Sir Michael Spicer is my local M.P. and I asked for his views on metric measurements.He is also the Chairman of the Conservative Party's 1922 Committee which is a senior job in the Party.His answer was that it was too late to do anything about the introduction of kgs/gms but that he is against the replacement of miles/yards.

The flag of obdurate inconsistency has been
nailed to the masthead and the ship sails
unapologetically forward.

This conservative MP is a symbol of all that is good.

It would be nice to know that an incoming conservative government (if there is ever again such a thing) was committed to restoring the lawful use of all imperial measurements. Of course, it would do nothing: all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The following are fairly safe bets if the Conservatives are ever re-elected to government:

1. They will not undo the Regulation making it a crime to display the words 'pounds' and 'ounces' in a British shop after 31 December 2009
2. Shopkeepers will still be taken to Court and convicted as criminals for preferring to sell loose goods in Imperial units
3. They will continue the absolute ban and accompanying criminal penalties on mentioning pounds and ounces on packaged goods
3. They will continue with the policy of phasing out the teaching of British weights and measures in national curriculum
4. They will maintain the policy of teaching children virtually nothing about British and English history
5. Department of Education height charts for primary schools will still be in metric units only
6. They will continue to enforce the E.U. regulations which now require government departments and local authorities to use metric measurements for all official purposes
7. The Highway Code will continue to use metres
8. They will stay in the European Union and continue to transfer power away from Westminster under 'acquis communitaire'
9. The signs on the exterior of the House of Commons will still be in metres not yards

T Bennett

This is mind-boggling.
Abuse of bureaucratic power and seems to transcend
the Labour/Conservative distinction.
Separation of church and state in US constitution
protects a certain limited part of culture namely
religion from interference by bureaucrats but
apparently it is not broad enough protection.

Dual pricing and dual listing of children's heights
and dual signboards on Commons would be so cheap.
What would it cost them to respect custom to that
extent? Nothing. There is a certain meanness in
bureaucrats when they get a notion of what is good
for you.
On the other hand bureaucrats do a lot that is right
and necessary. They just need some bounds on what
their godlike hands can touch.
Cultural variety is part of the idea of Europe. Europe
almost means cultural variety. How is it possible that a country cannot join Europe unless it does these things that TBennett talks about? Can he be exaggerating? Is it really true that schools are teaching less Br. and Eng. History? That does not seem very intelligent of those schools if it is true. Of course things are in many ways more screwed up where I live, but this is terrible.

T Bennett:

Nice to see you doing another one of your 'Daily Maily' style rants!

Sorry, should have been 'Daily Mail', that newspaper which loves to predict nothing but doom and gloom. Every time I buy it (if I need cheering up....), I think 'what will it be hysterical about today?????'

Oh yeah, one other thing :

At primary school, pretty much all children are taught about British / English history. That was certainly so in my case, and I left primary school in 1988. At secondary school I was taught British history (in fact, only British history) and it was only once the GCSE history course began that pretty much all of it was non-British history, which was by choice. I did the so-called 'Modern World' syllabus.

My A-level history course, as for that, contained a lot of British history.

I think it's far too early to talk about what the Conservatives will do about metric etc. My view is that they won't get in at the next election but people will start getting fed up by the election after that and we could see a minority Tory gov't. Whether this is before 2009 or not is anybody's guess.

P.S. Michael Spicer is a very sound chap! An MP you can trust!

British history has been systematically undermined for years. As for England...well, now we are told by 'experts' and the media classes that it never has existed: there are no such people as the English. Evidence enough in the last census with the omission of any 'English' category of description. (I'm pleased to learn it has flopped so spectacularly that the information it collects will be regarded as statistically useless...) Now Mr Prescott has decreed that the counties should be erased forever. Clearly the presence of the English in these islands is an inconvenient obstacle in the forging of the post-modern paradise! Frankly, I think we should cease worrying about weights and measures, the abolition of the nation state, the destruction of 1000 years of sublime civilisation, or any such frivolous concern...our Imperial darling, King Blair, has promised us (and I trust him with my unworthy life) that no matter what happens, we will always have our beloved football and Eastenders.

You should take more water with it!

Typical - it is no good being critical without responding to each of my points in turn. This is a debate, not mere point-scoring! Shame on you! My key argument is that we cannot rely on politicians to resolve our difficulties - we have to do from the ground up.

Always interesting to see an exhibition of pots & kettles!

Anyway, here goes:



"British history has been systematically undermined for years"

How can one undermine history? History is something that happened IN THE PAST.

As for it being "undermined" - what does that mean? Where is youe comprehensive evidence? I suspoect that you may simply be generalising from the specific which is not the same as "systematically


"As for England...well, now we are told by 'experts' and the media classes that it never has existed"

Pure fantasy - no evidence for this sweeping statement.

Intersting to note the need to disparage experts - you prefer novices and incompetents perhaps.


"....there are no such people as the English. Evidence enough in the last census with the omission of any 'English' category of description"

This is not evoidence - just a construct to agree with you theory. A case of proof by affirmation, which is not proof.

Incidentally, scientific method is to attempt to falsify a theory, not prove it. Karl Popper writes well on this subject. What do you think?


"(I'm pleased to learn it has flopped so spectacularly that the information it collects will be regarded as statistically useless...)"

Maybe - nut we all make mistakes occasionally. That does not show evidence of malice - it is your interpretation that may be at fault here.

"Now Mr Prescott has decreed that the counties should be erased forever. Clearly the presence of the English in these islands is an inconvenient obstacle in the forging of the post-modern paradise!"

Eh? Again this is your construct to fit in with your theory.

"Frankly, I think we should cease worrying about weights and measures"

Sensible chap - given the other things going on in the world - I am thinking here of my Palestinian friends at the moment. There are many challenges facing us - the human race - maybe a sense of priorities is needed. Glad to see that you support this.

