strawberries you were buying as the pound was eithern ot used or different in size. However, we English remember that not as it never happened here.

Experience from the past may teach us wisdom.

What we learn doesn't always mean we maintain the status quo.

We need to look forward constructively.

Being constructive means we learn from our mistakes, and don't perpetuate or repeat them.

The situation in Britain over measures, where we have a silly mixture of metric and Imperial is an historical accident never intended by anyone. It is thus nothing more than a mistake.

Yes, the introduction of metric screwed this country up proper good. Solution: demetrify.

Re: Winning and losing August 2 2004, 2:27 PM


Yes, the introduction of metric screwed this country up proper good. Solution: demetrify.


Wrong! Not completing the conversion is what screwed up the country. The UK should have followed the example of the world. Set a date and outlaw the old units after that date.

Now that the UK has realised its mistake, the completion of what was started is just around the corner. The last millimetre is the new name for the final conversion.

Re: Winning and losing August 2 2004, 1:22 AM
Bryan:
Okay metre, but looking at the rest of the world we see virtually very single city in France and Germany had its own system of weights and measures. In contrast, look at England and you would see one (albeit with many specialised trade units, now dead). That is the difference. The French might remember a time when going a few miles up the road meant not knowing how many strawberries you were buying as the pound was eithern ot used or different in size. However, we English remember that not as it never happened here.

metre:
You people keep on insisting that all measurements in Britain were uniform for donkeys ages. Not true my friend. Only the pound and the yard were 'maybe' the same everywhere, but little else. Many units were all over the place from district to district into the 19th century.

Which unit was it that changed once a week? One of the units was defined by taking 12 men leaving church on a Sunday, lining them up and measuring their feet and from that determining the value of that unit for the week.

The above post is pure trollery Carlyle. It doesn't even deserve a response. Please stop trolling, or I shall petition BWMA to ban you. Thank you.

I think the question we need to settle up is this. Is measurement a national affair or a global affair? No one denies that people of different countries often have to communicate measurements, for example scientists, international trade, aviation, etc. But the question is how often? Are most uses of measurement international or internal? I have no statistics on this, but I would be willing to wager that 99% of the time a measurement is used, it concerns people in only one country. The other 1% of the time, it is to be seen and understood by people of different countries.

<<If a antimetric person went to a company like Perkins diesel who's head quarters are in the UK and tried to get them to switch the fasteners >>

A question to any mechanics, engineers etc etc who post here.

Do we *really* use the term "fasteners" in the UK?

I only ask because only euric/carlyle's posts, over time here and on the metricsucks boards, refers to "fasteners" in this way.

Perhaps BWMA should be on a vigilant "I.P. watch" for masquaraders.

And to you, euric/carlyle:

Dilemma:

Which system would you prefer to support? The one that everyone "talks" and uses in day to day life? Or the "grey coat" one which hides within industry almost out of site?

It must hurt, being reminded of this "real world" scenario!

re (Bud): "I think the question we need to settle up is this. Is measurement a national affair or a global affair? No one denies that people of different countries often have to communicate..."


REPLY: That's a very relevant question. The pro-metric side answer in one way, and those of us on the freedom of choice side answer it another.

The next question you might care to debate is: "Is government a national affair or a global affair?"

It seems that the European political elite has already decided that one

<<<<Which system would you prefer to support? The one that everyone "talks" and uses in day to day life? Or the "grey coat" one which hides within industry almost out of site?

It must hurt, being reminded of this "real world" scenario!
>>>>>

I would prefer to support the system of the future rather than the system of the past.

At the end of the day we are arguing about metrication, not imperialisation.

However slowly, we are only moving in one direction. That must hurt.

<<<<The pro-metric side answer in one way, and those of us on the freedom of choice side answer it another.>>>>

Tony, your hypocrasy amazes me! You are not for freedom of choice. If someone chooses to put up a metric sign you change it to imperial!!

<<I would prefer to support the system of the future rather than the system of the past.>>

This "system of the future",
Is it the one that's been tried and tried on the UK populace since the 1960's? (Reminder: its 2004 now).
I guess, in reality, "the truth hurts".

