Below is an extract from the now notorious proforma letter which UKMA is desperately trying to persuade any parent in the country to sign:


"Dear <your MP’s name>

I am writing to you to express my concerns about my children’s education and how measurement units are used in this country. I have children aged <provide details> attending <give details of the schools>.

My children learn maths and science using metric units. However I am extremely concerned that what they learn in the classroom is undermined by many things outside the school environment..."

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

I have now been informed that to assist all pupils whose education is being 'undermined by many things outside the school environment', the government has agreed to an emergency programme of erecting warning sings at the exit gates to all schools in the land. The notices will simply read:

"WARNING!

You are about

to enter

the real world"

"My children learn maths and science using metric units. However I am extremely concerned that what they learn in the classroom is undermined by many things outside the school environment..."

An even more disturbing thought is how the UKMA would go about telling the state how to control the way people think and talk outside the school class-room.

I saw another pro-forma letter saying how bad newspapers were at not showing metric only.

From that I can only draw the conclusion that the UKMA believe that for the first time in history the UK's press should be controlled by the state.

re (Steve H): "From that I can only draw the conclusion that the UKMA believe that for the first time in history the UK's press should be controlled by the state".

See next posting

This example (below) of the U.K. Metric Association's 'make it a crime' mentality is to be found on page 48 of their recent report and is quoted on page 58 of the Customary Measures Society's Report: "Weights and Measures: Britain's Way Ahead", along with 16 other examples in simialr vein - all we could cram in on two pages.

The only thing is, the UKMA is strangely coy about not stating what sort of criminal penalty a newspaper should suffer for advertisements like this recent national full-page colour ad from PC World:

"Temperature of 102, but at least I don't have a virus".

Closure, perhaps...?

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

"We must bring advertising explicitly within the scope of the Price Marking Order. It should be illegal to advertise goods for sale giving prices, weights, quantities or other measures exclusively in Imperial units...

'Supplementary indications' should be phased out and then metric units should be the only units permitted in advertisements..."

- U.K Metric Association Report: 'Make it a Crime, Ban Them, Fine Them, Obliterate Them and Destroy Them' (2004), p.48

I have made a huge discovery recently that the USMA are somewhat different to the UKMA.

Actually - VERY different.

I now see the UKMA as a sort of 'BNP' of the measurement world. With about the same number of supporters.

I would not ban them - not in a million years - but they're still dangerous

...and the BWMA are the Communist Party -

their chosen system works fine in theory, seldom in practice and is rapidly falling into disuse.

BWMA? Communist party? Shudder the thought!

I see the BWMA as the "populist party". Unfortunately such a party does not exist.

Surely the BWMA has more in common with the BNP?

I see the UKMA is calling for a 'blitz' on British measurements. Well, we survived the last 'blitz'

Thanks for that, Tony - you've illustrated my last comment very nicely ;-)

Andy,

Below you will find the kind of language often associated with the mentality of those who established a certain party in Germany in the 1930s. It appears you are entirely happy to be associated with these views, all of them verbatim quotes from the UK Metric Association's 'Five-Year Plan' a.k.a 'A Very British Mess'.

Straight question, Andy, how many of these 17 repressive statements do you wholeheartedly support? Straight answer, please

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The language of force” - examples of the authoritarian and repressive content of the UKMA report. For those who have not read the U.K. Metric Association Report, we reprint below just a few examples of its ‘enforcement mentality’:


“The only solution is to complete the changeover to metric - and as swiftly and cleanly as possible” - Lord Howe, Foreword

“We need to carry through a necessary reform in a decisive and co-ordinated manner” - page 8

“We must standardise on one single system as soon as possible” - page 8

“The metric changeover can be swiftly and painlessly completed…” - page 9

“We must declare unequivocally that all Imperial measures will be phased out for official use, require public agencies to be fully metric, phase out Imperial units in property transactions, weather reports, the National Health Service and clothing sizes, set targets and timetables, and enact and enforce any necessary legislation…given full and rapid commitment by the Government, this programme could be achieved within three to five years” - page 9

“We must implement the full adoption of the international metric system from all official, trade, legal, contractual and other purposes as soon as practicable by taking the necessary action to resolve the current unacceptable situation - page 11

“The voluntary approach has failed” - page 23

“We must resolve the situation, standardise on one single system and cease using the other system, complete the changeover to the metric system and discontinue the use of Imperial units” - page 29

“Weights and Measures law - like all laws - should be enforced, even if, regrettably, this entails prosecuting unfortunate market traders who have naively allow themselves to be used for a political stunt”- page 34

“It is not in the national interest that irresponsible opposition should continue to obstruct a necessary reform” - page 37

“We must declare unequivocally that all Imperial measures will be phased out for official use, empower a cross-departmental authority to help manage the change, require all publicly-funded agencies, including charities, to work towards becoming exclusively metric, set timetables and target dates for completion, introduce any necessary legislation and ensure that it is enforced” - page 38

"if the government is seriously committed to completing the metric changeover, then it must itself set a good example and require (not simply advise) all its Civil Service Departments, Agencies and contractors and all bodies to whom it makes grants or loans to work exclusively in metric units…” - page 44

“The existing law on price marking and weighing/measuring loose goods at the point of sale should be enforced. Following the final rejection by the European Court of Human Rights of the appeal by the so-called “metric martyrs”, there is no longer any excuse for local authorities and traders to defer enforcement or compliance action” - page 44

