Lovely guys, these Trading Standards Officers. Can just imagine the scene when they go home at night (assuming they don't all operate from a barracks somewhere):

"Had a good day at work, honey?"

"Best day for weeks. Managed to ban that shop from telling their customers where their beef comes from. Ha! Ha! Ha! One of the best Euro Regulations I've ever had the pleasure of using - apart from those adorable Units of Measurement Regs. Get me my pipe and slippers, would you, Madge"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULE ON MEAT SIGNS ‘LUDICROUS’ SAYS MP

Published on Friday, December 3rd 2004

By WILL GREEN

HEXHAM’S MP Peter Atkinson has branded European regulations which forced a North Tyne butcher’s shop to remove signs showing its local meat suppliers as “completely ludicrous.”

Under EU labelling legislation, Burn and Walton butchers in Bellingham had to take down signs highlighting the local farms which supplied their beef and lamb.

Now, Mr Atkinson claims the legislation is contrary to the promotion of Bitish produce.

He said: “Like a lot of local butchers, Burn and Walton had put up a board stating which local farms their lamb and beef came from in a given week. It was put up in the shop and it made people feel like they were doing their bit to buy local.

“But it had to be taken down due to European regulations, which is crazy, as we are trying to help local producers and businesses.

“That you need permission to put up the name of the farm that the meat came from is mad.

“We are trying to promote British lamb and beef, and supplying it like this is a good way for the small butcher to compete with the supermarkets.

“This is another example of ‘gold plating’ regulations. Of course we need sensible labelling regulations, that is not the issue, but this is taking it too far; it is completely ludicrous.”

Minister for Farming, Food and Sustainable Energy Lord Whitty has since written to Mr Atkinson stating: “There are strict EU rules on beef labelling which apply throughout the supply chain from abattoirs to retail outlets.

“All operators, including butchers, who sell fresh and frozen beef and veal are required to label EU beef with certain mandatory information: a reference number, country of birth and country, or countries, of rearing, and country of slaughter and cutting, with the licence numbers of the plants, in order to guarantee traceability. This information is required on all carcasses and cuts.

“In addition to these compulsory indications, operators may, if they wish, include voluntary information on their beef labels about the regional or local origin (including the farm or origin), production methods or characteristics of the animal from which the beef was derived.

“But anyone wishing to do so needs prior approval from agricultural departments under the EU’S beef labelling scheme. Therefore, your constituents may choose to identify the farm from which his beef is supplied provided he has approval from DEFRA.”

Burn and Walton have shops in both Bellingham and Wark.

Company director Richard Walton said: “My brother, Thomas, and I, put our own beef and lamb into the shops and put up signs to tell customers where the meat came from.

“We used to put them up, but when trading standards visited we were told that it was not legal, and that if we wanted to put the signs up we would have to join a scheme which would cost us hundreds of pounds.”

_______
ENDS

I especially liked this claassic - from Government Minisetr Lord Whitty, no less:

"In addition to these compulsory indications, operators may, if they wish, include voluntary information on their beef labels about the regional or local origin...But anyone wishing to do so needs prior approval...your constituents may choose to identify the farm from which his beef is supplied, provided he has approval from DEFRA”.

The Euro-state in action

Unbelieveable. It has always been the role of TSOs to prevent the provision of misinformation, i.e. information that is untrue or misleading. How can it be illegal to provide information that is true??

Just wonder whether perhaps the butcher in question has a hidden agenda.... Does he maybe want to reassure his customers that his beef doesn't come from certain local farms?

From memory, didn't the last foot and mouth outbreak originate just outside Hexham? No wonder beef labeling is an issue around there!

BWMA said "How can it be illegal to provide information that is true??"

That is a bit two-faced. BWMA support the assertion that advertising hoardings stating "Bed & Breakfast 200 metres" (like one I spotted last week) are illegal. Do BWMA allege that this sign was untrue or misleading?

No, it is not misleading, but a road is state property.

Where did I state that the sign was placed upon state property? The sign in question is certainally visible as you drive past, and is placed at the bottom of the entrance to a private driveway leading up to the B&B.

How about the advertising campaign a few years ago where MacDonald's paid for adverts on bus shelters giving the distance in metres to their restaurants.

In both cases above, do BWMA believe these signs are illegal? If so, "How can it be illegal to provide information that is true??"

Hmmm, seems like a good point. Can you remember: did the signs show the imperial distance?

B&B is metric only.

Seem to remember the MacDonalds adverts showing the golden "M" on a red background with a distance printed below. Sometimes it was imperial, sometimes metric but never both.

No-one seems to be commenting (any more) on the original post.

Good on the TSO's! Can no-one see the terrible safety implications involved in stating where some meat comes from?

It could have someone's eye out, for goodness sake.




(BTW - Llangollen is a lovely place - everyone should visit it at sometime. Sorry - just had to throw that one in there having just driven (4 hours) back form there)

<<
That is a bit two-faced. BWMA support the assertion that advertising hoardings stating "Bed & Breakfast 200 metres" (like one I spotted last week) are illegal.
>>

As far as I know the only place where UK law specifies that Imperial distances shall be used in on road signs that are erected in accordance with TSRGD 2002. If a road sign that purports to comply with the TSRGD 2002 has metric distances and it has been erected without the consent of the Minsiter, then it is possibly unlawful (BUT NOT ILLEGAL).

Any other sign that shows distance can be in eitehr metric or imperial units as both are allowed by the Units of Measure Regulations 1986. If any such sign is wilfully modified without the consnet of the owner, then the person who did the modification risks facing a charge of criminal damage.

SteveH: "No-one seems to be commenting (any more) on the original post.

Good on the TSO's! Can no-one see the terrible safety implications involved in stating where some meat comes from?

It could have someone's eye out, for goodness sake."

Very well.

Trading Standards Officers are public servants charged with the unenviable task of enforcing what are sometimes unpopular laws.

They have been shown to be the victim of cynical, irresponsible and cowardly politicians who make the laws which they are obliged to enforce but do not give them public backing in the course of doing their duty against equally cynical and manipulative rebel traders trying to make a political point.

So perhaps BWMA members who try to belittle TSOs might spare a thought for a body of professional people without whom consumers would be seriously ripped off and abused by socially irresponsible traders.

BWMA supports TSOs in their correct role. We recognise the metric issue is not easy for them (they have had little support from central government, which appears to have washed its hands of the whole matter).

<<Trading Standards Officers are public servants charged with the unenviable task of enforcing what are sometimes unpopular laws.>>

Unpopular? Unwanted?

<<They have been shown to be the victim of cynical, irresponsible and cowardly politicians who make the laws which they are obliged to enforce but do not give them public backing in the course of doing their duty against equally cynical and manipulative rebel traders trying to make a political point.>>

I hope you've seen my post under the thread "BWMA supports TSOs in their correct role" placed by Berenger.

I wrote that before even reading your post here.

I hope it conveys to you that focusing the blame is a very difficult thing to do!

<<<Lovely guys, these Trading Standards Officers. Can just imagine the scene when they go home at night (assuming they don't all operate from a barracks somewhere):>>>>



If you think the TSO's are nasty, what about those guys who take it upon themselves to amend signs just because they don't like certain words used on them?