<<At the end of the day we are arguing about metrication, not imperialisation. >>

No.
We are arguing about metrication, and we are arguing about the continuing popularity and usage of imperial.
I would never argue that somehow metrication isn't/wasn't/hasn't happened (/ing). That would be absurd.
Similary absurd would be to claim that imperial isn't used/ is dieing out/ is unpopular.

You see, my real world scenario in my head is actually also on the street. I find imperial and metric everywhere I look. Although I have to say that the vast majority of things I see and hear are imperial it doesn't detract me from the fact that "under the counter" (like the screws in a modern car) metric is all around too.

This is why I levied that particular question against nut-bag-euric. It *must* hurt him.

I'd be surprised that this ever hurt you - you are more "realistic"

<<
You are not for freedom of choice. If someone chooses to put up a metric sign you change it to imperial!!
>>

Andy, there are some areas where freedom of choice are more important than others. No one is being harmed by traders selling goods in whatever units they want, but if all the signs on the highways are not in the same units, it could pose a very serious safety hazard. Therefore, it is in the interest of the people to have the government regulate highway signs. Regulating units in shops serves no such purpose, and is therefore unnecessary.

I'm not sure what the law is in the UK, but just in case anyone cares, the law in the US is as follows. The government can trample on constitutional liberties only if necessary to accomplish a compelling state goal and if the restriction is no stronger than necessary to accomplish that goal.

That sounds a bit Dodgy, Bud- I would hope you uphold the rights set out in your constitution (notably gun ownership, although all of course)

re (Andy): "Tony, your hypocrasy amazes me! You are not for freedom of choice. If someone chooses to put up a metric sign you change it to imperial!!"

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

REPLY: Andy, as well as checking on the spelling of 'hypocrisy', please also look up its meaning.

The vast majority of British people wish to use customary measuers. They should be allowed the *freedom of choice* to do so.

Again, the vast majority of British people believe that greengrocers like the late Steve Thoburn should have the *freedom of choice* to sell to their customers in pounds, and that the law should be changed to allow them to do this.

You, I believe, strenuously oppose freedom of choice in both those contexts.

Council officials and other authorites are forbidden by law to erect metric signs, yet they sometimes do. They have *no freedom of choice* to erect a metric sign because Parliament does not allow them to do so.

To change an illegal sign into a legal one is perfectly valid, even if it were not for Section 131 (2) Highways Act 1980, which explicitly authorises the removal of signs 'unlawfully placed on the highway'.

May I ask you one very simple question, to which I trust you will give me a very simple answer: 'Do you believe that Council officials should have the *freedom of choice* to erect - and then fail to replace even after they've been told about them - illegal metric road signs'? If your answer is 'Yes', what other laws would you permit Council officials to break, and why?

You have accused me of being a hypocrite. I do not accuse you of anything. But I am honestly wondering whether you used the power of thought before you posted your message

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
: 'Do you believe that Council officials should have the *freedom of choice* to erect - and then fail to replace even after they've been told about them - illegal metric road signs'?
>>

The Road traffic Regulations Act 1984 lays down the protocol to be followed for the removal of signs which the Secretary of State deems unsuitable. If you believe that a sign is unlawful, the correct procedure is for you to complain to the Secretary of State, not to remove or amend the sign yourself.

The vast majority of British people wish to use customary measuers. They should be allowed the *freedom of choice* to do so.


That is what you think. I say the vast majority of people do not give a hoot. If they did the economy would not be predominately metric now. There would be no petrol in litres, prepackaged products in metric sizes, weather and news reports in metric. ETC. PEOPLE DON'T CARE!!!!!


Again, the vast majority of British people believe that greengrocers like the late Steve Thoburn should have the *freedom of choice* to sell to their customers in pounds, and that the law should be changed to allow them to do this.


Since when did the weights and measures issue become a "freedom of choice" issue? Quite honestly when the laws were changed to do things that YOU don't approve of. Where was "freedom of choice" for those who were forced to use imperial because the Weights and Measures Act specified it but would rather have chosen metric? The WMA has been the deciding factor since Magna Carta and will be the deciding factor long after you are dead. You have the freedom to chose to obey the law or not and if not the authorities have the freedom to punish you in accordance with the law. That is as free a choice as you will get.

