I thought it was legal to sell by the pound, as long as you also have the price for the metric measurements on display. As it's much easier to work out measurements in metric, I think we should have both measurements on display, so the older people can also use the pound measurements. I used to study science, and I always had use metric measurements because they are the easiest way to work anything out.

The Anti-European propagandists probably hate it that virtually everything we use in Britain originates from Europe. Some examples are that the British Penny, and the German Pfennig both originate from the same word.

I don't see what's so wrong with having both measurements on display, instead of just selling in pounds, because younger people are taught the metric measurements, and I think it's good, because when they go on to study more academic work they don't have to get used to a new system.

Wherever I go in the country they display both forms of measurements. The problem is when people only have the price for imperial weights. I don't think that's bad considering we agreed not to use imperial weights when the Conservatives wanted to get us into the European Market in the 70s. The EU can't be that much of a dictator if we're still displaying imperial weights after we said we wouldn't in the 70s.

Ques: I thought it was legal to sell by the pound, as long as you also have the price for the metric measurements on display.

Ans: It is legal (under the 1994 regulations) to sell by metric only. Traders may not use the pound (although they may provide additional information if they wish).

Q: I don't see what's so wrong with having both measurements on display.

A: The difficulty is two-fold: first, traders have to mark up everything twice; second, having two unit prices defeats the object of unit prices - a single means of price comparison.

Q: We agreed not to use imperial weights when the Conservatives wanted to get us into the European Market in the 70s.

A: Compulsory metric regulations were proposed around 1976-7 but were withdrawn. In 1985, Parliament gave equal status to the pound and the kilo by means of Act of Parliament. This Act has not been repealed.

Suzanne wrote: "I don't see what's so wrong with displaying dual measurements..."

OK, then, let's extend that to all road and pedestrian signs, speed limit signs, all packaged goods and loose goods, catalogues, price lists, pizza sizes, dress sizes, collar sizes, photograph sizes, bicycle wheel sizes, weighing machines, all written weights and measures in books, newspapers, magazines or leaflets.

It could even apply to speech:

"I'm 5 feet 7 inches (that's 170 centimetres and 18 millimetres)", or

"Traffic on the southbound M25 at Junction 6 is piling up for 7 miles (that's 11 kilometres and 270 metres)".

And why not make it *compulsory*, with enforcemnt by Trading Standards Officers?

Calm down calm down

"Roger roger this is flight BA106 approaching runway 4 altitude........"

get the point?

Got the point? No? Ok let me ask you when was the last time a pound of cheese killed someone because it had it's weight in KG on it as well as imperial?

A number of deaths have been caused by use of the metric system, notably by confusion in the medical world between grams and milligrams or by putting a decimal point in the wrong place. A chap in BWMA has a record of them somewhere.

Two road accidents have been caused in the past year due to metric signs, one which was incorrect and the other which did not have a sign in Imperial accompanying it

"A number of deaths have been caused by use of the metric system, notably by confusion in the medical world between grams and milligrams"

I am deadly serious when I say this, so please don't laugh- I want us to bring back the apothecaries system.

Maybe something to do with overworked junior doctors and other exhausted medical staff, rather than because of the metric system?

I take it doctors and nurses know the metric system anyways, so how could it be that?

Maybe something to do with overworked junior doctors and other exhausted medical staff, rather than because of the metric system?

I take it doctors and nurses know the metric system anyways, so how could it be that?

I agree PeterH, but I wouldstill like to see the apothecaries system make a return.

{decimal point in the wrong place. }

The same thing could happen with any system--decimals are not exclusive to metric.

{I am deadly serious when I say this, so please don't laugh- I want us to bring back the apothecaries system.}

I'm not sure, but I believe it is still legal to use apothecaries measures when selling herbal/natural medicine. At least on this side of the Atlantic.

In any case, it's still on the NIST website, which means it's probably used somewhere.

^ Oh yes, I do believe it is used in *some* places, but I am saying it ought to be more common.

Response to Suzanne's message:

In 1985, Parliament gave equal status to the pound and the kilo by means of Act of Parliament. This Act has not been repealed.