“We must bring advertising explicitly within the scope of the Price Marking Order. It should be illegal to advertise goods for sale giving prices, weights, quantities or other measures exclusively in Imperial units…‘supplementary indications’ should be phased out and then metric units should be the only units permitted in advertisements…” - page 46

“UKMA therefore calls upon the UK Government without further delay to announce the date when the UK’s road signage will be converted to metric…Early 2007 would be a reasonable and achievable target…” - page 47

“The changeover programme will also need to include legislation to revise speed limits, revise various Regulations, including the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions [447 pages of Regulations which stipulate that Imperial units should be used on roads] and the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations to require legible km/h on speedometers…” - page 48

“UKMA believes that the Government should take the lead and make it mandatory for public bodies to use exclusively metric units in weather reports and forecasts, including in their press releases. Wind speed should be shown in kilometres per our…” - page 49

<<<Straight question, Andy, how many of these 17 repressive statements do you wholeheartedly support? Straight answer, please>>>

I support most of those statements, although I don't particularly like the way the UKMA comes across.

Every country in the world enforces weights and measures legislation, and most countries have enforced the metric system for official use. Are these all repressive regimes?

"Surely the BWMA has more in common with the BNP?"

You're saying that BWMA members think the white race is superior? Or that those of European descent should be the only rulers in the world? Hmmm, better tell my non-white friends about that!

"Thanks for that, Tony - you've illustrated my last comment very nicely ;-)"

Forgive me for saying, but I believe the nazis were on the "other side" during the period TB is referring back too.
Boy you do have your politics confused!

"although I don't particularly like the way the UKMA comes across. "

Maybe they should take a leaf out of the BNP's books and soften their approach a little - look a bit more "respectable" from the outside.

Indeed UKMA and BNP *do* have a lot in common!

<<<You're saying that BWMA members think the white race is superior? Or that those of European descent should be the only rulers in the world? Hmmm, better tell my non-white friends about that!>>>

I would imagine the primary motivation of many BWMA members(and a trait they share with members of the BNP) is a dislike of anything "foreign"

So BWMA members would never eat pizza?

Or go to France?

Or try to get trading standards off the backs of an Austrian theme pub owner for selling litres?

Or speak a foreign language?

Or enjoy the company of foreigners?

Or....

hang on, we've been down this road before!

Clue:

Rhymes with "Your stalking molluscs again"

<<
Every country in the world enforces weights and measures legislation, and most countries have enforced the metric system for official use. Are these all repressive regimes?
>>

Someone tell me a single country that has ever successfully prosecuted someone for the criminal offense of using weights and measures that are not authorized by law, but correctly used.

Tony,

Below you will find the kind of language often associated with the mentality of those who established a certain party in Germany in the 1930s. It appears you are entirely happy to be associated with these views, all of them verbatim quotes from the BWMA Metric Transport & Signs webpages.

Straight question, Tony, how many of these 17 repressive statements do you wholeheartedly support? Straight answer, please

"The language of force” - examples of the authoritarian and repressive content of the BWMA webpages. For those who have not read these pages, we reprint below just a few examples of its ‘enforcement mentality’:

"Until recently, this sign indicated distance to Windsor Great Park in metric; now, it is in imperial - as all signs should be."

"Sedgemoor District Council refused to convert the distance to yards, Victoria Gardner told them that if the council did not change the sign, she would change it herself."

"Sunderland Council, when not prosecuting greengrocers, breaks the law itself by putting up metric signs. Frank Erskine saw this ½ km sign and forced Sunderland Council to replace it with 500 yds."

"In response to lobbying by Victoria Gardner, Sedgemoor District Council stuck "216 yards" on a metric distance sign and said that doing so had brought the sign into line with legislation. Not so - the sign will only be legal once the reference to "200m" is removed altogether."

"Following pressure by BWMA member Tony Bennett and coverage in the local press, Harlow Council replaced this illegal metric sign with a lawful 200 yard sign."

"Another Essex success. The taping over by the council of the unlawful "150 metres" is clearly visible."

"Congratulations to Richard Clements for sucessfully converting a 2m/150m sign to customary units. The dark blue patches just visible behind the 6'6 and 165 yds is the paint covering the former illegalities."

"At no point have the people through Parliament given authority for local councils to set up metric traffic signs. Councils that set up metric traffic signs defy the people and Parliament."

"The most elementary means of direct action is to cover over illegal metric indications with adhesive tape."

"Mr Lambert saw a man on his knees removing a metre sign from a wooden post by the roadside. Mr Lambert asked the man what he was doing. He was handed a piece of headed note-paper with some sort of traffic regulations on it."

"He had been referred to Section 131(2) of the Highways Act 1980 and he believed that this allowed him to remove "unlawful" signs."

" the only effective way of getting something done was to remove the road signs. He proceeded to remove 29 signs and placed them at 4 locations in ditches and under bushes."

"Mr Bennett asserts that he has a legal right and responsibility to defend the rest of us from the "metric menace"."

"Mr Bennett said, "After about an hour I considered what approach I should take and by this time I had formed the view that the only effective way of getting something done about this ongoing problem was to forcibly remove the illegal signs. My purpose was to remove any illegality and to bring it a bit more forcibly to Transco that they couldn't get away with constantly breaking the law."

"Mr Bennett said, "The authority I was working on was the law of the land which states you cannot erect metric signs"."

"Miss Scott Lynch asked, "You accept you are not part of an authority with a statutory right?" Mr Bennett accepted this, but said he had a right as a citizen. "As a citizen I have the right to arrest somebody who has committed an offence and I have a right to prevent something illegal happening on our roads."

