The Yardstick
Betrayed
by our politicians and government
A programme of deception
From
1 January it is the law in Britain that everything - repeat, everything - that
requires measuring in some form for the purpose of sale must be measured and
priced in metric units. This is bad enough. The fact that any honest traders who
continue to satisfy their customers by weighing and pricing in customary
measures risk criminal penalties is worse.
The
fact that this oppressive measure has been imposed without opposition from any
of our political parties in Parliament is worse still. The fact that the last
Conservative administration suppressed public awareness of this proposed law and
the present Government continued to do so, creating maximum inconvenience to
traders and public confusion, is at least as bad.
But
worst of all by far is the fact that Ministers and other leading politicians,
who are collectively responsible for this surreptitious regime, are now
shamelessly scrambling to claim credit for having secured a major
"concession" which is entirely fictitious and a gross deception.
To
boast of having preserved the imperial system and postponed metrication for ten
years on the strength of the EC's permitting the continued use of customary
measures as "supplementary indications," i.e. alongside but
subordinate to the metric measures, is a contemptible confidence trick.
For
such use amounts to no more than the provision of additional information, that
is purely discretionary and of no concern to the authorities. Neither Brussels
nor Westminster has the right to grant or withhold "permission" to
supply any additional information, since the only legal requirement is the
display of the metric measures.
Yet
Tory MEPs headed by Giles Chichester put out a press release on 16 December
which is no more than a huge hoax, bearing the headline "Euro-MPs Save the
Pound and Stop Millennium Crisis." Mr Chichester concluded: "The chaos
we would have seen on New Year's Day is unimaginable as shops across Britain
would have been forced to go exclusively metric. This would have meant a
completely new Millennium crisis with shoppers across the UK thrown into
confusion. British Conservative MEPs have spotted this loophole in EU law and
today's vote means that
Britain's imperial
system of measurements is
safe for another ten years.
Actually,
the chaos was all too easily imaginable and this gang succeeded in adding to it.
Otherwise, all they achieved was to strengthen the false assumption that the EC
possesses the power to grant permission for provision of
To increase the confusion among consumers and the damage to traders,
while posing as the people's champions yet betraying their interests, is utterly
disgraceful.
The political process of metrication has always been based on systematic
lying to the public. Just as we were being reassured by our own Ministers that
the process was already virtually complete, whilst at the same time they were
spending huge sums of public money at both national and local levels to warn
traders throughout the country of the penalties for failure to convert, likewise
they have always told contradictory stories to MPs, constituents and the media
as to whether Britain or Europe is to blame for the whole affair.
Whenever it suits, they support the Big Lie of the former Commissioner
Bangemann (supremo of Trade and Industry until forced to resign on grounds of
corruption) who in 1998 told the EC in a written answer to an MEP's question:
"For more than twenty-five years measures have been adopted at Community
level with the full support of the UK on the phasing out of units of the
imperial system. In fact, as far back as 1965, before its accession to the
Community, the UK had announced its support for the adoption of the metric
system. In Community legislation the long transition phase, still ongoing,
demonstrates the sensitivity and understanding with which this subject was
treated."
This fantasy is naturally supported by most MEPs and other apologists for
compulsion. Glenys Kinnock, for example, brazenly stated in a letter to John
Colgate: "However, it was not a decree from the European Parliament that
the UK Government impose regulations, but their own decision, and so I would
therefore suggest it might be prudent to speak with your~~..."
Yet it was Glenys Kinnock who advised Mr Colgate by letter in March 1995
(barely six months before compulsory metrication came into force) that there
were no proposals in the pipeline for enforcement of metrication (see The
Yardstick, no. 8, page 12).
But if you follow her advice and do contact your MP, you learn, as did
Michael Smith last September from Richard Livsey CBE MP: "However, there is
little that we in Parliament can
Or
you receive well-meaning but ineffectual letters such as that from Mrs Ann
Winterton MP (also September) to John Gardner: "I agree totally with what
you say about the restricted use of imperial measurements as a result of the
interference of the European Union in our domestic affairs. I believe that such
regulations illustrate much of what is wrong with the pernicious and interfering
nature of the European Union and why the British people are saying ever more
forcefully that 'enough is enough'... it is shocking that this Government has
not even attempted to obtain from Brussels an extension of the derogation
relating to the use of lb/oz on weighing machines... I am today writing to Dr
Kim Howells... I shall, of course, be in touch just as soon as I have received a
response to the representations which I am now making on your behalf."
But
the only response MPs ever receive from the DTI is the stock letter full of
misleading metric propaganda. When will MPs realise that what is required is not
endlessly futile "representations," whether on behalf of BWMA or
their constituents, but some positive initiative on their own account? For, as
we are constantly telling Members on all sides of the House, there is a wide
range of measures that they could easily promote.
Why,
for instance, did not sympathetic MPs from every party compel the Government to
secure another extension for a further period of ten years to the derogation
permitting sole use of traditional units for sale of fresh foods and other loose
goods, in line with the extension already granted for their continued use as
"supplementary indications" on pre-packed goods? This could well have
been readily available from Brussels, but not one MP even raised the question -
so much for all the fervent assurances of support that we are all forever
receiving from Westminster!
Why,
furthermore, did no Opposition leader, despite the undertakings given by Paddy
Ashdown and John Redwood, in 1998-9, do anything about promoting a Deregulation
Order under the Deregulation Act as BWMA has been advocating since 1996?
Why,
yet again, did no MP protest at the capitulation of the Better Regulation Task
Force and Regulatory Impact Unit, which have served merely as mouth-pieces to
justify compulsory metrication instead of insisting that enforcement pass the
three tests of the 1992 Principles of Good Regulation, all of which it fails?
And
why has no MP or MEP pointed out that the EC Directives make no mention of
criminal
sanctions
but merely require that each Member State introduce appropriate regulations to
ensure compliance, which all thirteen Member States in mainland Europe did by
regulations under civil law (consumer protection and minor fraud), in contrast
to the UK and the Irish Republic which alone saw fit to screw down the
regulations by imposing criminal penalties?
The
Usurpation of power by which metrication was foisted on Britain
The
earlier history of metrication is similar. In his biography of Enoch Powell
Simon Heifer writes: "[Powell] said that in 1965 the President of the Board
of Trade had expressed merely the 'hope' that the country would have adopted the
metric system within ten years. This hope had, without reference to Parliament,
become an assumption when the Board had been founded in 1969. It had stated on
its foundation - somewhat Optimistically, as it turned out - that 'Britain will
be a metric country before 1975.' What had especially provoked Powell was the
statement by the chairman of the Board, the Labour peer Lord Ritchie-Calder,
that 'going metric is no longer a question of whether but when. We in Britain
have made our decision.'