Misleading!! The 1985 act was amended by the British Parliament. This was fully provided for in legislation contained in the 1985 act itself!!

The whole proccess was given full Parliamentary scrutiny through secondary legislation, as is most things regarding these matters.

Regards,

Steve.
stevo.davis@btinternet.com

The 1994 Weights and Measures (Units of Measurement) Regulations were invalid because they were introduced further to the 1972 European Communities Act and *not* under the 1985 Weights and Measures Act, as they should have been. If they had been introduced under the 1985 Act, however, they would equally have been invalid - because the 1985 Act said that both metric and Imperial weights and measures were legal. It would be impossible for a Regulation (secondary legislation) to overturn the Act (primary legislation).

So far, the 'metric martyrs' have only lost their cases because (a) the Judges have overturned centuries of British case law by denying the principle of 'implied repeal' (under which the 1985 Weights and Measures Act superseded the 1972 Europaen Communities Act in respect of authorising the continued use of British weights and measures) and (b) by inventing a wholly new doctrine that 'Constitutional' Acts of Parliament (like the European Communities Act 1972)have greater stature than 'non-Constitutional' Acts of Parliament.

Thus we see that only by tearing up British case law and precedent are the authorities allowed to get away with breaching the 1985 Weights and Measures Act. It is to be hoped that the House of Lords will revert to British law instead of making up new law. If they do, it will once again become legal in England to sell a pound of bananas for 25p. At the moment the authorities say this may only be done if the trader uses metric scales to weigh out a miminum of 453.6 grams and informs his customers clearly on a ticket that bananas are really 55p. a kilo.

T Bennett

No, the 1985 act wasn't overturned - it was AMENDED!! Something that the 1985 weights and measures act fully provided for!!

Acts are amended all the time, Mr Bennett, and PLEASE don't quote the 1972 act to me because, although certain parts of the ECA act were used to amend the 1985 act, the 1972 ECA act was NOT a weights and measures act, so the argument that Parliament has used the 1972 Act to overturn the 1985 act is rather spurious and misleading to the extreme!!

The 1985 indeed states that both imperial and metric can be used together, but it also contained a provision for future change to that legislation. the 1994 legislation accordingly amended the 1985 act under the full scrutiny of Parliament!!

Regards,

Steve.
stevo.davis@btinternet.com

SteveH, maybe his rant about the 1972 ECA Act is because he's a Europhobe!

QUOTE: "...the 1985 act wasn't overturned - it was AMENDED!! Something that the 1985 weights and measures act fully provided for!!"

ANS: Whether we say the 1985 Act was "amended" or "repealed" is neither here not there. The point is that the 1994 Regulations were CONTRARY TO the 1985 Act. This is because the 1985 Act equalised the relationship between metric and imperial. The 1994 Regulations made metric compulsory.

The 1994 metric regulations were brought in under the 1972 European Communities Act, as they were implementing an EC directive. The government used them to overturn the 1985 Act.

This, under constitutional law, is illegal because you cannot repeal primary legislation passed in 1985 with secondary legislation derived from a 1972 Act. The reasons for this are:

a) later acts supercede earlier acts; and
b) primary legislation overrides secondary legislation.

The BWMA response effectively and comprehensively deals with Steve Davis's incorrect criticisms. There was one point in his earlier posting that I refrained from commenting on.

Steve Davis wrote: "The whole process had Parliamentary scrutiny..."

Well, yes, but in fact there were I think no more than twenty MPs in the House at the time the Regulations were being debated and they spent no more than twenty minutes making jokes about keeping pints of beer etc., after which the Regulations went through on the nod.

There was no proper debate, no-one of any importance was there except arch-Europhile Ian Taylor MP, and Bill Cash, the so-called 'eurosceptic' who didn't have a clue what was really at stake. As a number of leading Conservatives now concede, they should have opposed this nasty piece of legislation at the time.

But Michael Heseltine, then President of the Board of Trade, was determined to progress his campaign to obey Europe's orders and arrange the further obliteration of British weights and measures.

This was all written up in a Christopher Booker column sometime in early 2001 I seem to recall.

