Unusually, ARM is announcing one of its days of action in advance.

On 23 September, in villages to the west of York, ARM supporters will publicly amend a series of footpath signs in kilometres and over-plate the metric distances with signs in miles.

TV, radio and press are being informed and will be invited to attend the operation.

The signs in question are identical to those recently admitted by York City Council to have been 'erected in error'. North Yorkshire County Council, however, refuses to admit its error.

Further details will be posted here before 23 September.

<<<North Yorkshire County Council, however, refuses to admit its error. >>>

Good to see someone finally taking a stand.

re (Andy): "Good to see someone finally taking a stand..."

REPLY: You have now 'outed' yourself as a supporter of British officials breaking the laws set by Parliament. A sort of 'Active Resistance to the Traffic Signs Regulations', or 'ARTS'

I thought you said they were footpath signs?

re (Andy): "I thought you said they were footpath signs?"

REPLY: Indeed they are. But as has been stated many many times on these boards, footpath signs are also covered by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

They are dealt with under Schedule 7 Part VII, pp. 265-269: "Directional Signs for Cyclists and Pedestrians".

See especialy Diagrams Nos. 2610 and 2610.1: "Direction to or along a public footpath".

Are you still prepared to support the North Yorkshire County Council officers who deliberately flout the law on unlawful metric footpath signs (unlike York City Council who broke the law 'in error' and admitted they had done so*)


* Er, along with Lea Valley Park, East Cambridgeshire District Council, Crawley Borough Council and many more

<<<Are you still prepared to support the North Yorkshire County Council officers who deliberately flout the law on unlawful metric footpath signs (unlike York City Council who broke the law 'in error' and admitted they had done so*)>>>

Are you still prepared to support traders who deliberately flout the law by using unlawful scales and refusing to display a price per kg alongside the price per lb?

The argument of "consistency for safety reasons" I can understand for road signs but NOT for footpath signs.

I hope that North Yorkshire County Council puts up a proper fight and takes it to the courts so that perhaps this ludicrous law that metric units are banned on any form of signs is changed.

re (TB's question to Andy): <<<Are you still prepared to support the North Yorkshire County Council officers who deliberately flout the law on unlawful metric footpath signs (unlike York City Council who broke the law 'in error' and admitted they had done so*)>>>


REPLY: I'll take your answer as a 'Yes' - "I support Council Officers breaking the law". After all, you admit you want the law to be changed. And you've admitted that you want Council officials to break the law.

So far as greengrocers etc. are concerned, those that still weigh or price in lbs. are in effect abiding by British law i.e. the Weights and Measures Act 1985 and not by the decisions of paid government hack judges obeying orders to invent novel judicial principles to get round the long-established principle of 'implied repeal' - and to enforce compulsory metrication. The Weights and Measures (Units of Measurement) Regulations 1994 purport to have been passed under the prior European Communities Act 1972 and hence are invalid, void, null, of no effect, worthless, inoperative, useless...

I just thought you'd like to know that Daniel has lifted this thread and put it in the USMA listserver.

Predictably the users of that forum are questioning why the hell he copy and pasted it there.

His reply is quite funny - its all part of the "fight" apparently.

So, Tony, I'd get training if I were you - perhaps Frank Bruno could train you.

Or maybe John Prescott.

;-)

re (Stimpy): "perhaps Frank Bruno could train you..."

REPLY: I have two framed £10 notes, each signed by Frank Bruno. I got them signed when he came to Harlow in the eighties

<<<REPLY: I'll take your answer as a 'Yes' - "I support Council Officers breaking the law". After all, you admit you want the law to be changed. And you've admitted that you want Council officials to break the law.>>>

Yes. I'm not generally in favour of law-breaking, but given that the law is clearly outdated and inappropriate I support these councils.

As for the greengrocers, I don't pretend to understand the legal system as well as you do - but correct me if I'm wrong, traders have been prosecuted for weighing in pounds and ounces haven't they? and been found guilty? So regardless of whether you agree with it, what they did was found to be illegal.

So far, councils using metric on pedestrian signs has not gone through the courts - if and when it does I think they will win their case.

<<Yes. I'm not generally in favour of law-breaking, but given that the law is clearly outdated and inappropriate I support these councils.
>>

Authoritarianism is outdated too. Remember the Thatcher Revolution?

<<<Authoritarianism is outdated too>>>

Generally, yes - but not when it comes to weights and measures.

