http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7752_1441418,004100180003.htm

In the article "It's a hundred degrees out there!", the author of the article had convert the Fahrenheits of Boston to degrees Celsius so the readers in India would understand and be able to compare to temperatures in the 40s that they experience.

Excerpt:


Boston this summer is excruciatingly hot, oppressively humid, and completely unbearable of course. Believe it or not, just last week, the temperature touched - horror of horrors - 101 degrees Fahrenheit! To those accustomed to the metric system, that converts to about 38 degrees Celsius. That is, it's about the temperature that causes people in North India to breathe a huge sigh of relief, for it gives them a break from the daily highs that are routinely in the mid-forties.

It was converted because India uses degrees Celsius to measure temperature, and the responsibility of the press is to give readers information that they understand.

Re: Indians don't relate to Fahrenheit August 7 2005, 9:38 AM


It was converted because India uses degrees Celsius to measure temperature, and the responsibility of the press is to give readers information that they understand.


Absolutely, and present them with a mish mash of units that one half understands and not the other.
Besides, converting leads often to mistakes and press slobbiness presents us with either approximations, or ridicoulously exact conversions. When you had the blackout some years ago, an area of 1 State was given as 9000 km2. I am sure the vast majority of readers, like the journalist and proof reader, never latched on to this glaring mistake. That can only happen countries using 2 different sets of units.

That is saying the same thing I said, but in a different way.

Sorry metre, my response was to Bud, but somehow your posting was a minute before mine and so it looks like I was responding to yours.

You are very correct, as always in pointing out that the continued redundancy of unit usage is both confusing and costly. Something that the preservers of old units love to ignore. The purveyors of old units want to be rewarded for holding on and get angry when they aren't always recognized as heros or don't get everyone to deal with them in their units.

It sure must be a hell for those who want to preserve imperial and have to work at a job that is 100 % metric. Of course they won't quit and go find a company that works in imperial as their either aren't any or they don't pay a decent wage.

<<When you had the blackout some years ago, an area of 1 State was given as 9000 km2. I am sure the vast majority of readers, like the journalist and proof reader, never latched on to this glaring mistake. >>

This is glaring. No state is that size. Rhode Island and Delaware are smaller. Connecticut and everything else are bigger, to benchmark it.
(Smaller and bigger by enough to not be acceptable rounding.)

The error might not have been in the size of 9000 km^2 given, but in saying it was the area of a state. The 9000 km^2 must have meant the area within the state that was affected by the outage. States that were affected, like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, only had a portion of their states affected and not the whole state.

That outage was two years ago this month.

True, although that was a big blackout. All of SE Michigan was impacted. We alone probably had over 9000 km^2 in the dark.

The bad thing about a widespread blackout is even if you have a generator, you have to drive out of the black-out area to get gas for it. I drove nearly to Flint. Ohio also had a big chunk of the state without power.

<<
Besides, converting leads often to mistakes and press slobbiness presents us with either approximations, or ridicoulously exact conversions. When you had the blackout some years ago, an area of 1 State was given as 9000 km2.
>>

Metre, was this given in an American or foreign newspaper? I don't think that an American paper would give an area in square kilometres, and a foreign paper should have left it in square miles in accordance with your point regarding the India example above.

<<Metre, was this given in an American or foreign newspaper?>>

Try not to forget the accuracies of resident googlists.

<<
Metre, was this given in an American or foreign newspaper? I don't think that an American paper would give an area in square kilometres, and a foreign paper should have left it in square miles in accordance with your point regarding the India example above.
>>

Newspapers usually get this sort of information from news vendors such as Reuters, not form other newspapers. Responsible news vendors quote measurements in the units given in their original source material as in this way they minimise the scope for error. It is the journalists who put the final news stories together who create the problems.

Re: Indians don't relate to Fahrenheit August 7 2005, 3:19 PM
JS
This is glaring. No state is that size. Rhode Island and Delaware are smaller. Connecticut and everything else are bigger, to benchmark it.
(Smaller and bigger by enough to not be acceptable rounding.)