As for traders and customers, where is it illegal for a customer to ask for an imperial amount? What is the problem with the present situation? You ask for your pounds, the trader converts it to a metric amount. Weighs that amount in your presenace in grams (you and everyone else knows what the number of grams on the scale means) asks you if is ok. You accept it, pay for it and go home. And so what if the price label afixed to your package only shows grams. YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS!



You, I believe, strenuously oppose freedom of choice in both those contexts.


I oppose those who make an issue out of nothing. Why don't you chose to train people in how to be smart shoppers using metric? That would be more beneficial to the public then sowing confusion.

Re: Winning and losing August 4 2004, 10:45 PM


<<
You are not for freedom of choice. If someone chooses to put up a metric sign you change it to imperial!!
>>

Andy, there are some areas where freedom of choice are more important than others. No one is being harmed by traders selling goods in whatever units they want, but if all the signs on the highways are not in the same units, it could pose a very serious safety hazard. Therefore, it is in the interest of the people to have the government regulate highway signs. Regulating units in shops serves no such purpose, and is therefore unnecessary.

metre:
What nonsense! Freedom of choice is indivisible otherwise you get situations like Guantanamo bay.
How many people do you think suffer adverse effects, if not death, because their converted body weight does not correspond with the prescribed dose? Why did that British pilot make a mistake short loading his plane with fuel and crashing it? Why should children have to learn 2 measurements in a world that practically uses only one? Just to give shoppers the choice to buy in antiquated measurements? Get real man.

Bud:
I'm not sure what the law is in the UK, but just in case anyone cares, the law in the US is as follows. The government can trample on constitutional liberties only if necessary to accomplish a compelling state goal and if the restriction is no stronger than necessary to accomplish that goal.

metre:
Who decides that? America's last federal election debacle comes to mind.

You are exactly right, metre. The courts decide that. (They interpret laws in general.)




Martin, what is the procedure (if any) to be followed if the Secretary of State does not act?

REPLY: Andy, as well as checking on the spelling of 'hypocrisy', please also look up its meaning.

The vast majority of British people wish to use customary measuers. They should be allowed the *freedom of choice* to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That is your opinion. Most people don't really care. It is not a major issue for the average person.

Again, the vast majority of British people believe that greengrocers like the late Steve Thoburn should have the *freedom of choice* to sell to their customers in pounds, and that the law should be changed to allow them to do this.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Steve Thoburn case was greatly distorted by the media, and he would have had much less support had people known the facts behind the case.

You, I believe, strenuously oppose freedom of choice in both those contexts.
----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I believe the Government should enforce the use of one measurement system in trade. I don't see it as any different to the state telling us that we must pay in pounds. That is what they are there for and my freedom is in no way affected.


Council officials and other authorites are forbidden by law to erect metric signs, yet they sometimes do. They have *no freedom of choice* to erect a metric sign because Parliament does not allow them to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------
And parliament does not allow traders to sell in pounds and ounces, but they sometimes do. Your actions are the equivalent of a UKMA activist (if they were an extremist organisation) breaking into a shop and changing all the prices to kilos.


May I ask you one very simple question, to which I trust you will give me a very simple answer: 'Do you believe that Council officials should have the *freedom of choice* to erect - and then fail to replace even after they've been told about them - illegal metric road signs'? If your answer is 'Yes', what other laws would you permit Council officials to break, and why?
----------------------------------------------------------
No they should not. The law should be changed.

You have accused me of being a hypocrite. I do not accuse you of anything. But I am honestly wondering whether you used the power of thought before you posted your message
----------------------------------------------------------
I acuse you of being a hypocrite because you go to great lengths to ensure that any illegal road signs are removed, yet support the likes of Steve Thoburn when he blatantly breaks the law. That is hypocrasy!

Andy wrote

<<
Again, the vast majority of British people believe that greengrocers like the late Steve Thoburn should have the *freedom of choice* to sell to their customers in pounds, and that the law should be changed to allow them to do this.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Steve Thoburn case was greatly distorted by the media, and he would have had much less support had people known the facts behind the case.
>>

I would go further than this - most people don't really give a damn what units are being used - they are more concerned about being ripped off. If the Government takes steps to ensure that they are not beign ripped off (as the South African governmetn did), they will be more receptive to change.