"the abolition of the nation state"

Eh?

Prove it.

"the destruction of 1000 years of sublime civilisation"

No evidence for this - unless you are genralising from the specific again. Again I suspect that the facts will be made to fit your theory here.

"our Imperial darling, King Blair, has promised us (and I trust him with my unworthy life) that no matter what happens, we will always have our beloved football and Eastenders."

No idea what on earth this means

Britain - and England in particular - has been and remains the chief obstacle to the world's would-be power-grabbers. We struggled free from Papal domination in the 1500's and 1600's. Unparalleled success for the nation followed. The French under Napoleon sought a European super-state - Britain was the road-block. The same in World Wars I and II though this time the Germans were the source of imperial ambitions.

To glimpse the future, take a cool look at the teaching material for the new *compulsory* Citizenship Education classes which all British pupils from 5 to 16 will have to attend from September, with at least 5% of the timetable being taken up on it.

Yes, much of the input is uncontroversial and desirable, but you will not see any mention of British citizenship. You *will* see mention of European and even *global* citizenship (they've got to start getting the idaa of a One World Government in somewhere). England isn't mentioned once in the whole syllabus. And neither are those twin guarantors of the freedom of individual Englishmen and all British citizens - 'habeas corpus' and jury trial, the two best safeguards against totalitarianismn ever devised by mankind.

Why not? Because our would-be masters want to phase them out and are already doing so. It would be rather inconvenient to draw pupils' attention to those absolutely fundamental guarantees of liberty now, wouldn't it? Yet they are two foundation stones of British freedoms which have been fought for and defended with the lives of those who have gone before.

No mention whatsoever in the curriculum for Citizenship Education of 'Magna Carta' or the 'Bill of Rights', but plenty of the controversial Human Rights Act 1998. Strange that.

I like to think of English people of my generation as trustees, guardians or stewards of those rights and freedoms, and of our culture, which those of previous generations have bequeathed to us. Shame on us if we throw it all away carelessly. Imperial weights and measures are overwhelmingly preferred for everyday use by British people as survey after survey shows - another reason for trying to preserve them in common use against the dictatorial methods being used to obliterate them.

Controversial 1998 Human Rights Act 1998? Controversial in what way? And why is it that EVERYTHING that comes from Europe (this was an incorporation of part of European law into domestic British law) is bad? Good things may come from 'that awful continent' too, you know. Look at the Social Chapter, part of the Maastricht Treaty and incorporated into British law by the Blair Government. It gave rights to workers which for years and years had been denied to them by the Tories.

One world government? Conspiracy rules! It all sounds sooooooooo mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, at last we are getting somewhere. The genuine red meat of criticism instead of mechanically recovered ersatz. To respond to your points in turn:

Concerning the undermining of history in the UK. By that I mean the teaching of British and specifically, English, history in schools. History is made in the present, not the past. Apart from a few undisputed facts, virtually all history is open to reinterpretation by current generations with an ideological axe to grind. This is one of the functions of history. It is never a static, unchanging constant as you imagine it to be (interestingly, your opinions in this regard mirror the claims of incontestability and absolutism that are made for metrication). 'Englishness' is now derided as at best a myopic illusion driven by a retrograde nostalgia (old maids cycling to communion in the mist; the absurdity of Morris dancing), or at worst, a conspiracy of dead white males and misogynists (a brutal British - read English - impulse to enslave non-whites, Celts or women, or all three). Incomparable contributions to mankind such as protection against arbitrary imprisonment, parliamentary representation, or the glories of the English language, are overlooked or dismissed. I provide three examples as evidence of this development in recent years: the disparaging of claims of English ethnic or cultural exclusivity; the denial of English nationhood during the devolution process; and the centrally-orchestrated policy of sidelining English culture, for example in the dispersal of Lottery-funded projects, neatly encapsulated by the example of the ill-fated Dome. The recent, notorious, government-sponsored 'Community of communities' report, denying the English a right to cultural self-determination, reflects the preachy and authoritarian demands of the modernisers (the corollary of multiculturalism is that the host culture must disappear - this is not a stipulation required of the Celtic British nations). Devolution has returned some power to Scotland and Wales. Good for them. The English are offered regionalism as a policy designed specifically to divide and rule the English and erode their sense of identity. Lastly, try getting lottery funding for projects celebrating English achievements, history, language and nationhood. I don't suppose you'll be bothering with that one!

I'm glad you think the waste of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on a useless census, is excusable ('we all make mistakes sometimes'). The point there is that the wording of each question on the form had been deliberated over long and hard and presumably been approved by ministers and civil servants. It was a provocative act to omit an 'English' box - a quite deliberate and pointed gesture of intent.

There are important things going on in the world - I am thinking here of my Jewish friends at the moment.

Don't get the last point? Kymer Blair uses a classic 'bread and circuses' method of diverting public attention from what he is doing, especially viz Europe. Heaven forbid if people start to think for themselves, "quickly, give them more s*x and sport, that'll keep them docile". Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow, we die.

I listen to experts; I do not trust self-appointed 'experts'. In fact, I reject managerialism or corporatism in favour of English pragmatism. My question to you remains the same, and it is one that with which you have hitherto refused to engage: why do you seek to imprison me on a matter of conscience?

One can obtain a degree in the history of history these days.

England? Europe? As an anarchist I care neither one way nor the other which brand of propaganda is taught. What galls me is a totalitarian state that sees fit to jail a Banbury mother for 60 days because of her 13 year old daughter truanting. Shame on Blair for messing with peoples individual life and liberty for political gain.

Point 1 - you could consider your written English. It is more difficult than it needs to be. The purpose of written English is to communicate effectively.

I write as someone who works with / trains people in, amongst other things, effective communication.