If I remember correctly, it should have been 9000 sq.miles??

I really don't know without seeing it in context.

I would guess the total area across all states was larger still, Michigan may have approached that figure alone, the southeast quadrant of the lower peninsular was mostly dark. But it would really take a map of the area impacted.

Bud
Metre, was this given in an American or foreign newspaper? I don't think that an American paper would give an area in square kilometres, and a foreign paper should have left it in square miles in accordance with your point regarding the India example above.

metre
I read it of all places in a "virtual" newspaper published on the net, but after 2 years can't remember its name.
Sorry about this HIHGHLY suspect source.

<<If I remember correctly, it should have been 9000 sq.miles??
>>

Wikipedia says 9300 sq miles, 24000 km^2, 50 million people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_North_America_blackout
(That also counts Ontario plus 8 US states impacted.


The 9300 sq miles seems small, thats less than 100 x 100 miles.
The total area partially affected is at least 700 x 700 miles, but not everything was out. I have'nt seen any good detailed maps of outage areas within states.

to Fahrenheit August 8 2005, 1:57 PM
Bud
Metre, was this given in an American or foreign newspaper? I don't think that an American paper would give an area in square kilometres, and a foreign paper should have left it in square miles in accordance with your point regarding the India example above

metre
You misunderstand what I say. The Indian newspaper should never have converted it into Fahrenheit. Americans are thought the metric system for a long time, if they can't use it why waste their time? It is this anomaly that leads to mistakes like 9000 km2
Metric countries do not teach dual measurements, hence they have no concept of outdated units. That is why they convert what's left of them.

Personally I don't know if indians use fahrenheit at all in india.

Why? Because I've never been there.

All I'd be able to do is do a search on "google" and enter the text "Celsius India not used fahrenheit really really good" and then run about the room like a demented monkey exclaiming how correct I am.

;-)

Re: Indians don't relate to Fahrenheit August 8 2005, 2:19 PM


<<If I remember correctly, it should have been 9000 sq.miles??
>>

Wikipedia says 9300 sq miles, 24000 km^2, 50 million people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_North_America_blackout
(That also counts Ontario plus 8 US states impacted.


The 9300 sq miles seems small, thats less than 100 x 100 miles.
The total area partially affected is at least 700 x 700 miles, but not everything was out. I have'nt seen any good detailed maps of outage areas within states.

metre
Canadian newspaper rings a bell, I think there were 2 sources one in km2 and another in miles. It should be somewhere on the debate board, but I can't be bothered to search.

<<I think there were 2 sources one in km2 and another in miles. It should be somewhere on the debate board, but I can't be bothered to search. >>

Exactly. The fact 50 million people were affected is probably more important anyway.

<<
Responsible news vendors quote measurements in the units given in their original source material as in this way they minimise the scope for error. It is the journalists who put the final news stories together who create the problems.
>>
Martin, remember that newspapers write articles for the general reader, not for the specialist. They must give readers the units they are most likely to understand. Will you say that they should not convert currencies in order to decrease the potential for error?

My similar argument is based on language.

Much news from the middle-east will be initially in arabic.

Why bother to translate it to English? Let's blame the media again!

The issue for me is when newspapers convert things unnecessarily as part of their own propoganda. Some newspapers in Britain will convert everything to imperial even when the original quote was in say metres or centimetres, which everyone understands. I have no problem with them converting a persons height into feet and inches or kilometres to miles, but converting yards to metres is purely anti-metric propoganda.

The BBC and the Guardian take this neutral stance on units, but most other British newspapers are firmly biased towards imperial.

I wouldn't go that far - it will be down to individual writers rather than a newspaper's policy.

To be fair though - most "ordinary not pro not anti" folk will want to see feet, yards, inches etc. I get this just from listeneing to people speak in pubs, home, TV, etc.

I like your freudian slip btw!

