Dear BWMA,

Do you have any concerns about the fact that a Liberal Democrat MP (Sarah Teather - Brent East) now believes that a market trader who sells in lb oz is liable to be put in prison for such a deed?

This is the result of one of your members writing to her talking of criminal penaltys for the offence.

The penalty for the offence is (I think) £2,000 or £5,000. The penalty for not paying is imprisonment.

First of all, it is highly unliky to be a fixed penalty offence. You should therefore state that the penalty is a maximum of £x, not that it is £x.

Also, may draw to attention that Steve Thoburn was not charged with selling goods by the pound, he was charged with using unauthorised scales (regardless of the units in which they were calibrated).

The reason why they were not authorised was because they were calibrated in lb/oz. I do not recall his fine.
Don't distance yourself from what you support; it makes you look hypocritical.

Yes BWMA, the fact is that you support compulsory metrification, Martin (correct me if I am wrong). This requires severe penalties.

I take it from your answer BWMA, that you regard the suggestion of imprisonment for selling in lb and oz, is valid.

Non payment of a fine is an offence that can lead to a custodial sentence whatever the original offence may have been.

If you follow your logic you may as well tell people that motorists can go to prison for driving at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone. Even those campaigning against speed cameras don't go that far.

With regard to fine for breaches of trading law I think you'll find that the maximum penalty is £5000. It isn't fixed and in practice it is likely to be in the 100s rather than 1000s depending on the circumstances of the offender.

It appears that "common sense" has been removed from this particular thread.

It's quite easy to "sort out"

Day 1 - All ok
Day 2 - New law comes in, person on day 1 now breaking that law, gets fine
Day 3 - Person from day 1 does not pay fine, goes to prison.

<<
Day 3 - Person from day 1 does not pay fine, goes to prison
>>

Day 3 - Person from day 1 refuses to pay fine, goes to prison.

Stan,
It is you who supports criminalisation and fines, so don't wash your hands of it. If you feel ashamed, own up to it; don't criticise us.

<<<Day 3 - Person from day 1 refuses to pay fine, goes to prison>>>

You're getting scary again!

Let's see - the customer wants X, the retailer can give X, the customer is happy with X, everyone is happy with X.

An EU based ruling declares that Y must be used.

To me, the best retailer is the one that listens to his customer, responds to his customer, pleases his customer, is eager to keep everyone happy. He talks to his customer the way the customer wants to be talked to.

Unless you are someone who thinks that traders that use imperial actually have a secret agenda and want to rip off his customers, why should the trader want or need to use Y ?

BWMA,

You don't get it do you.

I am not in the least ashamed of my point of view and in any public debate I am quite prepared to stand up for legal enforcement of metric units in circumstances where legal or regulatory intervention has a reasonable precedent.

I remain unimpressed by the attempt to discredit this argument by phrases like "criminalisation" and pretending that the penalty for non-compliance is a prison sentence.

BWMA,

You don't get it do you.

I am not in the least ashamed of my point of view and in any public debate I am quite prepared to stand up for legal enforcement of metric units in circumstances where legal or regulatory intervention has a reasonable precedent.

I remain unimpressed by the attempt to discredit this argument by phrases like "criminalisation" and pretending that the penalty for non-compliance is a prison sentence.

Why do you support criminalisation - but then criticise us for calling it criminalisation?
Why do you want it to be illegal to use lb/oz weighing machines - but then hide behind the notion that the machines are "unauthorised"?
You can't have it both ways. If you want to impose your practices on others, and take away their right to disagree, don't hide behind BWMA.

If a trader ends up in jail, that trader has chosen that route. Freedom of choice as you claim your side is, means freedom to obey the law or freedom to disobey it and suffer the consequences.

It is not practical to have two competing units as legal. No where in the world will you find it.

You keep saying how much the pound is used in other countries, well, why don't you accept the way others use the "pound" and campaign to use the pound exactly the same way as these others do? That is, you have metric only scales and the pound becomes a slang term for 500 g. If it is good enough for all those countries you report seeing it in, then it is good enough for the UK.

Either way you argue it, that is what it is coming to.

There are millions of traders who have obeyed the law and converted when they were told to do so. For the sake of those, it is not fair that others are allowed to disobey it. Thus in the name of fairness any trader who is not in compliance should be criminalised to the fullest extent of the law. And the scales that are confiscated should be completely destroyed.