The TSO's just do their job. They don't gloat about it and they are not at fault for the legislation (which as in the beef example is sometimes ludicrous)

The ARM on the other hand are not under orders from anybody and do it for purely selfish reasons.

...albeit populist

BWMA: "BWMA supports TSOs in their correct role. We recognise the metric issue is not easy for them (they have had little support from central government, which appears to have washed its hands of the whole matter)."

SteveH: "I hope you've seen my post under the thread "BWMA supports TSOs in their correct role" placed by Berenger"

Stan:

There is nothing incorrect about TSOs insisting that market traders conform to the law with regard to legal units for trade. TSOs cannot be expected to pick and choose which laws are valid based on the obcure arguments of the likes of Micheal Shrimpton.

Traders not conforming to the legal requirements for weighing equipment does matter to the enforcement agencies because they cannot do their duty in ensuring that the equipment is still within calibrated limits.

We have discussed the difference before between a road and a shop. It can be illegal for a municipality to provide information that is true (a metric road sign) because the municipality is part of the government. The government cannot stop private companies from providing information that is true (or, in some cases in the US, even if it isn't true) because this would be a violation of their freedom of speech. But a higher government can tell a lower government what to do, just like the owner of a shop can tell the employee what to do.

Bud wrote

<<
It can be illegal for a municipality to provide information that is true (a metric road sign) because the municipality is part of the government.
>>

Bud, it is not illegal, but might be unlawful. The difference is that there is nothing in UK law that prohibits the use of metric units on road signs, only that in most cases the regulations governing road signs do not provide for the use of metric units.

<<<There is nothing incorrect about TSOs insisting that market traders conform to the law with regard to legal units for trade. TSOs cannot be expected to pick and choose which laws are valid based on the obcure arguments of the likes of Micheal Shrimpton.
>>>

Stan - now YOU are dehumanizing TSO officers.

Be honest with me - have you ever sped on a British road (say, 40 in a 30 area) and got stopped by the police only to be told to be on your way and drive more carefully? Hanf on a mo! You broke the law but got no summons!!! Think carefully.

I onced recorded the rugby and then got some friends around to watch it. Luckily the state didn't raid me for illegal public performance!

The point is many "rule enforcing" aspects of life do get a dose of common sense now-and-again.

Selling a pound of apples is just slightly less dangerous to the public than e-coli ridden kebab meat.

COMMON SENSE!!!!!

<<
Bud, it is not illegal, but might be unlawful. The difference is that there is nothing in UK law that prohibits the use of metric units on road signs, only that in most cases the regulations governing road signs do not provide for the use of metric units.
>>

I'm not saying that it is illegal, I'm only saying that Parliament would be acting within its powers if it chose to make it illegal, as opposed to making it illegal for private businesses to show certain units, which would probably be overstepping their powers.

SteveH: "Stan - now YOU are dehumanizing TSO officers."

Stan: I'm at a loss to understand how you work that one out.

SteveH: "Be honest with me - have you ever sped on a British road (say, 40 in a 30 area) and got stopped by the police only to be told to be on your way and drive more carefully? Hanf on a mo! You broke the law but got no summons!!! Think carefully."

Stan: No. But you are missing the point anyway. TSOs also give cautions and plenty of time for offending traders to put things right. Traffic police will won't just "send you on your way" in the knowledge that you are a persistent offender (if that were the case).

SteveH: "I onced recorded the rugby and then got some friends around to watch it. Luckily the state didn't raid me for illegal public performance!

The point is many "rule enforcing" aspects of life do get a dose of common sense now-and-again.

Selling a pound of apples is just slightly less dangerous to the public than e-coli ridden kebab meat.

COMMON SENSE!!!!!"

Stan: I see none of that so called "common sense" in your arguments.

So you do admit that TSO's resources should be used up stopping pounds of apples being sold rather than preventing food poisoning by dodgy cafes and kebab vans.

ie there is an equivalence of importance between the two.

Please don't respond claiming that TSO's have plenty of time on their hands and can do both!! That is not the point.

Just because worse crimes are being commited doesn't mean that minor crimes should go unpunished

Again - can I refer you to a well known phrase - "Common Sense"

Not sure of the exact split of Food Safety enforcement split down south, but in Scotland, Environmental Health Officers (EHO's) deal with Food Safety & closing dodgy eating establishments.

Split in England is usually along the lines:-

Labelling - TSO
Taking test purchases for Food Safety - TSO
Closing premises for bad hygene - EHO

Stan: "No. But you are missing the point anyway. TSOs also give cautions and plenty of time for offending traders to put things right. Traffic police will won't just "send you on your way" in the knowledge that you are a persistent offender (if that were the case)."

Agree totally with Stan's point. Can BWMA (or Steve) name one trader that has been prosecuted without having firstly being advised/warned on (say) at least 2 previous occasions by TSO's?

Steve: "Please don't respond claiming that TSO's have plenty of time on their hands"

Don't make me laugh!!!!

<<<Agree totally with Stan's point. Can BWMA (or Steve) name one trader that has been prosecuted without having firstly being advised/warned on (say) at least 2 previous occasions by TSO's?>>>

I don't know because I have never followed a case on a personal level. I support their case but don't have any direct influence or contact with these folk so I cannot answer.

[Note to Carly - if you've sobered up and are reading this - sometimes it helps to be honest, do you see how I handled it there?]

Just because the cops (or whoever) warn you to do something, doesn't mean it's right for them to force you to do it. You cannot justify such forced actions just because a warning was given.

I think it highly likely that the prosecuted traders were given warnings beforehand. However, as Bud says, the use of lb/oz was not done in ignorance of the regulations but i) because of doubts of their validity and ii) they were unjust regulations anyway.

What is stated below may be true in some cases, but in this case the courts have already made the decision that the sale of loose goods in units other then grams or kilograms is ILLEGAL. Thus there is no doubt as to the validity of the law and the law must be enforced. It is not fair to those who obey if some chose to disobey.

If you chose to break the law, then the law enforcement athorities have every right to do their duty and punish you as an offender. Even if some think it is not right. It is up to the courts to deside the validity and seriousness of the law not the BWMA.

Trading Standards is doing the right thing by not only confiscating illegal scales but destroying them as well.



Bud

Just because the cops (or whoever) warn you to do something, doesn't mean it's right for them to force you to do it. You cannot justify such forced actions just because a warning was given.


BWMA

I think it highly likely that the prosecuted traders were given warnings beforehand. However, as Bud says, the use of lb/oz was not done in ignorance of the regulations but i) because of doubts of their validity and ii) they were unjust regulations anyway.

"as Bud says, the use of lb/oz was not done in ignorance of the regulations but i) because of doubts of their validity and ii) they were unjust regulations anyway"

BWMA - You forgot

iii) their customers ask for it that way.

Yes I know that's obvious but we should never forget that fact.

The judges were not in doubt as to the validity of the law. So why should anyone else be?

Bud said

"Just because the cops (or whoever) warn you to do something, doesn't mean it's right for them to force you to do it. You cannot justify such forced actions just because a warning was given."

Let's look at this sensibly

The traders involved were warned on at least 2 or 3 occasions that they were committing a criminal offence.

They chose to follow BWMA's advice that they were not committing any offence.

BWMA continually argued that a test case should be taken to prove that the BWMA interpretation was correct.