T Bennett

The meeting where the regulations were "scrutinised" was a select committee lasting 14 minutes, where they talked about lengths of cricket pitches and pre-decimal coinage.

Quote:

ANS: Whether we say the 1985 Act was "amended" or "repealed" is neither here not there. The point is that the 1994 Regulations were CONTRARY TO the 1985 Act. This is because the 1985 Act equalised the relationship between metric and imperial. The 1994 Regulations made metric compulsory.


Yes, they were contrary to the original act because, as I've already stated to you, but you seem to missing the point by accident or design, is that the 1985 act ITSELF contained a provision for future changes of that act. Whether the new measurements were metric or imperial makes little difference as the changes were quite properly made through the process of secondary legislation.

Also, the 1972 ECA act is not a weights and measures act; it is simply a device for the enacment of community obligations, the obligations that we signed up and agreed to!!

That said, how can you say that the 1972 ECA act illegally superseded the 1985 W & M act when the ECA act has little to do with weights and measures??

Regards,

Steve.
stevo.davis@btinternet.com

Steve,

QUESTION: "...the 1985 act ITSELF contained a provision for future changes of that act".

ANS: This provision was intended only for minor amendments, such as the addition or deletion of less important units. It did not mean the 1985 Act could be used as a "Metrication Act" by deleting all imperial units. Using the 1985 provision in this way would have contradicted the Act, which gave equal status to the metric and imperial systems. This is why the government relied on the 1972 EC Act to bring in the 1994 regulations.

QU: "...the 1972 ECA act is not a weights and measures act; it is simply a device for the enacment of community obligations, the obligations that we signed up and agreed to!"

ANS: Yes, Britain signed up to it in 1972. However, in 1985, Britain "unsigned" it (in part) by passing the 1985 Weights and Measures Act. This new act left the 1972 Act on the statute books but repealed it in so far as it applied to the limited field of metric weights and measures.

QU: "...how can you say that the 1972 ECA act illegally superseded the 1985 W & M act when the ECA act has little to do with weights and measures??

ANS: Because the 1972 ECA is a vehicle for introducing EC obligations, including those relating to weights and measures. While it is not a weights and measures act par se, it can produce regulations relating to weights and measures if authorised by EC directives.

The reason why the 1972 Act's superceding of the 1985 is illegal is because that, under UK constitutional law, later acts always take precedence when there is a clash. The 1994 regulations, produced via the 1972 Act, clashed with the 1985 Act. Therefore, they were illegal, because the 1985 Act must take precedence.

How, therefore, did Lord Justice Laws find in favour of the government's 1994 regulations? Because he said there is now a "hierachy of acts", whereby earlier acts (if defined as "constitutional acts") override "ordinary" acts, even if passed later. We dispute the hierachy of acts, since this concept is not part of the UK legal system; if there is, it means that the UK constitution no longer exists. Power has passed from Parliament to Brussels.

To BobC - what on earth are you talking about? You're post:-

"SteveH, maybe his rant about the 1972 ECA Act is because he's a Europhobe!"

Maybe you've got me mixed up with someone else? I didn't even mentions ECA!

As far as Europe is concerned - I love it! I just hate what the EU is doing to it. I try to travel in Europe as much as possible, having been to most european countries (haven't been to eastern europe yet).

So be a bit careful when calling people names, get the facts right first.

^^ But Britain has never had a written constitution. All our legislation has always been 'on the hoof'.

^ Sorry Steve H, I got you confused with T Bennett

Apology accepted.

Now where was I?

Oh yes: metric is crap - discuss!

(tee hee)

Language, please.

THE MODERATOR

I thought that word got "downgraded" years ago?
It gets used all the time on kids tv

BWMA is not about to succumb to dumbing down.

THE MODERATOR

BWMA Wrote:

"BWMA is not about to succumb to dumbing down.

THE MODERATOR"

I was EXTREMELY tempted to make some comment about the above statement but, seeing as you have served it up to me on a plate, there seems little satisfaction in doing so, therefore, I'm going to resist it this once!!

Kindly stop putting such temptation my way!!

Regards,

Steve.
stevo.davis@btinternet.com