Dear Beranger,

Your pro-metric ally, martin, who *hates* the word 'illegal' and ticks me off all the time for it in the context of, er, unauthorised metric signs, saying I should say 'unlawful', has just posted this on the 'Questions to BWMA' discussion forum ('gallons' thread), as he is raher angry that ARM is planning to affix labels on petrol pumps showing the price in gallons (as *required by the law*, by the way):

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

COMMENT by Council of Active Resistance to Metrication

"Garages are required, by law, to display gallons as well as litres, or to place a conversion chart where the motorist can see it. This notice has been affixed to comply with the law"


REPLY by martin

"Do yourselves and do the motorists a favour. Petrol is sold by the litre and after 31-Dec-2009 it will be ILLEGAL (no, not unlawful, but illegal) for garages to display prices per gallon. By putting stickers up where they are not wanted you will only serve to confuse those motorists who are not very bright but you will also pave the way for profiteers to make a quick buck by sowing confusion".

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


There's just one thing that martin left out, though!!

What the *penalty* is for this new crime.

Come on, martin, make Beranger's day and tell him!!

Tony,

One question and one answer.

A: As yet that issue [penalty for displaying price per gallon] has not been addressed by the Government.

Q: Under which law is it a legal requirement to display the price of petrol per gallon as well as per litre and why is that law still valid in spite of:

a) The The Units of Measurement Regulations 1995
b) The judgement of Mr Justice Laws in the case Thoburn and others vs City of Sunderland and others?

So through 2009-12-31, these stickers are REQUIRED by law (to show price per gallon), and beginning 2010-01-01, the same sticker is FORBIDDEN by law? New Year's Eve is just going to suck.

You really do need to sort out your laws. Some:
*Require SI and tolerate supplemental Imperial
*Require SI, but also require supplemental Imperial (the US does this too)
*Require Imperial only, expressly forbidding SI
*Require Imperial but permit SI as a supplement.
(Do you already have any that require SI and forbid Imperial?)

Is there really a plan or direction? It is not apparent.

I believe it will never be illegal to give extra information.

Anyone who thinks that time *will* come must either say they believe a (full) totalitarian state is about to beset the UK *OR* they are totalitarian in their own political beliefs.

In the first case that's miserable thinking, in the second case that's wishful thinking!

Are you assuming the UK will ignore the EU directive on supplemental units, or assuming the EU will be pressured into ANOTHER 10 year deferral?

re (JohnS-MI): "Is there really a plan or direction? It is not apparent..."

REPLY: 40 years and a day ago, Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of Britain, proclaimed to Parliament: 'Britain will go metric'.

But there has been a lot of resistance - some of it, more recently, quite *active* (geddit?)

<<REPLY: 40 years and a day ago, Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of Britain, proclaimed to Parliament: 'Britain will go metric'.>>

I would argue that a plan without a schedule is only a dream.

....or a nightmare!

<<Are you assuming the UK will ignore the EU directive on supplemental units, or assuming the EU will be pressured into ANOTHER 10 year deferral?>>

I'm assuming what I mention - that extra information will not become illegal in this country.

The idea is absurd.

A lot could potentially happen by 2009. It is still 4 years away.

I am guessing that one of the following will happen.

1. The EU will decide not to enforce the directive, and allow Britain to go metric at its own pace. Britain will maintain the status quo.

2. Britain will pass a law implementing the EU directive, but will not enforce it properly, and allow supplementary indicators to be shown.

3. The EU will grant Britain another 10 year delay.


I mean, think about it. If Britain refused to erradicate imperial measures as supplements, what could the EU do about it? If it were one of the new Eastern European countries, then maybe the EU could do something, but not with Britain.

<<3. The EU will grant Britain another 10 year delay. >>

I hope the EU doesn't cave to either UK or US (exporter) pressure. This was originally supposed to happen at the end of 1979. Thirty years really seems long enough to learn the metric system well enough to feed one's self. I was sorry to see them relax it from 2000. Note how everybody ground to a halt on permissive metric only (which has been discussed in US since 1997). Only holding our feet to the fire will drive action.