Powell
commented: 'I am very much concerned with usurpation of power, and Lord
Ritchie-Calder and the Metrication Board are engaged in just that' Metrication
had not been a general election issue, and Parliament had not been consulted;
the Government had taken no such 'decision', and had only the previous month
said that 1975 would not be the date of British metrication.
'Yet',
he continued, 'here is Lord Ritchie-Calder telling us that 'we' have decided.
And his Board, masquerading as Government
and spending public money, goes ahead pushing, cajoling, brow~beating,
presuming, and all the time allowing no-one to suspect that there is no true
authority behind it. This, I say, is usurpation. This is government by
assumption. It is not to be tolerated in a country which still claims to live
under the rule of law and the authority of parliament
Moreover, it is
an insult to Government itself that Lord Ritchie-Calder should announce
and implement decisions which the cabinet have not taken'."
The great gram scam
A
new BWMA pamphlet, The Great Gram Scam, was
recently published. It cannot be better described than by reproducing the
generous review, for which we are most grateful, in the Winter number of The
Salisbury Review, as follows.
"Not
many people realise that after 31 December it will be a criminal offence for
anything sold by size or weight to be measured and priced in imperial measures.
The report from the DTI announcing this was released at the end of the
parliamentary year (1999) without even a press release. Previous government
announcements had promised a 'complete reappraisal' and had given the erroneous
impression that imperial units had won a ten-year reprieve. The EC had allowed
the sale of fresh foods and other loose goods in non-metric. That concession
expires as well on 31 December because the DTI has not bothered to obtain a
ten-year extension.
"This
useful pamphlet charts the processes by which successive governments have sought
to make metrication compulsory and is a glaring example of how directives from
Brussels are foisted on an unsuspecting public without any consultation, and
seized upon by our own meddling bureaucracy. Four Prime Ministers promised that
metrication would be a voluntary process. It has nothing to do with
[international] trade or the economy - indeed it will help to destroy some of
it. The difficulties of small traders are ignored while the government boasts of
the supermarket groups
embracing metric
wholeheartedly. The whole debacle will be another nail in the coffin of the
small trader. No prosecution has proceeded to a conviction since metrication of
pre-packed goods came into force in 1995, and it would be useful to have one
after January 1 to test these unworkable regulations in a court of law. However,
Trading Standards Officers will be reluctant to pursue shopkeepers, to avoid
unpopularity as well as costs. The BWMA is to be much commended for its tireless
efforts to challenge the destruction of yet another plank in the British way of
life."
A
copy of The Great Gram Scam has been
posted to all 89 MPs who signed the Early Day Motion last year, as well as other
known
Dr
Andy Fear has very kindly put the full text of The Great Gram Scam on
his Internet site at http://www.keele.ac.uk/socs/ks4O/gram.htm.
"We will never go
metric"
Looking
back to what we were told not so long ago, an article under this heading in the Daily
Mail of 14 May 1998 quoted the head of the consumer group of the
government's Better Regulation Task Force,
Peter Salsbury,
saying that metric
measurements will never kill off Britain's pounds, pints, feet and inches.
The
then Consumer Affairs Minister, Nigel Griffiths, said after the release of the
BRTF's report that he was "very sympathetic" to its view. He added
that the EU was "aware of our concerns".
Was
all this genuine, or was it designed to lull us into thinking that our rulers
really do care and that we can trust them to sort things out satisfactorily?
Federation of Small Businesses
Dr
Bernard Juby, former Chairman of the FSB's Trade and Industry Committee and now
a member of its policy group, wrote last August to the responsible DTI official:
"I
have just returned from an extended period abroad to discover, to my dismay,
that the long-promised "complete reappraisal of metrication policy"
turns out to have been no such thing. Indeed, it is a pity that the Trades
Description Act does not apply since this pathetic effort would readily
contravene it. Its introduction late on the final Friday on the eve of the
Parliamentary Recess and without benefit of a press release is indicative of the
fact that it was a pathetic mouse rather than the expected elephant and that it
was being slipped in via the back door. Perhaps its misleading comments
(intentional or otherwise) had something to do with it? How disappointed you
must be that having laboured so mightily for two years the final effort was so
puny.
Irrespective
of European Directives, the impact on small traders will be severe. The British
public do not want this implementation and already Trading Standards Officers
are flexing their muscles in anticipation of crashing down on small shop-keepers
who are trying to give their customers what they want and not what our Lords and
Masters of Brussels dictate.
Sorry,
but it just smacks of a 'roll over and give up' mentality. I trust that you will
show your Minister this letter. I am copying it to the BWMA to do with as they
wish.
Yours,
both sorrowfully and in anger."
Trading standards spokesman
acknowledges the law is ludicrous
Among
those interviewed on BBC Radio 4 on 6 January was Chris Howell, lead officer in
weights and measures at the Institute of Trading Standards.
Asked,
"So is it the end, then, of the pint of whelks? Is it the end of the
quarter-pounder in the burger restaurant?" Mr Howell replied:
"Well,
there's an interesting issue here. It's the end of the pint of whelks, I would
say. The issue of the quarter-pounder is an interesting one because there is
some debate as to how well the government have actually implemented the EC Units
of Measurement directive.
Descriptions
of items such as 6-foot beds and 54-inch widths of curtains are not at the
moment caught by this legislation. So you have
(According to the Byzantine regulations, while descriptive uses of
traditional measures are not banned, their use in pricing is. So goods may be
described using traditional measures but not priced
using traditional measures!)
Asked, "Do you have
sympathy with the shops that haven't switched?", Mr Howell replied:
"Well, indeed I do. One
of the whole problems here is that government - and I'm not talking about the
present government but governments over about 30 years - simply have not
prepared the way for this sort of change, and I'm not surprised that customers
are still unable to come to terms with the metric system."
Resistance to
metrication gets publicity
A
growing band of fighters
Several
doughty champions have reaffirmed their earlier vows to continue trading in
customary measures. The three West Country heroes mentioned in our August issue
(page 9) are all standing firm.
Terry
Cooke of Ark Wood Apiaries in Caine, Wiltshire, sold all his honey in
traditional jars simply labelled 1lb and 8oz, without buzzing from Trading
Standards Officers, and will continue to do so.
The
case of Tony Howard's three classic 1950s Shell petrol pumps beside his Village
Shop at Withypool on
Exmoor was
featured by Christopher
Booker in The Sunday Telegraph on 19
December.