"Mr Bennett said that it was important to have road signs consistent for reasons of safety. It was for this reason that the Regulations were volumous, laying down the size, colour and shape of signs, as well as distance specifications."






Seriously, isn't it strange that Tony deplores "enforcement mentality" when it is used to enforce metric, but zealously attempts to enforce any legislation that requires imperial?

By the way, I'm not a UKMA member, and with regard to Tony's 17 quotes, I would disagree with more of them than I would wholeheartedly agree with. But, as Steve has pointed out elsewhere, I'm not as extreme as some on the board.....

Tony,

With regard to the 17 points from the UKMA report, I offer the following relevant to selected items below.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“It is not in the national interest that irresponsible opposition should continue to obstruct a necessary reform” - page 37

What percentage of the UK population represent the 'irresponsible opposition'? How long after this will the UKMA/Government start burning books with references to Imperial/Customary measures? How long after that do they start burning books that disagree with anything they decree as correct?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“We must bring advertising explicitly within the scope of the Price Marking Order. It should be illegal to advertise goods for sale giving prices, weights, quantities or other measures exclusively in Imperial units…‘supplementary indications’ should be phased out and then metric units should be the only units permitted in advertisements…” - page 46

Extracts copied from Google searches limited to 'pages from the UK'

Results 611 - 617 of about 349,000 for monitor inch. (0.56 seconds)

Results 381 - 389 of about 501,000 for television inch. (0.63 seconds)

Results 641 - 647 of about 180,000 for car mpg. (0.64 seconds) #

Note the number of results found for each search.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“UKMA therefore calls upon the UK Government without further delay to announce the date when the UK’s road signage will be converted to metric…Early 2007 would be a reasonable and achievable target…” - page 47

Why not before May 2005? That would be certainly be 'without further delay'. Of course, we know why not earlier than 2007.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“UKMA believes that the Government should take the lead and make it mandatory for public bodies to use exclusively metric units in weather reports and forecasts, including in their press releases. Wind speed should be shown in kilometres per our…” - page 49

Freedom of the press?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“The metric changeover can be swiftly and painlessly completed…” - page 9

Yawohl, und 'Arbewit Macht Frei'.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“We must declare unequivocally that all Imperial measures will be phased out for official use, require public agencies to be fully metric, phase out Imperial units in property transactions, weather reports, the National Health Service and clothing sizes, set targets and timetables, and enact and enforce any necessary legislation…given full and rapid commitment by the Government, this programme could be achieved within three to five years” - page 9

Do these guys wear brown shirts by any chance?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bud said

"Someone tell me a single country that has ever successfully prosecuted someone for the criminal offense of using weights and measures that are not authorized by law, but correctly used."

Well, obviously, there is an English case. It maybe covers a few more points than you set out, but I feel it is still relevant....

I think it is referred to as Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, Hunt v Hackney London Borough Council, Harman and Dove v Cornwall County Council, and Collins v Sutton London Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 195, (2002) 166 JP 257.

The defendants had variously been convicted of

(1) using an unstamped weighing machine contrary to the WMA 1985, s 11 (the instrument had been rejected because it only indicated in imperial quantities);

(2) failing to indicate a unit price per kilogram, contrary to the Price Marking Order 1999 (SI 1999/3042), (now see the Price Marking Order 2004 (SI 2004/102, 2 [6500]), art 5 and the Prices Act 1974, s 4; and

(3) using a unit of measurement not included in the WMA 1985, Sch 1, contrary to s 8(1)(a) and 8(4) of that Act. In the case of Collins, he had appealed by way of complaint to the magistrates court under s 30(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1990 (‘LGA 1990’), against certain conditions imposed on his street trading licence requiring him to sell goods in metric quantities only.

Another English case, dating from 95 years ago (long before the EC "made criminals of honest traders" (C) T Bennett) is Robinson v Golding (1910) 103 LT 248.

The defendant was prosecuted for using for trade an unstamped measure. G was a milk carrier and in course of delivering milk took a can and placed it to a tap of a churn from which milk was drawn directly into it. He then left the can, with the milk in it, on a doorstep — it having apparently been ordered by a purchaser. The inspector asked G what he had delivered and he said ‘a pint of milk’. The can was not stamped but was of correct capacity, that is to say 1 pint, when the lid was not closed and G gauged the quantity of milk by filling the can as near as possible to the brim. The Divisional Court held, that G had committed the offence charged. S. Turner (counsel for Robinson) argued that G had gauged the quantity of milk by filling the can as near as possible to the brim. That amounted to measuring the milk.

Contrast that with a Scots case, in Craig v M’Phee (1883) 48 JP 115 vessels of three sizes (not represented to be nor in fact imperial measures but each deficient of such) were used in supplying threepence-worth, sixpence-worth and one shilling’s-worth of whisky when such was demanded by customers. A conviction under s 29 of the Weights and Measures Act 1878 was quashed.

Obviously, this decision would not now be followed in Scotland, as whisky must now be sold by measure rather than price. At one time, the prescribed measure was imperial, but has been metric for quite some time now.

In addition, can I refer you to my previous post (entitled "100 years ago today") where I set out the penalties imposed by one Scots council for use of traditional Scots measures for potatoes. I believe that traders were prosecuted under this legislation for failure to use imperial. The Archivist always shows me any old W&M cases he comes across, and I'm sure he has shown me at least one newspaper report of a prosecution of this type....