I can't say as I have much vested interst in whether the UK chooses to disobey the directive, I just don't want to see further delay on the Continent, because it delays our need to allow just metric, rather than continuing to require dual.

(The UK might have a major problem continuing to require dual pricing on petrol, but that makes little sense anyway given their metric direction. It is one thing to allow it, another to require it.)

Tony

Of course I will keep a careful note of this posting.

I immediately note that Martin has asked you questions which you have chosen to ignore (a common "Tony Tactic")

I also note that you state that "40 years and a day ago, Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of Britain, proclaimed to Parliament: 'Britain will go metric'"

Until it suited your purpose, didn't you use to claim that no such proclamation was ever made? You have rubbished other posters who have suggested that the UK's decision to go metric predated entry to the EC.

Well, well, well. Is 1965 before 1972 in Tonyland or not? And you were just displaying your arithmetical brilliance on the radio yesterday!

Martin asked "Under which law is it a legal requirement to display the price of petrol per gallon as well as per litre"

Again,(amazingly!) Tony may actuallly be right. I was out watching the footy (& extra time - beers were involved!), so I am unable to recall accurately (off the top of my head) the actual regulations involved. I'm sure that Tony will post the title of the regulations.

I say this, as Tony always claims to answer questions with truthful, straight answers. (Ha!)

Is this why he has left the party of truth?

Bud wrote

<<
A lot could potentially happen by 2009. It is still 4 years away.

I am guessing that one of the following will happen.

1. The EU will decide not to enforce the directive, and allow Britain to go metric at its own pace. Britain will maintain the status quo.

2. Britain will pass a law implementing the EU directive, but will not enforce it properly, and allow supplementary indicators to be shown.

3. The EU will grant Britain another 10 year delay.
>>

1. The status quo regarding the sale of petrol is that petrol is sold by the litre. Some of the older pump still have a few conversion charts stuck to them.

2. The UK has passd all the relevant legislation. The legislation on the sale of market produce is not being enforced, but no garage owner want the hassle of putting conversion stickers on his pumps when he does not need to do so, nor does he want the hassle of unwanted "guests" putting tacky stickers onto his pumps for him.

Beranger,

Let's make this really, really simple.

Is this statement by martin below correct or not? Yes or no?

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

"Petrol is sold by the litre and after 31-Dec-2009 it will be ILLEGAL (no, not unlawful, but illegal) for garages to display prices per gallon".

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


[P.S. If martin is right, SteveH is wrong. Extra information which might be helpful *will be banned*]

<<<I mean, think about it. If Britain refused to erradicate imperial measures as supplements, what could the EU do about it? >>>

If Britain said 'we want to keep supplementary imperial measures, the EU would say 'ok!' It would not be an issue at all. But it is in the interests of the British government, and ultimately the British people to get rid of the supplementary measures so we get used to the metric.

<<<The UK might have a major problem continuing to require dual pricing on petrol, but that makes little sense anyway given their metric direction. It is one thing to allow it, another to require it.>>>

All this talk about petrol is ridiculous. I don't recall ever seeing any mention of gallons at a petrol station. Everyone is used to litres now.

<<<the hassle of unwanted "guests" putting tacky stickers onto his pumps for him.>>>

I think ironically, the actions (especially if they get more and more extreme) of ARM probably help the cause of metrication. They are an utterly insignificant organisation and in no way obstruct the advance of metrication in the UK. One piece of legislation is all it takes to render their entire campaign a pathetic waste of time.

<<<SteveH is wrong. Extra information which might be helpful *will be banned*]>>>

There is a difference between extra INFORMATION and an extra price figure. That is the point, and that is why you are living in a dreamworld if you think a government can't enforce this - it already does in many areas.

Petrol is sold in £ per LITRE. You can give any other information you want, but any price given, has to use those two units.

Martin:
"Q: Under which law is it a legal requirement to display the price of petrol per gallon as well as per litre and why is that law still valid in spite of:"

Stan:
Martin you can rest assured that there is no such law. Garages can (legally) if they wish display price/gallon as a supplentary indication until, as you say, 2009-12-31 the cut off date for such indications.