Two
more champions have come to the fore. One is Jose O'Ware, trading as 4th Avenue
Blinds at Enfield. She has displayed a notice in her shop window, announcing
that all material is sold in yards, feet and inches. The local newspaper gave
her campaign a big spread and Dr Richard North devoted a full-page article to it
in First Voice, the journal of the
Federation of Small Businesses (with a circulation of some 120,000). Being close
to London, this story will attract increasing attention.
The
other is David Stephens, the butcher of Mandy's Chop Shop in Leigh-on-Sea near
Southend, who has sworn to go to jail rather than waste £2,000 on metric
weighing equipment. He is appealing for all Southend retailers to defy the
regulations. He recently gave a powerful interview on Carlton TV and
enthusiastically hands out BWMA leaflets to customers, from whom he has
Will Members and friends please put
us in touch with other patriotic traders? There must be many more, most of whom
won't know us until you tell them, and many of whom will be feeling isolated and
fearful until we reassure them that they belong to a growing army! So please
find them and tell us!
But what a sad contrast are cases such as that of another butcher, Bob
Steward, whose family had run the business from the same shop in the Millfleld
area of Peterborough since 1906, but who has closed down because changing their
weighing equipment to metric was financially unjustifiable, on top of the costs
of complying with all the EU's other bureaucratic regulations. Hundreds of other
family-owned shops are closing for the same reasons. As David Stephens points
out: "When I started work there were 65,000 independent butchers, but now
there are only 2,000." Metrication is killing most of what have survived
the onslaught of supermarkets. The same applies to fishmongers and fruiterers
and greengrocers. So more villages and older suburban centres die, while the
supermarket bosses - the politicians' friends - rejoice.
The distinguished
political biographer, Andrew
Roberts - one of our Honorary Members -whose magisterial life of Lord Salisbury
appeared recently, wrote to tell us: "I'm all in favour of defying, or
better still ignoring, the law on the issue of our customary British weights and
measures. But it has to be done on an
issue which
More good publicity
The
new number of The Salisbury Review contains
two items of great interest besides that mentioned already. One is a long
article on metrication by our colleague William Peters, entitled "Let's
choose our own rulers". The other is a magnificent tribute to Dr Nirad
Chaudhuri CBE, an Honorary Member of BWMA, who died recently at the age of 101,
in which it is suggested that perhaps he was "the most extraordinary and in
many respects the most impressive man of our age." A copy of the Winter
1999 issue of The Salisbury Review can
be obtained for £4.00 postage-free from Claridge Press, 33 Canonbury Park
South, London, N1 2JW.
The
founder and editor of The Salisbury
Review, Professor Roger Scruton, had an excellent article in The
Times on 9 December, entitled "Stupidity beyond
measure", ridiculing
compulsory metrication. Listing the merits of our customary measures, he
commented: "The idea that we should be committing a crime by using them,
and just because some foreign bureaucrat has said so, is such an offence to the
sense of law and justice that we are surely under a moral obligation to go on
using them nevertheless. If ever there were a case for civil disobedience, this
is it."
On
15 December The Times published three
letters in response. Jeffrey Titford MEP (UKIP), committed his party to
financing the defence of any traders prosecuted for selling in customary
measures and also to appealing against any conviction to the European Court of
Human Rights (under Article 10 of the Convention which guarantees freedom of
expression).
Mr
C E A Cheesman commented: "What is really disturbing is the fact that
Europe sees this as a suitable area for legislation. In Britain the approach
would be that if metric measures and that unity with Europe is desirable in
business, then business will adapt itself, while the stick-in-the-muds suffer
economically. In Europe the argument seems to be that as metric measures are
good they must be enforced and - incredibly - the alternative outlawed. Any
opposition is deflected by the decision-makers on the grounds that the point is
trivial. It is not: it is merely, by its nature, not a suitable area for
political or bureaucratic decision-making and thus seems trivial to politicians
and bureaucrats."
Rev
Norton Giddings wrote: "Our milkman has left us an order form for dairy
products over the Christmas period. It is the perfect illustration of the
irrationality of the use of units of measurement that need to be multiplied by
hundreds to arrive at a reasonable scale for
The
renowned political commentator Simon Heffer was sent a copy of our pamphlet, The
Great Gram Scam, and in the Daily Mail
on 17 December we were gratified to see he gave the subject a double-page
spread. This headlined "Say 'Non' to Kilograms!" and featured David
Stephens, the Leigh-on-Sea butcher, among several rebel traders.
Bill
Peters had a splendid letter in The Sunday
Telegraph on 17 October, prominently displayed across five columns under the
headline "Back Booker's baffle of the ounces". Then The Daily
Telegraph on 11 November published three letters; one again from Jeffrey
Tifford MEP, in which he said that "My party's fund to help victims of EU
legislation and directives, together with numerous pledges to pay the fines of
would-be 'martyrs', will ensure that, this time, the Government has gone too far
in attempting to eradicate British culture", one from Vivian Linacre and -
at the top of the page under the headline 'Ban on imperial measures is illegal'
- one from our friend Michael Shrimpton, the eminent barrister, in which he
reiterated the argument presented in his address to the BWMA Conference last
March and published in The Yardstick (No.8
page 6).
It
is so important that Mr Shrimpton has publicly reaffirmed his view on this vital
issue that we are reproducing his latest letter here:
"The
Government's threats against traders who continue to sell in imperial measures
after Jan. 1 are mere bluster. The purported Weights and Measures (Units of
Measurement) Regulations 1994 are ultra
vires, null and void. This is because they were mistakenly introduced under
the s.2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, but purport to amend, inter
alia, the Weights and Measures Act 1985.
"It
is a fundamental doctrine of the constitution that Parliament cannot bind its
successors. An Act passed in 1985 cannot be amended by regulations made under a
1972 Act. The European Communities Act is an ordinary statute, as much subject
to repeal, both express and implied, as any other. The point was not argued in
the infamous "Factortame case", which is not authority.
"There
is, however, high authority for the doctrine of implied repeal, which would bind
any magistrate's court considering a prosecution for using imperial measures.
Any such prosecution would amount to an unconstitutional defiance of the
authority of Parliament"
Shrimpton's
full legal opinion has been obtained by Jeffrey Tifford MEP, and is available by
post (send 6 first-class stamps to: Office of Jeffrey Tifford, Rochester House,
145 New London Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 OQT) and on the Internet (http:/ /www.silentmajority.co.uk).
Meanwhile,
Lord Shore, one of our Patrons, has kindly described The Great Gram Scam as "a well argued and documented case
against." His comment on metrication was: "What a disgrace! I hope
your campaign goes well and generates the anger and ridicule that the new
legislation so richly deserves."