<<
It is not practical to have two competing units as legal. No where in the world will you find it.
>>

How about the United States?

<<
Why do you support criminalisation - but then criticise us for calling it criminalisation?
Why do you want it to be illegal to use lb/oz weighing machines - but then hide behind the notion that the machines are "unauthorised"?
>>

For the same reason that BWMA insist on the use of the term criminal and won't tolerate alternative expressions even though it may give rise to a misunderstanding of the penalty, and perhaps for the same reason BWMA describe metric road signs as "illegal" when there are no criminal penalties for erecting them.

<<
You can't have it both ways.
>>

No, and neither can you.

<<
If you want to impose your practices on others, and take away their right to disagree, don't hide behind BWMA.
>>

There you've lost me.

I imagine the BWMA would be quite happy to see criminal proceedings taken against councils erecting metric signs.

Don't mix the state persuing the state with the state persuing the people - they're two very different things.

BTW - did anyone get to this part of Carlyle/Euric's post:

"There are millions of traders who have obeyed the law and converted when they were told to do so"

and then just skipped the rest?

Don't worry, euric/carlyle.

I'll do a petition for you.

Anyone on the prometric side who agrees with euric/carlyle's stance on metrication cybersign their name below (by just posting their post-name):

Hello I have a question. If a customer comes in to a shop and asks for a lb of lets say apples and the shop keeper weighs 450 grans and tries to sell it and the customer said no i want exactly a lb witch is 454 g is the shop required to weigh out exactly 454 g? I don't know if metric scales are calibrated every 5 g. Is there a dockument anywhere that a person could read and find out for sure? Thanks John Mercer

re (John Mercer): "Hello, I have a question. If a customer comes in to a shop and asks for a lb of let's say apples and the shopkeeper weighs 450 grans and tries to sell it and the customer said, 'No, I want exactly a lb which is 454 g, is the shop required to weigh out exactly 454 g? I don't know if metric scales are calibrated every 5 g. Is there a document anywhere that a person could read and find out for sure? Thanks John Mercer"

REPLY: One key point about much of the way that the European Union works is that it is full of ambiguities and confusion - often described as 'Kafkaesque'. This appears to be a classic example. Blurring of responsibilities by officials and Departments (or between the E.U. and nation-states) is another common example of its potential for ambiguity.

In this case, the shopkeeper could reply in one of the following two ways:


1) "Well, I'm only charging you for 450 g., and I'm selling the apples at £1.69 a kilo, that'll be £1.68, is that O.K.?", or

2) "O.K., I'll put another small apple on, that'll make it, er, 525 g, that's betwen 1 lb 2 oz and 1 lb 3 oz. That'll be £1.95 please"


On the other hand, he might also say: "You bl___y pedant, making a fuss over 3.6 grams"

John Mercer wrote

<<
I don't know if metric scales are calibrated every 5 g. Is there a dockument anywhere that a person could read and find out for sure?
>>

This is a very general question. A few months ago, when writing some compouter programs for a laboratory, I looked at some of the wieghing devices that they had. One of them could measure up to 100g with an accuracy of 0.001g. My kitchen scales (an ordinary beam balance that can weigh up to 2kg) has weights that go down to 5g.

Ultimately, you get what you pay for.

You could always visit the UK Weighing Federation's web site:
http://www.ukwf.org.uk/

>>> "Hello I have a question..."

5g or 1/8 oz is the lowest division on most commercial weighing machines. However, a customer is entitled to the full weight if they pay the full price. I suspect that if it happens once, it will not be regarded as a serious matter; however, if a trader continually and deliberately sells 1% short, it would be viewed seriously. Having said that, many pubs sell short of a pint. A petrol station would not get away with it.

>>> "Hello I have a question..."

5g is the lowest division on most commercial weighing machines. However, a customer is entitled to the full weight if they pay the full price. I suspect that if it happens once, it will not be regarded as a serious matter; however, if a trader continually and deliberately sells 1% short, it would be viewed seriously. Having said that, many pubs sell short of a pint. A petrol station would not get away with it.


First of all, the pound is not a legal unit in the UK for trade. Thus the trader is not obligated to be exact in pounds. If a customer asks for a pound, the trade has the right to translate it any way he/she sees fit. When the order is filled, it is up to the customer to accept or reject the amount. If the customer accepts the amount the the purchase was legal (as long as it was measured out on metric scales).