You will also appreciate that this is not the same as being "required" to do it. In all the years that garages have not displayed price per gallon not one of them has been prosecuted or even warned about it.

I've no doubt that ARM activists will go around trying to scare garage proprietors into displaying their silly stickers on the pretense of legal requirement and some may believe it. If any of us see it for ourselves all we have to do is put them straight.

I also doubt whether garage proprietors would be willing to do this. After all they like the litre partly because it's so much smaller than the gallon. Petrol is a very price sensitive commodity in the UK, so much so that not one of them will price their petrol in a whole number of pence per litre, it's always xx.9p/L. That in itself renders the so called conversion charts pretty useless if customers really want know the exact price per gallon (which they wont).

Whatever ARM activists do they will not change the fact that price per litre will be on the billboard for the passing motorist and not price per gallon. Petrol price conscious motorists will continue to use that information for comparison purposes and as such price/gallon will be irrelevent and ignored by 99.9% of them. Besides which the petrol pump will still dispense in litres so what use is price per gallon anyway.

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
Extra information which might be helpful *will be banned*
>>

If it is not banned, we might start getting XCOLE-type postings all over our supermarkets. I dont think that this will be a good thing.

Beranger,

On another thread, martin is repeatedly and insistently confirming all I have said about 'supplementary indications' being banned from 1 January 2010. Here's his latest offering - perhaps you'll believe me now it comes from someone on your own side?

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

"You can be sure that on 1-Jan-2010 the motor industry will adhere to the law like a limpet on this one - in that way people like SteveH will not know what the car's consumption is and the advertisers can sell the car using macho images, sex symbols and the like".

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

I've used those gallon stickers before. Its a handy translation item - see it like a "French to English Dictionary"

Can I say again?

Showing price per lb or per gallon, or availability in other colours, or whatever WILL NOT be illegal after 2010.

Just think of the consequences on many levels:

1) Not since the 40's have words been banned, and not in this country
2) The media spotlight
3) A tory government
4) The "common sense" part of the equation
5) The ludicrousnous of believing that "martinland" could replace "England" (and other UK nations).


Lets face it - if it were to happen then the next logical step would be speech.

With respect, Tony (and Martin), I don't think that Martin & myself are coming from the same position.

I would suggest that Martin takes a far harder line on the few remaining uses of imperial than I do.

Anyway, going back to an old point of mine, why do you not just post the actual offence. Saying "it's an offence" is not the same as actually quoting the section number & act that makes something an offence.

To answer your direct question, "Is this statement by martin below correct or not? Yes or no?

"Petrol is sold by the litre and after 31-Dec-2009 it will be ILLEGAL (no, not unlawful, but illegal) for garages to display prices per gallon"."

My answer is "No, Martin is not correct, unless the law changes before that date."

If Martin thinks he is correct, I would also invite him to post the Section & Act that makes this an offence.

Tony, I notice that you/ARM quote from the Price Marking Order 1991.

May I quote the Price Marking Order 2004?

2
Revocations
The Price Marking Order 1999 is hereby revoked.

And may I also quote the Price Marking Order 1999

Revocations
2. - (1) Article 7 of the Price Marking Order 1991 is hereby revoked.
(2) The following orders are hereby revoked:
(a) The Price Marking Order 1991 except article 7;

I know that this is confusing, so here is the explanation from the notes to the Order

"The Order revokes article 7 of the Price Marking Order 1991 as from 4th December 1999 and revokes the remainder of the Price Marking Order 1991 as from 18th March 2000."

Tony

Why are you stating that law that has been revoked is still the current law of the UK?

Don't you understand what revocation means?

I thought you were a solicitor. I can only assume that you are posting this nonsense to obscure the issue.

I was at least one over the eight last night when I posted "Again,(amazingly!) Tony may actuallly be right. I was out watching the footy (& extra time - beers were involved!), so I am unable to recall accurately (off the top of my head) the actual regulations involved. I'm sure that Tony will post the title of the regulations."