Test cases were taken. The judiciary disagreed with BWMA.

BWMA shouted "foul" and argued that no cases should have been taken.

I would suggest that had the courts found in favour of the defendants, BWMA would consider the matter closed. Instead, they continue to argue that the courts were wrong.

Why does BWMA not accept the judgement and concentrate their efforts into changing the law. I note that no high-profile actions (ie "the pound of flesh) have been undertaken by BWMA to sell in lb/oz since the judgement was made......

Both the original Sunderland ruling and the arguments put forward by the prosecution were rejected by the Court. The Court accepted the Defence case that the 1985 Act allowed for lb/oz. The conviction was upheld only because Lord Justice Laws changed the constitution, which we say he is not empowered to do. There have been no further prosecutions since.

Berenger - have you never heard of 'protest'?

This case is a strange one as the laws being "broken" are contrary to what laws are usually there to represent. If actions like the one's taken against traders for doing exactly what customers asked happen then there is scope for protest. Remember that examples of criminal offence include Murder, rape, attack on a policeman, child abuse and selling things in pounds and ounces. Try to see the whole picture to get my point.

Both the original Sunderland ruling and the arguments put forward by the prosecution were rejected by the Court. The Court accepted the Defence case that the 1985 Act allowed for lb/oz.



Accepting a case does not mean or imply agreeing with it, since the changes to the Act in the late '90s made the use of pounds and ounces illegal for trade. You might not agree but the courts do!

You don't have the authority to decide what acts or revisions of acts are legal or not just because a certain revision makes your preferred units illegal.



The conviction was upheld only because Lord Justice Laws changed the constitution, which we say he is not empowered to do.


Which YOU say! But who are you and on what authority do you stand? Now, did he actually change the constitution or the WMA? I wouldn't think a constitution contained specific laws concerning weights and measures. The WMA does and that was legally changed to allow for the elimination of pounds and ounces.





There have been no further prosecutions since.


There doesn't need to be if the court has already decided in favour of the amended WMA. Those who are in violation of the law just need to have the offending equipment removed and destroyed. Which I'm sure isn't happening as much due to compliance with the laws.

you really have absoultely no idea do you?

Have you ever been into a UK butcher's shop?

Oh, of course not - because you've not even set foot in the UK.

This "losing streak" of yours is getting quite formidable!

;-)

<<
The judges were not in doubt as to the validity of the law. So why should anyone else be?
>>

Metre, why do you trust judges so much? Judges are not infallible spirits, they are humans like everyone else. I can list dozens of court decisions (mostly from the US, though) that were obviously wrong. In the 1850s, when the US Supreme Court basically ruled that slaves had no rights whatsoever, why didn't they abide? Who gave them the authority to disagree with the court and substitute their own judgement? If a government is oppressive of your rights, you have to do something about it. If you must disobey, so be it. (Gandhi was a good example.) Blindly following the judgement of the court just because you think you don't have the authority to do anything about it will only lead to more oppression.

BWMA said
"There have been no further prosecutions since."

Are you sure? Does BWMA have the facilities to cover every court in the land? Especially if the trader pleads guilty at the first hearing (I'm not sure what that hearing is called under the English system - it's called the Pleading Diet in Scotland)

Steve said
"If actions like the one's taken against traders for doing exactly what customers asked happen then there is scope for protest."

But Steve, you suggest elsewhere that TSO's should devote resources to fighting software piracy. Do you think that customers of pirates think they are buying genuine goods? The pirates are providing exactly what their customers ask for. A similar argument could be made against drugs laws or age related sales (obviously, I realise that there are huge health implications in these 2 examples)

Steve also said "
Remember that examples of criminal offence include Murder, rape, attack on a policeman, child abuse and selling things in pounds and ounces."

Agreed. But your examples include 4 things that would be dealt with by the High Court & 1 by the Sheriff Court (or the English equivalents) This is why we have different levels of courts. The most serious offences are dealt with by higher courts.

It would be more realistic to compare like with like. Selling in pounds and ounces, driving with a bald tyre on your car, failing to complete a census form etc.

All criminal offences, but maximum sentences are a lot lower than the usual tariff for murder etc

re (Beranger): "The most serious offences are dealt with by higher courts. It would be more realistic to compare like with like. Selling in pounds and ounces, driving with a bald tyre on your car, failing to complete a census form etc."

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


REPLY: Beranger's comparisons are incorrect. I am pretty sure, for example, that the maximum fine for failing to complete a census form is £1,000 - Level 3 on the standard scale.

Selling loose goods by the pound is a 'Level 5' Criminal Offence on the standard scale, with the maximum penalty either six months imprisonment or a fine of £5,000.

The Level 5 Tariff for criminal offences also applies to, for example:

1) Stalking or harassment under Section 2, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (repeated harassment)

2) Breach of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO)

3) Common assault

4) Knowingly serving on a jury whilst disqualified from doing so.

It just shows how serious selling to your own people in the units of measurement they are used to, or prefer to use, has become these days

Tony covers exactly my point! Look at the severity aimed at selling beef/apples etc - why so harsh? Because...... (I think we know why)

<<<But Steve, you suggest elsewhere that TSO's should devote resources to fighting software piracy. Do you think that customers of pirates think they are buying genuine goods? The pirates are providing exactly what their customers ask for. A similar argument could be made against drugs laws or age related sales (obviously, I realise that there are huge health implications in these 2 examples)>>>

Can I remind you that we're talking about selling a pound of beef - you appear to compare that to selling drugs

<<It would be more realistic to compare like with like. Selling in pounds and ounces, driving with a bald tyre on your car, failing to complete a census form etc.>>

They have proved that a bald tyre can kill the driver, another driver or a pedestrian.

Please name me the last case where someone got killed for buying a pound of beef when if he'd bought half a kilo he would still be alive today.....

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
Selling loose goods by the pound is a 'Level 5' Criminal Offence on the standard scale, with the maximum penalty either six months imprisonment or a fine of £5,000.
>>

Tony - is ther ea specific offence "Selling loose goosds by the pound", or is it lumped under some other more generla heading? If so, what is the actual offence that is committed and under which Act is the action made into an offence?

Tony - is ther ea specific offence "Selling loose goosds by the pound", or is it lumped under some other more generla heading? If so, what is the actual offence that is committed and under which Act is the action made into an offence?


The crime is for using an illegal measuring device.

that announces a tyre depot as being 50 "mtrs" down the road, on the left- SteveH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes, these can be seen all over our cities and countryside these days. And I mean absolutely everywhere. Surely people cannot be making a free-willed CHOICE to be doing this. Please tell us Steve when you see the jackbooted-Brussels-nazis dragging innocent Britons from their homes to perform this humiliating task ( whilst their wives and children are forced to look on) of puting up signs with metric on them, to their very British businesses. This is the only explanation we can come up with.

Tony

I compared offences dealt with by the High Court against offences dealt with by the Sheriff Court. Please point out where I discussed maximum sentences?

However, should you wish to discuss sentences, I would point out that out of Steve's original examples, life imprisonment is an option (and is practically compulsory in one example) to the justices in 4 cases. Only the W&M example carries the level 5 penalty.

In my example, I deliberately tried to compare the W&M penalty with non TS offences. I have no great experience of maximum penalties for these offences, and don't dispute that my quoted examples may be level 3 offences.