If the trader fills the order for a pound (=454 g) at 480 g and charges the customer based on the per 100 g or per kilogram unit price no illegal activity has taken place. If the trader weighs out 480 g and charges the customer for 500 g based on the per 100 g or per kilogram unit price, then and only then has the trader committed a crime.

Selling short is not a crime if the customer accepts and the price is in harmony with the unit price.

As more and more shops use electronic scales with automatic pricing, the chance of cheating is reduced.

Most metric weighing machines used for over the counter sales are either 6 or 15 kg (max capacity) by 5g divisions.
Pre-metrication, the most common machine was 23lb by 1/8 oz (or less commonly 1/4 oz) divisions.
If a digital metric scale reads 455g, the weight on the scale should be between 452.5g and 457.5g (OK, that's the simple explanation - there can be more of a variation than that)
Similarly, a digital imperial scale will read 1lb when a weight of between 15oz 15/16oz and 1lb 1/16 oz is placed upon it (again, there can be more variation than that)

Shops don't need to have equipment that works to ridiculously exact levels - the scales must be within the tolerances that are set by regulation.

Same applies to petrol pumps, or any other prescribed equipment.
Petrol pumps, for instance, are only exact to 0.5% under or 1.0% overmeasure when inspected.

And before anyone says that this is overregulation, I would point out that similar requirements applied to imperial equipment before metrication

Carlyle
"Selling short is not a crime if the customer accepts and the price is in harmony with the unit price."

Can I sell you 20ml of whisky if I knock 1/5 off the price then?

"As more and more shops use electronic scales with automatic pricing, the chance of cheating is reduced."

It's nearly as easy to cheat on an electronic scale as it is an analogue one. I could easily rip you off in lots of different ways with either.

BWMA
"Having said that, many pubs sell short of a pint. A petrol station would not get away with it."

Pubs get away with it because of (Scots law) Dean v Scottish & Newcastle or the English case that followed (Bulmer v Someone(?))

The head is considered to be part of the pint - I don't agree with it, but that's how the law stands.

The average pint sold in the UK is around 540ml instead of the full 568ml

That is 19floz instead of 20floz.

I believe that Trading Standards use a measure calibrated in ml with a bigger mark at 568 to check pints in pubs. Short measure is quoted in mls & percentages. Bryan is, of course, entitled to convert these figures to imperial.

Indeed I am given the fact that the pint is an Imperial measure, and 568 ml and 540ml are, respectively, 20 and 19 fluidounce.

An accurate conversion is still a conversion.
Do you dispute that short measure pints are measured in mililitres?

Carlyle
"Selling short is not a crime if the customer accepts and the price is in harmony with the unit price."

Can I sell you 20ml of whisky if I knock 1/5 off the price then?

You sure can! It is done all of the time. It is called a sale. it is even legal to unit price something in 100 g and have the kilogram price a little lower. That is give a discount for buying the larger amount. Thus 69 p/100 g does not imply 6.90 £/kg. It could be 6.70 £/kg. One would pay 69 p/100 g up to 999 g and 6.90 £/kg after that.



"As more and more shops use electronic scales with automatic pricing, the chance of cheating is reduced."

It's nearly as easy to cheat on an electronic scale as it is an analogue one. I could easily rip you off in lots of different ways with either.

Yes, you can put your finger on either scale. I was thinking more along the line where the product is bar coded and the trader scans the bar code of the product the customer requested and places it on a cutting machine that is run by a computer that cuts, weighs, wraps and creates the price sticker for the customer. This way is harder to apply the wrong price when it is all done by computer.

Carlyle

There are far more subtle ways to fiddle a weighing machine reading than putting a finger on the scale.... Won't go into it here.....

Whisky - "It's called a sale" - In the UK, since 1963, measures of whisky have been prescribed. In Imperial days, it had to be sold in 1/4, 1/5 or 1/6 gill (or multiples thereof)

It now has to be sold in 25/35 ml (or multiples thereof)

Please explain further how you sell 20ml in the UK. (I'll give you a clue - there are 3 legal ways......)

<<
Hello I have a question. If a customer comes in to a shop and asks for a lb of lets say apples and the shop keeper weighs 450 grans and tries to sell it and the customer said no i want exactly a lb witch is 454 g is the shop required to weigh out exactly 454 g? I don't know if metric scales are calibrated every 5 g. Is there a dockument anywhere that a person could read and find out for sure? Thanks John Mercer
>>

I return to this question because no-one seems to have grasped the obvious fallacy.