I knew that the requirement was in one of the old Price Marking Orders, but couldn't recall which one. Nice of Tony/ARM to assist!

Shame that ARM have got it wrong (again), and I hope that whichever TS site
Tony/ARM claim to have posted current legislation from (note the lack of links from Tony again!) have a caveat regarding changes to legislation.

I'm sure that Tony will keep us informed if he considers that he has been misinformed by whichever site he/ARM claim to take their legal advice from.

It's just a pity that the advice that Tony & ARM peddle is so wrong & out of date!

BTW, your stickers don't even represent prices paid for petrol throughout the UK - can't you even check the prices paid at the pumps in the whole country, rather than in Harlow?

If the old legislation was still in force, ARM's stickers would be illegal anywhere that petrol/diesel cost more than 90p/litre. I'm aware of places where it costs 108p/litre.

Best of luck with your latest joke campaign though. I hope that the people that donate to ARM notice how their money is wasted!

Why do I waste my time correcting Tony's nonsense? Can anyone actually recall the last time he posted something of value?

<<
I hope the EU doesn't cave to either UK or US (exporter) pressure.
>>
One of the main arguments in favor of going metric in the first place was to facilitate international trade. Why not listen to the international companies about the issue?


<<
This was originally supposed to happen at the end of 1979. Thirty years really seems long enough to learn the metric system well enough to feed one's self.
>>
Yes, you're right. It's plenty of time, but it didn't happen. Maybe there are other reasons why.



<<
I just don't want to see further delay on the Continent, because it delays our need to allow just metric, rather than continuing to require dual.
>>
Wow, the US should encourage Europe to go metric just so that we will be forced to. Haha.

<<Wow, the US should encourage Europe to go metric just so that we will be forced to. Haha. >>

Actually, "allowed" not "forced"

Right now the FPLA FORBIDS labelling in just the preferred measurement system of the United States. Duality is mandated by law.

And our exporters want to FORCE Continental Europeans to read US Customary measures that they, in fact, have never used, and probably don't understand well. US fluid measure can have no purpose in the UK other than to confuse Brits, because it differs from theirs, and neither was used on the Continental. It is just Americans being arrogant.

Europe has the right to forbid our measures which they have never used, and apparently are doing so 2010-01-01, even as "supplemental units." However, I do think our exporters have the right to say "Isn't it about time the US just uses its preferred measurement system?"

In the US, I don't favor outlawing supplemental Customary units. I just have a problem with requiring by law the (legally) non-preferred measurement system of the United States. It seems silly.

I have a challenge for you. The Metric Act of 1866 explicitly makes the metric system legal for trade and contracts in the United States. Can you find US Code (by chapter and verse) that makes Customary measure legal for trade? Obviously, everyone assumes it is, and that assumption has the effect of making it so on a de facto basis, but to my knowledge, there is no US Code explicitly making it so.

There's a very simple solution to this. Most American consumers prefer imperial. Most Europeans prefer metric. So both sides allow both units to appear on packaging, and therefore all consumers can understand the same label.
But apparently Europe won't put up with that.

All American exporters are asking is to be able to use the same label on both sides. Europeans have the right to see metric on their labels, but they don't have the right to demand that imperial supplementary units be removed, unless America has the right to demand that metric supplementary units be removed from European imports.

And regarding legalization of the imperial system in the US, I don't believe it has been officially written. It comes from common law. I believe it says somewhere in federal or state law that British laws in effect in the colonies at the time of independence continue to be valid until contradicted by new law (or something to that effect, but I don't remember to well, so don't quote me on it. It may not be written down.)

<<All American exporters are asking is to be able to use the same label on both sides. Europeans have the right to see metric on their labels, but they don't have the right to demand that imperial supplementary units be removed, unless America has the right to demand that metric supplementary units be removed from European imports.>>

America (the government) doesn't want the metric removed. It amended the 1966 FPLA to require it in 1992 (effective date 1994. However, we do NOT allow Imperial measure (where different from US Customary), for example Imperial pints or quarts, it has to be US Customary + metric units to satisfy FPLA. Anything else is illegal.