However, at no point do you state whether you are talking about summary offences or indictable offences, or about a Sheriff's power to refer certain offences to the High Court for sentence.

You then go on to state that stalking, harassment or assault are level 5 offences. Could you now tell us which of these cases may be referred up to the High Court, and which one would probably be punished by a £250 fine & forfeiture of the weighing equipment (the clue is in the question, if you need a hint...)

Finally, can you confirm whether the WMA'85 penalties were set by the EC (under the directive)or by the UK Government (by act of parliament or by regulation)

Steve said
"you appear to compare that to selling drugs"

Yes and No.... I was responding to your point regarding "Customer choice" I gave the examples of fake goods, age related sales & drugs. Can you honestly tell me that you have never bought fake goods, or that your 1st pint of cider was on your 18th birthday (I'll not ask for any admissions on the 3rd point!)

I'll admit that the 3rd point was just provocative, but was trying to point out that many people buy goods that are illegal according to the law of the land. In every case, the trader has sold because "iii) their customers ask for it that way."

Tony Bennett: "REPLY: Beranger's comparisons are incorrect. I am pretty sure, for example, that the maximum fine for failing to complete a census form is £1,000 - Level 3 on the standard scale.

Selling loose goods by the pound is a 'Level 5' Criminal Offence on the standard scale, with the maximum penalty either six months imprisonment or a fine of £5,000.

...

It just shows how serious selling to your own people in the units of measurement they are used to, or prefer to use, has become these days"

Stan: The scale of punishment for this offense imposed by criminal law in the UK does not invalidate the principle of compulsory metrication in itself. It could be enforced by a lower level if deemed more appropriate.

The UK government has implemented it's belated obligations to the single European market in a cack-handed and obtuse manner. If it had done the job of metrication properly in the first place, where it was motivated by our own economic interests, all this nonsense about Brussels would not have arisen.

re (Stan): "The UK government has implemented its belated obligations to the single European market...£


REPLY: Creating a 'single market', which was always a deception, does not mean obliterating a system of weights and measures used by a whole people. Does the 'single market' mean that we must weigh ourselves in kilos and measure our height in cms? Come on!

Nor does a 'single market' mean we have to have European Police Officers with immunity from prosecution (i.e. above the law) nor British troops in E.U. cap badges (as in Bosnia now).

The whole thing is a plot by a group of crooks - and others with an agenda of stripping national governments of their powers - to takeg more and more power to themselves

<<<Does the 'single market' mean that we must weigh ourselves in kilos and measure our height in cms? Come on!>>>

No!! The British government decided, way before the EU was even dreamt of, that it would be in our own interests to use metric.

I know that technically it is EU laws that Britain is using to push through metrication, but if the EU didn't exist the legislation would still be there - just British law rather than EU.

Metrication has nothing to do with the EU!! You're talking to people who understand the issue on this messageboard so you can't pull the wool over our eyes like you can with the average man on the street!

re (Andy): "Metrication has nothing to do with the EU!!"

REPLY: The phrase 'in denial' springs to mind. There were two E.U. Directives, one in 1980 and one in 1989, which *ordered* Britain to go metric. Only 'opt-outs' - or delays in implementation - were permitted, which still applies to the pint of milk and beer and to the miles. Do you need to know the actual wording of theese Directives?

Andy - I recognise (and always have recognised) the validity of your argument that its false to lay the total blame of metrication at the hands of the EU - there was a drive to do so well before the EU came about (as there was in America). However - as Tony has pointed out - that breadth of control has now been taken away and now there is compulsion from a foreign land for us to do so. We don't have the option (as the Americans did) to "slow things down" or say "enough's enough". This is why the word "compulsion" is as relevent today as it was before the mid 20th century.

Berenger:

<<Can you honestly tell me that you have never bought fake goods, or that your 1st pint of cider was on your 18th birthday (I'll not ask for any admissions on the 3rd point!) >>

1) I have never bought fake goods - honestly
2) However I take on your second point as to what you are after!

BUT! I may have technically broken the law - but that was my individual choice. I have no organisation monitoring me for that. Anyway - once again comparing my first pint with the selling of a pound of cheese is hardly a comparible situation - only I asked for (what is effectively a harmful) pint of cider, hundreds of thousands can be heard askng for a pound of cheese etc.

Unless your one of those (ahem) "private individuals" who make a perverse habit of putting signs with "mtrs" on "up and down the land" !!! ;-)

Maybe there's a lot of austin cars being sold!!

(oh the mirth)

Yes, and I conceded in my above post that Britain is using EU legislation to push through metrication.

So techinically Britain is going metric to satisfy EU directives - and this is where Britain has gone wrong. But do you really think that if the EU had never happened, Britain wouldn't have produced its own legislation to go metric?

In my opinion had this happened, there would have been far less resistance to metrication and we would now be much closer to completing it.

"But do you really think that if the EU had never happened, Britain wouldn't have produced its own legislation to go metric?"

I would honestly say that industry would have gone metric but ordinary stuff like cheese, meat , roadsigns, carpet sizes, pub pints would have stayed the same based upon the fact that it was the state who changed (or tried to change them) rather than market forces. I put my faith mainly in the market since being nannied feels unnatural to me now that I'm older than 10 yrs old!

<<<Compulsion from a foreign land>>>

I assume you mean the EU, of which Britain is one of the major players. I am certain that if the British government wished to do so, it could opt out of the rules regarding metrication.

Would we be thrown out of the EU if we allowed shops to continue selling in pounds and ounces? I think not.

<<I assume you mean the EU,>>


<<of which Britain is one of the major players.>>

You mean financial contributor?

<< I am certain that if the British government wished to do so, it could opt out of the rules regarding metrication.>>

I believe it cannot as the horse trading has already been done to try and get other opt-outs. Don't forget, only the UK enforces all EU rules 100% - if we were a bit more european maybe UK peopl wouldn't feel so anti-EU.

<<Would we be thrown out of the EU if we allowed shops to continue selling in pounds and ounces? I think not. >>

I suspect so!

<<<You mean financial contributor?>>>

and one of the major influences

<<<I believe it cannot as the horse trading has already been done to try and get other opt-outs.>>>

Our politicians might SAY they are trying to get opt-outs but that is so that we think its not them enforcing the regulations!

<<< Don't forget, only the UK enforces all EU rules 100% - if we were a bit more european maybe UK peopl wouldn't feel so anti-EU.>>>

I agree totally.

<<Would we be thrown out of the EU if we allowed shops to continue selling in pounds and ounces? I think not.

I suspect so!>>>

No chance. If our government wanted to keep pounds and ounces it would do so.

<<and one of the major influences>>

Take a look at our history - in what way have we "influenced"?
The Iraq war?
The euro?
Settin of interest rates?
Retention of cultural differences?
the eurozone?
The economy?
Our relationshipo with america?

<<Our politicians might SAY they are trying to get opt-outs but that is so that we think its not them enforcing the regulations!>>

I doubt it - a politician announcing proudly that for now we are still allowed to do something unique won't wash. What am I meant ot say to that "oh bless you"?
We're still "allowed" to use imperial on our roads - Oh thank you great EU!!!