He
also enclosed copies of the Question he had put down in the House of Lords and
of the amazing Reply (24 November) from the Minister, Lord Sainsbury of Turville,
in which he said: "The UK Weighing Federation estimate that at least
ninety-nine per cent of traders will have converted to metric units by 31
December"; as if that were an official national body rather than merely a
group of suppliers of weighing machines who are now enjoying a bonanza, largely
at the expense of small shop-keepers. But their "estimate" of at
least 99% - i.e. practically 100% - must mean there should be no complaints from
Trading Standards Officers, which would be very comforting!
Unfortunately,
however, that claim must relate solely to supermarkets, whose interests are
forever being promoted by Government, to the exclusion of private retailers who
are of little account to the authorities. The large supermarket companies
welcome metrication as another nail in the coffin of the private retailer, as
well as a wonderful opportunity to bamboozle the public.
That
"estimate" is indeed nonsense, having regard to (a) the mass-mailing
of retailers by many Councils from September onwards, along with road-shows and
advertising campaigns, to warn thousands of traders of possible penalties for
failure to convert, (b) a widely publicised report from the Association of
Chartered Certified Accountants (published in November) expressing concern at
the proportion of "unmetricated" businesses and stating that
"conversion will take time and careful planning", and (c) the dozens
of 'phone calls we received from bewildered traders who have only just heard of
the new regulations or were too busy throughout the Christmas season to do
anything about their scales, or who have no intention of complying.
Bill
Peters sent a copy of The Great Gram Scam with
a Christmas card to each of our Honorary Members, many of whom kindly responded
enthusiastically. Typically, lilly Cooper sent us seasonal greetings in return,
with the hand-written message: "Darling British Weights and Measures -
Thank
you for your lovely book. Keep up the great work. Happy Christmas. Love from
Jilly Cooper."
Stop press!
Until
close to the deadline of 31 December, compulsory metrication did not attract
much attention in the press or on radio or television. Besides, the media had
been misled, as had the rest of the country, by the government's strategy of
delaying, concealing and misrepresenting the truth about the metric imposition.
But
once they realised the impact on shopkeepers and the public of the regulations
now coming into force, and the extent to which they had allowed themselves to be
deceived by the authorities for so long, the media took a sudden and sympathetic
interest in the subject
This'
realisation had been stimulated by the early declarations of defiance from
several brave retailers (as reported elsewhere in this issue) and then was made
abundantly clear by a letter from our Chairman, Bruce Robertson - but written as
Chairman of Trago Mills - on 22 December. This was addressed to the Cornwall
County Trading Standards Officer, and served notice that, "the Trago Mills
stores will continue to use customary measures after 1 January and for as long
as the overwhelming majority of our shoppers wish us to do so."
He
sent copies of this letter to Kim Howells MP (the responsible Minister), William
Hague MP, Patrick Nicholls MP, Nigel Farage MEP, Michael Shrimpton (barrister),
Christopher Booker, Simon Heffer, The Western Morning News, Devon County
Director of Trading Standards, Chief Executives of Devon and Cornwall County
Councils, local County Counsellors, and BWMA.
The
effect on the media was gratifying. On 28 December The Times carried a full story - "Retailer risks prison to defy
metrication" - with a further article refuting the USA's mythical
metrication programme. On 30 December the Financial
Times devoted a quarter of a page to the Tony Howard saga, with a photograph
of him beside his petrol pumps (still in gallons), and including references to
Bruce Robertson's announcement. On the same day The
Sun covered Bruce's story - "I'll never give an inch". All these
three included references to BWMA.
On
31 December the Daily Mail contained a
general survey - "The metric martyrs: shopkeepers are ready to risk jail as
final changeover deadline approaches". The Daily Telegraph reported at length on Jeffrey Titford MEP's offer to
pay for any prosecuted trader's defence. The Daily Express reported on the whole issue: "Traders angry as UK
goes metric", with extensive BWMA quotes. On 2 January the Mail
on Sunday filled most of a page
The
plans of Jeffrey Titford MEP and colleagues to visit a butcher's shop in
Leigh-on-Sea on 11 January, to make several purchases in pounds and ounces, have
already received wide publicity.
On
4 January the Daily Mail ran a story
("Metric martyr" to run shop) which revealed plans to open a special
trading outlet in the Trago Mills shopping centre at Newton Abbot on 16 January
for the sole
purpose of selling
miscellaneous goods in traditional measures so as to provoke a prosecution.
Trading
under the name "Pound of Flesh," the unit will be operated by a
volunteer who insists on
It will be necessary to continue trading during all the preliminaries to
a prosecution. Help will be sought from those willing to work on the premises or
to donate merchandise. This venture is not connected with BWMA, but it is
gratifying to see that others are also taking up the cudgels on this issue,
albeit sometimes in ways that are outside BWMA's remit.
On 9 January Christopher Booker devoted almost half a page in the Sunday
Telegraph under the heading, "Butcher defies the metric weight
watchers," in which he reports a wave of local support for Dave Stephens
and his wife Mandy, of Mandy's Chop Shop in Leigh-on-Sea.
Two separate barristers have advised that rebels have a powerful legal
case - not least that the regulations introduced by Michael Heseltine in 1994 to
bring the 1985 Weights and Measures Act in line with EU law were so sloppily
drafted that they omitted to amend key passages of the old legislation, leaving
it still legal to sell in imperial measures.
Yet
more metric muddle
Our rulers' rulers
To
show commitment to metric measures, the House of Commons has produced an
official ruler. It is marked on both edges with centimetres, although the
centimetre is an old metric unit not favoured in the reformed metric system,
known as SI, that the UK is supposed to be adopting.
Moreover,
the ruler is 30cm long. Why have they chosen this odd length? Upon enquiry, we
were informed that 30cm was chosen because it equals 11.81 inches. In other
words, it is as close as possible to 1 foot!
So
here we have the House of Commons, which is responsible for making use of the
foot as a trading unit a criminal offence, producing an official ruler and using
a practical and convenient length - effectively the foot - that does not belong
to the metric system! Have they no shame?
This
ruler also demonstrates the limited utility of the metric system, being
restricted to the decimal base. So the 30cm divisions, each divided into lOmm,
are simply repeated on the two edges of one side, and the other side is
completely blank because the metric system has nothing else to offer.
In
contrast to this, BWMA's 12-inch ruler shows the flexibility and versatility of
the imperial system, using all four edges and providing useful options decimal
scales cannot match.
Highway signs
Conflicting advice on metrication continues to pour out from government
bodies. For example, the Environmental Service Dept of Brighton & Hove
Council wrote to Paul Rippingham: "I wish to assure you that all signs
erected by the Highways Authority are required to conform to the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 1994. These permit only imperial measurements
except in a few limited cases where both metric and imperial may be shown; e.g.