Europe (the Continent) wants metric only. But we're Americans. Why should they get what they want. Let them eat Customary.

So we get EXACTLY what we want but insist others can't have exactly what they want. Do you see the asymmetry in that?

I don't think most Americans would care if the metric were removed. The only reason it has been required as a supplement for the last decade or so is to facilitate international trade.

We amended our laws ten years ago to do our bit to facilitate international trade, now it is time for Europe to reciprocate. We allow your units, you allow ours. All consumers see units they are familiar with, and companies only have to print one line of packaging. That would work for everyone.

<<We amended our laws ten years ago to do our bit to facilitate international trade, now it is time for Europe to reciprocate. We allow your units, you allow ours. >>

We don't allow Imperial ounces, pints, quarts, or gallons, so your last comment isn't true (even when they were legal for trade in UK, we didn't). We do not tolerate an XCOLE measurement free-for-all. We proscribe exactly what is required and BOTH Customary and SI are required. Europe is not permitted by law to send product with metric-only labels here.
(Proposed NIST amendment to FPLA will change that, if it ever passes.)
(Metric was allowed as supplemental in original FPLA from 1966-1993. Metric became required in 1994, in addition to Customary)

The primary reason cited for adding metric was that it was "the preferred measurement system of the United States (1988 legislation). At the time of adding metric to FPLA, the EU was already working on its second extension (to 1999) for phasing out supplemental units. Had it only been done for trade, the US probably would have shifted to metric only, not dual, or at least bounded our transition period for dual.

I don't really believe all this "one label" talk anyway. I started a thread about it but it got little response. However, standard US labels are not even acceptable to Canada and Mexico, our closest neighbors. Canada requires bilingual English/French; I'm not sure they would tolerate Customary ounces. Mexico requires Spanish, metric only, and nutritional statement per 100 g not per serving. South Korea requires metric only, English units are a crime. I'd like to know exactly where we ship and sell exactly what (packaged foods) with US labels, Customary measure, and per serving nutrition.

You are ignoring the facts and making an emotional but unfounded argument for supplemental.

"English units are a crime" ?????

Surely that is in north korea?

Several other sites say about the same thing, so I assume this is correct.

http://www.metricmethods.com/theneed.html

<<The Republic of Korea has implemented its new Korea Law on Metrology; as of 2001 July 01 all measurements must be given only in SI, or jail terms and substantial fines might result. >>

SteveH,

This is perhaps a better summary, from a US government site for exporter info, on what countries have "SI units only" requirements.

Not sure why the EU let us off the hook on SI-only when several other countries don't -- S. Korea, Phillipines, Chile, Nigeria. Japan is "testy" about it but still allows dual.

http://www.ita.doc.gov/exportamerica/AskTheTIC/qa_Metric.html

<<<What are the metric labeling requirements for exports?

Every industrialized nation in the world, except the United States, prefers the metric system for weights and measures. Thus, the United States’ trading partners require at least dual labeling (U.S. units and metric units), if not metric-only measurement units on product labels.

Europe

For example, the long-standing European Union (EU) Metric Directive mandated that after January 1, 2000, all products sold in the EU needed to specify and label in metric measurements only. Prior to implementation, the European Commission recommended a 10-year deferral of the metric-only directive, allowing companies to use dual labeling through 2009. The delay provides time for U.S. companies to prepare for a metric-only European market beginning January 1, 2010.

After the EU Directive takes effect, member and associated countries will no longer permit dual indications of measurement. U.S. exporters can no longer label or print inches, pounds, or any other non-metric measurement on shipments. This affects labels, packaging, advertising, catalogs, technical manuals and instructions. Legal units of measurement will now be referred to as SI units (International System) and enforcement mechanisms are already in place. Until 2010, U.S. companies selling in Europe will be able to continue to label their products in both metric and inch-pound measurements, as is required by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act in the United States.