How can a shop keeper be expected to supply a quantity of apples to the nearest 5 g when each apple typically weighs in excess of 100 g, except by pure chance? Irrespective of the accuracy or precision of the weighing equipment.

The trader can only supply the nearest to what the customer asked for either a little under or over and let the customer choose which. There is no legal obligaation for the trader to supply any particular amount nor does the customer have a right to demand it.

The law focusses on the issue of the customer being charged correctly (at or below) for the amount supplied in relation to the agreed price. To help ensure this the weighing equipment, where used at all, is required to meet a an approval specification and maintained within limits. This is partly why the actual units of measurement have to be regulated a well because it would be impossible to define such a specification if they weren't part of it.

In response to the paragraph immediately above, it would not be impossible, it would actually be quite easy. The maximum deviation would have to be defined as a percentage. If it is defined in terms of units, g/kg for example, this is really a dimensionless ratio in another form.

<<of lets say apples and the shop keeper weighs 450 grans and tries to sell it and the customer said no i want exactly a lb witch is 454 g >>

Stan actually stole my thunder here, since you'd probably have to cut up an apple to make it happen.

If I went to France and bought half a kilo of apples and the exact weight came to about 10% less than that without dividing an apple then I could put my "reverse euric" clothing on and claim that the french use imperial.

But then that would be daft, wouldn't it? (I think I'll go and play a record now.....)

<<
In response to the paragraph immediately above, it would not be impossible, it would actually be quite easy. The maximum deviation would have to be defined as a percentage. If it is defined in terms of units, g/kg for example, this is really a dimensionless ratio in another form.
>>

Suppose the units were lb. Who says what a lb is? How do you regulate the use of a lb unless there is some legal definition?

If you accept the fairly obvious point that any unit used needs an agreed definition, what do you do if a trader invents one of his own and claims the right to freedom of choice, and accuses the regulators of excessive bureaucracy?

Frames of reference August 10 2004, 1:39 PM

Stan:
<<
In response to the paragraph immediately above, it would not be impossible, it would actually be quite easy. The maximum deviation would have to be defined as a percentage. If it is defined in terms of units, g/kg for example, this is really a dimensionless ratio in another form.
>>

Suppose the units were lb. Who says what a lb is? How do you regulate the use of a lb unless there is some legal definition?

If you accept the fairly obvious point that any unit used needs an agreed definition, what do you do if a trader invents one of his own and claims the right to freedom of choice, and accuses the regulators of excessive bureaucracy?

metre:
Metric people know that, but will imperialists ever learn?

Stan, nobody ever said that they advocate allowing a pound (or any other unit) to be defined any way someone wants. Whatever unit you use, you must use it properly. The definition agreed upon may be in the law, in some international agreement, in a scientific manual, or simply established by custom. Only where there is confusion as to the size of the unit does the government need to step in. There is no confusion in Britain regarding the size of the pound, so it would really be very simple for the government to regulate its use if need be.

The pound is defined as 0.45359237kg. I read this in one of the statutes- from the eighties I believe. To my knowledge, that is still the legal definition of the pound. Obviously, that is quite precise- for everyday goods, it will be rounded to 454 grammes.

I'm not going to say anything.

I just want to see if euric/carlyle will be predictably "wrong" before I give it away....

Bud, you are putting the cart before the horse. There is no confusion in Britain about what a pound is because of the legal process that brought about its definition, i.e. intervention by government.

The precise (current) definition Bryan quotes is correct and was first established in UK law in the 1963 weight and measures act.

Hmmm, I'm actually surprised that Euric/Carlyle didn't jump at the chance to tell one of his many lies, that being - on this occassion - that there is no legal definition of the pound, and thus no "pound".

Odd that he missed out on that opportunity.

I'll try a different tact.

Looky here - I've got "a twelve inch record" ...

(lets see if that gets him going)

Bryan & Stan are right. As I said on another thread, Schedules 1 & 3 WMA'85 define all legal & supplementary units. It's not just weights though, as length & volume measures are defined too. SteveH's 12 inch record is therefore a standard definable size (even though I would consider that definition to be a Trade Description rather than & W&M matter.

Stan/Beranger:

The precise (current) definition Bryan quotes is correct and was first established in UK law in the 1963 weight and measures act.