Low Bridge signs on major roads."
This is confirmed in a letter received by Rosemary Wickenden from
Oxfordshire County Council, stating that "As far as I am aware, the only
road signs that should display metric units are those relating to height
restrictions."
Yet that view is contradicted by a letter to Mr R P Turner from the
Highways Agency: "I have been advised that regulation 5(2) of the Units of
Measurement Regulations 1995 (S.I.1995/1804) gives an exemption which allows
continued use of imperial units for
road signs,
distance and
speed measurement. The legal view is that although this exemption exists,
it is not obligatory."
So one says that metric is permitted only in a few instances while the
other says precisely the opposite. It may be the 1995 Statutory Instrument
enforcing an EC Directive superseded the 1994 Regulations; but, if that were so,
then Brighton & Hove would have been aware of the fact If local government
cannot even
Increasingly,
zealous local authorities and public environmental bodies waste public money by
erecting new finger-posts for pedestrians and traffic signs with distances in
kilometres to one or even two decimal places, so that what was 3 miles becomes
4.83km and 71/2 miles becomes 12.0~m.
The old distances were only approximations, so to convert them with such
precision is stupid, but in character.
Confusion in space
Accounts
in the British press of the USA's Mars space disaster on 1 October were brief
and confusing.
The
following extract from the original press release put out by the Kennedy Space
Center on 11 September 1998, soon after the launch, should, however, have warned
NASA that it could all end in tears: "At liftoff, the spacecraft will weigh
1,418 pounds (3,120 kilograms). It is 7.6 feet (25 meters) high, 6.4 feet (21
meters) deep, and 5.4 feet (18 meters) wide. Power is provided by a single large
solar array which is 18.6 feet (61 meters) long and 6.8 feet (22 meters) across.
After cruising in space for 286 days, the spacecraft will be captured in an
eliptical orbit around Mars."
This
daft press release is preserved on many Web sites, but the archives on the Space
Center's own Web site show only the amended version, with all the metric measurements removed. Note that in order to
ensure a correct record it was only the "English" measurements that
were retained. Clearly, not even the Space Center can understand metric units.
Bill
Holdorf from Woodridge, Illinois, has kindly sent cuttings which explain more
fully what caused the crash. Lockheed Martin Corp., the builder of Mars Climate
Orbiter, provided data in pounds to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory which assumed
the figures were in newtons. It would seem that such an error would be readily
detectable, but that was not so because the thrusters contributed very little to
the orbit. ~he craft had three reaction wheels, similar to flywheels, to help
maintain its orientation during flight, and twice a day tiny thrusters were
fired briefly to counter the effects of solar wind and other forces on the
spinning of the flywheels.) The discrepancies actually put the craft off course
by only 60 miles on a journey of about 416 million miles.
Even
so, some of the experts' reported statements betray an alarming ignorance of the
metric system. For example, Mr John Pike, director of space policy at the
Federation of American Scientists, commented:
"Last
time I checked, I could sort of visually detect the difference between a foot
and a metre. This is kind of the very first thing in Physics or
Engineering." That is a quotation to cherish!
The
astronomer Dr Patrick Moore, one of our Patrons, remarked: "This was an
awful blunder... It just shows the dangers of creeping metrication. Why can't we
stick to good old imperial measurements?"
The
Mars fiasco was followed by several letters in The Daily Telegraph. Mr Brian Cashman wrote:
next time you are stacked over Heathrow .....spare
a thought for the overworked pilot. Distances are measured in nautical miles,
while visibility is measured in metres, except when it exceeds 9,999 metres, in
which case it is measured in kilometres. Heights are measured in feet, unless
you are a Russian Open Sky inspection flight, when they are measured in metres.
Altimeter air pressure settings are m hectopascals (Eurospeak for millimetres of
mercury) - unless you are American, when they are inches of mercury. Happy
landings!"
On the Continent
Examples
still come to light of the continued use of non-metric measures on the Continent
at the same time as we in the British isles are told that we have to prove our
European credentials by abandoning such measures!
In
the Daily Telegraph, Mr Peter Langdon
wrote (24 October). "The BWMA will be encouraged to know that every outside
garden tap in Europe is fitted with a British Standard pipe thread, known as _
inch gas - in France trois-quarts gaz, in
Germany drei viertel Gaz ... More
serious is the fact that when you order un demi in a French bar you receive not a half but a quarter litre.
I think I am owed millions of French francs because of this anomaly."
Italian
bureaucracy in action
However,
news from Italy is that the new year saw, in theory, the demise of a number of
common Italian words indicating measures, namely "chilo", "etto"
(short for "ettogrammo",
6Og), and "chilometro". These are replaced by "kilogrammo",
"ettogrammo" and "kilometro". Strictly speaking, from now on
people asking for "un etto di prosciutto" (3_oz of ham) could be
prosecuted, though it's the everyday word. The ch- spelling is now illegal in
all official and formal texts. The old measure "quintale" (100kg) also
got the push.
We
may doubt that ordinary Italians will take much notice of the new rules, which
anyway allow one non-SI old-metric measure (the hectogram)!
Which
metric system are we to use?
Brian
Mooney points out that DTI press releases refer to Britain's adoption of the
official 'SI' (Systeme International) units,
which is based on the metre, the kilogram and the second; in which case a
measurement such as SOOml will be illegal - for it should be expressed as 0.0005
cubic metre! Labels advising "Cook for 15 minutes at 200 Celsius"
should read "Cook for 0.9 kilo-seconds at 473 kelvin". That's easy,
convenient metric for you!
Confused thinking
abounds
Likewise,
estate agents' boards outside shops and offices idiotically advertise
equivalents such as "approx. 2,000 sq.ft I approx. 185.81 sq.m." Surveyors universally recognise that a
calculation of
During
the recent Rugby World Cup, Vivian Linacre referred to the "10-yard
line", the "25-yard line", etc, in conversation with a South
African supporter, who interrupted with "No, no, you mean metres - we're
all metric now!" Whereupon Vivian asked: "What do you call your player
in the no.9 position?" and the Springbok had to answer ,"scrumhalf, of
course", to which the rejoinder was "No, no, you mean scrum 0.5 -
you're all metric now! And what about your numbers 11 and 14?" "Wing
three-
The Times published
the following "correction" on 11 December: "A report yesterday on
St John's Wort (Herb "better" for mild depression) should have
referred to a dose of 350mg three times a day, not 350g, as incorrectly
stated." Indeed, a dose of over three-quarters of a pound would cause
rather more than a mild depression. These dangerous mistakes with medical
prescriptions - confusing grams with centigrams or milligrams, millilitres with
centilitres, and misplacing decimal points - seem increasingly common. Such
errors, of course, are much less likely using customary measures.