<<< Don't forget, only the UK enforces all EU rules 100% - if we were a bit more european maybe UK peopl wouldn't feel so anti-EU.>>>
<<I agree totally.>>

We have found an overlap of opinion! ;-)

<<No chance. If our government wanted to keep pounds and ounces it would do so. >>

I believe, thanks to maastricht (i think), it has no choice - thus we have no...


**CHOICE**

Ding dong - happy christmas!

**CHOICE** says Mr SteveH who still has not answered.
WHY are these people(Britons) CHOSING to erect signs to their British businesses using metres? Perhaps Mr Bennett can answer. He also claims that we Brits have some inherent natural aversion to being able to use or understand metric. Only today I heard a British mother say "my child's dancing is precise to the centimetre", a doctor said "I would not doubt a thousandth of a millimetre", both on British national television. In fact I hear people use "metre" alot.
Why, Steve? Nazis, forcing?

<<
But do you really think that if the EU had never happened, Britain wouldn't have produced its own legislation to go metric?
In my opinion had this happened, there would have been far less resistance to metrication and we would now be much closer to completing it.
>>

Without EU compulsion, Britain would be in exactly the same position as America. America "decided" to go metric a long time ago, but then the politicians lost interest and found other priorities. I have no trouble believing that Britain would have introduced metrication legislation without EU compulsion, but whether the government would have followed through is doubtful. Even with EU pressure, at the present time I don't believe the government is actively engaged in metrication.

Bud,

As I said - Without the EU overbearing on us I believe there still would have been a certain degree of metrication "behind the scenes" - just like in the USA.

Stuff like roads would be kept imperial as per now (for obv costs and safety reasons, and - of course - the notion of "why?")
Shops and stores would either be imperial or give the CHOICE (an option I prefer)

Of course I agree with Andy that regardless of route, "total private" conversations like Doctors referring to your weight in st/lb or kids knowing there height in ft/in or "speaking" in imperial would not change and could not be forced to change. Young kids will talk about and marvel at Beckham kicking the ball straight into the goal at 60 yds! (or should I say Earnshaw!!!)

The issue is that the EU has overstepped its mark regarding the power it should use in the areas it has metricated. So rather than metricate where necessary to be competitive and to "smarten things up" behind the scenes it has gone further and is in the process of social engineering people - why else would the home market of loose products need to be metricated? There are no safety or economic reasons. How many Germans come to buy a pound of apples in Blighty and nip back to Stuttgart for tea?

SteveH wrote

<<
Shops and stores would either be imperial or give the CHOICE (an option I prefer)
>>

Rubbish - that is a rouge's charter.

The supermarkets have enough slimy tricks up their sleeves to trick you into believing that they are giving you value for money - why give them more. For example, Stella Artois is sold at £12 a dozen for 29 days and is thenm dramatically cut in price as a "special offer" for £6 per dozen.

"Rubbish - that is a rouge's charter."

A reddish charter?

<<The supermarkets have enough slimy tricks up their sleeves to trick you into believing that they are giving you value for money - why give them more. For example, Stella Artois is sold at £12 a dozen for 29 days and is thenm dramatically cut in price as a "special offer" for £6 per dozen.>>

....which has nothing to do with the choice of unit!

I am talking about showing the imperial and metrick cost. Even with that you cannot avoid your example above.

Anyway - stop posting as quickly as I am answering! I need to do other things!!!

<<<why else would the home market of loose products need to be metricated? There are no safety or economic reasons. How many Germans come to buy a pound of apples in Blighty and nip back to Stuttgart for tea?>>>

It has nothing to do with catering for foreigners. It is to do with moving to the consistent use of one system so that the market can be regulated easily to stop people from being ripped off. If I go to a market stall advertising bananas at 1.50 per lb I don't know if thats good value or not. If you see them advertised on a different stall at 1.50 per kilo you don't know if thats good value without converting. Its quite simple, one system or the other, not both.

Andy - there is no groundswell of people asking for it!!!

There is no groundswell of people asking to pay taxes either.

Exactly - no-one wants them but at best they want them reduced

Shops and stores would either be imperial or give the CHOICE (an option I prefer)

You already have a choice. You can have any units you want as long as the outcome is metric.

You can go into any shop ask for a pound, get 500 g, pay and leave. How are you denied a choice?

You see a package of a typical product labelled sensibly in metric only without the clutter of luddite units, you look at the package amount and understand it, but because you are a bonehead and want to attract attention to yourself, mumble out a conversion and procede to tell anyone within ear range the size in luddite units. That's a choice! So what if people think you are a kook! You were able to express yourself.

You stop for petrol and the price and amount is in litres. You have the choice to convert that also to luddite units and shout it out for all to hear.


So where are you denied a choice?

Shops and stores would either be imperial or give the CHOICE (an option I prefer)

You already have a choice. You can have any units you want as long as the outcome is metric.

You can go into any shop ask for a pound, get 500 g, pay and leave. How are you denied a choice?

You see a package of a typical product labelled sensibly in metric only without the clutter of luddite units, you look at the package amount and understand it, but because you are a bonehead and want to attract attention to yourself, mumble out a conversion and procede to tell anyone within ear range the size in luddite units. That's a choice! So what if people think you are a kook! You were able to express yourself.

You stop for petrol and the price and amount is in litres. You have the choice to convert that also to luddite units and shout it out for all to hear.


So where are you denied a choice?

I bet most people stopped here:

"You can go into any shop ask for a pound, get 500 g"

And simply ignored the rest!

Perhaps getting that far was even wishful thinking!

EVEN AFTER posting twice!




I'd absolutely LOVE to know what real pro-metric posters here think of Mr MultiPostName.

I suspect I won't get a response to that question though.

I'd absolutely LOVE to know what real pro-metric posters here think of Mr MultiPostName.

I suspect I won't get a response to that question though.

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

Steve, if it is Euric your talking about then I can tell you a lot of us think of him. He's been run off of the US Metric Assosiations list-serve. We had a couple of days of people saying they were fed up with him and he hasn't posted since. Personaly I think he's fun to have around but I don't think he helps the metric cause at all.

It's not the customer's choice we are talking about, it's the shopkeeper's choice. The shopkeeper should have the choice of displaying whatever he units he wants. The customer can, of course, ask for anything, and it is up to the shopkeeper whether to serve him or not.



<<
For example, Stella Artois is sold at £12 a dozen for 29 days and is thenm dramatically cut in price as a "special offer" for £6 per dozen.
>>

I don't see what is wrong with that. Why are you complaining about a price reduction?

It's not the customer's choice we are talking about, it's the shopkeeper's choice. The shopkeeper should have the choice of displaying whatever he units he wants. The customer can, of course, ask for anything, and it is up to the shopkeeper whether to serve him or not.




The shop keepers never had a choice before. Why should they have it now, only becasue they are now required to use metric units? Where was the "choice" crowd some 5 years ago and hence when sales had to be in imperial?

The WMA have a purpose and they will always be there to protect both the shop keeper and the customer. Anytime there is change there is a period of inconvenience. But the less whining and resistance that occurs, the faster the ability to function under the new rules becomes.

The WMA have been changed many times in the past with the same results. Some luddites made an issue of it. But the changes stayed and the luddites faded away. The same will happen in this circumstance.

Get use to it!