Asia

In Asia, Korea is changing from the older versions of the metric system to the SI. The revised Korean Metrology Law prescribes strict new guidelines effective July 1, 2001, mandating that measurements be expressed only in SI units. Both manufacturers and importers are required to adhere to metrification rules, which include technical requirements for weighing and measuring devices. Strict punishment for non-compliance may include fines and a prison term. The Japanese market strongly prefers metric labeling and their Measurement Law requires that all imported products and shipping documents show SI units. In the Philippines, only SI units can be used to measure any product, commodity, material or utility. SI is also the only system that can be used in any commercial transaction, contract and other legal instrument, or other official documents. The Philippine government prohibits importation of non-metric measuring devices, instrumentation and apparatus without prior clearance from their Bureau of Product Standards.

Latin America

In Latin America and the Caribbean, metric is increasingly becoming the standard. While Jamaica generally follows U.S. standards, their Bureau of Standards has recently become more vigilant in monitoring products sold on the local market. In 1995, an amendment to the Weights and Measures Act was passed to enforce compliance with the metric system of measurement; thus, imported goods should conform to the metric system. Chile requires that all labels must contain, in Spanish, size and weight converted to the metric system. Goods not complying with these measurements may be imported, but not sold to consumers until the conversion is made. Costa Rican law requires the exclusive use of the metric system, but in practice accepts U.S. and European commercial and product standards. In Brazil, product labels should have a Portuguese translation and use metric units or show a metric equivalent.

Africa

Countries in Africa have similar metric requirements. Mauritius and Eritrea require metric weights and measures. Cameroon recommends French and English labeling, with all measurements in the metric system. Cote d’Ivoire also prefers French labeling and requires imported equipment adapted to run according to European electrical and metric standards. South Africa requires metric weights and measures on the bill of lading. All items entering Nigeria must be labeled in metric terms exclusively and products with dual or multi-markings will be confiscated or refused entry.>>>

<<Surely that is in north korea?>>

Common Name/Official Name Decoder Ring:
North Korea = Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (run by a dictator)
South Korea = Republic of Korea

<<<Every industrialized nation in the world, except the United States, prefers the metric system for weights and measures>>>

That's a bold thing to say - I'm sure most of the people I know would not agree.

Ahhhh! You mean "states" and not "people"!

Bloody "people" eh? No wonder some countries shove you into jail for using imperial measures.

I still find that hard to believe - Amnesty International would have a field day!!!!

First, note it is a quote from a government site, not something I said, although I don't really disagree with it.

Second, the countries that would throw you in jail had their own traditional measures before SI and weren't really users of US Customary or Imperial measure, so they probably never liked or accepted them.
Spain had its own oddball measures which were used by most Spanish speaking countries. I don't know much about what various Asian countries used pre-SI, but not FPS unless either the US or the UK conquered them.

The alternative to SI is a hodgepodge of local units unique to various nations or regions. That doesn't seem compelling to me.

"local units" eh?

what a radical idea, having local customs and traditions, etc.


Nah! give me standard grey suits anyday!

<<"local units" eh?

what a radical idea, having local customs and traditions, etc.
>>

Local units, local language, preferably changing every 10 miles or so. It's what made the Dark Ages so great. Well, that, local petty nobles, lack of national governments, plagues and the power of the Church.

There, John, you said it yourself. The point of removing mandatory customary units in the US is not to facilitate trade with anyone. I think I have argued that point on these boards before.

The point of labelling is to provide information to consumers. As long as the majority of American consumers understand American units better, it behooves the government to require that they appear on packages in order to stop consumers from getting cheated. After all Americans understand metric units properly, it will be a different story.

Note that I am simply taking an argument used by pro-metrics in Britain and flipping it around.

Bud wrote

<<
The point of labelling is to provide information to consumers.
>>

A few weeks agop the Sunday Times had an article on how Tesco misleads the public. One typical example was:


<<
XXX reduced by £3.99/kg - now only £2.99/lb
>>

I can't remember exactly what the product was, nor the exact proces, byt I do remeber the placement of the "kg" and the "lb". If the Government enforces the rules that only one unit of measure be used, this type of hoodwinking of the customer cannot occur.

....after which, a typing mistake will not be posssible.
Dream on martin!