<<<I wouldn't go that far - it will be down to individual writers rather than a newspaper's policy.>>>

Yes possibly - but in some cases I think the newspaper will overrule.

<<<most "ordinary not pro not anti" folk will want to see feet, yards, inches etc. >>>

That may be the case. But most ordinary folk wouldn't object to metres or centimetres - they wouldn't give it a second thought. My point is that if the original quote is in units widely understood, then there is no need to convert.

<<<I like your freudian slip btw!>>>

where?

oops - I re-read your post and it wasn't a freudian slip! (I miss-read "but converting yards to metres is purely anti-metric propoganda.")

You say you have no issue with people's heights being translated in to ft/in as that is how it's said - so what is your viewpoint on some swimming pools that label depth in metres only?

(my own opinion is that it should be in both - since petty politics should play a second place to safety)

<<<oops - I re-read your post and it wasn't a freudian slip! (I miss-read "but converting yards to metres is purely anti-metric propoganda.")>>>

Well I've just re-read my post and it appears I DID make this freudian slip!

<<<You say you have no issue with people's heights being translated in to ft/in as that is how it's said - so what is your viewpoint on some swimming pools that label depth in metres only?>>>

I see no reason to give ft/in here, simply because everyone understands the metric. I know theres an obvious relationship between the depth of a swimming pool and your height, but I don't see a safety issue here at all.

I have trouble buying the "safety aspect" too. A few US pools only show meters, we're less metric than you, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

The kids learned metric in school, and their parents learned metric in school. Maybe granny didn't have metric in school, but she's had 40 years to get used to it.

I've never been to a UK pool, but just guessing from depths here, the baby pool might be 0.3-0.5 m, and the main pool 0.9-1 m at the shallow end, gradually sloping to 1.2-1.5 m at the midpoint, and plummeting (like the continental shelf) to 2.5-3 m in the deep end (or thereabouts). In the US, we'd probably mark only those three depths. Is the shallow half REALLY a mystery to anyone?

I don't recall ever seeing measurements at the shallow end or in the middle. Pools here tend to just mark the deep end, which is usually closer to 2m than 3

Everthings bigger in the US I suppose..

In this "compensation culture" age I would put both if I were a swimming pool owner.

Yes, Andy, after re-reading it you did make a slip! I thought you were "being clever" ;-)

We're talking about the kids here - but people quote exclusively feet/in for height so you could end up diving in the shallow end or a non-swimmer jumping in the deep end.

Granted, you'd have to be thick to get it wrong. But the safety issue is there.

Wycombe pool obv saw an issue as they put up ft/in signs a few yrs back

<<Pools here tend to just mark the deep end, which is usually closer to 2m than 3

Everthings bigger in the US I suppose..
>>

Depends on whether they have a diving board (or even allow diving from the edge). There have been some diving injuries (and VERY expensive litigation) in pools of marginal depth for diving. In some cases, the issue hasn't been the depth at deepest point, but the sloped area from the shallow end is too close to the diving area, and people strike it. A lot of pools just forbid diving.

<<
You say you have no issue with people's heights being translated in to ft/in as that is how it's said - so what is your viewpoint on some swimming pools that label depth in metres only?
>>

Swimming pools have had their depth in metric units only for many years now. Moreover, it is mandatory that they are labeled in metric units and from 1-Jan-2010 it will be illegal to have supplementary imperial units. AS John said, in a litigation-concious society, the lawyers would have a field day if somebody was injured or killed diving into a pool that was not correctly marked.

The "dive pool" is 15ft deep, if memory serves.


<<Swimming pools have had their depth in metric units only for many years now.>>

Correct and lots have reintroduced imperial too.
I've been to a few brand new ones and they have imperial.

<< Moreover, it is mandatory that they are labeled in metric units and from 1-Jan-2010 it will be illegal to have supplementary imperial units.>>

No it won't martin.
We don't buy swimming pool seesions "by the metre" or "by the foot".
Be realistic, please!
Do you honestly expect - in my examples- wycombe to spray paint over the ft/in sign? Or those brand new pools to put a little curtain over the ft/in signs incase it causes offense to a passing swimming pool dpeth sign inspector? Jeepers!