<<<How long after this will the UKMA/Government start burning books with references to Imperial/Customary measures? How long after that do they start burning books that disagree with anything they decree as correct?>>>

One major difference between the metric and imperial sides is that whereas GENERALLY the pro-imperial side have an irrational hatred of metric measures, the pro-metric side have nothing against imperial measures per se, as long as for official uses metric is used for the benefit of younger people and future generations.

Why does the imperial side always have to wildly exaggerate everything? eg. burning books with reference to imperial measures, enforcing units used in everyday speech etc etc

I think I know the answer to that question.

Andy:-

<< the pro-metric side have nothing against imperial measures per se,>>

There are a very few on this board (on the prometric side) that would fiercly disagree with you. We know who they are and fortunately we now all ignore them (as they do the pro-metric side more harm than good and to the pro-imps they are just seen as annoying trolls). However I simply do not see that "sort" on the pro-imperial side. Those who are most strongest pro-imperial here do not get their IP blocked, they do not get ignored by moderate pro-imps or pro-choicers. They don't get kicked off sites that are meant to represent their views - however they *do* engage in good argument with the prometricers (and occasionally, only very occasionally mind) the pro-choicers.

<<Why does the imperial side always have to wildly exaggerate everything? eg. burning books with reference to imperial measures, enforcing units used in everyday speech etc etc>>

I believe I can see why - and its more to do with the state than it is with simply measurements. In fact more so than I reckon you'd realise.

Berenger:-

With respect I really do know where you are coming from with your 'anti-post' to reverse Tony's post.

However - step back a bit (you might need to take your official hat off!). Who, when seen from afare, is 'goliath' and who is 'david'? Once you see it that way - you'll see it exaclty through my eyes.



Bud - I believe that TSOs and measures have always been more punitave in the UK than in the US. I actually do believe more in a bartering mentality. If you weigh me out a pound and I am happy to exchange my private money for what I percieve to be a pound then I am happy. In the long run I might get more or less for my money - in the same way official scales might -in the long term- get me more or less.

What really gets me - is if they really need to stamp scales etc - then why not use metric weights weighed out to 454grammes for the test? That way we all win - the state gets to use metric while the populous can still be -ahem- 'allowed' to use pounds.

Sounds like a good compromise.

But then I looked up "compromise" in the official EU book of allowed words!

re (Andy): "One major difference between the metric and imperial sides is that whereas GENERALLY the pro-imperial side have an irrational hatred of metric measures, the pro-metric side have nothing against imperial measures per se, as long as for official uses metric is used for the benefit of younger people and future generations".

REPLY: "One major difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that whereas GENERALLY the Conservative side have an irrational hatred of the Labour Party, the Labour side have nothing against the Conservatives per se, as long as for official uses the Labour Party is preferred for the benefit of younger people and future generations".

Tony, rather than posting nonsense such as the above, why not answer Berenger's question?

You asked me for a straight answer, and I gave you one.

beranger, thanks for your reply. First of all, let's get one thing cleared. I am not saying I have a problem with the government requiring certain units to appear on packaging. Many countries do that. But the problem is when they prohibit other units from appearing also. The case you mentioned lists this as item #3, but I don't think it was the main reason for the prosecution.
Also, if you read the thread, we were discussing whether other countries are repressive regimes. Therefore, citing a case from Britain doesn't really help much.

re (Beranger): "Straight question, Tony, how many of these 17 repressive statements do you wholeheartedly support? Straight answer, please...[SAMPLE ALLEGED 'REPRESSIVE STATEMENT' FOLLOWS: 'Following pressure by BWMA member Tony Bennett and coverage in the local press, Harlow Council replaced this illegal metric sign with a lawful 200 yard sign']

REPLY: Beranger, are you serious? I thought that to become a Trading Standards Officer a certain mininmum level of intelligence was required. When was the last time you went anywhere near a dictionary? Please post again when you have looked up the word 'repressive'.

After you have done so, kindly remove all those amongst your '17 repressive statements' which are plainly not 'repressive'. If there are any left, please specify what is 'repressive' about each of them. And I mean 'repressive', not 'opinionated'. I will then give you a straight answer

OK so if these statements are not repressive how are almost exactly the same statements from the BWMA repressive?

re: last posting by Andy.

REPLY: I think you probably meant UKMA, not BWMA.

May I assume, then, Andy, that you are unable to see anything repressive about the following verbatim extract from the UKMA report, especialy against a background of a reliable poll by ICM showing 11 to 1 opposition to such a proposal?

"We must declare unequivocally that all Imperial measures will be phased out for official use, require public agencies to be fully metric, phase out Imperial units in property transactions, weather reports, the National Health Service and clothing sizes, set targets and timetables, and enact and enforce any necessary legislation…given full and rapid commitment by the Government, this programme could be achieved within three to five years" - page 9

P.S. This year is the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar - a great victory over our imperialistic friends on the continent. In asserting: "I see no repression", you are presumably echoing our great Admiral Nelson?

<<<a great victory over our imperialistic friends on the continent>>>

Woah! That's going to confuse some people!!

;-)

If your position is that you wish to see the system enforced that most people prefer, then I see where you're coming from. However I would take such surveys with a pinch of salt.

What really bugs me is that you use the 'enforcement' element to argue against metric, when in fact you clearly support the enforcement of imperial measures. It is no more 'repressive' enforcing metric measures, than it is enforcing imperial measures.

This whole argument has got too complicated, when really it is a simple question of "which system?"

All this "the government shouldn't have the right to tell people what measurements to use" is merely an excuse to keep the measurements you prefer.