More
good news
Food writers
Gillian
Riley, the distinguished author of several books on European gastronomy, kindly
sent a very thoughtful letter in response to our New Guidelines for Food Writers, from which we quote:
"I
am a food historian and so am used to disentangling the sometimes strange
specifications in historic recipes, where weights, measures and money might
change (e.g.) from one region to another in mediaeval and renaissance Italy.
When adjusting them to use in my books, I prefer to use anthropomorphic terms -
pinch, lump, handful, or spoons and cups - in recipes where exact precision is
not all that critical (about 90% of most recipes, let's face it!).
We
all know how to chuck a lump of butter the size of an egg into a sauce, or add a
slurp of olive oil (not a 'drizzle', which is a meteorological and gastronomic
impossibility). ... I hope your leaflet and tables will encourage a more
laid-back, easy-going, flexible approach to food writing, recognising the
realities of most domestic cooking processes which involve a sort of cheerful
pragmatism and imaginative sensibility towards ingredients rather than a craven
respect for authority.
I'd
like to see the BWMA think back to our gastronomic links with pre-Napoleonic
Europe, and the rich varieties of measurements we all seemed to be able to take
on board without stress, and I hope that your efforts will help to create a more
healthy atmosphere for creative writing about food."
American views
Bill
Holdorf sent us a letter from the famous economist (and Nobel Prize winner)
Professor
He sent also sent us a letter from an eminent US structural engineer,
Robert R. Koons, of Tempe, Arizona, who wrote: "I have followed the metric
movement since the early 1970s. I am convinced that there has never been any
real momentum to convert. The 1976 law told us that we will voluntarily
convert (Law is force: how do you force
people to convert?) They set up a metric commission to travel through the
country twisting arms and trying to coerce people to convert - no luck! Then
they slipped a metric conversion measure into the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act. My own
Congressmen admitted they did not know that they had voted on this thing. The
law said that the government must
convert. The idea was to force conversion through the horrendous economic power
of Federal Agencies. Through the Federal Highway Administration, funds allocated
to the states were tied to metric conversion ... Recently, our legislature said
they had enough of this crap and passed another law directing the Department of
Transportation to go back to the English system." [See also "United
States abandons metrication" in our previous issue, page 8.]
National Trust makes
sense
Joseph Robotham sent a copy of The National Trust's 'Neptune' leaflet,
launching the appeal for funds to preserve Britain's coastline. It opens out to
a
If
you want copies, or wish to compliment them on using only customary measures,
write to Neptune Coastline Campaign, Attingham Park Shrewsbury, 5Y4 4TP (tel.
01743 708 103/4).
Furlongs and acres
A
lovely article in The Times Weekend on
23 October by John Cherry included the following: "An acre is a wonderful
thing. Historically, as a unit of measurement it has varied considerably, but in
modern, post mediaeval usage it is to be taken as a furlong by a chain. In other
words what one man could plough with a one-furrow plough and two horses in a
day. A furlong (furrow long) at 220 yards (an eighth of a mile) being a sensible
length that the horses could pull before they needed a breather ... an acre is
roughly the size of a football pitch. A sensible, human-scale unit; it even has
God's blessing with mentions in the Bible. ... A hectare comprises 2.471 acres
or 100 ares, one are
being 100 metres squared or 10,000 square metres. I know of no-one
who can visualise a hectare; we all still think in acres. Yet every form we fill
in requires answers in hectares,..."
Leaves in the breeze
Mr
Lacy~Hulbert, a chartered engineer, pointed out that the new "London
Eye" - the giant wheel in front of County Hall - is always described, very
properly, as 450 ft high, and never as 137.16m high!
Rosemary
Wickenden kindly wrote, enclosing a leaflet illustrating the Salter "Little
Samson" spring balance, calibrated in pounds and ounces, which she intends
to take when shopping (at only 41/2 inches long it goes easily into a basket, bag or fair-sized
coat pocket) and "ostentatiously re-weigh and label anything which is sold
to me in metric." This handy instrument costs only £4.85 and is available
from Salter Weigh~Tronlx, George Street, West Bromwich, West Midlands, B70 6AD
(tel. 0121 553 1855). Don't forget to specify pounds and ounces!
Mrs
B Sykes sent a large advertisement from the Isle
of Man Courier, published by The National Lottery, inviting applications
from retailers to operate outlets, stipulating that shops must be of a size
"greater than 750 sq.ft." She also sent a handsome leaflet from the
Isle of Man Creameries, advertising recipes using their products,
all exclusively in customary measures.
"Gold
Star Awards" to the following, whose mail order catalogues use imperial
units exclusively: Windrush Mill, of Witney, Oxfordshire, 0X8 6BH and House of
Bath, 1 Bartlett Street, Bath, BAl 2QZ.
Congratulations,
too, to J D Wetherspoon, for introducing a l6oz glass as a measure for soft
drinks. The exemption under the regulations is specifically for the pint measure
and only for beer and cider, but Wetherspoon's venture does not conform on
either size (at 4/5ths of a pint) or on product. Roger Tye, who supplied this
story, has undertaken to see whether the glasses remain free of "ml,,.
Walter
Ablett kindly pointed out that "With remote control TV, one can ring up BBC
Ceefax - 145 and ITV Teletext - 327 for their 'letters pages'. Each day they
publish 10 letters on any subject (not more than 60 words), giving national
publicity at the cost of a stamp' or a fax. I have had many published. Jose'
O'Ware frequently gets letters published." So come on, all you
letter-writers, don't just watch the telly -tell the millions who are watching
it about BWMA!
ITV
Teletext 326 holds daily telephone polls on different subjects - viewers ring a
number at a cost of only 12p and on
29 September a poll was held on preferences for weighing in metric/imperial,
with the result that out of 2,426 votes cast, 93% favoured imperial and 7%
metric.
Fraternal greetings from
USA
We
were most pleased to hear at last from Seaver Leslie, founder of Americans
for Customary Weight and Measure. He writes: "My sincere apology for
not writing sooner to you. I have had a chaotic few years... But I have been
watching your progress with great pleasure.... I am so impressed with what you
all have accomplished in Britain....
Metric
has always
been enforced
by government bullies. No one has ever volunteered to convert to it. On
the other hand, all the countries about the globe developed their own customary
system hundreds (or more) years ago. They almost all have a 'foot' similar to
the one that built the Parthenon and Stonehenge before that. They all have a
'cup' of about eight ounces (the amount of spring water that you can draw with
your cupped hands) and they all have a measure that is about a pound.... the
spacing for the rungs of a ladder are universally 12 inches apart, ... even the
ladders archaeologists have found in the dry sand of the ancient pre-Columbian
kivas of the southwest American cliff dwellings have 12-inch spacing,
established long before Europeans touched this soil. So there you have it. These
units of measure were standardised not by government decree but by practical,
continuous use. The same happened in ancient Asian culture.