<< AS John said, in a litigation-concious society, the lawyers would have a field day if somebody was injured or killed diving into a pool that was not correctly marked. >>

And incorrectly marked in the UK would be to deny the existence of signs that show measures that almost 100% of UK people communicate their heights in.

I think you'd better get to terms with the fact that your EU/metric utopia is never going to come to fruition, martin. Simply because humans do not abide to rule books (except during a period in Communist china).

<<
No it won't martin.
We don't buy swimming pool seesions "by the metre" or "by the foot".
>>

Supplementary units will be banned in four areas as from 1-Jan-2010:

1. Commercial purposes
2. Public health purposes
3. *** Public Safety purposes ****
4. Public administration.

I think that depths of swimming pools comes under "Public safety"

<<<Supplementary units will be banned in four areas as from 1-Jan-2010:

1. Commercial purposes
2. Public health purposes
3. *** Public Safety purposes ****
4. Public administration.

I think that depths of swimming pools comes under "Public safety"
>>>


You don't list "public information".
You see there are areas that might fall into zones not described by such pseudo-fascistic "banning orders".
It makes me ask the question - do you like words being banned?

Do two things for me - one requires guts, the other a telephone call:

1) Place an "all or nothing" bet at Ladbrokes, using your house, that the words "feet" and "inches" (or '/") will be banned and removed from UK swimming pools in 2010.

2) Phone Wycombe sports centre and ask if they have plans to tip-ex out the feet/inches sign in 2010. Also ask the council if they have a roll out plan of word banning.


Bear in mind (with option 1) that according to the rules the use of "m" for miles really really doesn't happen on UK roads.



Just a thought, martin - speedometers are a public safety aspect of road travel. Will the govt (with EU funding) supply all road users with glass cutters and one-use tippex pens in 2010?


I really and honestly think you should view this from a human being point of view rather than the logic applied when writing a computer programme. I'm not sure if you realise - not everything that happens in everyday life is proscribed in a rule book somewhere.

<<<Supplementary units will be banned in four areas as from 1-Jan-2010:

1. Commercial purposes
2. Public health purposes
3. *** Public Safety purposes ****
4. Public administration.>>>

I would be very interested to hear what exactly the government intends to enforce in 2010, as it does seem a tad unrealistic.

Much as I would like to think that the 2010 rules will mean some real progress is made, I will believe it when I see it.

...and I cannot see it happen - despite my views on the debate.

The stuff that's gone on in the past is pretty dispicabel but easy to execute.

Getting rid of words is too close to what happened in 1930's Germany.

<<<Getting rid of words is too close to what happened in 1930's Germany.>>>

Advertising and the like has always been subject to strict regulations on what figures/words/measurements etc it can and can't use.

The "getting rid of words" argument really doesn't wash.

...which is why i don't think it will happen.

It's too late on a Friday to argue anymore - I'm off! See ya!

Stimpy wrote

<<
You don't list "public information".
>>

"Public Information" is not listed in the legislation.


<<
2) Phone Wycombe sports centre and ask if they have plans to tip-ex out the feet/inches sign in 2010. Also ask the council if they have a roll out plan of word banning.
>>
I have never been to the Wycombe Sports Centre, so I would not know what notices yuo are referring to. If they have feet/ins only,then a reminder ofr how they could be held liable will have them running to their lawyers and gaurding their ar**s.


<<
Just a thought, martin - speedometers are a public safety aspect of road travel. Will the govt (with EU funding) supply all road users with glass cutters and one-use tippex pens in 2010?
>>
Miles per hour are a dodgy one - if it were shown that miles per hour were unlawful, then it would be new vehiclethat would have km/h only speedos. That is what happened in South Africa, Australia, Ireland etc.

You don't list "public information".
You see there are areas that might fall into zones not described by such pseudo-fascistic "banning orders".
It makes me ask the question - do you like words being banned?