I recommend a couple of books to you:

How to be a better communicator - Kogan Page - 0-7494-2025-1

How to take the fog out of business writing - Dartnell - 0-85013-232-0

The last one is particularly interesting as it shows how to analyse your writing for readability and effectiveness

Points 2 and on:

"Well, at last we are getting somewhere. The genuine red meat of criticism instead of mechanically recovered ersatz"

There has always been genuine criticism - that you didn't like it (or made your own assumptions) is your decision, not fact.

It was an interesting use of mixed metaphors though.


"Concerning the undermining of history in the UK. By that I mean the teaching of British and specifically, English, history in schools."

The interpretation of history is a process, not a destination. Yes, history is now taught in a more critical manner, but that is not to diminish Britishness. I can see that you may feel threatened by a more objective approach to history rather than the force-feeding of undisputed "facts", as used to occur. People are now being taught to think, rather than accept with uncritical obedience. I wonder how much effort you have put in to acquaint yourself with what is actually being taught nowadays.

How many books on history have you read in the last year?

What efforts have you made to find out what is really going on?

How many different viewpoints have you researched or considered?

"History is made in the present, not the past."

History is, by definition, what happened in the past - the interpretation of it is what happens now.

"Apart from a few undisputed facts, virtually all history is open to reinterpretation by current generations with an ideological axe to grind"

So, what is your ideological axe?

"It is never a static, unchanging constant as you imagine it to be"

You have made this bit up. You have no knowledge of what I imagine. This is an assumption of yours. However, what has happened in the past is, by defination, unchangeable. It is our perceptions and interpretations that are current and changeable.

"interestingly, your opinions in this regard mirror the claims of incontestability and absolutism that are made for metrication"

See comments above I have made no abolutist claims about interpretation - just fact. More assumptions from you here.

"Englishness' is now derided as at best a myopic illusion driven by a retrograde nostalgia (old maids cycling to communion in the mist; the absurdity of Morris dancing), or at worst, a conspiracy of dead white males and misogynists (a brutal British - read English - impulse to enslave non-whites, Celts or women, or all three)"

You are generalising from the specific again. You, it seems, have an ideology or set of beliefs and then look for "proof" or confirming instances.

Please read K Popper on this subject.

I look forward to your comments.

AJ Ayer is also worth a look.

The "impulse" that you talk about is, again, an attempt to ascribe motives where we can only observe actions. It is opinion only and should be treated as such, no matter who's opinion it is.

"Incomparable contributions to mankind such as protection against arbitrary imprisonment, parliamentary representation, or the glories of the English language, are overlooked or dismissed"

You've made this bit up. Again you are generalising from the specific - trying to fit facts to your theory or beliefs.

"I provide three examples as evidence of this development in recent years: the disparaging of claims of English ethnic or cultural exclusivity"

No idea what this means - it seems to be a party slogan, not a part of a reasoned argument.

"The denial of English nationhood during the devolution process"

Again, a political slogan - what does this mean? Where is the evidence? Have you looked for falsifying instances in testing this theory, or are you seeking to prive by affirmation? Remeber, the latter is not proof, just self-delusion. See K Popper.

"and the centrally-orchestrated policy of sidelining English culture, for example in the dispersal of Lottery-funded projects, neatly encapsulated by the example of the ill-fated Dome?

Another slogan - see comments above.

The dome is another matter - what a shambles. I don't think that is was anything to do with sidelining English culture - just a cock-up.

BTW, the origin of the phrase "cock-up" is fascinating. It is not what most people think, it comes from archery.

"The recent, notorious, government-sponsored 'Community of communities' report, denying the English a right to cultural self-determination"

Eh?

It never said that - you are fitting facts to your theories again. The work "notorious" is the clue here that you may be trying to fit facts to your opinions again.


"reflects the preachy and authoritarian demands of the modernisers"

I abhore preachy and authoritarian - I find the traditionalists more scary than the modernisers as a result.

"the corollary of multiculturalism is that the host culture must disappear"

Who says?

Britain has been multicultural for centuries - and is culturally richer and more vigerous as a result. Think of the following cultures / races / peoples who have joined us and brought their own cultures to merge with ours:

Angles
Romans
Saxons
Scandinavians (Vikings)
Huguenots
Jews
Norman French
Ugandan Asians

Which of these are

"the Celtic British nations"?

Also, a key quality of the British is that of tolerance.

Where do you stand on that?

"Devolution has returned some power to Scotland and Wales. Good for them. The English are offered regionalism"

True - I think this needs addressing

"as a policy designed specifically to divide and rule the English and erode their sense of identity"

This is your theory / belief. You seem to be ascribing motives based on your beliefs - I suspect that this is simply fantasy.

"Lastly, try getting lottery funding for projects celebrating English achievements, history, language and nationhood. I don't suppose you'll be bothering with that one!"

Plenty of them - you just have to look! Why don't you ask the various bodies responsible for the distribution of lottery funds and then bring this topic back to the board with some facts? I will be interested to see what you find.


"I'm glad you think the waste of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on a useless census, is excusable ('we all make mistakes sometimes')"

The point is that the census is not useless - the odd question may (and I emphasise MAY) be less useful than planned, but overall the census is very useful.


"It was a provocative act to omit an 'English' box - a quite deliberate and pointed gesture of intent"

This is an assumption about poeple's motives - why on earth would anyone want to make such a "quite deliberate and pointed gesture of intent"?

Again you seem to be acsribing motives based on your own beliefs

"There are important things going on in the world - I am thinking here of my Jewish friends at the moment"

As am I. I am also thinking of my Palestinian friends. Poeple like Marwan, who was forced from his home into a refugee camp when he was a child.

I wonder how much you really know about what is going on out there.

How many Israelis do you know?

How many Palestinians?

How many times have you visited the region?

What have you done to find out what is happening?

How much do you know about the hsitory of the region and the conflict?


