Subtitled "A Witty Compendium of Measurements", I found this on page 35, in the chapter titled 'The Metricsaurus':

"But the spirit of the Anglo Saxon's resistance to metric otherness can be coalesced in one unforgettable utterance in the 1920s, when Prime Minister Lloyd George interrupted a Member of Parliament speaking in favour of a change to metric: "Would you wish that an English workingman going to a pub to drink a pint of ale be required to ask instead for 0.56825 litres of beer?", he thundered.

from: 'The Sizesaurus', Key Porter Books (Canada), 1995.

P.S. Lloyd George was Welsh

No wonder it took so long for Britain to finally decide to metricate, if such was the measurement stupidity of leading politicians.

Oi,

Are you having a pop at one of my fore-fathers?

Who - Lloyd-George, Kinnock or Callaghan?

Martin
That's only three. Who is the fourth? :-)

I can think of a number of others - Rhodi Morgan, Owen Tudor, Prince Llewellyn. However, Steve, lets face it, the Welsh have produced more politicians in proportion to their size than any other part of the British Isles - what does that say about them?

Strauss views the journey to complete metrication as close to a utopian journey; here are some extracts from his chapter on metrication which are pertinent to the 'great debate':

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

"A sharp-eyed observer will note on the frame of my basement door a set of historical markings. More precisely, there is a pencilled line, wiggly and inexact, under which is written "February 21, 1992". Over it is another line, separated from the first by roughly the size of the nail of my baby finger. It says "August 10, 1992". The distance betweeen the two represents a growth spurt of not quite six months, which took place during my daughter's twelfth year.

"Like many parents, I have traditionally looked upon this handmade record of the physical changes in my daughter from a warmly biological perspective. Nature and nurture *are* working; here is the indisputable evidence that Anna is becoming a full-sized and ripe human being. But of late I have taken to staring at the size difference, and I realise I am seeing something else there. It is a measure unto itself. One could, if so inclined, make Anna the measure of all things - or, at least, of all lengths. We could take the distance between February and August and spin out of these kiloAnnas and centiAnnas and milliAnnas and all the other players of the ten-times-ten-times-ten chain of enumeration which the world calls metric. But unless something quite unbelievable happens, we won't.

"We won't, becaue humankind, even with the United States recalcitrant to the last, is nearing the end of what has been quite an incredible journey out of measurement anarchy. It is not quite fair to say that before the standardised system which is now officially entitled La System International d'unites (SI) came into being that every man and woman was the measure of whatever was being measured, but it is not far off.

"Examples abound. In the eighteenth century, in Lincolnshire, England, a 'brescia' was the amount of turf a man with a spade could dig between May 1 and August 1. In Wales, a 'leap' was 6ft 9in, or the normal jump of a working man. The French had a 'houpee', or the distance over which a stationary man could hear the shout, the 'houp', of another man.

"[What] has given rise to [my] reflections is what one might term "the metrification of mankind". I believe there is deep meaning in the progressive rationalisation of our ways of weighing and measuring, but is is a meaning we singularly choose to ignore, in part because it is very difficult to confront the movement towards universal standards directly. What we are faced with is that rarest of occurrences: a gnarled and thorny problem which humanity has almost completley resolved. To cast our eyes over the myriad measures that once existed, to hear the pained measurement plaints that still resound out of the letters of grievances which the French people sent to their King at the beginning of their political and metric revolution, is to be removed from our present selves.

"Weighing and measuring used to signify much more than quantification. They were one of the most palpable and conspicuous manifestations of political power - and, by extension, their misuse symbolised the abuse of that power. To some, the concept of weighing and measuring itself came to represent the evils of all societies in which the poor seemed to be eternally shortchanged by the rich. Flavius Josephus, the acidulous Jewish historian of the first century A.D., tells his readers that the originator of metrology was none other than the world's arch-criminal. "The author of weights and measures, an innovation that changed the world of innocent and noble simplicity in which people had hitherto lived without such systems into one forever filled with dishonesty" was, he informs us, "Cain".

[MORE LATER]

What's the matter Tony? Don't you have your own views then?

Must you litter the forum with swathes of boring quotes from elsewhere? Ever heard of summarising?

TB:
"The author of weights and measures, an innovation that changed the world of innocent and noble simplicity in which people had hitherto lived without such systems into one forever filled with dishonesty" was, he informs us, "Cain".
[MORE LATER]

metre:
When was the world ever innocent with noble simplicity, whatever it means. Nevertheless fiction like this is bound to give people like you that nice warm feeling.

I find the final post above quite hilarious.

Hands up why?




"Steve, lets face it, the Welsh have produced more politicians in proportion to their size than any other part of the British Isles - what does that say about them?"

That you can't trust us?

Actually your better off finding the ratio of currupt:non currupt politician by nation.