Name a country which allows the customer a choice of measures when they buy fruit and veg, or allows choice of units on road signs.

Lets face it Andy - there are only two sets of weights and mesures in the world.

That's why I can pop into a store in Barbados and ask for either a kilo of goat meat or a pound of turtle milk and not have problems.

<<
As for the greengrocers, I don't pretend to understand the legal system as well as you do - but correct me if I'm wrong, traders have been prosecuted for weighing in pounds and ounces haven't they?
>>

Andy, they were prosecuted for using weighing devices that had not been certified.

Next time there is a "Continental Market" near you , take a look at ths scales. They all have stickers on them which are visible to the buyer. These are the "licences" to use the scales for purposes of trade.

Now look at your bathroom scales. Yuowill probably see a notice on them "Not legal for trade".

This might explain the true situation to you

<<Yuowill probably see a notice on them "Not legal for trade".>>

I'm yet to find one, martin.

Are you sure this isn't just a case of you'd rather it be that way?

I have certainly seen them of bathroom scales. I will check mt wife's scales this evening. (My own scales are digital and weight to the nearest 0.2kg. I bought them in Germany and I use them regularly as part of my monitoring becuase of my diabetes)

Martin, do you happen to know if a notice stating that a scale is legal for trade is required, or if simply the absence of "not legal for trade" is required to establish that a scale is legal? Thanks.

<<Name a country which allows the customer a choice of measures when they buy fruit and veg, or allows choice of units on road signs.
>>

Are you ignoring the elephant in the room? The US does precisely that (not that I'm defending it, merely observing.)

Both Customary and SI net contents are required on packaged goods. The MUTCD defines a complete set of metric and Customary content signs in both Customary and SI sizes. The state or local unit of government responsible for the road decides which to use.

The good news is we only allow TWO choices.

Bud wrote

<<
Martin, do you happen to know if a notice stating that a scale is legal for trade is required, or if simply the absence of "not legal for trade" is required to establish that a scale is legal? Thanks.
>>

I cannot answer your question.

However, when my children were aged about 7 or 8, I went to their school on an open day. In the cookery room, I started calibrating their spring scales by weighing a litre of water. It weighed 800g. THose scales were certainly not legal for trade!!!!

(One of the teachers, realising what I was doing stopped me!).

<<I went to their school on an open day. In the cookery room, I started calibrating their spring scales by weighing a litre of water. It weighed 800g. THose scales were certainly not legal for trade!!!!

>>

That would call into question the European practice of weighing ingredients, at least on spring scales. My measuring cup won't go out of calibration until it falls to the floor and shatters. :)

Do most people use beam balance scales?

The cheap scales are spring balances, the better quality ones are beam balances. In the last few years electronic balcnces have been coming into vouge.

Of course, spring balances don't last that long.

The advantage of weighing things rahter than using cups is that a scalepan can also be used to weigh letters - overseas (outside Europe) letters attract a premium after 10g.

Bud asked

"Martin, do you happen to know if a notice stating that a scale is legal for trade is required, or if simply the absence of "not legal for trade" is required to establish that a scale is legal? Thanks."

Martin said that he couldn't answer, so I'll try......

In the UK, all scales that are used for trade must be either "stamped" or "stickered"

To stamp a scale, a TSO will check that it complies with a "Section 12" notice (these are pattern approvals issued by the National Weights & Measures Laboratory (NWML)under the WMA '85) and test the scale with working standard weights.

If it falls within the specified limits of error, he will then mark a small lead plug attached to the scale with his stamp (or as BWMA puts it, will "attack" the scale)

The stamp consists of 1) St Edmunds crown (most commonly seen on UK pint glasses) 2) The TSO's UK identification number 3) The year the machine was stamped.

To sticker a scale, the TSO or authorised verifier will check that it complies with a pattern approval issued by any EC metrology body (including our own NWML). The scale will already be marked with the "CE" mark, year of manufacture & a green "M" sticker.

He will test the scale, and if it falls within the error allowances, will attach another sticker with his EC identification number.

The presence or absence of "Legal for trade use" or "Not legal for trade use" notices has nothing to do with it. Only stamped or stickered equipment may be used for trade in the UK - as Mr Thoburn famously found out!

So we're sorted on that one then.

Those st/lb weighing machines we have at home does not have any "legal for trade" marking on them.

Possibly it was on older models only!

