...when you go around vandalising road signs? First of all, anyone under the age of 30 struggles to understand feet and inches, so you're making their lives harder. Second, when you damage public property, some poor bloke from the council has to come along and make repairs, thus wasting taxpayers' money and local authority time. I can accept that you people are astoundingly small-minded, but this level of arrogance takes things to a new level – why not just add a sign saying how many feet it is to the next road hump alongside the one that says how many metres it is rather than forcing your views onto everyone else?

You complain about the metric lobby (if such a thing exists) forcing its views onto people who disagree, yet you do the same thing yourself. How do you justify this selfish action?

REPLY TO ALEX (Interleaved below):

Don't you think you're all a teeny bit selfish...when you go around vandalising road signs?

ANS: The road signs in question are illegal. No road sign in the U.K. is permitted to be in metric measurements only. No official is allowed to do what Parliament has not authorised them to do.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 do not authorise metric-only road signs, and only authorise dual metric and Imperial signs in very limited circumstances. People like members of BWMA, ARM and other groups tell the authorities about illegal metric signs. Authorities are given every possible chance by us to take down and replace or amend the illegal road signs they have erected. Often they do. But when they don't, some of us have amended the illegal signs by affixing labels showing the correct measurements in miles, yards, feet or inches.

Due to handsome donations which we receive for our work, these signs are amended to a professional standard using Department for Transport-approved quality reflective adhesive sheets and lettering in the approved Department for Transport Helvetica style. This has been accepted by the Courts as legal, and not vandalism. Besides, Section 131(2) of the Highways Act 1980 specifically authorises members of the general public to remove signs which are not 'lawfully placed on the highway'.

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

First of all, anyone under the age of 30 struggles to understand feet and inches, so you're making their lives harder.

ANS. You cannot be serious. Even the U.K. Metric Association, which champions the cause of metric measurements, admits that despite metric education in the schools, schoolchildren emerge from school not understanding or using metric.

This is a direct quote from p. 19 of the UKMA's Report "A Very British Mess", issued in July this year:

"Today's schools teach calculation exclusively in decimal numbers and metric units. However, much teaching of metric to schoolchildren is wasted since they have little opportunity to practise their skills outside school. When children leave school, they have to adapt to the metric system...many soon forget what they learnt at school..."

Are you saying that the tens of thousands of car drivers who pass their tests each year don't understand 'Chipping Sodbury - 2 miles', 'Give Way - 100 yds', 'Road width restriction 6'6 " ', 'Height limit 13'0" ' etc?

Most people in the country don't know even their height in metric. An independent survey last year showed that 98% of Britons knew their height in feet and inches and only 29% knew their height in metric. These are objective facts, not just the opinions of those of us who love the Imperial system of weights and measuress. Are you sincerely suggesting that those under 30 can't tell the difference between a 7" pizza and a 12" pizza, or a 6" x 4" photo from a 7" x 5", or 'struggle' with it? Or that a 6' 5" bloke reading the personal columns would not pause for thought before trying to date a 5' 1" girl?

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

Second, when you damage public property, some poor bloke from the council has to come along and make repairs, thus wasting taxpayers' money and local authority time.

ANS. The waste of money arises from Council officials erecting illegal signs in the first place. The Council don't 'make repairs', they usually 'over-label' a sign with illegal metric units on by using an adhesive sign with the correct units - miles, yards, feet or inches - over the metric ones. It's not an expensive job

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can accept that you people are astoundingly small-minded...

ANS. Why? Because we ensure that the law is complied with? Because we want to avoid danger to motorists? Because we're happy with the system of weights and measures used by most people day-to-day in Britain, in the United States and in many other countries?

Please look at the case of Adam Doggett elsewhere on this board ('Metric Transport Signs). He tried to drive under a low bridge sign illegally signed as '1.4m'. Despite being aged 36 and a London underground driver, he did not have a clue what '1.4m' meant and his jeep got stuck under the bridge as a result. Now the bridge has a sign saying just ' 4' 7" '. Broxbourne Council had to compensate him £442 for damage to his roof. If we had amended the sign first, we would have saved Mr Doggett a lot of bother and saved the Council tax-payers of Broxbourne £442

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

but this level of arrogance takes things to a new level – why not just add a sign saying how many feet it is to the next road hump alongside the one that says how many metres it is rather than forcing your views onto everyone else?