Bud wrote

<<
I don't see what is wrong with that. Why are you complaining about a price reduction?
>>

Bud, you must be a real sucker when it comes to Supermarket scams. There was no price reduction - there was an artifical price hike for just long enough to satisfy the consumer protection law. I believe that this hikle was made with the sole purpose of dropping it back to its original price with much publicity.

Martin - how nieive are you?

Every heard of the new year sale?
Or the spring sale?
Or the great summer give away?
Or the autumn clear-out?
Or the winter price-cut mayhem?

Face it - the default is the "sale price" and the exception is the RRP (recommonded retail price)

That's the way it works.

That's why "e-shopping" comes into its own.

I haven't bought a DVD from one of those "shop" things in ages!

From USMA Visitor:
"Steve, if it is Euric your talking about then I can tell you a lot of us think of him. He's been run off of the US Metric Assosiations list-serve. We had a couple of days of people saying they were fed up with him and he hasn't posted since. Personaly I think he's fun to have around but I don't think he helps the metric cause at all."

I never thought I'd say this about a USMA spokesperson (and that is meant in total respect from someone who has an obvious difference of opinion) but I totally and 100% agree with your last sentence there! I also understand your sentiments about the rest of your paragraph.

If you really are from USMA (and I have no reason to doubt you) then it's great to see that you monitor here - but then I guess that goes with the territory.

FYI - He has posted here as Carlyle, Euric (there's some history behind that name), Ametrica, Anonymous and a few other names including my name spelled backwards and on one occasion purely masquarading as my name! Have a look around this particular section (ie "Questions...") and I'm sure you'll recognise the style and content of postings.

All we know is that he comes from Australia. He was the only person (I seem to remember) who actively and aggressively made posts last Christmas *DAY* ! Most of us do other things on that particular day!

Thanks for that small but interesting post - and I hope you will have visited again even if its just to read this particular reply.

Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract
Divert and Distract


Someone here should actually review all of Steve's posts and see how many times he actually had an answer to a statement disproving metric usage compared to the number of times he just made some nonsensical comment in order to divert your attention away from the statement that he could not prove you wrong on.

Of course in Steve's world, this makes him a winner! Of couse we need ask what has Steve won?

Just another reminder: In a month's time, the Irish will begin the final phase of the road sign changeover. I wonder how Steve will respond. Let's all wait and see!

<<Someone here should actually review all of Steve's posts and see how many times he actually had an answer to a statement disproving metric usage compared to the number of times he just made some nonsensical comment in order to divert your attention away from the statement that he could not prove you wrong on. >>

1) Who's banned from the main boards due to unruly behaviour and overuse of cut-n-paste of irrelevent information?
2) Who actually answers any of your messages?
3) Who actually reads any of you messages (besides me!!)?
4) Who engages in two way dialogue with myself compared to yourself? (clue - for one person its "everyone" for the other person its "no-one")
5) Who has even p--sed off the side he's meant to represent so much that he's actually been banned from it leaving him no option to troll on a site where he disagrees with everyone?
6) Who has made personal and nasty comments?
7) Who has been proven to lie consistantly?
8) Who's wealth of knowledge stems from [CTRL]+C [CTRL]+V?
9) Who can you claim to be "on your side"?
10) Who posts nonsense about the US economy as an argument against imperial usage in the UK (which, of course, "doesn't exist") ?
11) Who bangs on about 500gramme "pounds" despite an established professional in the field telling him that would not be legal?
12) Who makes up silly names for "imperial"?
13) Who keeps changing their post name to distract and divert?
14) Who has posted as the SAME NAME as another poster in order to distract and divert?
15) (Thus) Who is a big hypocrite?
16) Who has come close to being banned from even this free-ish site for being so extreme?
Of course in Steve's world, this makes him a winner! Of couse we need ask what has Steve won?
17) Who, when completely stuffed, exits these boards only to come back later when the dust has settled on numorous lies?
18) Who cannot admit to being wrong (and thus is the first poster here to claim that accolade)?
19) Who, on the metric side, has ever backed you up or given credence to you views?
20) Who has sunk so low as to pretend 12" records are metric, Big Ben is metric, soccer and baseball are metric and Saddam is a fan of the euro?

Just have a guess who!

<<Just another reminder: In a month's time, the Irish will begin the final phase of the road sign changeover. I wonder how Steve will respond. Let's all wait and see! >>

I will counter your lies and remind you that Ireland is not the UK.
You will respond with posts including the words "hegemony", "US disaster" and "everything is metric"

Then you will partake in a mallet en-bangment!

;-)

Guess what?

I didn't "cut-n-paste" all those questions!

P.S. I hope the prometrics amongst us will take as much enjoyment out of that post of mine as the pro-choicers and pro-imps. Call it a Christmas present to you all!

After all- I 've already given Carly's his:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=209958&messageid=1102950638&lp=1103030021

<<
The shop keepers never had a choice before. Why should they have it now, only becasue they are now required to use metric units? Where was the "choice" crowd some 5 years ago and hence when sales had to be in imperial?
>>

The choice crowd was non-existant because there was no reason for them to say anything. The majority was happy with the system and so they did not object. The minority that did not like the system could not do anything because they were the minority. Now it is the other way around. The majority is unhappy. Since they are the majority, they are speaking up and being heard.

<<
Bud, you must be a real sucker when it comes to Supermarket scams. There was no price reduction - there was an artifical price hike for just long enough to satisfy the consumer protection law. I believe that this hikle was made with the sole purpose of dropping it back to its original price with much publicity.
>>

Reduction and increase are relative terms, Martin. With the context you gave in your example, there was no way of telling which price was the norm and which the exception. Not that it really matters, anyway. If the normal price is cheap, people will buy it. If the sale price is expensive, people won't. Whether the store says it's a sale or not makes no difference.

Bud wrote

<<
Reduction and increase are relative terms, Martin. With the context you gave in your example, there was no way of telling which price was the norm and which the exception. Not that it really matters, anyway. If the normal price is cheap, people will buy it.
>>

Bud, in the UK, the tax on alcohol is about 60p/litre (depending on its strength), so once you subtract that from the price you see hugh swings. Also, when you compare the price of the same product in France anybody with a modicum of intelligenc ecan see that somebody somewhere is either making extortionate profits or they are conning the public.

and all this in the middle of a supermarket price war!


"The choice crowd was non-existant because there was no reason for them to say anything. The majority was happy with the system and so they did not object. The minority that did not like the system could not do anything because they were the minority. Now it is the other way around. The majority is unhappy. Since they are the majority, they are speaking up and being heard. "

This surprisingly obvious fact is always overlooked. It's somewhat "uncomfortable" for the moderate pro-met.

The majority is unhappy. Since they are the majority, they are speaking up and being heard. "


Your hearing things that are not there. Have you seen your doctor about this problem? Or are you avoiding doctors because they use metric?

<<
Bud, in the UK, the tax on alcohol is about 60p/litre (depending on its strength), so once you subtract that from the price you see hugh swings. Also, when you compare the price of the same product in France anybody with a modicum of intelligenc ecan see that somebody somewhere is either making extortionate profits or they are conning the public.
>>

Martin, the price of the same product in France is totally irrelevant. You can't go to France to do your grocery shopping. There are many reasons the price may differ, transportation costs, import duties, local taxes, etc. Even if someone is making a profit, there's not much anyone can do about it.
Percentagewise, subtracting the tax on anything will cause a price change to appear to be bigger. Again, assuming the tax is the same on all comparable products, and assuming that the tax doesn't change with time, you can forget about it and just compare the prices you see.