NO-ONE MENTION BADGERS!!

re (SteveH): "Actually, you're better off finding the ratio of corrupt:non corrupt politicians by nation"

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

REPLY: There is a well-recognised research group which every year puts out an 'Annual Corruption Index', nation by nation. It assesses each country according to a variety of indicators like backhanders, known corruption scandals, known local rates for bribery etc.

It's a fascinating assessment, ending up with a world-wide league table of corruption.

As you'd expect, most of the Afro-Caribbean countries come out in the 75%+ corruption range; some Asian countries are not far behind. When it comes to Europe, the United Kingdom comes out very near the top at around 10%, though the figure has been increasing since 1 May 1997.

If memory serves, some country like Denmark or Norway comes out best, around 8%.

France is on 30%-odd, Germany 20% or so, while Italy is around 50%.

I once asked my Italian hairdressers round the corner, 'Romeo and Giuletta', whey they moved to Britain (from southern Italy). "Because Italy is so corrupt" was the brief reply. "Mind you", he added: "Your country's starting to go the same way".

The index is a good talking point, if nothing else.

I haven't looked, but you might find it on the Internet under something like 'Corruption Index'

re (Stan): "Ever heard of summarising?"

REPLY: Yes, but then I've also come across people who make accusations of 'selective editing'

Tony,

I'm surprised the carribean comes out high in the corruption index.

There is another index, one which indexes "freedom" (ie in regard to state interference).

Barbados is at number 4 - so its the 4th free-est country (spelling?) country in the world.

What would be VERY interesting is how UK has faired in the "freedom index" since it got involved in the EU experiment.

I always see Barbados as "like the UK in the 50's", ie happy and free where you can leave a key ontop of your front door.

So it's like the UK 'pre-EU' but with all todays technology.

(SteveH starts daydreaming.....)

re (Tony B): "...most of the Afro-Caribbean countries"

REPLY: I should have said African. I have got used to calling black people 'Afro-Caribbean', the term most often used in politically correct circles these days. My comment was unfair to Caribbean countries

Tony, I do not believe that is correct- I believe "Afro-carribean" is the correct term for what we call "West Indians". Black africans are just called Africans.

I thought it meant someone of african or carribean decent.

Like P W Botha !

How can "afro-CARIBBEAN" refer to someone of Africa? Afro-caribbean means those of the west indies of african descent. Jesus guys, and they say the education system is going downhill... :p ;)

you don't see the 'dash' as an 'or' then..

No, the dash does not mean "or". Trust me on this one guys.

"blue-grey" does not mean "blue or grey", "full-fast" does not mean full or fast, "Afro-carribean" does not mean african or carribean. Seriously guys- I have known afro-caribbean to refer to black african west indians all of my life. What is more, I have an a-level in sociolgy, and "Afro-carib." refers to black west indians in that discipline as well (if one can call it a discipline).

Oh God that makes me Cymro-English!

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Or should that be cymro-angloid?

or cymro-sasnaig?

Dammit - I'm Welsh!

Ok here's the deal.
I'll cheer for your lot against Austria tomorrow, if you cheer for our side against Azerbayjan.

To spare Berengers blushes, I won't mention Scotland.

(oops)

'Cymru' is derived from the person known as Kamber, one of the three sons of Bryttys, or Brutus, the man who left Greece around 1105 B.C. and sailed to Totnes via Gaul (a monument in Totnes records this momentous event in British history). That is where Britain gets its name from.

"Upon the death of Brutus, Kamber and Albanactas [Alban] inherited Wales (Cambria) and Scotland (Albany) respectively, and Locrinus [third son of Brutus] became king of Loegria, the land named after him, which consisted of present-day England minus Cornwall (the modern Welsh still know England as Loegria)" - from "After the Flood", by Bill Cooper B.A., New Wine Press, ISBN 1-874367-40-X, p.71.

Bryttys/Brutus was the son of Silvius who in turn was a decendant of Trous, who gave his nane to Troy.

When the ancient Britons, in Bryttys' lifetime, established London, long before the Anglo-Saxons arrived, it was called 'New Troy'.

"King Lud [who became King of the Britons in 73 BC] rebuilt the city that Brutus had founded and had named New Troy, and renamed it Caerlud, i.e. the 'city of Lud', after his name [hence, Ludgate, and probably hence London, although there is a rival explanation]", Cooper, op.cit. p. 76.


FACTS

One of my mates was slightly/incidentally involved in the betting scam/floodlight failure matchfixing scandal in the premiership a few years ago. I'll say no more!!!!

Best of luck to Cymru tomorrow.





















Don't look for any other best wishes message from me!