"I listen to experts; I do not trust self-appointed 'experts'"

I supect that this is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect that you pick and choose which category you put experts in - if they agree with you or not may be the deciding factor.

"In fact, I reject managerialism or corporatism in favour of English pragmatism"

What do each of these mean? Please tell us, because it sounds like more slogans.

"My question to you remains the same, and it is one that with which you have hitherto refused to engage: why do you seek to imprison me on a matter of conscience?"

I haven't - all I have done is question you and challenge you. You may find it uncomfortable, but being challenged is not the same as imprisoning. If we all thought like that, then no discussion could ever take place. Perhaps you would rather restrict MY freedom to hold different views from you and to express them

Blimey! This is the best "O.T." stuff I've seen in years!

P.S. The bit I found intersting was the hint to the real original meaning of "cock up" - very good.

Here's one: "Mind your P's and Q's" came from when British pubs sold beer in quarts as well as pints. If a scuffle broke out the barkeeper would shout "Mind you P's and Q's" - true!

Finally...

"anarchist"? - That made me snigger! Ta for that! (ref: "Boooooo! Let's attack a MacDonalds - yeah!" while singing a song about "the fascist regime" etc! - very 70's!)

anarchism.n. belief in the abolition of all government and the organisation of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis

APP:

Please post some more when you have the time. You write so well and I find myself nodding my head at pretty much all you say.

Why don't you become a politician?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You will have to do better than that. Taking your first point: considering the tedious length of your email compared to my last, you would do well to heed your own advice and develop a more concise style of prose. Communication skills? Everyone in real academia/journalism knows that this 'discipline' is a standing joke and a contradiction in terms - filled with meaningless buzzwords and cluttered with vile mid-atlantic jargon. Please, I implore you: read some real poetry and learn about human nature, before it is too late.

As to the current state of teaching. Well, employers are all too aware of the meaninglessness of current 'qualifications'. The standard of written English among freshers at university is scandalous. Considering I earn my living by it, I dare say I have read more history books than you during the past year.

I will respond to your other comments this evening.

Imprisonment? You would do well to read this website. That is exactly the fate that faces the 'Metric Martyrs' should they continue to sell bananas by the pound. If you believe in freedom, support the right to think imperially and act imperially ALONGSIDE, not INSTEAD OF, metric. I do not deny your right to use metric. I ask you to afford me the same courtesy by permitting me the right to use everyday measurements without fear of arrest.

"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You will have to do better than that."

Why?

Define "better"

"Taking your first point: considering the tedious length of your email compared to my last"

My prose was quite concise - I replied to each point of yours, quoting the originals.

DO you want to be ignored? Of course, if you find it difficult to concentrate, that may be a problem.

That was why it was put together point by point - so that you can read it in sections.

"you would do well to heed your own advice and develop a more concise style of prose."

See above - compare to your original

"Communication skills? Everyone in real academia/journalism knows that this 'discipline' is a standing joke and a contradiction in terms - filled with meaningless buzzwords and cluttered with vile mid-atlantic jargon."

Sheer prejudice and ignorance here. Everyone "knows" eh? For this read: "some people believe, without evidence".

Could it simply be snobbery? There's a thought.

It is also an interesting thought that academia should tell business how to communicate. In the real world of business we may see things differently. I will discuss this next time I am with my Business School chums.

Incidentally the phrase I used was "effective communication" not "communication skills".

Do you think that people should not be taught how to communicate? A strange thought.


I dare say that you will generalise from the specific again.

"Please, I implore you: read some real poetry and learn about human nature, before it is too late."

More assumptions, and patronising ones at that.

I am sure that my breadth of reading and understanding of human nature surpasses most.


"As to the current state of teaching. Well, employers are all too aware of the meaninglessness of current 'qualifications'. The standard of written English among freshers at university is scandalous."

Many employers are also aware of the uselessness of many traditional qualifications and the conservative and reactionary approach of some of the educational establishment when faced with change. Food for thought.

Teaching standards and methods could do worse than come up to the standards we set in business.

I suspect that I know more business people at all levels and have more experience of business across the world than most.

"Considering I earn my living by it, I dare say I have read more history books than you during the past year."

Hmm - reading and understanding may be different. Also another assumption here.

What do you do?


"Imprisonment?"

This is what I wrote before:

"...all I have done is question you and challenge you. You may find it uncomfortable, but being challenged is not the same as imprisoning. If we all thought like that, then no discussion could ever take place. Perhaps you would rather restrict MY freedom to hold different views from you and to express them"

Did you have a look at the tolerance site?

*the chorus raises*
"more, more, more!"

Goodness me, obviously you have little to do with yourself during the daytime except formulate diatribes against my eminently sensible emails. The 'effective communication' business a bit slack at the moment, is it?

Taking your points in turn. Let me give you one or two lessons in prose construction. Prose does not comprise:

single sentences

or

bullet points

containing

half-formed and ill-informed gleanings of pop-philosophy garnered from 'master modern political philosophy in your lunch-hour' crib sheets on sale in cheap bookshops.

Have you ever written a passage containing joined-up sentences? Put away your laptop, close your Powerpoint, and buy a classic novel to learn about these things.

'More assumptions, and patronising ones at that'. Patronising? Look who's talking:

'That was why it was put together point by point - so that you can read it in sections.'

Nor are you exactly modesty personified, here are a couple of cracking examples:

"I am sure that my breadth of reading and understanding of human nature surpasses most."

"I suspect that I know more business people at all levels and have more experience of business across the world than most."

You cannot make such assertions which are gross generalisations: they are unsupportable and in any case make you look absurd. I have never made such claims. I am simply an ordinary Englishman chipping in to fight the good fight.

