FROM TODAY's BBC NEWS WEBSITE:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Christmas Day trading ban planned

Woolworths will open in Southall on Christmas Day
The government is promising to back a private member's bill banning big shops from opening on Christmas Day.
The news was warmly welcomed by Usdaw, the shop workers' union, which said all workers deserve a day off.

The Christmas Day (Trading) Bill will forbid stores above 3,000 square feet from opening on December 25.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

REPLY:

Did the British government really think that it could get away with daring to publish a Parliamentary Bill with imperial measurements in it in such a brazen defiance of EC/181/80 or whatever Regulation it was?

Well, to save others the trouble, I've already reported them to the E.U. Metrication Gestapo (a.k.a. 'Homeland Security').

And how come Britain is lousy with signs for office space all in square feet anyway?

The BBC is actually misrepresenting the legislation.

The Christmas Day (Trading) Act cites the Sunday TRading Act and the Sunday TRading Act defines a large shop as one having a floor area in excess of 280 square metres.

The BBC report actually said

>>
The Christmas Day (Trading) Bill will forbid stores above 3,000 square feet or 915sq m from opening on December 25.
<<

In accordance with current legislation, the metric version is the authoritative version and if earlier legislation is anything to go by, sqaure feet will not be mentioned at all.

Incidently 915sq m does not equal 3000 sq ft. THe correct figure is 280 sq m - the figure that is mentioned in the Sunday Trading Act.

But most Brits (in Paliament too) would naturally express things in sq ft.

"Mad World" is number one in the chart btw.

SteveH wrote

<<
But most Brits (in Paliament too) would naturally express things in sq ft.
>>

I suggest that you look up the Sunday Trading Act (You can see it for yourself at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940020_en_1.htm

If you look at Schedule 1 you will see references to shops having an area in Square metres, but no references to square feet. (BTW 280sq m = 3013sq ft, not 3000sq ft). If this is not an expression of Parliament, then I don't know what is.

SCHEDULE 1
Section 1(1).
Restrictions on Sunday opening of large shops


Interpretation
1. In this Schedule—
"intoxicating liquor" has the same meaning as in the [1964 c. 26.] Licensing Act 1964,
"large shop" means a shop which has a relevant floor

area exceeding 280 square metres,

"medicinal product" and "registered pharmacy" have the same meaning as in the [1968 c. 67.] Medicines Act 1968,........


280 m² = 3013.894 917 ..... square feet using the BWMA method of unit conversion.

re: "Incidentally 915 sq m does not equal 3000 sq ft. The correct figure is 280 sq m - the figure that is mentioned in the Sunday Trading Act".
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is how the conversation went in the BBC News Room:

"Right, shops over 3,000 square feet banned from opening on Christmas Day next year. Got to cover that one, especially three days before Christmas".

"Yep. Agreed. But shouldn't we be putting this news out in metric?"

"We'll have lead with 3,000 square feet on the main news 'cos floor space is always quoted in square feet but we'll put the metric equivalent on the website".

"Oi - who knows how to convert square feet into square metres, anyone?"

[Enter 'Bright Spark'] " 'ang on, it's in me diary somewhere. Ah yes. Divide the number of feet by 3.28 and you'll get the number of metres - oo's got a calculator 'andy? - right, 'ang on, I'll work it out - er 914.63 correct to two decimal places".

"OK, so we go with 915 square metres in brackets after the 3,000 square feet on the website then, yep?"

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

And it's the BBC who runs Metric Quizzes on its website to help the ignorant to 'understand metric'!!!

martin - do me a favour, mate.

Go for a drive.

I'm not being mean but take a look at the signs all over the place that show space to let or office space.

Prepare for a shock.

Tony - great humour! Keep it up! It's antidotal to "euric"s constant blithering and cut-n-pasting!

SteveH wrote

<<
martin - do me a favour, mate.

Go for a drive.

I'm not being mean but take a look at the signs all over the place that show space to let or office space.

Prepare for a shock.
>>

I don't need to - I keep my eyes open all the time. A number of signs in my part of England that were previously in square feet only (6 months ago) now show both square feet and square metres.

re: "A number of signs in my part of England that were previously in square feet only (6 months ago) now show both square feet and square metres".

REPLY:

That number would probably be two. If it's more, do please tell us.