Do two things for me - one requires guts, the other a telephone call:

1) Place an "all or nothing" bet at Ladbrokes, using your house, that the words "feet" and "inches" (or '/") will be banned and removed from UK swimming pools in 2010.

2) Phone Wycombe sports centre and ask if they have plans to tip-ex out the feet/inches sign in 2010. Also ask the council if they have a roll out plan of word banning.


Bear in mind (with option 1) that according to the rules the use of "m" for miles really really doesn't happen on UK roads.



Just a thought, martin - speedometers are a public safety aspect of road travel. Will the govt (with EU funding) supply all road users with glass cutters and one-use tippex pens in 2010?


<<
I really and honestly think you should view this from a human being point of view rather than the logic applied when writing a computer programme. I'm not sure if you realise - not everything that happens in everyday life is proscribed in a rule book somewhere.
>>
I agree, but the threat of legal action has a marvellous effect on ar**e-guarding civil-servants.

<<<...which is why i don't think it will happen.>>>

You're missing the point. Current regulations specify exactly what words can be used in a particular situation eg. on a price sign or on food packaging. These rules ARE enforced and there is no uproar over freedom of speech.

Andy

I hear what you are saying - but there are very few Acts that actually ban the use of words.

For example... The Olympic Symbols Act bans use of words like "Altius" or "Olympian", The Cancer Act bans claims to cure cancer.

However, I have said on numerous occasions that "supplementary units" cease to be legal on 1/1/2010. This does not mean that they become "illegal".

I have challenged the most pro-imperial poster to the boards to set out the offence that will be committed on 2/1/2010 by using imperial.

Tony has not provided specimen offences.

Even the pro-mets don't actually state the "so - called offence" that may be committed on 1/1/2010.

Unless someone can suggest what actual offence will be committed, can we assume that it will still be legal to use imperial after 1/1/2010 if it is used in conjunction with legal measure?????

<<
Unless someone can suggest what actual offence will be committed, can we assume that it will still be legal to use imperial after 1/1/2010 if it is used in conjunction with legal measure?????
>>

The law prohibits the use of imperial units after 31-23-2009 as supplementary units for commercial purposes, public administration, public health and and public safety (apart from a few specified circumstances such as road signs).

I will not go into what offences will be created, but it is sufficient to say that if an accidnet is caused and the object causing the accident (eg a shallow swimming pool) was not sign-posted in accordance with the law, then the swimming pool owner's liablilty might weell be the same as though no signs had been posted Which in itself might well be an offence.

Martin

I would have to disagree with you there. The imperial units will lose their status as "authorised supplementary units" on 1/1/2010. That is not the same thing as prohibiting them.

Go to a chemist & look at some cosmetic products. You will find two or three marked in millilitres & (unauthorised) US fluid ounces. Are TSO's prosecuting chemists for this?

Maybe (as you appear to state) new offences will be created, but, as the law stands today, it will be perfectly legal to mark "454g 1lb" on a package offered for sale on 1/1/2010. The imperial indication is just a bit of additional information.

<<
Go to a chemist & look at some cosmetic products. You will find two or three marked in millilitres & (unauthorised) US fluid ounces. Are TSO's prosecuting chemists for this?
>>

Since the US floz is a little bigger than the UK floz, the case would be weak.

The real test for 2010 will be is cases where big money is involved in litigation and in most cases the players have covered themselves (eg swimming pools, lift manufacturers, baby seat manufacturers etc only use metric). Regretably the most likely source of problems will arise where is baby is badly injured in a road accident because the parents did not understand the kg instructions.

Martin
Regretably the most likely source of problems will arise where is baby is badly injured in a road accident because the parents did not understand the kg instructions.

metre
A very good point Martin!

"Regretably the most likely source of problems will arise where is baby is badly injured in a road accident because the parents did not understand the kg instructions."