ANS.

1. Road humps, by law, must be signed in yards, not feet or metres - for consistency with other road signs

2. Dual signs are confusing as everyone up to the Minister for Transport and the U.K. Metric Association concede. Clarity is needed in what the Department of Transport calls a "safety-critical" environment

3. That signs to road humps should be in yards is not "our view". It is the government's view and the law!

4. An independent survey in April 2002 showed that 86% of people wish to retain miles, yards, feet and inches on our road and pedestrian signs as against just 8% wanting to switch to kilometres and metres. I would hazard a guess that you are among the tiny minority of 8%

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

You complain about the metric lobby (if such a thing exists)...

ANS. There is a U.K. Metric Association whose patron is Lord Howe

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

...forcing its views onto people who disagree, yet you do the same thing yourself. How do you justify this selfish action?

ANS. As you can see from all the above, it is not 'selfish'. Numerous independent surveys show 70% to 90% support in Britain for retaining our tried-and-tested system of weights and measures. You might well describe as selfish the U.K. Metric Association's recent call for Britain to spend over £1 billion converting one to two million distance and speed signs into metric by 'early 2007' - merely to satisfy their lust for compulsory metrication.

I don't know if you are aware of the history of metrication. Metric has only ever been imposed by metric zealots 'forcing their views' on the public by law, often with criminal penalties. Metric weights and measures have been fully legal in this country since 1897 but nobody much wanted to use them

______

ENDS

Although I admire your response, and indeed found it very readable and interesting, I fear you are talking to a "nobody".

My prediction is that the original post is done by an individual who pops along over here every few months just to leave a troll-post (the give-away was the usual "young people don't use feet and inches" line).

I suspect you will see absolutely no reply to you, from the original poster.

Unless
------

Unless my post turns into a "double bluffer".

And what would that make me?

'the give-away was the usual "young people don't use feet and inches" line'

Actually I used the "usual" line because I am a youngish person (25) and have never been taught anything in feet and inches. I know what my height is in Imperial, but have a limited grasp of what it means in relation to anything else, and the only way I can visualise how long a foot is is by thinking about the 30cm rulers that we used to use at school....

Fair enough, I went to school when they stopped imperial too.

Its only since the nineties that imperial was reintroduced into the official curriculum by law.

Hence my total lack of knowledge of what a 9" pizza looks like.

I also stair blankly at the (young) girl who's cutting my hair when she says "an inch off the back?". I have to convert it first into cm.

And when radio one (target audience 15 to 25 yrs old) told us about those girls who got gold in the olympics the girl doing the R1 news said it was 20ft by 5 ft (I think). God, was I lost on that one!

Funny old world innit?

P.S. At least your real and not the "twice a year post nonsense" person I thought you were.

Although I have to admit, your "lack of imperial" thing does sound a bit "fantasy"

OK, Steve/Tony

You probably won't believe this (it's only happened to me once, and I didn't believe it either!)

Was in local supermarket one day & was getting lots of small bits of cheese for snacking on with partner (Friday night with wine & Friends on C4)

New counter assistant on deli - obviously his 1st day as closely supervised. I might even have been his 1st customer.

Asked for 100g portions of various cheeses, but wanted smaller quantity of one that only I liked. Asked for "a couple of ounces" and got a blank look back until supervisor hissed "He wants 50g"

I'll post "The exception that proves the rule" before one of you does!

>>>>>>
First of all, anyone under the age of 30 struggles to understand feet and inches, so you're making their lives harder
<<<<<<

I am not quite twenty. I understand Imperial very well. If you do not, then you are the minority. Ta.

Bryan

I'm 42 and was taught in imperial. I didn't believe it happened either! (must admit that asking for a lb has occasioned a certain amount of pisstaking in the butchers!) - but it did happen. I have no interest in putting lies on the board. I try to say it as I see it.

TB.to Alex
ANS. Why? Because we ensure that the law is complied with? Because we want to avoid danger to motorists? Because we're happy with the system of weights and measures used by most people day-to-day in Britain, in the United States and in many other countries.

metre:
What utter hypocrisy! Imperialists only defend the law when suits them. Where was your/their steadfast defence of the law when it was broken in Sunderland and everywhere else?

Many other countries? Please name some apart from Liberia, Myanmar and 1 or 2 other obscure places.
This kind of truth seems to be the hallmark of imperialists.