Both my kitchen/postage scale and my body weight scale carry "not legal for trade" only in the instruction manual, not on the scale. However, the "convenience" scales I see in supermarkets commonly say it on the face of the scale. I'm not sure if it is required or not, they may just include it to eliminate any doubt, or it may be required in a commercial setting.

Martin - what you appear to have picked up is a fact about US scales by the sounds of things.

Tony: <<'Active Resistance to the Traffic Signs Regulations', or 'ARTS'>>

Shouldn't that be:-

'Fanatical Active Resistance to the Traffic Signs Regulations'

Surely:

'Fanatical Active Compliance to the Traffic Signs Regulations'

makes it a bit different from the UKMA's output at least!

UK Metric Assocation: "UKMA has therefore not lobbied the Commission on this point..."

Department for Transport: "As the complaint by the UKMA Director in the E.U. Commission relates to the implementation of E.U. legislation, and could lead to formal legal proceedings, it would not be in the public interest to disclose the legal advice we have received on the merits of [UKMA's] complaint...

The UKMA are therefore proven liars, prepared to lie in their press releases, lie in their letter to the Financial Times, no doubt prepared to lie in any way they choose to achieve their objectives. The UKMA Chairman, Robin Paice, has ben 'outed' as a liar and therefore cannot be trusted

The Council of ARM said

"The UKMA are therefore proven liars"

Depends what you mean by "prove"......

I explain my theory about Robin Paice & UKMA's duplicitous, yet (technically speaking) truthful actions on another thread.

Perhaps "The Council of Arm" & Tony Bennett are one and the same person, I don't know. However, Robin Paice is not UKMA - even Tony suggests that they consist of 3 men, 1 woman & a dog.

If Robin Paice made the complaint as a private individual, then UKMA are not lying.

On the "evidence" presented by ARM above, there is definitely "reasonable doubt" that they have proved their case that UKMA lied. If ARM can prove that Paice approached the EC in his official capacity, I (and, may I suggest, most others) would certainally accept that they have proved their case.

More interestingly, though, did anyone notice that the Council of ARM have changed the quotation from the DfT - and strangely, ARM's "typos" makes it look like the DfT state that UKMA made the complaint & that the UKMA director appeared in front of the Commission!!!!!!!

ARM said that the letter said "UKMA Director in the E.U. Commission" & "the merits of [UKMA's] complaint..."

The letter actually says "UKMA Director to the E.U. Commission" & "the merits of the complaint..."

What possible reason (apart from an attempt to mislead) could ARM have for changing this quotation?

And haven't I accused a prominent member of ARM of inventing quotations on previous occasions?

ARM & UKMA are both equally guilty

re (Beranger): "If Robin Paice made the complaint as a private individual, then UKMA are not lying".

REPLY: Hmmm - nice try. But he did not. The Department for Transport response is very specific in saying: "As the complaint by tbe UKMA Director..." It does not say: "As the complaint by Mr Robin Paice..."

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

re (Beranger): "ARM said that the letter said 'UKMA Director in the E.U. Commission' and 'the merits of [UKMA's] complaint...'" The letter actually says 'UKMA Director to the E.U. Commission' and 'the merits of the complaint...'" What possible reason (apart from an attempt to mislead) could ARM have for changing this quotation?

REPLY: Well spotted, B, but this was a genuine error, nothing sinister. I don't think that 'in' instead of 'to' changes the meaning in the way you have suggested but, yes, the correct word is 'to'. I did not change it deliberately and would not do so

Tony

As usual, you and I are arguing about "heads of pins" & "angels"

And, as usual, you fail to answer all the questions asked.

Do you agree that "UKMA" and "the UKMA director" are not the same thing? To give an absolutely ridiculous comparison, would you suggest that if Mr Paice was convicted of a serious offence tomorrow that UKMA were guilty of the same offence?

That smacks of "Labour are fireraisers because Mike Watson is a fireraiser". If you are keeping up with the recent Scottish news, no-one is suggesting that a political party actually sets fires!

The more serious charge that I put to ARM is that they insert the word "UKMA's" where the actual letter says "the".

You cannot seriously suggest that this is a genuine error, as the "so-called" ARM quotation inserts the word "UKMA's" within brackets. How can you justify this twisting of the facts?

I agree that the DfT letter does not say "Mr Robin Paice" - I am not an apologist for UKMA and have stated on many previous occasions that I disagree with many of their policies. However, you do seem to have a mindset based upon "anyone that disagrees with me must be a supporter of UKMA, the EC and Catholic Napoleonists"

Believe it or not, I don't actually fit into any of these categories!