<<<Local units, local language, preferably changing every 10 miles or so. It's what made the Dark Ages so great. Well, that, local petty nobles, lack of national governments, plagues and the power of the Church.>>>

Has someone been handing out that gun with "Only aim at foot whilst pulling the trigger" printed on it?


I assume you believe Welsh and Cornish languages (for example) should be 'outlawed'?
And that since less and less people have been going to church crime has fallen and morality has not fallen?

<<
XXX reduced by £3.99/kg - now only £2.99/lb

I can't remember exactly what the product was, nor the exact proces, byt I do remeber the placement of the "kg" and the "lb". If the Government enforces the rules that only one unit of measure be used, this type of hoodwinking of the customer cannot occur.
>>


Wow, the public must really be stupid to fall for something like that. If nothing else, they will figure it out when they actually get their product.

But it says "reduced". It is obviously not reduced. I am sure it is illegal to say that a price has been reduced when it has gone up.

Bud wrote

<<
Wow, the public must really be stupid to fall for something like that. If nothing else, they will figure it out when they actually get their product.
>>

Some members of the public are very gulible. The rest of us get p*ssed off having to dismiss this kind of sham advertising. No wonder the MAgna Carta said "There shall be one unit of measure throughout the realm..."

<<< Wow, the public must really be stupid to fall for something like that. >>>

Not stupid - most people don't have a particularly good grasp of how much a kilo or a pound is, especially when a mixture of the two is used. If they see something is reduced, they don't normally work out the exact saving. Knowing that it is "reduced" is usually enough.

<<<But it says "reduced". It is obviously not reduced.>>>

Not obviously. The wording says "reduced" so most people would take that to mean it is reduced. People are generally better with words than with numbers.

<<<I am sure it is illegal to say that a price has been reduced when it has gone up.>>>

I'm sure it is - however, the same situation could read: Special offer WAS £3.99/kg, NOW £2.99/lb. Nothing illegal there.

As Martin said "There shall be one unit of measure throughout the realm..."

Martin,

Do you have proof of this happening?

I've been in Tesco a million times and I have never seen such a thing.

I have, however, seen a typo regarding measures.

Are you sure this is not a typo? Or could it be the usual UKMA hatred of Tesco and the way Tesco contributes to "a very british mess"?

P.S. Andy - speak for yourself again. I was told (by my other half) that 'you don't need scales to weigh out an ounce or a pound'. Apparently they are easy to work out from sight or feel.

And before you mention - she has absolutely no interest in this debate - the ironic thing is she knows those weights and measures better than I do (with my "vested interest") !!

Perhaps its a female thing? I think I read something about that once.

<<"XXX reduced by £3.99/kg - now only £2.99/lb">>

I am amused at the confusion this has wrought even among those who support dual pricing.

"now only £2.99/lb" means the new price is £6.58/kg

"reduced by £3.99/kg" means it is now £3.99/kg less than before. Hence it was originally priced at £6.58 + £3.99 = £10.57/kg

Tesco quoting the price reduction as £3.99/kg looks better than £1.81/lb for obvious reasons.

Tesco are not using imperial pricing to be nice to their customers they using it as a marketing ploy. That's why it's important to have a single unit of measurement that must be displayed consistently.

SteveH wrote

<<
Martin,

Do you have proof of this happening?
>>

I certainly read it in the Sunday Times within the last three months, but I have thrown that copy away. If it were a matter of defending myself in Court, I could certainly find the article again at my local library.

To be honest, martin, I think you've been had.

Apart from being a "non-story", what is essentially and obviously a typo is not reported anywhere.

Note that I'm not saying you dreamt it either. Well not quite!

;-)

<<
Some members of the public are very gulible. The rest of us get p*ssed off having to dismiss this kind of sham advertising. No wonder the MAgna Carta said "There shall be one unit of measure throughout the realm..."
>>

There was one unit of measure throughout the realm. Until the government forcefully introduced another one.
By introducing the metric system, the government brought about a situation where there are two systems where there only used to be one. They are therefore in violation of the Magna Carta.