Bryan, are you really 19 years old? For some reason I would have guessed you were about 50

Berenger,
I assume...

..no..

I GARAUNTEE that your purchase was not from tesco!

I once asked for a just couple of ounces of cheese you know?
It was in Christchurch.

*BARBADOS!*

Call that a "hallmark" if you like!

LOL, what an insult Andy! Why would have guessed that as my age?I just finished me A-levels and will be off to uni shortly.

I feel that he is one of those who has fallen into the trap of "only old people use imperial".

There are plenty of them.

A mate's mate of mine called Alex was this way "inclined".

It took me 5 minutes of questions before I gleefully heard the "you've convinced me" tag!

(he was a "normal" chap with no real interest in the metric/imperial debate, as are most people)

"Bryan, are you really 19 years old? For some reason I would have guessed you were about 50"

Sorry Bryan, but until 6 months ago I thought exactly the same. I think it's because of your *very very* conservative opinions...

Bryan

It wasn't meant to be an insult! Thats not my style.

I accept that many young people USE imperial, it is unavoidable - I am forced to use it in certain areas as well (miles, peoples heights)

I am just surprised that someone your age is actively against metrication. I generally associate this stubborn anti-change mentality with older people. (hope thats not taken as an insult as well!)

Why can't some people get to grips with the idea of the metric system *complimenting* rather than *replacing* the imperial system?

It clearly failed to replace it so why not alter your perception of the debate into colour rather than back-and-white?

"Stubborn, Anti-change"

or

"Obnoxious, You Must Change"

Can anyone see the "third way"?

If not, then just ask a member of the public who has no interest in the metric versus imperial debate.

The 'third way' is a nice idea, but simply not a realistic long-term option.

The need for ONE standard system of measurement was realised centuries ago - unfortunately it does come down to one or the other

Yes, Conrad, I am not a filthy leftist like most students. Hurrah!! :D

Also, Steve speaks sense.

[Blush] Cheers!

<<The 'third way' is a nice idea, but simply not a realistic long-term option.>>

It's already long term!
Unless you think that 4 decades is short-term. I'd hate to go window shopping with you!

<<The need for ONE standard system of measurement was realised centuries ago - unfortunately it does come down to one or the other>>

Er, no it *ISN'T*

Steve

You're right, it wasn't Tesco. It was a Co-op supermarket.

The scale was metric (just like my local Tesco)

The deli was priced in metric (just like my local Tesco)

There was a conversion chart on the wall (just like my local Tesco)

The lad was either still at school or had just started his first job after leaving (just like the local Tesco employees)

The Coop (and Tescos) have packs of Scottish fish marked "454g 1lb" I've been in a factory where these fish are packed. Guess what units the scales in the factory work in?

<<
Due to handsome donations which we receive for our work, these signs are amended to a professional standard using Department for Transport-approved quality reflective adhesive sheets and lettering in the approved Department for Transport Helvetica style. This has been accepted by the Courts as legal, and not vandalism. Besides, Section 131(2) of the Highways Act 1980 specifically authorises members of the general public to remove signs which are not 'lawfully placed on the highway'.
>>

I guess like most human beings, time and wishful thinking can play tricks on the mind.

It hasn't gone unnoticed how the Nov 2002 ruling and that tiny fragment of the 1980 highways act has been gradually embroidered to turn it into something that it never was.

<<<Guess what units the scales in the factory work in?>>>

This might be a trick question, because the regs don't cover stuff "in the factory". I think the wording went something like "equipment in the factory away from the customer need not be in metric but it is highly recommended that firms convert for competition related reasons"

(Obvioulsy those aren't the actual words).

Have you noticed that Tesco have gone one step further in re-imperial labelling? Look at their packed stuff and you'll see that more than ever prosucts have the imperial quantity and they've increased the accuracy to 2 points (its decimalised).

BTW Berenger, please re-check your Tesco deli.

Unless yours is a 'metric-rebel' you'll find that all the stuff in the deli is dual labelled with no prominance and the main boards (the ones about a foot tall by 10 inches wide) are imperial only.

Indeed you could go as far as to say that Tesco actively encourage customers to order by imperial amounts (even though the scales are metric).

I like Tesco!

Stop trying to sell Tesco's to us, Steve, you shareholder, you!

Indeed I have shares* in Tesco.