Andy wrote

<<
May I ask you one very simple question, to which I trust you will give me a very simple answer: 'Do you believe that Council officials should have the *freedom of choice* to erect - and then fail to replace even after they've been told about them - illegal metric road signs'? If your answer is 'Yes', what other laws would you permit Council officials to break, and why?
----------------------------------------------------------
No they should not. The law should be changed.
>>


The Road Traffic Regulations Act 1985 (I think that I have teh Act name correct) contains the protocol to be followed - it is the Minister's perogative to order councils to remove signs that are illegal, adn if they fail to do so, the Minister can instruct a contract to do the change and charge the Council concerned.

<<I acuse you of being a hypocrite because you go to great lengths to ensure that any illegal road signs are removed, yet support the likes of Steve Thoburn when he blatantly breaks the law. That is hypocrasy!
>>

How can one be a hypocrite by doing/furthering what most people would support in both these cases?

You appear to be extremely state orientated. Don't call me an anarchist, but I believe the state shouldn't do everything for us, ESPECIALLY things we reject in majority.

<<<<<<How can one be a hypocrite by doing/furthering what most people would support in both these cases?>>>>>>

Thats irrelevant. I am calling him a hypocrite because he claims to be amending the signs BECAUSE they do not comply with the law. Yet he is in favour of breaking the same laws in other areas. He would have a lot more credibility if he cut out the "freedom of choice" talk and admitted that he is anti-metric.

<<<<<You appear to be extremely state orientated. Don't call me an anarchist, but I believe the state shouldn't do everything for us, ESPECIALLY things we reject in majority.>>>>

Not at all, I just see this as one are where it is the states responsibility to ensure the consistent use of one system - (NOT in our private lives of course)

erk, without jumping on this pseudo-hypocrite bandwagon - that's what they already do on the roads (due to the safety issue)

re (Andy): "I just see this as one are where it is the state's responsibility to ensure the consistent use of one system - (NOT in our private lives of course)..."

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

REPLY: With 99.99% of our road signs in Imperial (i.e., in your words, 'the consistent use of one system'), what is wrong with dealing with those authorities who refuse to remove illegal metric signs that, er, fail to ensure 'the consistent use of one system'?

Parties in store transaction: private person & private person
Parties in highway sign "transaction": private person & government

Big difference there.

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
REPLY: With 99.99% of our road signs in Imperial (i.e., in your words, 'the consistent use of one system'), what is wrong with dealing with those authorities who refuse to remove illegal metric signs that, er, fail to ensure 'the consistent use of one system'?
>>

The protocol for doing so is laid out in the Road Traffice Regulations Act 1985 - the Minister has the final say and can order authorities to remove signs. If you are unhappy with a sign, you should complain to the Minister, either directly or via you MP..

re (martin): "The protocol for doing so is laid out in the Road Traffice Regulations Act 1985 - the Minister has the final say and can order authorities to remove signs. If you are unhappy with a sign, you should complain to the Minister, either directly or via you MP".


REPLY: Perhaps you would be good enough to post the relevant Paragraph of the Act, or the relevant Regulation, so that we can all check whether what you say is true.

However, if I see an illegal traffic sign, I do not contact the Minister, I contact the Council or authority which erected it. If they do not agree to remove, replace or amend it, instead of wasting time writing a letter to the Minister, the simpler and quicker alternative to remove the illegal sign from public view is to take the unlawful sign down, or amend it, in line with the facility for doing so thoughtfully provided by Section 131 (2) Highways Act 1980

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
However, if I see an illegal traffic sign, I do not contact the Minister, I contact the Council or authority which erected it. If they do not agree to remove, replace or amend it, instead of wasting time writing a letter to the Minister, the simpler and quicker alternative to remove the illegal sign from public view is to take the unlawful sign down, or amend it, in line with the facility for doing so thoughtfully provided by Section 131 (2) Highways Act 1980
>>


How do you know that the Minister has not given a dispensation for the sign in question? (See TSRGD 2002)

<<How do you know that the Minister has not given a dispensation for the sign in question? (See TSRGD 2002)>>

Possibly because he has better things to do rather than ask a council to put up a sign with "metres" on it despite all other signs in the area being imperial?

Come on, be realistic. I mean, there he is looking at plans to widen the M25 in Berkshire but then he has to cut his meeting short so he can give dispensation to Bognor council to put up a sign saying "traffic lights, 300m".

Doesn't sound likely does it?