Tony - with total disrespect to you, Xcole, Metre & Daniel, you all discredit the sides you profess to support.

Beranger said - and my replies:

B: "As usual, you and I are arguing about 'heads of pins' and 'angels'".

REPLY: And I wonder why that is? It was you that tried to make out that the innocent use of 'in' rather than 'to' was some great plot to discredit the already discredited UKMA

B: "And, as usual, you fail to answer all the questions asked".

REPLY: Other may make a judgment on that accusation.

B: "Do you agree that 'UKMA' and 'the UKMA director' are not the same thing?"

REPLY: Yes. But on this occasion, as on other occasions, Mr Robin Paice, the Director of UKMA, speaks for the organisation of which he is the Director - unless he makes it clear that he is acting in a personal capacity

B: "To give an absolutely ridiculous comparison, would you suggest that if Mr Paice was convicted of a serious offence tomorrow that UKMA were guilty of the same offence?"

REPLY: Yes. Mr Paice was guilty of the moral offence of lying to the general publlic about the UKMA's representations to UKMA. Thereby he has discredited the whole organisation

B: "That smacks of 'Labour are fireraisers because Mike Watson is a fireraiser'. If you are keeping up with the recent Scottish news, no-one is suggesting that a political party actually sets fires!"

REPLY: Yes, I do keep up with the news of Scottish politicians, an endless source of fascination. But then the Labour politician who set fire to his hotel room curtains in a drunken rage wasn't the Leader of his Party

B: "The more serious charge that I put to ARM is that they insert the word 'UKMA's' where the actual letter says '"the'".

REPLY: What is this about??!! More angels dancing on the ehd of a pin, by the sound of it

B: "You cannot seriously suggest that this is a genuine error, as the 'so-called' ARM quotation inserts the word "UKMA's" within brackets. How can you justify this twisting of the facts?"

REPLY: Come off it, B

B. "I agree that the DfT letter does not say 'Mr Robin Paice' - I am not an apologist for UKMA and have stated on many previous occasions that I disagree with many of their policies".

REPLY: Can't say I'm surprised - most of the country disagrees with their policies

B. "However, you do seem to have a mindset based upon 'anyone that disagrees with me must be a supporter of UKMA, the EC and Catholic Napoleonists'"

REPLY: Hmmm. Others will be the judge of that. I do say that the Roman Catholic Church in its history has killed more people than any other single organisation. You might also look at the recent book: "EU - Papacy Reincarnated?" by Mark Stout, Metajuridical Books, ISBN 9080587931, which shows the amazing parallels between the Papacy of the Middle Ages and the European Union today. Take the Trading Standards 'Concordat' - a throwback to the Papal Concordats of the Midlde Ages (and a reminder of Hitler's convenient 'Concordat' with the Roman Catholic Church in 1933). I'm reviewing the book for a newspaper at the moment - it's a great read. Prof. Emeritus Doctor R.C. van Caenegen, Chairman of the Legal History Section of the Royal Academy of Science, Humanities and Fine Arts of Belgium, introduces the book by stating: "This learned and illuminating book deserves the highest recommendation and will be a breakthrough in the study of historical and comparative constitutional law". My only other comment is that the E.U. symbol, the ring of 12 golden stars, is an ancient Papal symbol to be found in tens of thousands of R.C. churches on the continent of Europe, where it surrounds statues of the Virgin Mary as a sort of halo. This is based on an R.C. misinterpretation of Revelation 12 vv. 1-2

B: "Believe it or not, I don't actually fit into any of these categories!"

REPLY: Your previous statements suggest that you support the aims of both UKMA and the European Union

B. "Tony - with total disrespect to you, Xcole, Metre & Daniel, you all discredit the sides you profess to support".

REPLY: Really? We have letters of thanks from local authorities appreciating us for pointing out the illegality of their metric road signs - we had one recently from North Lincolnshire Council after we removed two of their illegal signs. I note your 'total disrespect' of me and I'm not surpised at that reaction after I have drawn attention to the lies of the Director of UKMA/UKMA. I see you've occupied the moral high ground again - there's a great view from up there, isn't there?

Anyone know the name of the dog?

Beranger
Tony - with total disrespect to you, Xcole, Metre & Daniel, you all discredit the sides you profess to support.

metre
You are of course entitled to your opinion for what it’s worth.

"Metre & Daniel, you all discredit the sides you profess to support."

Here's a challange for you.