That was an interesting story/excerpt, Tony, and I thank you for it. However, I would be interested to know just how much of that truly is fact and how much is just biblical fact or myth/half-fact. Afterall Tony, your interpretation of the bible and mien are different :)

Bryan, below is the beginning of Bill Cooper's Chapter titled: "History of the Early British Kings", up to the point where Bryttys' kingdom is divided into three. You can perhaps judge for yourself on what he says. There is of course a lot more historical information surrounding these events which back up the account below. I can give them to you if you wish. You can get the entire chapter on the Net by typing in Bryttys on Google

Tony

______________________________________________________________
History of the Early British Kings

What follows is a summary of the history of the early kings of the early Britons as it is given in both Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Welsh chronicles. It is a recorded history that was consigned to oblivion after the massacre, at the instigation of Augustine, of the British monks at Bangor in AD 604 and was thus entirely unknown or ignored by the later Saxon and Norman chroniclers of England. Consequently, it came to be generally and unquestioningly assumed amongst English scholars by the 16th and 17th centuries that no such record had ever existed, and that works such as Geoffrey of Monmouth's or the Welsh chronicle were forgeries and fairy tales. That opinion persists today. We have seen, however, in the previous chapter how these records enjoy a great deal of historical vindication in spite of modernism's cursory and fashionable dismissal of them. But here, plain and unadorned, is the story that the chronicles themselves tell, a story that no child will have learnt at his desk in any school of this land. It spans over two thousand years, and its survival to the present day, being little short of a miracle, is a tribute to those Welsh scholars of old who recognised its importance and preserved it entire for our reading.

Amongst the ancient records that the Britons themselves left behind, there is preserved (in Nennius at least) a list of the ancestors of the early British kings as they were counted generation by generation back to Japheth, the son of Noah. But the history of the Britons as a distinct nation had its beginnings with the fall of Troy, and it is at this point that Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Welsh chronicles take up the story.

Anchises, known to us from other histories, fled with his son, Aeneas, from the burning ruins of Troy, and they made their way to the land that is nowadays called Italy, settling with their people on the banks of the river Tiber around what was later to become Rome. The indigenous population was ruled over by Latinus who received Aeneas and his people with kindness and hospitality, in return for which Aeneas defeated Latinus' foe, Turnus, king of the Rutuli. He then married the daughter of Latinus, Lavinia, from which union came Aeneas Silvius who later rose to rule over all the tribes of Italy. But it was through the line of his brother Ascanius that the royal lineage was presently to be perpetuated, and of this line was born Ascanius' son Silvius. Silvius seduced an unnamed niece of his grandfather's wife, Lavinia, and it was from their union that his son Brutus was born. The mother of Brutus died whilst giving birth to him, and when he was a lad of fifteen years, Brutus accidentally shot his father dead with an arrow whilst out hunting. For having caused the deaths of both his parents, thus fulfilling a prophecy concerning him, Brutus was exiled out of Italy, the royal line of Aeneas passing into the hands of another. And it is at this point that the history of the Britons as a distinct nation begins.

Brutus journeyed from Italy to Greece, and there he came into contact with certain slaves. These were the descendants of the soldiers who had fought against Greece in the Trojan Wars of the 13th century BC. They had been enslaved by Priam, son of Achilles, 'in vengeance for his father's death', and were subsequently to continue their slavery under Pandrasus, king of the Dorian Greeks. Learning that he was descended from their own ancient kings, the Trojans accepted Brutus into their fellowship and elected him as their leader, and under him they successfully rose against their captors. Defeating Pandrasus in battle, they set sail to look for a land in which to settle. Sailing their fleet out of the Mediterranean between the Pillars of Hercules (the Straits of Gibraltar), they came across another group of Trojans led by Corineus, who were likewise escaping abroad from their captors. They combined forces and landed in Gaul with Brutus being acclaimed as their overall king. There they fought and defeated the Picts under king Goffar (Koffarffichti--Goffar the Pict--in the Welsh). The Trojans again set sail, and came ashore at Totnes in Devon at some time in the 12th century BC. The land and its people were subsequently to derive their names from Brutus. Then Brutus founded the city of Trinovantum, or New Troy, which was later to become the city of London. Brutus, the first king of the Britons, reigned over his people in this island for twenty three years, i.e. from ca 1104-1081 BC.

Amongst the spoils that Brutus had taken from Greece was Ignoge, the daughter of Pandrasus, whom he wedded and who was to bear him three sons, Locrinus, Kamber and Albanactus...

"Berenger" sounds like an ancient scottish King, if you ask me.


P.S. :

1-1
2-2

What a load of rubbish

Ancient Scottish king? Fraid not. He was actually (gulp - wait for the outraged responses!) French.

I wanted to call myself "Roberval" (who was French too), but when I tried to get it, the site told me that someone else already had that name.

"Inverted Roberval" seemed a bit strange. Especially as it is also known as the "Imperial"

Nothing to do with the "Auld Alliance" though - they are names commonly applied in the UK to particular designs of early (imperial) counter machines.