Steve,

If you visit http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm you will see a picture of a road sign that does not appear in the TSRGD 2002 and which probably required ministerial permission. (In practice, this means that somebody like Sir Humphrey's skivvy will do the negotiations and prepare the paperwork and give the order to Sir Humphrey who will then get Jin Hacker to sign it).

SteveH wrote

<<
Come on, be realistic. I mean, there he is looking at plans to widen the M25 in Berkshire but then he has to cut his meeting short so he can give dispensation to Bognor council to put up a sign saying "traffic lights, 300m".
>>

The TSRGD 2002 allows him to give dispensations retrospectively - in practice, routine dispensations will be dealt with by a minnion who is acting under guidelines given by the Minister.

<<If you visit http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm you will see a picture of a road sign that does not appear in the TSRGD 2002 and which probably required ministerial permission>>

I will place a large amount of cash on a bet that the minister did not get involved in the making of that sign.

I'll lob my car in too.

Martin - not everything in this world rigidly glues itself to a regulation.

Be reasonable.

The minister was probasbly not involved personaly, but I am certain that the Dept of Transport was involved alongside the local council and that the DoT was using an authority delegated by the Minister. (ie the Miniser takes the rap if something goes wrong).

In that case all those "faulty" signs that went up some years ago with "m" on them were to do with a Minister's delegate.




Which I also doubt.

SteveH wrote

<<
In that case all those "faulty" signs that went up some years ago with "m" on them were to do with a Minister's delegate.
>>

Not neccessarily. If a council erected a sign that did not comply with the TSRGD, they are at liberty to request that the Minister permit it retrospectively - citing the cost of the change as the reason.

Right.
I'm off to steal a car.
I'll request that the home office minister permit me to this retrospectively sometime in the future, citing that I need a car right now.

Steve, I am not sure that the law authorises the Minister to retrospectively absolve you of car theft. The TSRGD 2002 only refers to road signs.

From Tony Bennett: " ... the simpler and quicker alternative to remove the illegal sign from public view is to take the unlawful sign down, or amend it, in line with the facility for doing so thoughtfully provided by Section 131 (2) Highways Act 1980"

Reply: Tony Bennett and BWMA are fond of quoting that particular minor clause in the 1980 Highways act, and claiming that this legalises the activities of ARM.

It's difficult for anyone else on this forum to the judge validity of that assertion without seeing it's full context. The text of the act is not available on-line and is quite expensive to obtain in any other way. Before asking us to trust your interpretation consider the following.

A more common sense view of this is that the 1980 Highways Act needed to protect road signs from unauthorised intererence. Given that such interference may amount to merely covering it over non-destructively, damage to public property or other offences couldn't be relied upon to forbid it. Hence they made it a specific offence under the act to interfere with road signs. But then they had to qualify it, no doubt in consideration of safety issues, by exempting unauthorised signs from being removed from view. Hence the clause saying "it is a defence under these proceedings ..."

This is a long way from authorising a politically motivated group bent on attacking the harmless use of metres on footpath signs, sometimes on privately owned ground, based on a stretched and untested interpretation of the law as to what constitutes a "road sign" or a "highway".

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I haven't seen a metric road sign for bleedin' ages!

"Job done"

STAN wantd h ful conexct of Sectio n131(2) of rth highways act 1890.

Here is the full text, which I obtained by typing 'Highways Act Section 131' into the 'Google' search engine:

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

Section : 131
Act : Highways Act 1980
Subject : Penalty for damaging highways


(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse -
(a) makes a ditch or excavation in a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway, or

(b) removes any soil or turf from any part of a highway, except for the purpose of improving the highway and with the consent of the highway authority for the highway, or

(c) deposits anything whatsoever on a highway so as to damage the highway, or

(d) lights any fire, or discharges any firearm or firework, within 50 feet from the centre of a highway which consists of a comprises a carriageway, and in consequence thereof the highway is damaged, he is guilty of an offence.

(2) If a person without lawful authority or excuse pulls down or obliterates a traffic sign placed on or over a highway, or a milestone or direction post (not being a traffic sign) so placed, he is guilty of an offence; but it is a defence in any proceedings under this subsection to show that the traffic sign, milestone or post was not lawfully so placed.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding £20 or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this section, to a fine not exceeding £50.

______

ENDS