Find anyone on the pro-metric side on any forum that disagrees with that sentiment.

Off you go.....

[chuckle - "your opinion" - chuckle]

Also note that you and your pet regularly get both pro-imps and pro-mets to agree with each other. Try and work that one out.

That's two tasks now - we'll give you a week!

:-D

B: "And, as usual, you fail to answer all the questions asked".
B: "The more serious charge that I put to ARM is that they insert the word 'UKMA's' where the actual letter says '"the'".
"REPLY: What is this about??!!"

The ARM quote refers to "the merits of [UKMA's] complaint..."

Is this what the DfT letter actually said? I think not!

I ask again "What possible reason (apart from an attempt to mislead) could ARM have for changing this quotation?"

"REPLY: Your previous statements suggest that you support the aims of both UKMA and the European Union"

Feel free to post any (unaltered) quotations of mine that indicate this support for either organisation.

"REPLY: Yes. Mr Paice was guilty of the moral offence of lying to the general publlic about the UKMA's representations to UKMA."

??????????????? That reply is bizarre (even for you, Tony). Or are you trying to suggest that UKMA=EC?

Steve

I think the dog is a bloodhound called Scenty. (I know it's a poor, poor pun, but it's the best I could come up with!)

re: "Yes. Mr Paice was guilty of the moral offence of lying to the general publlic about the UKMA's representations to UKMA".

CORRECTION: "Yes. Mr Paice was guilty of the moral offence of lying to the general publlic about the UKMA's representations to the EU".

<<
"REPLY: Yes. Mr Paice was guilty of the moral offence of lying to the general publlic about the UKMA's representations to UKMA."
>>

Which court found him guilty?

re (martin): "Which court found him guilty?"

REPLY: No court, martin. He has exposed himself as a liar and brought his organisation into disrepute. No-one will be able to believe another word Mr Paice utters. It's wasn't a mistake or even a bit of hype, it was a calculated, deliberate lie intended to deceive the public. And Paice hasn't bothered to deny that he lied. If he had any honour, he would resign now

You instinctively know that "they" will be reading this but "they" won't be able to contribute.

(altho I recognise that martin may be a member but not a significantly positioned officer, thus free to contribute - a bit like me contributing to their discussion site if they ever had one)

Berenger - that's a poor pun - altho I could not do any better myself.

<<<Tony - with total disrespect to you, Xcole, Metre & Daniel, you all discredit the sides you profess to support.>>>

Not sure about Xcole. I think he represents a different "side" altogether.

You don't mean......

****** THE DARK SIDE *******


(cue scary music)

re "Not sure about Xcole. I think he represents a different 'side' altogether..."

REPLY: Isn't 'the other side' where people 'move on to' when they've 'passed away' or 'passd over'?

So now he's the "undead"

Maybe his name was "Cole" while he was living. Think about it....

Where's this going?

Look at the full text of the UKMA statement. Note how it says "It is of course open to any citizen of the EU (including British citizens) to approach the European Commission......."

As soon as I saw this, I thought to myself "so, individual UKMA members have done the job for them! Very sneaky!"

If UKMA made the complaint, why does the Sunday Times refer to "unnamed parties" - note the use of the plural?

Anyone that has ever actually responded to a UK Government consultation will know that they count the number of responses - not the number of signatories or members represented. If BWMA (600 members) and me (one individual) were the only two parties to respond to a consultation, the UK government would announce that respondents were equally divided!

I suspect that the EC will do the same.

It makes far more sense for an organisation like UKMA to encourage their individual members to complain - 50 separate complaints (and if they were really clever, they would each write their own rather than relying on pro-formas!) about the same thing will raise far more attention than 1 complaint by a pressure group - and it also has the advantage of allowing UKMA to say "it wasn't me, guv!"

And look at Tony on the moral high ground saying that people should resign if they tell lies! What category does he put altering quotations in?

The ARM quote refers to "the merits of [UKMA's] complaint..."

I asked twice "What possible reason (apart from an attempt to mislead) could ARM have for changing this quotation?"

No denial has been issued. I'll have to assume it was an intentional attempt by ARM to mislead everyone.

The allegations against UKMA are a smear tactic. Even if BWMA succeed in damaging the reputation of that group, it's individual members and other prometrics (such as those who have declared themselves on this forum to be pro-metric but not UKMA supporters) will not go away.

The basic argument for metrication in the UK remains unaffected by these events.