Below
I list a few units of linear measure corresponding to the English customary
foot, showing length in inches and division used.
Country
Name
Length in.
Division
China
chrh
14.10
lOths
Turkey
1/2 ik
13.5
l2ths
Portugal
e
12.96
l2ths
France
ied
12.79
l2ths
Austria
fuss
12.44
l2ths
German
fuss
12.36
l2ths
Norway
&
fod
12.36
l2ths
Denmark
Babylonia
12.24
l2ths
Greece
pous
12.08
l2ths
Russia
foute
12.00
l2ths
Japan
shaku
11.93
lOths
Belgium
ied
11.81
l2ths
Roman
es
11.60
l2ths
Holland
voet
11.15
I2ths
While
it is important to recognise that universal standards evolved in all four
corners of the earth, it is also wonderful to celebrate the differences in
language and unit that characterise the measurement traditions of different
nations. ... In the age of the computer, one has only to press a button to get
an immediate conversion to a foreign measurement system if needed, without
abandoning one's everyday use of familiar units.
Unlike
our customary system, metric seems 'alien' to everything human. Metric units
don't relate in scale or name to ordinary daily tasks. A carpenter glances down
a metric measuring tape and the subdivisions of the meter and the decimeter are
a blur of tiny little 'mm' hatch-marks that can't be seen quickly or easily to
determine a length for a saw cut The inch is clearly broken down into 1/25,
1/4s, 1/8s and 1/16s, making these distinctions easily discernible at a glance.
The construction industry in the USA refuses to use metric in spite of the
pressure from various government bureaucrats.
Americans for Customary Weight and Measure ... was incorporated in 1978
as a non-profit ... We are winning this fight thanks to people like you and your
hardworking group. A metric conversion push has fizzled over here for the third
time in our history. People are happy and enjoying their freedom."
We replied to this letter, undertaking to maintain a close liaison. We
can help, encourage and learn from one another. Furthermore, we can each inform
the other as to the true position in our own country, contrary
to metric
propaganda, which
tells Americans that Britain went completely metric in the 1970s and
tells us that US me~cation is imminent
So Canada is now metric?
Metric
propagandists have long claimed that virtually the whole world is metric apart
from the UK and - but not for much longer - the USA.
In
previous issues we have reported on the reverse trend in the USA, and on other
countries where, despite being officially metric, traditional weights and
measures are still preferred and used for various purposes.
Thanks
to Sam Malin for the following excellent information about Canada, where
considerable freedom of choice has been restored.
In
1983 a moratorium was placed on the enforcement of metric units used in the
marketplace. At the time, in the Ontario Court of Appeal, a court decision was
being appealed that allowed two gas station owners to continue the sale of
gasoline by the gallon. Earlier, the two gas station owners were charged under
the Weights and Measures Act for failure to convert their prices to metric
units. The Ontario government won their case, but the moratorium was to stay in
place until new provisions could be introduced. The new provisions included the
permanent display of Canadian (Imperial) units as long as metric units were
shown equally prominent. But the new provisions were never introduced or
enforced. The Liberal federal government was facing an election year and did not
want to upset voters.
Soon after the new Conservative government took power they completed the
termination of the Metric Commission Canada by 1985. It is the current policy of
Measurement Canada, the agency responsible for "fair measurement for
all", not to enforce the Weights and Measures Act and Regulations with
regard to the use of metric units by grocers.... So, 29 years after the White
Paper on metric conversion, the marketplace is free to use Imperial units of
measure.
This was confirmed by a recent letter from Alan E. Johnston, President of
Measurement Canada, stating: "The mandatory implementation of the metric
system in [the retail sale of gasoline, individually
measured foods
and home furnishings]
sectors raised the possibility that freedom of choice for Canadians would be
unduly restricted. For this reason, a moratorium on the enforcement of these
regulations was declared in 1983 by the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs. Since then, the policy has been to let the market place set the pace of
conversion rather than force its use by regulation."
He also stated in a separate letter: "While I agree that one of the
driving factors for retailers maintaining the advertising of prices in imperial
units of measure is the fact that prices may appear less costly, it is not the
only factor. ... In many
Since the UK experience is so similar to theirs, we devoutly hope that,
some sixteen years later, we follow their eminently sensible example.The
sequence of events in this process of relaxation was as follows:
Nov
84 - Consumer & Corporate Affairs announced that it would not prosecute
violators of metric laws.
Jan
85 - Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister, Michel Cote, announced that
regulations requiring use of metric measurements alone will be revoked and
replaced by new provisions.
Mar
85 - Metric Commission disbanded and replaced by a small metric office in the
Bureau of Policy Coordination of the Department of Consumer & Corporate
Affairs. Proposed new provisions were not introduced and implementation of
metric regulations deferred.
Oct
85 - Metric Office became the Measurement Information Division of Industry
Canada [equivalent to our DTU with a much reduced staff.
Apr
88 - Measurement Information Division abolished. Proposed new provisions
abandoned.
David Delaney obtained a copy of the latest amendments, dated 2 June
1993, to the Canadian Weights and Measures Act, listing (alongside the
authorised metric units) the following authorised "Canadian Units of
Measurement":
Measurement of length -
Unit of Measurement Definition:
mile
1,760
yards;
furlong
220
yards;
rod,
pole or perch 5V2 yards; yard 9,144/10,000 metre; foot 1/3 yard; inch 1/36 yard;
chain 22 yards; link 1/100 chain.
Measurement of area - Unit of
Measurement Definition:
sq.
mile 640
acres; acre
4,840 sq.
yard; sq. rod 301A sq. yards; sq. foot 1/9 sq. yard; sq. inch 1/144 sq.
ft.
Note particularly that Canadians still employ so many of our ancient and
useful measures such as the acre, chain, link and rod, which we have shamefully
abandoned - which are, indeed, derided as obsolete by our government
bureaucrats.
We have been sent many photographs of retail advertisements in Canada for
foods, supermarket posters, etc, all of which show weights and prices boldly in
convenient customary measures, with the metric equivalent in small type. For
example, 21b for $4 in bold with "works out to $4A1/kg" in small
lettering.