They're doing alright actually.

However the 300 quid they've netted me so-far doesn't go near the 3500 quid I've lost on other "share tips" that I've purchased.

Thanks for reminding me of that Bryan!

Bah!

*share may go down as well as up.

<<<<Indeed you could go as far as to say that Tesco actively encourage customers to order by imperial amounts (even though the scales are metric).>>>>

They are shooting themselves in the foot though, because in 2010 when no more imperial at all is permitted, customers of other supermarkets will hardly notice a change having been gradually getting used to the new measures over the last few years.

Unless they can find another loophole (which seems highly unlikely given the unambiguous nature of the new legislation "no imperial even as supplementary information") Tesco's will in effect be making the change from lbs to kgs overnight.

Andy,

Promise me one thing.

If the 2010 act does *not* happen as you say it definetly will, could you promise me that you will pick any major city, find it's "Gay District", and run down it's main road shouting "come and get me boys".

Will you promise us that, Andy?

I forgot to add.

You will have to do this naked.

Yes OK, if you promise to do the same if it does happen!

Although I have said in the past that I very much doubt it will happen (think about it - a ban on 'words') I would never go as far as to say it definitely won't happen 100%.

Thus the equivalent forfeit for me cannot be as harsh.
I would suggest that you get a load of naked ladies to run down my street shouting "come and get us".
Yes I know it's cruel - but its fair.

Bryan can play the benny hill music.



P.S. I'm surprised that Carlyle hasn't jumped at the first forfeit with glee in in his eyes!! ;-)

Steve

Re 454g/1lb packages

Regulations that apply would be the Packaged Goods Regs '86 - not guidance. No trick question intended. Schedule 4 sets out equipment to be used for making up packages. I asked which system you thought the packer might use. Obviously, I know the answer will disappoint you.

Tesco deli's - bizzarely, I'm in the 2nd nearest one (which has no deli) more often than the nearest one.

Will be up by the nearest one on Tue. Will try to post reply after that. Seem to remember only metric last time I looked. Will check & give honest reply.

"Wee" wedding pressy sorted. Looks the right colour!!!! How do I send it down before the Child Support Agency get involved in your life!!!

Really?

You def have a wedding prezzy for lil me??

OMG!

If you're serious then try going here: barkatfish@hotmail.com!

But please don't scare me!

P.S. I was talking about general rules regarding what gets used in Factories. Where I am currently working there is loads of imperial everywhere.

Carlyle: "No there isn't"

Steve

Ok, email sent...

Re your local factories. Are they producing goods subject to the WMA? Examples would include most prepacked foods sold by weight or volume.

Goods not subject to the WMA would include things like a factory making jeans in imperial or (to use an earlier example of yours) paddling pools defined in feet.

Well ironically most of the stuff here is prepared in big multi-gallon containers and ends its way up in your pint glass!

Do you mean Guiness or Pilkingtons?

I will divulge no more!

Steve

Checked out the 2 Tesco's since I last posted on the subject. One I'm in more often (Tesco Metro) has far, far less imperial than the one I was in today (big Tesco). Perhaps due to more space constraints?

You're right re the deli in the big Tesco - equal sized fonts - metric above imperial.

Re the (assumed) beer barrels - I've never worked in a big brewery - but I would assume they would tend to measure by weight (I know it sounds strange but quite common)

I know distilleries better. Only 1 micro-brewery in my locality (hopes to go to draught but currently bottles only) Small distilleries (that bottle own whisky) tend to work in litres while big whisky bottling plants tend to weigh the product and use spirit density to calculate volume. Assume breweries would use same system?

PS

Just realised that this was the board that mentioned decimal pounds (Tone/Bry - I mean weight, not money!). Even as a pro metric, I would rather see 1lb 4oz than 1.25lb.

What the **** is 1.42lb without a calculator! (Yes, I can do it - but who outside the boards could!) Even worse when you used to get things like 1.08lb and first thought was that it was over 7oz short weight....