Bud

Unfortunately, there was not "one unit of measure throughout the realm" at the time of the Magna Carta. If there had been, the part relating to weights & measures would not have been required.

The history of UK weights and measures (and the evolution from these measures into the US system) is a fascinating subject, but please research the topic in depth and be prepared to disbelieve many things that are posted on this site from both sides.

Bud wrote

<<
There was one unit of measure throughout the realm. Until the government forcefully introduced another one.
>>

Bud, there were certainly two different miles right up to Tudor times. The London mile was 5000ft while the mile that was used elsewhere was 5280ft. (This enables the London transporters to squeeze a little more out of their customers). The stone had different values for diffretn commodities. Until the nineteenth century, a "stone" of meat in London meant 8 lbs, not 14 lbs.

I could of course go on.

The second statement - "Until the government forcefully introduced another one". With increased interntional trade, it became neccessary to use international units rather than local ones adn teh Government wisely decided to change the unit of measure wiothin the realm. Half-way through the exercise (or roughly when everybody who had to make an investment other than Government had made their investment, the Government pulled out). By this I mean that manufacturers has invested in new machinery, but the Giovernment would not invest in new road signs.

<<< Or could it be the usual UKMA hatred of Tesco and the way Tesco contributes to "a very british mess"?>>>

On the contrary! I think Tesco are helping the UKMA cause.

They are doing a very fine job of illustrating the problems of using two systems.

Their bending of the "supplementary indications" regulations will probably cause stricter enforcement come 2010 than would otherwise been the case.

yet still their market share increases!

seems that brits are drawn to all this "confusion"

;-D

<<
Unfortunately, there was not "one unit of measure throughout the realm" at the time of the Magna Carta. If there had been, the part relating to weights & measures would not have been required.
>>

I am not talking about those days, I am talking about the time immediately before the first time the British government attempted to metricate the country. At that point, there was only one system jused "throughout the realm".


<<
The second statement - "Until the government forcefully introduced another one". With increased interntional trade, it became neccessary to use international units rather than local ones adn teh Government wisely decided to change the unit of measure wiothin the realm.
>>

If it became necessary to use international units, then why didn't businesses do it voluntarily? The very fact that compulsion was needed means that it wasn't necessary. Remember, the government claimed that it was in the interest of businesses, but that is impossible because you cannot say something is in someone's best interest if it requires force to make them do it (and especially if they still refuse).

<<If it became necessary to use international units, then why didn't businesses do it voluntarily?>>

Like the US, some British industry did convert and long ago. But you have some that didn't. I think both countries are worse off having mixtures of two systems.

Given the determination of the British food industry to continue using Imperial, I think it is odd that NIST has food processors and consumer goods companies lined up behind "permissive metric only" (the FPLA amendment) in the US. I don't have a good explanation for that one. ALthough permissive is easier to line up behind; you can keep or drop the Imperial as you wish. But at least several US consumer-oriented companies are interested enough in metric that they are starting to chaff at having Customary (on dual basis) required by law.

<<
Given the determination of the British food industry to continue using Imperial
>>

John - The British food industry is metric apart from market traders who don't like the idea because they can get away with selling the customer 10% for the same money (ie Apples at 20p/lb rather than 40p/kg).

<<< yet still their market share increases!
seems that brits are drawn to all this "confusion" >>>

People don't choose their supermarket by the units they measure their food in.

I would choose Tesco over Sainsburys. As someone who is not exactly impartial when it comes to units of measurement, what does that tell you?

<<John - The British food industry is metric apart from market traders who don't like the idea because they can get away with selling the customer 10% for the same money (ie Apples at 20p/lb rather than 40p/kg).>>

Martin - do you think that you'll ever get to the day when you realise how false this conspiracy is that all market traders want to do is sell in LBs so they can rip people off? What about the one or two that are simply selling stuff in the same units that the customer is asking it in? I know that might sound radical - but what do you think?



<<I would choose Tesco over Sainsburys. As someone who is not exactly impartial when it comes to units of measurement, what does that tell you?>>

It tells me that you're a closet "imperialist"!

Come on! Own up!