You're beginning to sound like its some sort of war! ;-)


<<Even if BWMA succeed in damaging the reputation of that group>>

Two words "Geoffrey" "Howe". Damage done.

<<REPLY: I'll take your answer as a 'Yes' - "I support Council Officers breaking the law". After all, you admit you want the law to be changed. And you've admitted that you want Council officials to break the law.

So far as greengrocers etc. are concerned, those that still weigh or price in lbs. are in effect abiding by British law i.e. the Weights and Measures Act 1985 and not by the decisions of paid government hack judges obeying orders to invent novel judicial principles to get round the long-established principle of 'implied repeal' - and to enforce compulsory metrication. The Weights and Measures (Units of Measurement) Regulations 1994 purport to have been passed under the prior European Communities Act 1972 and hence are invalid, void, null, of no effect, worthless, inoperative, useless...>>


I find this confirmation that all those claims about having democracy on the side of ARM to be utter nonsense.

The above is a clear case of choosing the laws that suite. Of all the rubbish peddled by ARM about illegality of metric signs, none of which has been tested in court, they have the nerve to claim that the weights and measures law against imperial is invalid in spite of the argument being thrown out by the highest court in the land.

ARM are not democrats they are imposters inventing laws of their own. They are not truthful, they use misleading arguments to deceive people that they are breaking the law by putting the word metre on a public sign.

Here's democracy for you Stan:

Go out and ask 100 people if they agree with "pounds and ounces should be made illegal so that we can use the better system of kilogrammes and grammes".

Note the democratic results.

To understand the point Stan is making:

Go out and ask the same 100 people if they agree with "metres should be illegal on road signs so that we can use the better system of yards and miles".

Note the democratic results.

Only one required a totally unwanted change

An interesting definition of democracy Steve!

If we asked 100 people "should we have censorship in the UK" and a majority said "No", would you also argue in favour of child porn?

Its easy to frame questions in such a way that you get the poll result you want.

Stan makes a very good point regarding ARM. They claim to "enforce" UK law, but in reality, only demand compliance with legislation that appears to support their aims, whilst ignoring (or actively encouraging non-compliance with!) any legislation that they disagree with.

What a two-faced stance!

<<If we asked 100 people "should we have censorship in the UK" and a majority said "No", would you also argue in favour of child porn?
Its easy to frame questions in such a way that you get the poll result you want.>>

That's why I chucked the extra words of "much better system of..." in to try and sell it.

<<Stan makes a very good point regarding ARM. They claim to "enforce" UK law, but in reality, only demand compliance with legislation that appears to support their aims, whilst ignoring (or actively encouraging non-compliance with!) any legislation that they disagree with.
What a two-faced stance!>>

Name a political or rights organisation that is not biased to its own manifesto......

"Name a political or rights organisation that is not biased to its own manifesto......"

Agreed, but it doesn't address the "two-faced stance" point. ARM will always be biased toward imperial - it is implied in the name!

My point is that ARM pick & choose which laws are enforced & which should be defied. They even appear to break the law by removing legal metric signage (dual bridge heights etc)

Personally, I think it is very two-faced to rely on the letter of the law in one instance, then to go out and breach the same legislation 5 minutes later.

To be honest I would respect BWMA/ARM far more if they were more honest about the aims of their campaign and simply came out and said that they want imperial measurements enforced and metric measurement banned.

I honestly don't think that BWMA want metric banned - what would the advantage be? For anyone?

<< They even appear to break the law by removing legal metric signage (dual bridge heights etc)
>>

Yep, ok - I find it hard to agree with that action - so I tend not to comment too much there ;-)

Biased?

Me?

<<<I honestly don't think that BWMA want metric banned>>>

Not where few people use it - but where people start to choose metric, then yes they want it banned!

I don't think BWMA want to ban people from freely choosing metric unless there is a valid reason to do so. For example, they do not want road signs in kilometres because it would be a safety concern when speedometers are in miles. But I don't know of BWMA attempting to "ban" metric measures in areas where people choose to use them freely and having a mixture of units would not cause a problem. I think that at one point they even supported a pub that was selling in litres and was prosecuted by TSOs since the law requires pints.

<<For example, they do not want road signs in kilometres because it would be a safety concern when speedometers are in miles. >>

What exactly are the safety risks of that confusion, or between meters and yards for smaller distances?

I accept that clearance heights and speed limits have to be clear. Convince me people can estimate distances by eye well enough that a warning such as Humps - 200 yards, or Humps - 200 metres matters one way or t