Can't you seperate 'safety' from 'consumer' Andy?

I see a real reason to enforce roads signs to be in one system, its unfortunate that the logic of choice simply cannot be applied here.

However :-

"Cox apples 20p/lb | 44p/kilogramme"


Whats wrong with that?


Ok - if a certain thing matters that much then try:


"Cox apples 44p/kilogramme | 20p/lb"

Any objection?

"Toilets 200m"

What is wrong with that?


I understand your argument regarding showing both measures and we will have to agree to disagree.

In my opinion using two systems has the potential to cause confusion and allows traders to capitalise on this.

If one market stall sells at 20p/lb, one at 44p/kg and then another at 44p/lb, how many people would spot where they were being ripped off? It creates the situation where some people have a feeling for the price per pound, some a feeling of the price per kilo, and the vast majority don't have a feeling for either.

Petrol is a good example of how you get a feel for a price. Ask someone the price of petrol per litre. They will be able to tell you instantly within a few pence. If you drive past a petrol station and see a sign saying 78.2p per litre you know instantly whether thats good value or not because you have a 'feel' for the price. You only get this 'feel' because every garage in the UK sells by the litre.

re (Andy): "Toilets 200m" - What is wrong with that?


I understand your argument regarding showing both measures and we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion using two systems has the potential to cause confusion and allows traders to capitalise on this.

If one market stall sells at 20p/lb, one at 44p/kg and then another at 44p/lb, how many people would spot where they were being ripped off? It creates the situation where some people have a feeling for the price per pound, some a feeling of the price per kilo, and the vast majority don't have a feeling for either.

Petrol is a good example of how you get a feel for a price. Ask someone the price of petrol per litre. They will be able to tell you instantly within a few pence. If you drive past a petrol station and see a sign saying 78.2p per litre you know instantly whether thats good value or not because you have a 'feel' for the price. You only get this 'feel' because every garage in the UK sells by the litre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: So, putting up a sign saying '£3.49 a gallon' is just as out of place as putting up one saying '200m'. Except that as our friend martin will tell us, 'm' is the symbol for miles on British roads and footpaths* under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, so '200m' is illegal as well as the fact that people, er 'do not have a feeling for it'.

* but this breaches a European Directive which says that 'm' shall mean metres. An estimate by ARM suggests that around 10,000 distance signs in the country are therefore non-E.U.-permitted e.g., on a motorway - 'Services 21m'

I have a lesser objection to footpaths showing both measures - there is no safety issue here.

Although, as TB says, strictly speaking most people would equate 'm' with miles in this country as we see it all day long while we drive along.


Also - have you noticed that whenever someone enthusuasticaly 'wants to show metric' there is no sence in providing it in imperial too. Whereas you will find examlpes of those 'who want to show imperial' being ok with showing the metric equivalent alongside or in brackets?


By the way - it does 38.5 mpg. Which is a bit low.

Tony

Look at the 2nd last paragraph of my previous post to you.

"Seriously, isn't it strange that Tony deplores "enforcement mentality" when it is used to enforce metric, but zealously attempts to enforce any legislation that requires imperial?"

The word "seriously" is an indication that I wasn't really looking for an answer from you. I was purely poking fun at your previous post. I think that everyone else understood the joke, but you just resorted to personal abuse.

OK, if you would like a question to answer, then answer this

Why do you deplore all attempts to enforce legislation requiring metric indications, while you (either yourself or through ARM) attempt to enforce all legislation requiring imperial indications?

Finally, please note that I stated that I disagreed with the majority of the UKMA quotes. UKMA are not the same organisation as either Lacors or TSI.

Bud
As far as I recall, item #3 relates to Mr Harman & Mr Dove. They both sold loose goods (fish & vegetables (?)). The goods were not prepacked. They were priced and sold in imperial.

Imperial is not prohibited from appearing in conjunction with metric. I would go as far to suggest that even if the supplementary imperial units are removed from the WMA'85, it will not be an offence to mark an imperial equivalent.

To expand on this theory, I would suggest that no TSO would currently take any action against a product marked in ml, fl. oz, and US pints/fl. oz.

US fluid measure is not authorised under the WMA '85, but it certainally appears in the UK on occasion.

You also said
"Also, if you read the thread, we were discussing whether other countries are repressive regimes. Therefore, citing a case from Britain doesn't really help much."

It's actually an English case. They operate under a different legal regime from me!!!

re (Beranger): "Why do you deplore all attempts to enforce legislation requiring metric indications, while you (either yourself or through ARM) attempt to enforce all legislation requiring imperial indications?"


REPLY: By implication you have conceded that none of my statements were 'repressive', as you had earlier claimed.

The answer to your question is because, like 80% of those around me, I like the system of weights amd measures we've got and would prefer to keep them.

On the whole I like what my forefathers handed down to me, including a free country successfully defended by hundreds of thousands of lives against continental imperialist ambitions, blessings such as trial by jury and habeas corpus, one of the most democratic systems of government anywhere in the world (until 1 January 1973), and a 'live-and-let-live' tolerant way of life that attracts folk the world over to come and live here (well, that plus Income Support and Council housing).

These people also bequeathed me a wonderful and practical system of weights and measures, which they used in the industrial development of Britain and when building up its maritime supremacy which stood us in such good stead in more ways than one.

The reasons why the Imperial system of weights and measures is better than the metric system are covered on pages 29 to 36 of the Customary Measures Society's Report: "Weights and Measures: Britain's Way Ahead", and are reproduced below, together with our observatons on the cost of metrication:

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

Which system is superior - metric or customary weights and measures?