From constant observation of these signs around the country, I would suggest that the proportion of signs for office space is around:

80% - square feet only
19% - dual with imperial first
1% - dual with metric first
less than 1% - metric only.

Similarly for acres v. hectares, except that I have almost never seen dual acres/hectares

The Bill doesn't refer to any size, it simply has the same scope as the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which is 280 sq m.

In fact, the Bill doesn't say anything at all as it hasn't yet been published or read the First Time.

BTW, the BBC conversion is an absolute disgrace.

It is notable that, during the debate on the previous Bill moved by Gwyneth Dunwoody in 2001, only one member mentioned the actual measurement of 280 sq m. It is regrettable that legislators do not actually refer to the law itself, but to an alternative system. Why on earth do we specify the law in metric if we don't then go on to use it?

Gwyneth Dunwoody was very particular in her retention of the imperial measure, and she is of course a firm supporter of the retention of the imperial system. Despite being an excellent Parliamentarian, I am afraid that I have to disagree with her on this question.

^ Dunno. Maybe we should just do the sensible thing and use Imperial in legislation (or the more sensible thing... US measures)

....or simply get on with things.

....naturally.

Can you imagine how stoppy-starty a conversation would be in Britain if the UK brought in a law to make it illegal to say imperial words?

(I can see eric/"euric"/Jason's mouth watering from over a - err - umm - about 1.8 km away)

<<
Maybe we should just do the sensible thing and use Imperial in legislation
>>

UK Law (which implements an EU directive) requires that metric units be used in legislation.

Hence why we should do the sensible thing. Parliament cannot be bound by European institutions.

If you read Mr Justice Laws judgement in the so-called "Metric Martyrs" case you will find that Parliament has bound itself to the EU and remains so until such time as it explicitly severs the link - and it will not sever the link of a small thing like being required ot use metric units. In fact, if you study the history of metrication in the UK you will find that during Queen VIctoria's reign the UK was on the verge of adopting the metric system (the motion was defeated by only a handful of votes). The same happened again during Edward VII's reign and I believe that had the First World War not broken out, it is almost certain that by the 1920's Britain would have adopted the metric system.

Since buildings and houses are built in metric, the floor space is actually in square metres and the law reflects that.

Any reference to feet (linear or sqaure) is just an after thought and its use is a moot point.


Since 3000 square feet equals 278.71 m^2, and the law allows for 280 m^2, would an FFU-ist consider a shop with exactly 279 m^2 of floor space to be breaking the law or not if they stayed open for Christmas?

<<<Any reference to feet (linear or sqaure) is just an after thought and its use is a moot point>>>

Ignorance to the UK once again! But there again I wouldn't have expected you to visit an estate agent in Britain.

I note your Christmas spirit once again - anyone who measures their shop in common flexible friendly units deserves their shop to be closed down. Nice.

each *AND EVERY* time I have sold a house the (different) estate agent has come around with a sonic measurer that reads off the sizes in ft/in. This is -ahem- "how it is". Why cant you handle this?

I suppose in your weird world he goes back to the office and translates it into metres then translates those figures back in to ft/in for the brochures and leaftlets!!

Bizzare!

SteveH wrote

<<
each *AND EVERY* time I have sold a house the (different) estate agent has come around with a sonic measurer that reads off the sizes in ft/in. This is -ahem- "how it is". Why cant you handle this?
>>

You will probably find that the sonic measuring devices have a metric/imperial switch on them, but for some reason the estate agent does not know how to use it.

Euric wrote

<<
Why would an estate agent need any type of measuring device at all? All they need do is look at the dimensions on the original blue print. Or would they go blind if they see metric only dimensions?
>>

often the blue-print is not available, and if it is available for pre-1970 houses it will be in metric. Furthermore, extensions might have been built etc etc.

<<<Why would an estate agent need any type of measuring device at all? All they need do is look at the dimensions on the original blue print. Or would they go blind if they see metric only dimensions?
>>>

Lets see now - when I bought my car some years back it had only done 10000 miles. Wahay! I'll sell it as a low mileage vehicle!!! (duh!)

<<<You will probably find that the sonic measuring devices have a metric/imperial switch on them, but for some reason the estate agent does not know how to use it.>>>

Although most of us have a healthy dislike of estate agents I do believe they have the knowledge of how to move a switch from one position to another!
No, the reason they set it to imperial is driven by customer needs rather than technophobia.