Let me tackle your first email of the day. On multiculturalism. England's population remained remarkably stable between around 1000 and 1950 odd. The Huguenots, Jewish and other refugees made up a tiny, statistically minute, contribution to an otherwise largely monocultural society: ethnically North-West European, Christian, and post-16th century, largely Protestant, a people defined by a unique language and the development of singular political narrative. I am very tolerant. That's why I support your right to use metric. Immigrants to Britain are very welcome: many are highly conservative and likely to back my position, anyway! I don't believe in multiculturalism. This is a media buzzword without content or meaning. Immigrants come to this country to participate in England's monocultural society - to enjoy the rule of law, a progressive view of human nature, Parliamentary democracy, a peaceful, calm, pragmatic way of life. Good luck to them! Multiculturalism is a historical fabrication constructed for propaganda purposes. Its use betokens shoddy and lazy sloganising.

Lottery grants are dependent upon applicants passing thresholds of political correctness - they have to demonstrate that bids will buttress multicultural dogma and meet government-designated staffing quotas relating to women, the ethnic minorities and the 'disabled'.

Census questions were, presumably, not designed on the back of an envelope in a lunch hour. Each one is the result of careful thought and deliberation and must have required approval from on high. The absence of an English box is quite deliberate, I assure you. The census is useless, not because of this, but because of widespread avoidance, rendering the results untrustworthy. This, I grant you, is the result solely of incompentence, not malice!

I am broadly supportive of the plight of the Palestinians. I have Jewish friends, though they are not Israelis. No one emerges with credit from that dreadful business. Lets leave it out of this debate, since I think we probably agree on that one.

By managerialism, I mean top-down government by technocrats. Let democracy, diversity and freedom flourish. That's why I support the use of metric AND Imperial measures. That would have been Popper's view, no doubt. You are an admirer of the Open Society. I respect that. So...once again, and for the third or fourth time, please answer my question:

"Why do you seek to restrict my freedom and punish me for using traditional measures?"

This choice harms no-one. The classic liberal position is to tolerate all things that are not harmful to others. Be generous and leave me to enjoy my culture in peace.

"Goodness me, obviously you have little to do with yourself during the daytime except formulate diatribes against my eminently sensible emails."

Yes, I can see that you feel threatened by discussion

"Diatribes" is an emotive word, presumably trying to convey some sense of superiority on your part.

"my eminently sensible" is in the same league

Try a moer neurtral word next time.

A tip: separate opinions from facts ie be honest when you are expressing an opimion and present facts as facts.

Using the word "I" may help here.

"The 'effective communication' business a bit slack at the moment, is it?"

Certainly seems to be something you have a problem with

"Taking your points in turn. Let me give you one or two lessons in prose construction. Prose does not comprise:

single sentences

or

bullet points"

So?

This is not mean't to be a work of lieterature, nut to discuss and debate. This seems to be quite an effective way of doing it, whatever hang-ups you may have about literary style.


"half-formed and ill-informed gleanings of pop-philosophy garnered from 'master modern political philosophy in your lunch-hour' crib sheets on sale in cheap bookshops."

Just plain insulting based, I suspect, on prejudixce and ignorance

"Have you ever written a passage containing joined-up sentences? Put away your laptop, close your Powerpoint, and buy a classic novel to learn about these things." See above. Your assumptions say more to me about you, your prejudices and ignorance than anything else.

Have you ever had a debate when you have communicated effectively ie. Listened, looked and done so with an open mind?

Not here it seems

"Patronising? Look who's talking:"

I seem to have touched a nerve

"'That was why it was put together point by point - so that you can read it in sections.'"

This was a statement of fact

"Nor are you exactly modesty personified, here are a couple of cracking examples:

"I am sure that my breadth of reading and understanding of human nature surpasses most."

"I suspect that I know more business people at all levels and have more experience of business across the world than most.""

These are statements of my opinion based on facts. I I didn't present these out of some desire or ned for approval, dut in answer to points you raised.

"You cannot make such assertions which are gross generalisations: they are unsupportable and in any case make you look absurd. I have never made such claims. I am simply an ordinary Englishman chipping in to fight the good fight."

Read them again - see the words "I suspect" etc. I am clear here that these are opinions, although I have based them on the facts available to me.

Again, reading, looking and listening without the filter of opinons, beliefs and prejudices might help you here

"Let me tackle your first email of the day............political narrative."

Fine, but that does not negate my point

"I am very tolerant."

I will let other contributors to this board consider that - I have my opinion.

"That's why I support your right to use metric."

Here we have an another assumption of yours

"Immigrants to Britain are very welcome: many are highly conservative and likely to back my position, anyway!"

What is your evidence"

"I don't believe in multiculturalism. This is a media buzzword without content or meaning."

No it's not - that is an opinion

"Multiculturalism is a historical fabrication constructed for propaganda purposes. Its use betokens shoddy and lazy sloganising."

Opinions and prejudice again

"Lottery grants are dependent upon applicants passing thresholds of political correctness2

I hope so - unless you are using the words "political correctness" as an insult or to mean something they don't. The OED defines political correctness as:

The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalise or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

This seems very much in keeping with British traditions and even with your statement of your own tolerance

"they have to demonstrate that bids will buttress multicultural dogma"

Eh? Prove it

"and meet government-designated staffing quotas relating to women, the ethnic minorities and the 'disabled'."

And the problem here is?

"The absence of an English box is quite deliberate, I assure you."

Opinion again, not supported by evidence

"The census is useless, not because of this, but because of widespread avoidance,"

not true


"I am broadly supportive of the plight of the Palestinians. I have Jewish friends, though they are not Israelis. No one emerges with credit from that dreadful business. Lets leave it out of this debate, since I think we probably agree on that one."

Thank you - I do a great deal of work in the Middle East and have also been working with Israeli companies / people. I wish some of the facts about what is really happening, and has happened could get wider coverage.

"By managerialism, I mean top-down government by technocrats."

Technocrats are useful - but I am by nature a rebel. I don't think that the word "managerialism" helps here - emotive again and the fact that it needs explaining must point to its limited value.