5.2 UKMA makes the claim that the metric system is ‘superior’ because its units are ‘divisible by 10’ and add that it is a ‘rational, logical system’. In their Executive Summary they claim: “Metric units constitute a proper coherent system in which all units are interrelated and easy to calculate…the metric system is inherently superior because it is decimal and consistent”. They add (Paragraph 4.18): “The great advantage of metric units is that thy constitute a coherent, consistent, integrated system, rather than an incoherent collection of inconsistently related units”.

5.3 These statements are controversial. For example, an inch is just as ‘divisible by 10’ as the metre or the litre. A fair assessment of the two rival systems has been made recently by John Strange, who has written the following passage for the forthcoming new edition of Vivian Linacre’s com-pendium A Guide to Customary Weights and Measures.

“The metric system is logical, dogmatic and coherent. These characteristics make it suitable for most scientific work, particularly physics. The British system is practical, flexible and contains a choice of coherent subsystems. These characteristics make it suitable for much scientific work and for virtually all everyday applications”.

5.4 UKMA reluctantly concedes there are difficulties with the metric system in Paragraphs 6.18 to 6.21 of their Report. They admit that due to what they say was the unwise decision of the government in 1969 to omit the centi-metre and centilitre from official use, the metric system in Britain “uses un-necessarily large numbers and is ‘not user-friendly’”. They add: “One of the consequences of separating the metric conversion of industry from a wider programme involving the general public was that insufficient consideration was given to making the new system customer-friendly…metrication acquired a reputation for being scientific, over-precise and generally difficult”. Hardly ‘simple and easy to use’, then, as UKMA claims later on.

5.5 We might also note that many of the units alleged to be metric are not metric and are better described as ‘compound’. Indeed, the E.U. Directive (80/181) specifying what units are to be used in future admits that some units are ‘compound’. Kilometres per hour is a compound unit; truly ‘metric’ units would be metres or kilometres per second. ‘Kilowatt-hours’ are com-pound. Calories, required on most food products to give the energetic value of food, are not metric and not even permitted by the E.U. Directive.

5.6 There is not enough space in this report to discuss in detail the relative merits of customary and metric systems of weights and measures. We confine ourselves simply to making seven brief points.

5.7 First, metric units have been allowed to be used in the United Kingdom for most purposes, including for trade, since the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act 1897. As UKMA acknowledges on page 52 of its Report, this Act provided that “metric units may be used for all purposes, but did not make them compulsory”. The history of weights and measures since then is that there was no significant demand for the adoption of the metric system, either by industry, trade, or ordinary people. Only when the British government announced its proposals to switch to metric in 1965 did usage of metric units increase - and that was by the use of compulsion.

5.8 Second, we concede that the metric system is now in common use in science, industry and engineering. However, it remains a matter for debate as to whether this is because there is some inherent advantage in using metric in such applications, or it has merely become the norm in these fields. We emphasise again that we do not seek to reverse the changes made in those sectors; for example, we do not wish to interfere with what have become standard industry measurements.

5.9 Third, we point out that customary measures are highly practical in that they are based on man’s own physical characteristics and ability to do work. Many observers have commented that they form a ‘human’ or ‘natural’ system of measures which has evolved to meet mankind’s everyday needs.

5.10 Fourth, whilst metric advocates stress the benefit of the units in their favoured system being divisible by 10, thus making life ‘easier’, the British system of weights and measures is considered by many to be superior because its units are commonly divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The non-metric 60-minute hour and 60-second minute have been retained internationally because these are divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30 - better than the metric 100 which is only divisible by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20 and 25.

5.11 A remarkable example of the superiority of the duodecimal system over the decimal system comes from Holland, where timber merchants and carpenters now work using 120-centimetre lengths of wood. Staying with timber, the impracticality of the centimetre (too small) and the metre (too big) has led some timber merchants in Britain to measure wood with the ‘bernicle’, which measures one-third of a metre and is divided into 11 units. It helps staff to measure the area or cubic capacity of wood. It looks remarkably similar to a foot-long ruler divided into inches!

5.12 We might also point out that in the days of both pounds and ounces and pounds, shillings and pence (and before computers), market traders appeared to have no difficulty in swiftly reckoning up the correct price of various quantities of fruit, vegetables, fish, meat or cheese.

5.13 Fifth, even metric advocates concede that serious mistakes may occur because the decimal point has been put in the wrong place, or a ‘nought’ has been added or omitted, or even because of confusing similar-sounding words like ‘millimetre’ and ‘centimetre’. There are many examples in the medical field where a patient has been misprescribed medicine because of these types of error and deaths have resulted. One sad case was reported in The Times, 11 October 2000. A new-born baby died in a hospital intensive care unit after a member of staff had entered a decimal point in the wrong place.

5.14 Sixth, the system of customary weights and measures rolls up one unit into another at the point when the numbers begin to get large and unwieldy - pints into gallons, pounds into stones and so on. The human brain finds it more difficult to cope with larger numbers. Figures of hundreds of grams on a packet or tin in the supermarket being a prime example.

5.15 Seventh, and finally, customary weights and measures have the distinct advantage for the British that they are familiar.

5.16 On the day after the UKMA published its report, a foreign University lecturer, Dr. Kovalchuk, wrote an open letter to Lord Howe, defending British customary weights and measures. As it summarises many of the points we would also make about the superiority of our system of weights and measures, we reproduce key verbatim extracts of his letter in Appendix 3.