The fault then should fall on the parents. If metric has been taught in the schools since the '70s, there is no excuse not to know what a kilogram is. If they don't know, then they take the baby and weigh him/her in kilograms and see if the baby's weight is more or less then stated in the instructions. Claiming ignorance should never be a reason to be unaccountable or not at fault.

Beranger,

I must say I'm thoroughly confused about the 2010 regulations.

Surely the offence after 2010 will be "using supplementary measurements" ?

As far as I can see, the only debatable point is to what extent it will be enforced.

If what you're saying is true, what is the point of the new regulations?

Daniel wrote

<<
The fault then should fall on the parents. If metric has been taught in the schools since the '70s, there is no excuse not to know what a kilogram is. If they don't know, then they take the baby and weigh him/her in kilograms and see if the baby's weight is more or less then stated in the instructions. Claiming ignorance should never be a reason to be unaccountable or not at fault.
>>

In theory you are right, but in practice the hospital where the child was born told the mother the child's weight in pounds and ounces, the press never use anything else etc etc etc - so are the press and the NHS subverting safety by their persistent use of Imperial units while the Governemtn sits Nero-like fiddling.

Re: Indians don't relate to Fahrenheit August 15 2005, 12:18 PM




DJ
The fault then should fall on the parents.

metre
Ultimately it is the governments fault for creating and condoning that dual measurement mess.

Andy - while we skip over people blaming parents for the heinous crime of knowing their baby-weight in lb/oz - lets get back to "banning".

I once believed that words were to be banned.

I now reject this.

Look what berenger is saying - it's to remove official status from the use of imperial - *NOT* to ban the use of imperial.

I'll gladly argue the point of making imperial "de-official" but I really think that the banning brigade are going to be upset after 2010 (considering they're currently wishing their lives away on the back of a perceived gloat situation in 2010!).

Common sense folks! Check out when 'additional information in the terms of words' were last banned. Those were bad times that the world has learned a lesson from.

<<<Look what berenger is saying - it's to remove official status from the use of imperial - *NOT* to ban the use of imperial.>>>

Sorry, I still can't get my head around it.

So you and Beranger think that whereas now a carton of milk can be labelled "1.3 litres/2 pints" with the imperial having official status - in 2010 it will be labelled exactly the same, but with the 2 pints counting as additional information only?

If this is true, what is the difference? What is the point of the 2010 regulations?

The pint of milk is a different kettle of - erm - milk as it has special treatment regarding what we're allowed to do in our little country.

I'm taking berenger's sausage as an example.

(Do I need to rephrase that?)

It's a stupid legal thing (IMHO). Whereas right now we have per/lb per kilo price with a legal requirement of the per lb bit to be in writing - after 2010 per lb can still be there but not in a legal context. It's just "words". Like "also available in yellow".

right now pre-packed stuff has already gone through a "ban the imperial" move yet you WILL still see sausages 454g / 1lb on prepacked sausages.

Those sausages are not illegal.

Blimey - hark at this daft conversation!

<<<right now pre-packed stuff has already gone through a "ban the imperial" move yet you WILL still see sausages 454g / 1lb on prepacked sausages.>>>

No - it hasn't gone through the "ban the imperial" move yet. Currently, the rules state that metric has to be shown first. It can still show imperial as supplementary - UNTIL 2010! After which the supplementary measures become illegal.

You may not agree with it, but unless there is a further alteration to the law, after 2010 it will be illegal to mark "1lb" on a pack of sausages!

<<No - it hasn't gone through the "ban the imperial" move yet. Currently, the rules state that metric has to be shown first. It can still show imperial as supplementary - UNTIL 2010! After which the supplementary measures become illegal.>>


You're mixing prepacked (already 'gone') and loose ('gone' in 2010).

I'm surprised you believe that the letters 'l' and 'b' when combined in close proximity will be illegal after 2010.

<<<I'm surprised you believe that the letters 'l' and 'b' when combined in close proximity will be illegal after 2010.>>>

IF no changes are made to the law, then YES, that will be illegal.