"Let democracy, diversity and freedom flourish"

Quite agree


"Why do you seek to restrict my freedom and punish me for using traditional measures?"

When have I?

BTW - What is your job?

"The absence of an English box is quite deliberate, I assure you.

Opinion again, not supported by evidence"


What is the evidence that the ommission of the English box was an accident?

Trying to prove a negative is difficult, if not impossible. Mr B has made an assertion about action and motivation - I have simply asked him to back this up.

^ I've just read all those posts up there ^

Why do I feel like I've just re-sat all my English lessons again?

Jeesh!

And when we talk about Political correctness let me assure you that it is quite the opposite! Come on! You remember the stuff about "an accident blackspot" being racist and "man-hole" being sexist - give me a break!

And as far as quotas? If I were a woman hired merely due to a quota of female staff being too low I would feel disgusted, patronised, angry and useless - and unless that job offered me a salary of a million quid I would resign (and if it did offer a million, I would continue working but feel the need to shower every 10 minutes due to feeling 'dirty'!!!)

I honestly believe that too many people read the Guardian!

What you are talking about is the innapropriate application of it.

Also, it is often used as a term of abuse or to descibe many things that people simply don't like.

Read the post - it does not talk about whatever it is that you mean.

Also - what do you mean about the Guardian? Not sure what that's about

It's not my usual paper, I admit - although I do read it on occasion in the inetrest of balance, or finding out what other people think.

I am alsways interested that people find learning something to deride - don't you like English?

There is a difference between quotas and positive action to get more women (for example) into certain jobs, The engineering industry is a good example of one that has been working on exactly that, with some success.

I agree that employing someone just because they are a woman / man / black / white would be questionable - but that is not the same as positive action and encouragement.

I refer you to the concept of indirect discrimination as it applies in employment law - what do you think?

Any discrimination is bad, either way.

There are limits, of course eg, you wouldn't hire a peadophile, of course then you shouldn't be done for "descrimination" on that case.

Which begs the question.

Over the years we've seen rights "given" to people.

Eg. -

To women
To Jews
To coloured people
To Unmarried people
To "other religions"
To abortion
To those under 21
To those under 18
To those under 16
To homosexual rights
To the 'unborn child' (ie increasing termination age)
To homosexuals given rights to sex (21, 18, 16)
To heterosexual "buggery"
To euthanasia
To assisted suicide
To fetishists

One begs the question, will peodophillia be the next "rights issue"

After all you'd be a peodophile to have sex with someone under 16 in the UK but not in Holland.

What say you? Argue forth and masticate.....

It was George Bush senior, or rather his spin doctors and speech writers, who first coined the term 'politically correct'. I got a strong impession, in hearing his original rant about PC, he was concerned about US citizens giving the USA a bad image abroad, every time they opened their mouths (typed on the keyboard) on this wonderfully new internet.

And the Daily Mail? *looks skywards* I sometimes torture myself by reading it, but only if somebody else buys it and leaves it the magazine rack at the dentist.

I found APP's English so unreadable that I skipped over 90% of his text; by contrast, I found G Brown's highly readable, and his opinions interesting.

I find all opinions interesting and make an effort to understand, no matter what style I prefer.

However, if it's entertainment you want, then read a novel. I am trying to engage in a debate, swapping and contesting opinions and discussing facts.

A methodical approach, dealing point by point seems the effective way to do it.

As does leaving space between ideaes.

The limitations of the format (Network 54) do conspire against us all as it is difficult to lay out in a manner that aids concentration. I think it can be done (formatting, fonts etc), but I've not yot found otu how

I find Mr B's approach over-flowery and, at times, impenetrable - if only for the big chunks of text that need breaking up.

But, if it helps, then next time I might try to tell a story

Chacun a son gout

dammit some one should congratulate GBrown on his
"blue-sky" post upholding values of decent prose,
classic novels, classic liberalism and making effective use of mimickry:


[["Goodness me, obviously you have little to do with yourself during the daytime except formulate diatribes against my eminently sensible emails. The 'effective communication' business a bit slack at the moment, is it?

Taking your points in turn. Let me give you one or two lessons in prose construction. Prose does not comprise:

single sentences

or

bullet points

containing

half-formed and ill-informed gleanings of pop-philosophy garnered from 'master modern political philosophy in your lunch-hour' crib sheets on sale in cheap bookshops.

Have you ever written a passage containing joined-up sentences? Put away your laptop, close your Powerpoint, and buy a classic novel to learn about these things.

'More assumptions, and patronising ones at that'. Patronising? Look who's talking:

'That was why it was put together point by point - so that you can read it in sections.'

Nor are you exactly modesty personified, here are a couple of cracking examples:

"I am sure that my breadth of reading and understanding of human nature surpasses most."]]

I think he behaves himself honorably without being pedantic or sounding extreme rightwing or rage-driven or anything. Voice of reason in defense of liberty.

Thought it was a good smart blow struck on the Powerpoint of mr. App.

What are the classic novels in this GBrown's view, I wonder. In my narrow universe the only classics are by
Jane Austen though I do enjoy some Dickens. My wife's the literate one in the family.

Anyway, too bad you can't say anything on these boards without the risk of provoking contradiction. I don't want to argue about anything, just say bravo GBrown, a well-turned highly sensible statement.

I think that you will find you arguments (I think they are - I'm not sure that I really understood your points)handled above.

There is, for example, a world of difference between immodesty and honest appraisal.

As for PowerPoint - Where does that come from? It saeems irrelevent here. A nice cliche though - saves thinking!

APP: We are already familiar with your admirable humility. It comes as no surprise, therefore, to read of your continued concern with the welfare of my prose style:

"Try a moer neurtral word next time."

"Using the word "I" may help here."

Yes, Sir!