The cost of past and future metrication


5.17 In his introduction to the UKMA report, Lord Howe claims that what he calls the measures muddle “increases costs, confuses shoppers, leads to serious misunderstandings and causes accidents”. In truth, this is an indictment of the decision in the first place to attempt to force through metrication on an unwilling public. The ‘measures muddle’, say UKMA, is caused by the decision of successive British governments to proceed with metrication gradually. They compare this unfavourably with decisions by other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to complete metrication over a period of just a few years.

5.18 The process of metrication itself has indeed been costly. The wholesale conversion of industrial machines to metric cost millions, with little clear practical benefit. Machine tools like lathes, boring and milling machines and other industrial tools and equipment were thrown out of factories, work-hops, colleges and schools just because they were calibrated in customary units. Garages went out of business because they could not afford to convert from gallons to litres. Metricating the sale of loose goods meant that tens of thousands of small traders had to scrap perfectly sound weighing machines in pounds and ounces and buy new metric ones. They also had to re-order price labels in metric or in dual units, at significant extra cost.

5.19 Erecting some road signs in metric as well as in customary units (mostly dual height and width signs) has also cost more money.

5.20 There would also be very considerable costs of implementing UKMA’s other suggestions for enforced metrication, not least the time and effort devoted to trying to pilot highly controversial legislation through Parliament.

5.21 If ‘confusion’ has been caused to shoppers, this again is due essentially to the introduction of the alien metric system to shoppers who were familiar with the price of goods per pound. Shoppers were not ‘confused’ before compulsory metrication began.

5.22 The admission by Lord Howe in the UKMA Report that the intro-duction of metrication has caused accidents is serious, and we give examples below in our section on the metrication of road signs.

5.23 UKMA is fond of trumpeting the achievements of countries like Australia and South Africa in achieving a relatively swift programme of metrication (see Paragraph 4.11). However, these examples come from countries with populations much smaller than the United Kingdom. Neither do those countries have such a long tradition of political union, and use of customary measures, going back centuries.

5.24 Lord Howe’s reference to Magna Carta to justify compulsory metrica-tion is inappropriate and bizarre. He correctly refers to Magna Carta’s procla-mation that there should be ‘one measure of wine…corn…’ etc. But the problem Magna Carta was trying to address was that units such as pounds and bushels had different weights in different parts of England. That problem was addressed centuries ago when England did indeed (in the fourteenth century) agree common ‘measures’ or ‘standards’ for all its units. Before the announcement in 1965 of the plan to ‘go metric’, Britons had been able to use metric measurement for 68 years (since the 1897 Act), but apart from a handful of exceptions, like c.c. for car engine size, they had not done so. The introduction of the metric system - not used by British people - was therefore a breach of Magna Carta’s demand for ‘one measure’.

5.25 Howe goes on to say: “Before then and ever since, every civilised society has recognised the need for one set (and only one set) of standard measures”. The U.K. decided in 1897, to permit the use of metric units for all purposes, alongside customary units, in view of their gradual adoption by other countries. However, as we detailed in Sections 1 and 2 of our report, British people use and prefer their own traditional system of weights and measures. In other words, the ‘one set of standard measures’ they use and clearly prefer, like in the United States, is customary weights and measures. This should be respected and, so far as practicable, achieved by enabling people to revert to using their familiar and preferred measurement system.

5.26 On page 7 of the UKMA Report, Lord Howe states that UKMA is “a small group of ordinary people so fed up with the measurement muddle that they have decided to try and tackle it themselves”. It would be more correct to say that the UKMA consists of people who have always been determined to impose the metric system on the British people no matter how strongly they wished to retain their customary units of weights and measures. A careful reader of the UKMA report will also note how frequently they use the words ‘compulsion’, ‘force’ and ‘enforcement’ in their report. We list just some of the authoritarian demands they make in Appendix 5.

5.27 The UKMA report reveals that metrication can only be achieved with draconian laws and more criminal penalties - plus huge costs, as we explain especially in Section 6 below. UKMA, however, downplays the expense: “Costs need not be a serious obstacle to completing metrication”, they claim (page 9). However, as UKMA fully concedes, the following are just some examples of the costs of further compulsory metrication:

(a) the cost of setting up and running a brand new ‘cross-departmental’ authority to ‘manage the change’ (page 9)
(b) major ‘intensive campaigns of public education’ (page 9 and Paragraph 7.9(g)). For example, in Australia, 2.5 million copies of a pamphlet: ‘Motoring Goes Metric’ were produced
(c) a swath of new legislation with criminal penalties: ‘enacting and enforcing any necessary legislation’ (page 9), including ‘bringing advertising explicitly within the scope of the Prime Marking Order’ (Paragraph 7.13). This would occupy significant Parliamentary time as further compulsory metrication would be strenuously opposed
(d) replacing over 1 million road and footpath signs (Paragraphs 7.14 to 7.22)
(e) the cost of training staff to work exclusively in metric (Paragraph 7.9(h)).

5.28 Yet, on page 11 of their report, UKMA admits that, to date, compul-sory metrication has been a ‘costly and embarrassing saga’! We agree.

ding ding - round 5



(sorry!!!)

<<<compul-sory metrication has been a ‘costly and embarrassing saga’>>>

Quite possibly the first statement ever posted on here that everyone agrees with.

If I can ask the right questions, maybe I can save us all £4 by having Tony cut'n'paste his whole report next time :-)

"REPLY: By implication you have conceded that none of my statements were 'repressive', as you had earlier claimed."