What part of "It will be illegal to display imperial measurements as supplementary indicators" don't you understand?

I can understand that you think the law will be overturned, or simply not enforced - but you seem to be denying that as things stand, this is going to be the law in 2010!

http://www.bwmaonline.com/Political%20-%20Motion%20on%20March%2020th.htm

I suggest you read this Steve.

Interesting that the banning of imperial units as supplementary indicators is by the British government, not the EU, which will continue to allow dual markings after 2010.

Martin/Andy

Strange as it feels for me to agree with Steve on anything.....

Look at the example I gave above. Now think what would happen if the bottle happened to contain 500ml. The US marking would be one pint, one and a bit ounces. I know that TSO's have taken action against this, as it is obviously misleading to a UK consumer.

I'm not suggesting that TSO's have taken no action over smaller bottles because the US fl. oz. is slightly larger than the UK counterpart or because they "can't be bothered"

My point is that unauthorised units are already appearing on goods for sale in the UK

"If what you're saying is true, what is the point of the new regulations?"

They aren't new - they were made in 1995 (? - I can't be bothered looking it up!) May I suggest that the government of the day were looking for something to repair their credibility - I recall the papers at the time reporting that the continuance of supplementary imperial on prepacks till 2010 meant that loose goods could be sold in imperial till 2010.

Imagine the scenario on 3/1/2010 (1st day back at work for the TSO's)

"Good Morning - Weights & Measures. Just in for a routine inspection..."

"OK, help yourself"

(usual general chit-chat).......

"I see that you are still marking 454g/1lb on your sausages"

"Yes - but I'm weighing it out on these metric scales - there are 454g in the package"

"But you're marking 1lb"

"So what! I'm using & marking metric! Are you saying I cannot mark 1 lb too?"

Andy/Martin/Tony(or anyone else that wishes to contribute) - please tell us what the so-called TSO will say next.

Preferably with specific reference to what offence the TSO would eventually charge the trader with should the trader refuse to remove the 1 lb indication.

Unless (as Martin seems to suggest above) new offences banning specific words are introduced before 1/1/2010, I suggest that the TSO's will not actually even begin the "I see you're marking pounds" part of the conversation.

Would you suggest that a package marked "454 g/1 lb/ 16.233334569871 nibbletweaks" would be illegal today?

If so, why?

And what would the offence be?

It's the same argument that you are advancing regarding imperial on 1/1/2010

Andy wrote

<<
Interesting that the banning of imperial units as supplementary indicators is by the British government, not the EU, which will continue to allow dual markings after 2010.
>>

Incorrect Andy - Please visit
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1980/en_1980L0181_do_001.pdf
and read Article 3, para 2.

Andy's not gonna be happy when he logs in ;-)


So to sum then - imperial is an authorized supplementary indication up until end of Dec 2009, after which it is not an authorized supp ind.

But it won't be an illegal indication either as there is no offence commited until someone makes it offensive.

Which they won't.

[Grin]


To Bergermeister:- thanks for showing people that its possible for either side of the debate to agree with the other side from time to time. Fortunately there are a few of us like that here on this site!


I hope we can all realise that in legal contexts all this debate is about is a play on words - which is usual in the legal debates.

<<<Andy/Martin/Tony(or anyone else that wishes to contribute) - please tell us what the so-called TSO will say next.>>>

How about: "Supplementary measurements are no longer permitted. You are therefore committing an offence by including "1lb" on the packaging"

<<<Unless (as Martin seems to suggest above) new offences banning specific words are introduced before 1/1/2010, I suggest that the TSO's will not actually even begin the "I see you're marking pounds" part of the conversation. >>>

I agree, it seems unlikely that the TSO's will enforce it rigidly, but the new regulation clearly makes the use of supplementary measurements illegal after 2010. What is so difficult to understand about that?

<<<Would you suggest that a package marked "454 g/1 lb/ 16.233334569871 nibbletweaks" would be illegal today?>>>

No, because supplementary measurements are still legal until 2010!