Why wouldn't I know what you were talking about? :p I prefer 1 lb 6 oz or whatever too. Altho', wouldn't it be loverly if we had some short hand decimal-like equiv.... like 1#6lb or summat. Actually I don't care, to be sure. I hate it when I see decimal imperial units unless it is self-evident. That is, 1.5ft is easy to understand, 1.14ft is less easy to get (altho I know it is just over 1 and 1/8 ft, that is 1ft 1.5in)

>Beranger
>
> Re: Don't you think you're all a teeny bit selfish... September 7 >2004, 3:21 PM
>
>
>PS
>
>Just realised that this was the board that mentioned decimal pounds >>>(Tone/Bry - I mean weight, not money!). Even as a pro metric, I would >rather see 1lb 4oz than 1.25lb.
>
>What the **** is 1.42lb without a calculator! (Yes, I can do it - but >who outside the boards could!) Even worse when you used to get things >like 1.08lb and first thought was that it was over 7oz short weight....

I've never seen decimal pounds cause a problem. That is the only way I've seen meat labeled at any grocery store near here. I guess that is easier for the scales in the meat department to weigh that way than to weigh in pounds, ounces and drachmas.

As for 'what is 1.42lb'? It's similar to if you have £1.42. I've have no problem knowing how much money I've got in my pocket if I have $1.42.

Who mentioned drams? Furthermore, the difference is that the relationship in pounds sterling is 100 pennies = 1 pound (i.e. decimal), whereas the relationship in pounds avoirdupois is hexadecimal in nature (16 ounces = 1 pound). Therefore, expressing pounds decimally when its sub-multiples are not decimal is really rather unhelpful.. unless of course it is kept simple as per my exapmle (1.25lb, for instance)

whereas the relationship in pounds avoirdupois is hexadecimal in nature (16 ounces = 1 pound).

WRONG! VERY WRONG!

Hexadecimal is a type of numbering system with sixteen distinct symbols. In hexadecimal, the value of sixteen itself is represented by the symbols "10". If you are using only ten distinct symbols, you are still using the decimal numeric system.

What you are actually referring to is correctly called a conversion factor. If 16 units of one type equals 1 unit of another, then that is a conversion factor not a different numbering base.

Wow! Something intelligable from Euric.

I think they meant "hexadecimal in nature", base 16

Ber: "You're right re the deli in the big Tesco - equal sized fonts - metric above imperial"

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the shop floor boards (they measure about 10in wide by 12~14 in tall) that show only the imperial side....

You have to really search around for the metric.
But there again, no one does!

;-)

SteveH wrote

<<
I think they meant "hexadecimal in nature", base 16
>>

Steve, I think that I agree with you on that one.

As my father would say: "Well I go to the foot of my stairs!"

errrrr, guys, I *SAID* "Hexadecimal in nature". Did no one actually read my post? lol

Oh yeah! Sorry pal.

I guess I have to take this back then:

"Wow! Something intelligable from Euric"

Sorry Carly

Bry
"Decimal pounds"
Was referring to you and Tony's wish that we had never got rid of £/s/d. No offence intended.

Steve
Tesco "adverts" v "price indications"
I admitted there was far, far more imperial in the big Tesco. I speculated whether the space constraints within the store led to less imperial in Tesco Metro

Bryan, I seriously don't see how you can have a problem with decimal pounds. That is the beauty of the imperial system - the pound can be divided fractionally or decimally, according to the situation. If an intuitive understanding of the divisions is necessary, fractions are used. If a precise measurement is needed for a calculation, say in a store, then decimals are used. As long as you know how much a pound is, you should be able to visualize any portion of it, whether stated as a fraction or a decimal.

Yes.. and also no. As I say, in some ways it is okay- as I say, I know 1.14lb is just over 1lb 2oz, but sometiems it is slightly confusing. But then you Americans have a tendency to decimalise things, anyway, whereas us Britons do not.

How am I to visualise, say, 17/100ths lb- that is absurd and difficult to get my head around. Likewise, I would find it slightly difficult to visualise 17/100 foot, or even 17/100 metre.

Bryan, I seriously don't see how you can have a problem with decimal pounds. That is the beauty of the imperial system - the pound can be divided fractionally or decimally, according to the situation.


>>>>>>There is no beauty in imperial units (Imperial nor USC constitute a system. Both are a collection of units related by inconsistant conversion factors).


If an intuitive understanding of the divisions is necessary, fractions are used. If a precise measurement is needed for a calculation, say in a store, then decimals are used. As long as you know how much a pound is, you should be able to visualize any portion of it, whether stated as a fraction or a decimal.