Bryan & Stan are right. As I said on another thread, Schedules 1 & 3 WMA'85 define all legal & supplementary units. It's not just weights though, as length & volume measures are defined too. SteveH's 12 inch record is therefore a standard definable size (even though I would consider that definition to be a Trade Description rather than & W&M matter.


Reply:

Since the pound is no longer a legal unit of trade in the UK, the previous definitions as defined are a moot issue. By removing the legal protection for the pound from the WMA, you effectively remove the former legal definition as well.

You are correct in stating that the 12 inch name that applies to records is a trade name. Actual diameters range from 300 mm for German disks and 302 mm for American. Neither are equal to 12 inches (305 mm). If you have any old records around, get them out and blow the dust off of them, then with precision micrometers measure them. You will not find one LP equal to 12 inches.

The new technology CD, which has replaced the old technology records is a true metric product. The two standard sizes are 120 mm and 80 mm (mini). Notice how metric applies to new technolgy and non-metric to old. Living proof it is being phased out.

Read the WMA'85 then get back to us.
The pound, like the "metric ton" (believe it or not) are still defined in one of the schedules I mentioned.
I did not refer to a trade name. I referred to a Trade Description as defined in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Push me more, and I'll even explain in boring tedious detail why a quarterpounder is still legal (IMHO)and should still be after 2010.

Read the WMA'85 then get back to us.

The pound, like the "metric ton" (believe it or not) are still defined in one of the schedules I mentioned.

You seem to have a comprehension problem. I did not say that because the pound is not a legal trade unit it does not have a defined value. I said because the pound is not a legal unit for trade that defined value is a moot issue. The key word here is "moot".

Think about the significance of this term and then get back with us.

>>>>I did not refer to a trade name. I referred to a Trade Description as defined in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Push me more, and I'll even explain in boring tedious detail why a quarterpounder is still legal (IMHO)and should still be after 2010.


Reply:

Trade Name...Trade Descriptor.... close enough. A trade descriptor can used as a trade name but a trade name does not always use units to name itself. Kleenix is a trade name applying to tissue and is not described by a unit of measure.

In many European and Asian McDonald's, "Quarter Pounder" is known as "McRoyal" or "Hamburger Royal," as shown in this McDonald's ad in Germany.

http://hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu/ViewingAmerica/cyou/CYOU2002/Fastfood/globalization.html

When something is called by a "Trade Name", such as a 3.5 inch floppy (actual size 90 mm x 94 mm x 3.3 mm exactly), the actual description does not have to equal the physical properties. The same is with the quarter-pounder or inch pizza names.

The reason these are accepted is because one is not buying "by the [unit name]". One buys it as is with no modification that are unit dependant. That is the reason these are permitted.

If McDonalds desides to decrease the size to say 100 g (which is closer to what you really get after it is cooked), they can still legally sell it as a quarter-pounder. One way to avoid confusion is to just rename it the Hamburger Royal or the McRoyal as it is elsewhere.

Carlyle/Euric,

Looks like you are well out of your depth (again)!

I'm absolutely delighted that you jumped at the '12" records are not 12" ' stuff.

Classic euricism!

Can we have some more absolute hilarity euric? you appear to have an adoring army of fans from all sides now: pro-imperial, pro-metric and pro-choice.

Trouble is - we're not exactly laughing "with" you, if you get my drift?

Lets try another tact, see if I can get more hilarity...

let me see...

oh yes!

Erm, what's the size of a football (ie soccer) pitch? I appear to have forgot and all the TV's and radios in my vicinity have developed a fault whereas no sport can be received so I cannot listen to any commentary....

Can you help me euric/carliar ?

Some guys might remember a while back I was asking for the text of certain W&M acts. I read two of em- one in the 60s one in the eighties. Carlyle is talking trout, to my knowledge.

Did you ever think he hadn't?

Ever?

Carlyle

You posted (with regard to me)

"You seem to have a comprehension problem. I did not say that because the pound is not a legal trade unit it does not have a defined value."

I was responing to the following statement in the post above mine

"Since the pound is no longer a legal unit of trade in the UK, the previous definitions as defined are a moot issue. By removing the legal protection for the pound from the WMA, you effectively remove the former legal definition as well."

The post was made by an anonymous poster.

If it was made by you, I stand by my previous reply.

If it was made by someone else, why butt in?

<<Deafening silence>>