Martin - are you suggesting that the state should regulate "bargains", "sales", "2-for-the-price-of-one" offers, etc etc?

No, I am not, provided that the information given is true. In this regard, one needs to look at whether the law is actually giving the consumer the protection that he needs against dishonest traders

"The majority is unhappy"

Actually I think you will find the majority don't really care that much. If pushed into giving an opinion, I agree the majority would say why change anything? But that does not mean they are 'unhappy'

Most people have more important things in their lives than whether they buy their apples by the pound or by the kilo.

A very tiny minority REALLY cares one way or the other

"Actually I think you will find the majority don't really care that much. If pushed into giving an opinion, I agree the majority would say why change anything? But that does not mean they are 'unhappy' "

I think that the majority would be unhappy if the choice was removed entirely.

But you know what Brits are like, Andy, the best protest we can muster is an aggressive "tutt" in unison.

"A very tiny minority REALLY cares one way or the other"

A minority understands the inherent danger underneath it all. And its got very little to do with kilos or pounds

<<<I think that the majority would be unhappy if the choice was removed entirely.>>>

But the choice was never there! 99.99% of people accept that this kind of thing is regulated by their government and as you say a "tutt" is the extent of their protest.

<<<A minority understands the inherent danger underneath it all. And its got very little to do with kilos or pounds>>>

Units of measurement have always been regulated, as have many other aspects of our lives. Its hardly a step towards big brother controlling everything we do.

"Actually I think you will find the majority don't really care that much. If pushed into giving an opinion, I agree the majority would say why change anything? But that does not mean they are 'unhappy' "

I think that the majority would be unhappy if the choice was removed entirely.


Andy is 100 % correct. People don't care. They adapt to changes. Steve may make an issue in front of other people and they just pacify him to keep him calm by agreeing with him. The choice is still there all though not in the form Steve will accept. Nobody is denied the right to ask for a pound. If they do, the trader weighs out a close aprroximation in grams, even 500 g if he chooses, gets the customer's approval, the customer accepts, pays, and both move on.

People buy their favourite prepacked goods, not because thery are metric or imperial, but because they like the product or are attracted to the packaging. Only Steve pays attention to metric only packaging.

Now I see why Steve claims there is no choice. When a person has decided not to buy any product that is metric, thus eliminating his choices of products to almost nothing, there aren't much choices to choose from for him. But for the majority of people who don't care, there is plenty of choice. What is Steve going to do when there is nothing but metric products available? Starve?






But you know what Brits are like, Andy, the best protest we can muster is an aggressive "tutt" in unison.

"A very tiny minority REALLY cares one way or the other"

A minority understands the inherent danger underneath it all. And its got very little to do with kilos or pounds.




A minority of one I would say and his name is Steve.

<<But the choice was never there! 99.99% of people accept that this kind of thing is regulated by their government and as you say a "tutt" is the extent of their protest. >>

The choice may not be there on roads as you say yourself (ie exclusive imperial for safety and cost reasons) but the choice *IS* currently there in supermarkets (for example). As you already know, Andy, you can ask for a pound at the deli (and most people still do) and get almost exactly, if not exactly, a pound. OR - you could ask for 500 grammes and you'll get almost exaclty, if not exactly, half a kilo. That's choice. And it works.

<<Units of measurement have always been regulated, as have many other aspects of our lives. Its hardly a step towards big brother controlling everything we do.>>

I'm talking about that shift of authority moving from a local elected house to a foreign place when no-one is elected.

<<<The choice may not be there on roads as you say yourself (ie exclusive imperial for safety and cost reasons) but the choice *IS* currently there in supermarkets (for example). As you already know, Andy, you can ask for a pound at the deli (and most people still do) and get almost exactly, if not exactly, a pound. OR - you could ask for 500 grammes and you'll get almost exaclty, if not exactly, half a kilo. That's choice. And it works.>>>

You've only had the choice since metrication began. Before then it was imperial only - like road signs.

You say road signs are imperial for safety reasons, but the only road signs where the measurements are crucial in terms of safety, are increasingly metric and imperial. Wonder why that is?

<<<I'm talking about that shift of authority moving from a local elected house to a foreign place when no-one is elected.>>>

I don't disagree with you on that point, but it seems strange to be against somehting on that principle, when the locally elected house is totally in favour of it anyway and the locally elected house fully agreed to the regulations and would have made them itself anyway.

<<You've only had the choice since metrication began. Before then it was imperial only - like road signs.>>

I don't know if thats true - could you buy produce by the gramme before the dual system came in? I'm sure that the term "gramme" wasn't criminalised or anything? Anyone know? (Resident nutbags need not respond)

<<You say road signs are imperial for safety reasons, but the only road signs where the measurements are crucial in terms of safety, are increasingly metric and imperial. Wonder why that is? >>

It's for the increase in foreign hauliers I would suspect - hence you hardly see dual signs on little country roads. Anyway is it really a safety concern? Driving down a road and then seeing that you can't fit under a bridge would be annoying at most. Driving at 90mph in a 30 zone would be very dangerous. Plus the 800 600 400 200yd signs that show a road end are pretty important.

<<I don't disagree with you on that point, but it seems strange to be against somehting on that principle, when the locally elected house is totally in favour of it anyway and the locally elected house fully agreed to the regulations and would have made them itself anyway. >>

I'm glad we agree, but when did the house actually discuss metrication? (open to all)

SteveH wrote

<<
I don't know if thats true - could you buy produce by the gramme before the dual system came in? I'm sure that the term "gramme" wasn't criminalised or anything? Anyone know? (Resident nutbags need not respond)
>>

I trust that I am not regarded as a "nutbag".

The units that may be used for retail pricing purposes are defined in price marking orders. The use of metric units was not permitted in earlier years for most products. (Metric units have been permitted since 1897 for products not covered by the various Price Marking Orders) It is still illegal to sell beer or cider by the litre (or half litre) (I see Steve's eyes lighting up at the thought of a litre of cider!).

<<<It's for the increase in foreign hauliers I would suspect - hence you hardly see dual signs on little country roads. Anyway is it really a safety concern? Driving down a road and then seeing that you can't fit under a bridge would be annoying at most. Driving at 90mph in a 30 zone would be very dangerous. Plus the 800 600 400 200yd signs that show a road end are pretty important.>>>

Its not very practical to stop and measure bridges while driving along. I think it is very definately a safety concern.

I think if feet were used in distance signs as in the states, the regulations would have changed to allow metres instead. Everyone understands yards only because they are very similar to metres.

<<I trust that I am not regarded as a "nutbag".>>

Hardly! Although you shouldn't encourage him!

<<The units that may be used for retail pricing purposes are defined in price marking orders. The use of metric units was not permitted in earlier years for most products. (Metric units have been permitted since 1897 for products not covered by the various Price Marking Orders)>>

So it was "allowed" but there was no market demand for it.

<<It is still illegal to sell beer or cider by the litre (or half litre) (I see Steve's eyes lighting up at the thought of a litre of cider!). >>

Except by the bottle.
And the only drink I'm having for the moment is benelyn - and that's by the teaspoon.