>>>>> A serious problem exists if one user uses fractional divisions and another decimals. Usually one who is accustom to one form can not function in the other. Imperial user rely heavily on charts or calculators to convert one form to another. An extreme waste of time and money and very error prone. This situation does not exist when the metric system is used. That is why industry and commerce world-wide has chosen metric over imperial.


Yes.. and also no. As I say, in some ways it is okay- as I say, I know 1.14lb is just over 1lb 2oz, but sometiems it is slightly confusing. But then you Americans have a tendency to decimalise things, anyway, whereas us Britons do not.


>>>>>>>You may know, (I still think it took you some effort and time to assocoiate the two) but the average innumerate person on the street can not make the comparison. At least in metric, 0.14 kilogram is easily understood as 140 g. And 140 g is easily visable on any scale.



How am I to visualise, say, 17/100ths lb- that is absurd and difficult to get my head around. Likewise, I would find it slightly difficult to visualise 17/100 foot, or even 17/100 metre.

>>>>>>0.17 pounds or feet are not easily visualised by anyone, so you will as everyone else will have difficulty in visualising decimal imperial units or fractional units beyond halves and quarters). 0.17 m is easily visual when it is thought of as 170 mm. And 170 mm easily appears on all metric scales and rulers. Very nice!

Imperial units are only understood, using the term loosely, if you stick to certain ratios, like halves and quarters. Metric can be understood no matter what the numbers are. A metric device easily displays any decimal part of a unit. Imperial does not. 170 mm can easily be found on any ruler, 0.17 foot can not.

Another perfect example of the failure of non-metric units. Such a discussion never happens when using metric units.

<<but the average innumerate person on the street can not make the comparison. At least in metric, 0.14 kilogram is easily understood as 140 g. And 140 g is easily visable on any scale.>>

So there you have it folks, if you are as thick as **** then stick to metric.

If there was ever an extreme pro-imperial group, Carly would be its best asset!

I wonder if he's a double agent for some 'metric-hating' group?

Bryan

At last we agree on something!

You appear to be the only one on the boards that picked up on the potential double meaning of 1.02lb, 1.04lb >>>>> 1.14lb.

Agree totally that pounds & ounces are superior to decimal pounds. A useless compromise unit.

And (I would imagine) it would be a bugger for a TSO to try to check a decimal pound scale with a traditional imperial set of weights.

And (I would imagine) it would be a bugger for a TSO to try to check a decimal pound scale with a traditional imperial set of weights.


It will be a real bugger since they don't check scales in pounds and haven't done so since it became illegal to use pound scales in January 2000. Just think, the remnant of pound scales still out there have no verification stamp on them. Think how many of them may be, and if they are old, out of calibration. Someone, either the customer or the seller, is being cheated.

I can almost imagine the world imploding because of such an awful event.

Carlyle, I don't know whether you know this or not, but Beranger is a trading standards officer.

Bryan - Carly teaches us about the UK. I see no issue with him teaching Beringer about his own job, on that principle.

(snigger)

C'mon boys, I've only implied what I do for a living. I've never confirmed anything. I could be making this all up!

Now where's my jackboot polish gone? :-)

Carlyle
There was life before 2000. I should have imagined a TSO in 1994 trying to check the decimal pound scale.

Bryan, I think you missed my point. Let me give an example.
The gallon is used in the US to sell petrol. It works exactly the same way as the litre does in any other country. But, it can also be used in a different way, divided into quarts and ounces, for other purposes such as cooking. Would you seriously advocate petrol pumps to sell by the gallon, quart, and ounce?
But the fact that you can divide it this way does not mean that you cannot divide it decimally like the litre.

I didn't miss your point at all, with respect, Bud. I think me and Beranger are of a like mind on this issue. As to your gallon examples- I think that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Carlyle
There was life before 2000. I should have imagined a TSO in 1994 trying to check the decimal pound scale.




But this is 2004 and soon to be 2005. What applied then does not apply now. Since the law changed in 2000, the Trading Standards do not recertify scales not in compliance with the law, and that means scales not in metric units.

If a non-certified scale is used, the officer has every right to confiscate and charge the offender under existing laws, not previous laws, for his/her breech of the law.

For fairness to those that comply, those that don't should be punished.

Plain and simple.

Hmmm, back to using your "other" name, 'Euric', are we?

I assume you want your mallet back too, so that you can obliterate a certain area of your body, eh?

Bring back metricsucks so we can see the "real" you again!!!