I would suggest that this forum is one for debate concerning metrication and related issues, not prose style. APP began that diversion several replies ago:

"Point 1 - you could consider your written English. It is more difficult than it needs to be. The purpose of written English is to communicate effectively."

Yet he now confesses: "This is not mean't to be a work of lieterature, nut to discuss and debate." Could it be that we are witnessing a seismic shift in opinion on this matter from the self confessed, globally renowned, communicator?

Perhaps the inability of business managers and professional communicators to make themselves understood in coherent, plain, English, instead of jargon and buzzwords, is damaging business efficiency and alienating managers from workforces? One suspects management schools make business vocabulary as incomprehensible and inaccessible as possible in order to maintain a closed shop. Management consultants, in particular, can justify continuing to charge exhorbitant fees for their, usually damaging, advice. By the way, I wonder, does his remit extend to dreaming up new euphemisms by which senior managements can describe the sackings of thousands as "restructuring opportunities" or the like, while awarding themselves huge bonuses?

I digress.

Let's consider one or two serious points.

"Immigrants to Britain are very welcome: many are highly conservative and likely to back my position, anyway!" I confess that this is a matter of opinion, not fact, but one based on much first hand experience and what is known about many, mainly South Asian, families, bound together by traditional loyalties and aspirations. Unfortunately many 'Guardian-liberals' (sorry for the shorthand - I, too, read the Guardian to get a balanced picture!) betray a condescension towards 'ethnic minorities': they are treated as an undifferentiated mass instead of millions of individuals belonging to dozens of different cultures and religions; they are lumped together with other, supposedly grateful recipients of liberal largesse and sympathetic hand-wringing, gays and disabled people. Why should not a gay person, ethnic minority person or disabled person, say, be conservative in disposition? Who's doing the patronising now??

(I suspect many Guardian-readers are 'all shook up' about the Pim phenomenon is Holland. A militant gay activist who distrusts immigrants?? That's not how it's supposed to be! One can almost see their circuits overheating as they try to compute that one.)

Why am I suspicious of political correctness? For three reasons.

1. It is compulsory, not voluntary, and the jobs of millions in the public sector and increasingly, the private sector, now fall under its sway and are held to ransom by its increasingly shrill and greedy demands.

2. It is divisive. Dividing society up into opposing interests - the opposite of the intention. The so-called 'compensation culture' or 'blame culture' has the same effect.This leads to a damaging politicising of the public sphere, when the over-riding ethos should be one of service and duty. It is the flip-side of the consumer society which has engendered social fragmentation

3. It stifles debate and leads to a dangerous bottling up of discontents. It engenders fear. It is part of a deeper malaise in modern society.

There is a palpable sense that something is out of kilter with modern life and that we need to rediscover our moral bearings and who we are, what our purpose is.

Finally, I take it from your last remark that you support the lawful use of dual measurements?

How could I have been so wrong about you?!

Or does it?

"APP: We are already familiar with your admirable humility"

For which, read honesty. Why is it that the British are so bad at being honest about themselves. Other nationalities don't have tha hang-up. I try to appriase my own skills honestly and base my judgements on evidence.

Tell me, is ther anything you are good at? Would you admit to it?

It comes as no surprise..."


Yes, Sir!"

Well, I offer comment in a frindly way - you seem to have a problem with that. Never mind, it's your problem, not mine.



"I would suggest that this forum is one for debate concerning metrication and related issues, not prose style."

Yet you have happily joined in with some interesting comments and suggestions. Pots and kettles again, I think.


"Yet he now confesses....are witnessing a seismic shift in opinion on this matter from the self confessed, globally renowned, communicator?"

Oh dear, sarcasm. Tut tut.

However, if you read the posts (without filtering the information through your own pre-conceptions) you will see no ambiguity there at all.



P"erhaps the inability of business managers and professional communicators to make themselves understood in coherent, plain, English, instead of jargon and buzzwords, is damaging business efficiency and alienating managers from workforces?"

This really is not the case. This is an urban myth, brought about by the ignorance of the myth makers. Yes, people will use innapropriate jargon in all progfessions - I deplore that.

"One suspects management schools make business vocabulary as incomprehensible and inaccessible as possible in order to maintain a closed shop."

No

"Management consultants, ...charge exhorbitant fees... .usually damaging, advice."

Pure fantasy - don't believe everything that you read in the less well informed tabloids

I particularly enjoyed the "usually damaging advice bit" and look forward to seeing your evidence.

" By the way, I wonder, does his remit extend to dreaming up new euphemisms by which senior managements can describe the sackings of thousands as "restructuring opportunities" or the like, while awarding themselves huge bonuses?"

No - again more myths - you've been generalising from the specific again, haven't you.

I digress.

Let's consider one or two serious points.

"Immigrants ."

"I confess that this is a matter of opinion, not fact"

Thsanks you

"Why..disabled person, say, be conservative in disposition?"

I have no problem with that and have never indicated otherwise

"Who's doing the patronising now??"

I'm not sure - who is?

"(I suspect many Guardian-readers are 'all shook up' about the Pim phenomenon is Holland. A militant gay activist who distrusts immigrants?? That's not how it's supposed to be! One can almost see their circuits overheating as they try to compute that one.)"

Yes, that one is fascinating. It's the BNP and their pals who really are having to jump tjhrough ideologicla hoops on that one. I am really looking forward to see how they manage to square the circle on that.

Interestingly, he didn't distrust immigrants, just said that Holland is full!

"Why am I suspicious of political correctness?

1. It is compulsory, not voluntary, and the jobs of millions in the public sector and increasingly, the private sector, now fall under its sway and are held to ransom by its increasingly shrill and greedy demands."

Evidence please - particulary the shrill and greedy bit

"2. It is divisive."

Yes, it could be when used insensitvely or in a confrontational manner. Stereotyping often leads to division - the site I mentioned before is very interesting on this.