Martin - if you state the obvious in your next post (about that last sentence) then I'm going to tell you a secret about Father Christmas that you won't want to hear.

Steve,

I think I already know what yuo were about to tell me:

http://www.ifsja.org/humor/101.shtml

LOL! And yes, I've seen the British version also!

<<
I don't disagree with you on that point, but it seems strange to be against somehting on that principle, when the locally elected house is totally in favour of it anyway and the locally elected house fully agreed to the regulations and would have made them itself anyway.
>>

I really don't see why you're so sure that the British Parliament would have metricated anyway. They had plenty of opportunity to metricate before the EU forced them to, so why didn't they? I know they tried, but why didn't they go through with it like South Africa and many other countries?

Bud,

They did decide to metricate in 1965. Previous plans to metricate had floundered. I can give you a list of all teh dates if you wish.

There was a 10-year plan. South Africa and most Commonwealth countries followed suite. The ten year plan stretched to fifteen. There was a sterling crisis and the Chancellor of the Exchequor postponed the metrication of road signs. By then it had lost momentum and Mrs Thatcher, looking for something to make a point at the expense of the EU COmmission chose to stop the metrication program. By then all that remained to be metricated was the retail sector.

<<By then all that remained to be metricated was the retail sector.>>

Erm - not forgetting the 58 million "people"

Martin, are you saying that everything except retail has been metric in Britain since 1980? How about road signs and such?
1980 was well before the EU started putting pressure on Britain to metricate.

Bud, By the word "retail", I meant things that affect the man in the street.

AS regards EU pressure, may I refer you to http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/metric.htm. This paeg lists a number of British Government reports that recommedn the adoption of the metric system. The first of these reports was dated 1862 (Nearly 100 years before the EU existed!). The second, dated 1895 was unequivocable in its support for the metric system.

The 1968 paper refers to a report published in 1950 that supported the metric system. The 1986 report mentions the UKs membership of either the EEC (now the EU) or of EFTA. Whichever Britian was to turn, the report recommended a changeover to teh metric system.

None of these findings were made with public consultation. Hence the dual system of "choose what's best for the application" that exists in the UK today (otherwise known as "mess" by a tiny minority unaware of what happens in the real world)

SeveH: "None of these findings were made with public consultation. Hence the dual system of "choose what's best for the application" that exists in the UK today (otherwise known as "mess" by a tiny minority unaware of what happens in the real world)"

Stan: Your own ignorance of what happens in the "real world" does not do you justice. Anyone who cheerfully ignores the ludicrous incompatablity between the random collection of imperial units and the logical systematic set of units known as metric has not the first idea of what measurement is really all about.

I assume you draw that conclusion from the numerous complaints made by the "general public" about it then?

Funny really, as the only people I've heard complaining about "mess", "confusion", "illogic" etc, etc yawn etc are the UKMA!

In my experience people do tend to the sense of the argument about the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the UK once it is pointed out to them.

It's only those blinkered by political or other irrational motives that refuse to acknowledge it.

Please ignore the previous posting. What follows is a better expression of what I mean't to say as well as correcting the typing error:

In my experience people do tend to see the sense of the argument once it is pointed out to them.

It's only those with alteria motives that refuse to acknowledge it.

<<
AS regards EU pressure, may I refer you to http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/metric.htm. This paeg lists a number of British Government reports that recommedn the adoption of the metric system. The first of these reports was dated 1862 (Nearly 100 years before the EU existed!). The second, dated 1895 was unequivocable in its support for the metric system.
>>

Martin, the British Government can "recommend" the adoption of the metric system all they want. That doesn't mean it would have happened. Until the UK joined the EU, they were not serious about metrication. Sure, they said they were, but that really doesn't mean anything because actions speak louder than words.

<<<In my experience people do tend to see the sense of the argument once it is pointed out to them.>>>

I've seen exaclty the opposite.
When speaking to an Australian who was over here on contract (he's gone back now) he used to describe things in feet quite a lot.
My eagerness to know why found me asking him "why do you use feet when your country is metric"

He looked at me oddly and said "Why? Coz a foot is a handy length that's why!" he followed with "what an odd bloody question" in a way only australians do.

That was a dose of reality. And ,yes, he was talking about 12" not 30cm as they use inches too, if that turns out to be the handy way of expressing something.

No, the mess is not there since when you broaden your choice of units you get a more flexible range of application. This may not be true behind the closed doors of a UKMA sitting but when you walk around listening then you hear quite a different story.

If I want to describe a distance one cm long I will *SAY* 1 cm (not 0.39 inches, or whatever it is) - If I want to describe something that looks like an inch I will *say* one inch (not 2.56 cm, or whatever it is).
Shocking as it may seem to you , Stan, being pro-choice does *NOT* mean avoiding saying metric words at all costs.

Before BWMA censors this again ( deletes it actually) I'll ask again openly as I posted this morning. WHO is FORCING people to use "metre" now all over the UK on signs to their businesses etc? I have not seen anyone FORCED to do this. They are just making a CHOICE to use metre instead of yard these days. Answer the question- not censor it by deleting.Is it too much for you to know that people are CHOSING metric?
And who is forcing chage in colloquial language NOT to say "P's and Q's"? Anyone forcing someone to ask for 227 grams of something? No. You're just being ridiculous and showing Brits as ridiclous!
STEVEH, would especially like an answer from you. No divert and distract. You are ot anti-metric right? So how do you deal with these Brits who CHOSE metres on THEIR signs?

"No divert and distract"

Ah! I thought it might be you.


Come up with something interesting with an ounce of fact and we can talk about it.

Claiming that people all over the UK are putting up "metre" signs is bizzare at best.

Actually it looks like its not the same person - different style - you obviously like his "distract and divert" quote. Maybe we have the mad woman here again?

And BWMA censor/delete posts from the "Questions to" forum? Pull the other (desperate) one!


Right - off to put a sign with "metre" on it on my front garden just for the sheer hell of it!

;-)

<<
WHO is FORCING people to use "metre" now all over the UK on signs to their businesses etc?
>>

If you are talking about private signs on private land, then nobody knows and nobody cares. Private signs are the owner's business, and he is free to use what units he likes.
If you are talking about signs that are on public roads, then I would say the city council (or whatever municipal body is concerned) is forcing the usage of metres. This is, of course, contrary to an act of Parliament.

<<<If you are talking about private signs on private land, then nobody knows and nobody cares. Private signs are the owner's business, and he is free to use what units he likes.
If you are talking about signs that are on public roads, then I would say the city council (or whatever municipal body is concerned) is forcing the usage of metres. This is, of course, contrary to an act of Parliament. >>>

I'm afraid you are responding to someone who clearly has no idea of what is going on in the UK.

If I went for a drive for 2 hours I would pass hundreds of signs denoting "yards" (both public owned and private owned) and maybe one or perhaps two signs denoting "metres" (a small 'm' on UK roads actually means miles).

The idea that a whole movement of people are going out there erecting signs using metres, presumably to pass the time of day, is preposterous at best and pure trollery at worst. Although the idea - I admit - has some comedic value.

It's unfortunate that you have almost provided food there, Bud, as councils stopped putting 'metre' signs up yonks ago.