Tony, I can only repeat that it was a spoof of your previous post. However, my dictionary defines "repress" as to restrain, to keep under, to put down, to banish to the unconscious.

Would you agree that removing information is the equivalent of banishing it to the unconscious? Would you agree that covering over information is the equivalent of keeping it under? Would you agree that controlling which information is displayed on a sign is restraining? Would you agree that placing signs in a ditch is putting them down?

Another question for you then. Lets take your own original post and change all metric references to imperial and vice versa (i.e. “The only solution is to complete the changeover to imperial - and as swiftly and cleanly as possible” “We must resolve the situation, standardise on one single system and cease using the other system, complete the changeover to the imperial system and discontinue the use of metric units” etc)

How many of THESE 17 repressive statements do you wholeheartedly support? Straight answer, please.

re (Beranger): "Another question for you then. Lets take your own original post and change all metric references to imperial and vice versa (i.e. 'The only solution is to complete the changeover to imperial - and as swiftly and cleanly as possible', 'We must resolve the situation, standardise on one single system and cease using the other system, complete the changeover to the imperial system and discontinue the use of metric units' etc.).

How many of THESE 17 repressive statements do you wholeheartedly support? Straight answer, please".


REPLY: 100% hypothetical, therefore 'NOT APPLICABLE'

re (Beranger's Questions):

"Would you agree that removing information is the equivalent of banishing it to the unconscious?"

REPLY: Not exactly

"Would you agree that covering over information is the equivalent of keeping it under?"

REPLY: Yes, broadly. The new Freedom of Information Act probably applies here, in relation to information being 'kept under' by the Government, at any rate. But metric 'information' on a road sign is usually illegal. That is the case primarily for safety reasons. To add the metric information in as well would be confusing, as the Department for Transport agrees, and nobody wants it (except the 4 members of UKMA and a dog) as we all understand Imperial heights, widths and distances

"Would you agree that controlling which information is displayed on a sign is restraining?"

REPLY: Not the word I would choose. Regulations governing the content of jars of food and medicine bottles are generally, er, 'helpful' and 'informative' rather than 'restraining', I would have thought

"Would you agree that placing signs in a ditch is putting them down?"

REPLY: 'Putting them away' might be a slightly better way of putting it



Last year:

* PC word used this phrase in an advert: "Temperature of 102, but at least I don't have a virus"

* A transport action group placed an advert: "An extra lane just 12 feet wide will relieve congestion on our motorways"

* Hockings Butchers in Ongar published all their meat prices only per lb. (like many butchers)

* 'The Times' newspaper ran a front page headline: "Drivers face £4 gallon as oil cost soars".


UKMA, Lord Howe, Trading Standards Officers* and a handful of others (mostly ODPM officials working under orders from John Prescott) appear to be united in support of making each of the above acts a crime, punishable with criminal penalties. Repressive?

[* Do correct me if Trading Standards Officers still believe in freedom]

<<except the 4 members of UKMA and a dog>>

Which dog is that ? Goofy?

:-)

Tony

"How many of THESE 17 repressive statements do you wholeheartedly support? Straight answer, please".


REPLY: 100% hypothetical, therefore 'NOT APPLICABLE'"

OK, agreed that they are hypothetical, but fail to see why you refuse to respond to hypothetical statements. I can only assume that you do strongly agree with all 17 hypothetical repressive statements, but do not wish to admit it.

You then posted

"Last year:

* PC word used this phrase in an advert: "Temperature of 102, but at least I don't have a virus"

* A transport action group placed an advert: "An extra lane just 12 feet wide will relieve congestion on our motorways"

* Hockings Butchers in Ongar published all their meat prices only per lb. (like many butchers)

* 'The Times' newspaper ran a front page headline: "Drivers face £4 gallon as oil cost soars".


UKMA, Lord Howe, Trading Standards Officers* and a handful of others (mostly ODPM officials working under orders from John Prescott) appear to be united in support of making each of the above acts a crime, punishable with criminal penalties. Repressive?"

Only one of the above 4 scenarios could currently be a crime (ie the butcher) It would depend on what exactly you mean by "publish". If the butcher complies with the price marking requirements in his premises (ie metric with supplementary imperial indications) and weighs out the goods on an approved metric weighing machine, I have no problem with it.

The other 3 are hypothetical future crimes. If parliament ever decides to make these actions subject to criminal penalties, then they will task somone with enforcing the legislation.

Perhaps UKMA & Lord Howe wish to make these actions criminal offences, but can you please provide some proof that TSO's are supporting making any of these 3 actions a criminal offence. I must have missed that TSI Press Release.

Why do you assert that UKMA & TSO's are "united in support"? Do you have any proof whatsoever?

I personally do not think that any of the 3 hypothetical future crimes you set out will ever become criminal offences. I am not working toward making any of these actions into crimes & would not support UKMA's stance on this matter.

Again, however, I would suspect that you would strongly support any measure which requires imperial-only marking. Another hypothetical question or two then......

Would you support banning advertising of temperatures in Celsius or distances in metres?

Would you ban newspapers from referring to metric measurements in headlines?

re (Beranger): "Would you support banning advertising of temperatures in Celsius or distances in metres?"

REPLY: NO

re (Beranger): "Would you ban newspapers from referring to metric measurements in headlines?"

REPLY: NO

But I would ban metres from Britain's road signs i.e. I would withdrew the three very limited circumstances under which it is currently permitted to display metric on road signs as an 'option'.

Whilst we're on the subject of 'banning', I would also ban Scots MPs from voting on purely English issues