"The so-called 'compensation culture' or 'blame culture' has the same effect.This leads to a damaging politicising of the public sphere, when the over-riding ethos should be one of service and duty. It is the flip-side of the consumer society which has engendered social fragmentation "

Quite agree



"3. It stifles debate and leads to a dangerous bottling up of discontents. It engenders fear. It is part of a deeper malaise in modern society."

It shouldn't do - see the comments above



"Finally, I take it from your last remark that you support the lawful use of dual measurements?"

As they are now - the lawful bit. Yes.

"How could I have been so wrong about you?!"

Because you made assumptions!

BTW - What do you do?

I still find APP's pseudo-prose unreadable.

How's this for politically incorrect?

Statement:
If I have a son I do hope he doesn't turn out to be gay.


Fair enough, but here's the political correctness test (and be honest here):

If you have a son, would you be equally as happy if he turns out to be gay than if he turns out to be straight/normal? (delete as appropriate, ie Guardian reader/non-Guardian reader).

Please don't lie or I'll have to come back with something about "coming home to your house only to find something happeneing in the bedroom" (if you know what I mean)!!!

[[Paul Birch said:

I still find APP's pseudo-prose unreadable.]]

We all have our little quirks and unreadability
is a comparatively easy one to cope with. Merit goes
to anybody who on the same day remarks on a flawed
attempt to achieve linearity in the definition of
a temperature scale and (by noting its absence)
on the pleasure of good writing. No "two cultures"
split.

[[In the definition of units thread: "there's a slight flaw in the temperature linearity clause" is certainly true and your suggestion does seem, at least to me, to correct it. Andrew has not posted recently but would, I believe, appreciate the comment.]]

I deplore a tendency to trumpet talents unnecessarily. It may be that you as talented in your line of work as you make out - but the reader can hardly be expected to take your word for it!

Re management consultants: "Pure fantasy - don't believe everything that you read in the less well informed tabloids". No doubt some do a good job and are value for money, but others do not. In fairness, I think we are both guilty of overstating our points for rhetorical effect?

The BNP will do all sorts of jumping through hoops, but it won't do them any good. They fail to understand that life has moved on since the 1930s!

I would be more receptive to political correctness if all it was about was encouraging courtesy and politeness between people, but it does not. It divides one man from another. Good education, and generous, liberal upbringing are the best guarantees of peaceful coexistence, and these transcend political or national boundaries.

^ You seem to be confusing political correctness with 'positive discrimination' - sad, but necessary discrimination to balance out underemployment etc of social minorities. Huff and puff about the 'right' education, or your pet immigrant aquaintances sucking up to your ideals as much as you like - the FACT remains that bigots in power DO discriminate for all kinds of silly reasons, leaving REAL PEOPLE socially disadvantaged. (And I think the Guardian sux almost as much as the Mail).

^ oops, I forgot to include my name.

This thread started with Mark Starr reporting what
his (conservative) MP Michael Spicer said about units.
Too late to stop kilo but would fight to keep mile and yard.

Lately on this board we've been getting repetitive defeatist propaganda messages like Tokyo Rose "you can't win, give up, you can't win give up, jump the sinking ship now, jump the sinking ship now, you can't win..."

It doesn't give us any new information. We all know the formidable power of conformity driving metric's advance. And these Cassandra-types claim to see into
the future and say things like "no party will ever repeal the year 2009 deadline, by year 2009 all the
roadsigns will be miles..."

I can't figure out these people. What do they get by
coming to this board and repeating a simple-minded
defeatist message over and over. Are they so ashamed
of themselves that they need the boost of identifying with some perceived winning side?

I don't need to be told obvious circumstances by people with no more insight than I have already.

But I am interested in what an MP says. Politicians DO have tend to have some notion of future possibilities. A guy who is a central member of his party, right or left, may well have a better feel for political reality and the future than a non-specialist like me.

"What do they get by coming to this board and repeating a simple-minded defeatist message over and over".

The metric lobby can never win on the merits of their case; that is why compulsory regulations were passed to force people to use metric - and they didn't even do this democratically, since these regulations did not go through Parliament.

Instead, the metric lobby paint a picture of a metric-only future inevitiability and then repeat it over and over. In time, they expect users of imperial to be hypnotised by it and give up accordingly.

{Instead, the metric lobby paint a picture of a metric-only future inevitiability and then repeat it over and over. In time, they expect users of imperial to be hypnotised by it and give up accordingly.}

I'll take great pleasure in disappointing them.

BWMA wrote: "The metric lobby can never win on the merits of their case; that is why compulsory regulations were passed to force people to use metric - and they didn't even do this democratically, since these regulations did not go through Parliament."

You ought to be better informed ! Every European regulation must pass the national Parliaments of the EU members before it comes into force !

The European regulation you are talking about went through Parliament some time ago ! That's the reason why the "metric martyrs" have NOT A SINGLE chance of winning their process: WHAT THEY WANT IS AGAINST THE LAW !

The EC metric directives were certainly "transposed" into UK law (in the form of regulations in 1994) under a British act of Parliament, the 1972 European Communities Act (ECA). All EC directives are passed into UK law via this act.

BWMA contents these regulations are ultra vires (unlawful). This is because they are superceded by the 1985 Weights and Measures Act that permits pounds and ounces lawful.

Under constitutional law, when two acts clash, the later act takes precedence. So, we have regulations passed under a 1972 act providing for making metric compulsory (although not passed until 1994 to be effective from 2000), and a 1985 Act of Parliament permitting imperial. The metric regulations cannot lawfully take effect because the 1985 Act over-rides the 1972 act.

Therefore, Parliament never legislated for compulsory metric usage.

Under constitutional law, when two acts clash, the later act takes precedence.

So, we have regulations passed under a 1972 act providing for making metric compulsory. This act was passed in 1994, so it overrides the 1985 Act of Parliament permitting imperial.