Roger Dykes and other of our members have sent accounts of recent visits
to Canada, from which we quote:
"Official
signs may display metric information, but it is very evident, the farther West
one travels, that there is a switch to dual marking, on and through to almost
Imperial only. By the time one is in Alberta, Imperial appears to be the
people's choice for conveying information. As we rose in the Calgary Tower lift,
the heights were shown in feet until reaching the viewing platform at 525ft to
get our first view of the Rockies indicated as a distance of 40 miles. On a
visit to a rodeo, all the animals were weighed in lb, the farms described in
acres, distances in miles.
The captain of the ferry to Vancouver Island announced our speed in mph,
and in the city every hotel car-park and swimming-pool sign is in ft & in.
All the shops, restaurants, etc, advertisements and price tickets are in
imperial, with or without corresponding metric quantities in small type.
On our train journey, the young engineer gave out details of power rating
in ft-lb, horse-power and tonnages. During a visit to an ice field, the young
tour guide gave out the facts in degrees F, and all measurements in feet. Our
tour guide in Victoria, aged 18/19, educated solely in metric and assuming that
we Brits were completely metricated ("because that's what they are taught),
nevertheless delivered her monologues exclusively in imperial."
Cultural heritage and the double standards of
government
The value of diversity
Enthusiasts
for threatened languages and cultures express views such as that "diversity
of languages is a value in itself, similar to biodiversity," that
"each language has value in itself, and it should be preserved, perhaps
like a work of art," and that "languages are essential to peoples and
nations. Language is related to identity, culture, and memory. Language erosion
is cultural genocide."1 These views have gained ground in recent
years.
Even
Paris, long hostile towards minority languages (a minister in a former
government asserted that for the sake of French unity the Breton language must
disappear), has, albeit rather
Taking this chauvinist attitude further, the author of a French book on
the metric system went so far as to claim that the twin pillars of civilisation
are the French language and the metric system!
The double standards in relation to the cultural heritage of Britain can
increasingly be seen from the attitude on the one hand to the minority languages
as a precious heritage to be protected, and on the other to our traditional
weights and measures as something to be derided and abandoned.
Not long ago it was a common practice to punish children who spoke Welsh
or Gaelic at school in the classroom or the playground. The
Yet
officialdom's view is that our weights and measures are culturally and
practically of little worth, and that the widespread preference in Britain for
them is something we must be forced to get over.
Government
initiatives fostering Europe's linguistic cultures are in stark contrast to the
attitude shown towards Britain's measurement heritage. Why is there no respect
for our popular, practical, traditional weights and measures, which have long
been part of our language and culture?
Compulsory
abandonment of traditional means of measurement is in remarkable contrast
with the totally different attitude now adopted by European
governments towards
minority languages.
The Council of Europe
The Council of Ministers Convention of the Council of Europe approved in 1992 the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages
This
stated that, "Considering that the protection of the historical regional or
minority languages of Europe, some of which are in danger of eventual
extinction, contributes to the maintenance and development of Europe's cultural
wealth and traditions;
Considering
that the right to use a regional or minority language in private and public life
is an inalienable right conforming to the principles embodied in the United
Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, and according to
the spirit of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;" etc, various objectives and principles
were agreed. Among these were the following: the recognition of the regional or
minority languages as an expression of cultural wealth; the need for resolute
action to promote regional or minority languages in order to safeguard them; the
facilitation and/or encouragement of the use of regional or minority languages,
in speech and writing, in public and private life; the provision of appropriate
forms and means for the teaching and study of regional or minority languages at
all appropriate stages; the promotion of study and research on regional or
minority languages at universities or equivalent institutions.
Also, "In determining their policy with regard to regional or minority languages, the Parties shall take into consideration the needs and wishes expressed by the groups which use such languages."
The
Council of Europe adopted the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages in 1992. After five ratifications the Charter came into force on March
1st, 1998. In 1994, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted
the Framework
The European Union
The
EU claims a deep interest in Europe's diverse heritage. The Treaty on European
Union, signed in 1992 (the Maastricht Treaty) states that, "The Union shall
respect the national identities of its Member States".
We
are told that, "The Treaty on the European Union ... mentions the cultural
and linguistic diversity of the Member States in its Article 126 (Education,
Vocational Training and Youth) and pledges respect to their national and
regional diversity in Article 128 (Culture).
The
European Commission has "subsidised initiatives for the promotion and
defence of the minority languages of the European Union, both at European level
- like the European Bureau for Lesser Used
Languages and
the Mercator Information
Network - and specific projects of the various linguistic communities." The
European Parliament "has had an Intergroup for Minority Languages since
1983. The Intergroup is made up of members of nearly all the political groups
within the Parliament and meets regularly each month".4
European Bureau for
Lesser Used Languages
EBLUL
speaks for about 50 million EU citizens who speak a language other than the
official language of the State in which they live.
The
Bureau promotes
and defends
the autonomous regional or minority languages of the countries of the
European Union and the linguistic rights of those who speak these languages.
Since
1984 EBLUL "has thus been uncovering Europe's hidden linguistic heritage
and offering speakers of regional and minority languages a voice at European
level, a voice that represents an integral part of our common European culture
and which enriches the present and future of the Union, in whose shape all
citizens have a role to play", so ensuring the future of "Europe's
linguistic mosaic".
In
1981 the European Parliament adopted the Arfe Resolution. A second resolution
was adopted two years later in which the Commission of the European Communities
was asked to continue to intensify its activities to promote these languages.
One of the ways to do this was to set up an organisation to represent minority
or regional language speakers at European level.
In
1987 the European Parliament's Kuijpers Resolution pointed out that EC Member
State Governments and the European Commission should propose some concrete
directives for the conservation and the promotion of the regional or minority
languages and cultures of the European Community.
In
1994 the European Parliament - with an almost unanimous vote - adopted the
Killilea Resolution on linguistic and cultural minorities. This text endorses
the previous Resolutions and urges the
The
following Internet sites provide the relevant texts:
1.
http:/ /web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/eulang.htnil
z
http://www.troc.es/ciemen/mercator/CE2-GB.FUFM
3.
http://www.eblui.org/i-gb.htm
4.
http://europa.eu.int/abc/obj/treaties/en/entr2b.htm
5.
http://www.eblui.org/WHAT2~B.~M
Bureaucratic
confusion and obfuscation
Public consultation or
secretive regulation?
Some
local authorities are now boasting that they have "signed the
Central/Local Government Concordat on Good Enforcement". Thanks to
Gerald Stancey, we have obtained a copy of this intriguing document from Rutland
County Council. It solemnly records that it was formally adopted by the
Environmental Services Committee whose decision was ratified by the full Council
and was accordingly signed in London.
Why
use such a pretentious term as "concordat" - whose historical meaning
is an agreement between the Papacy and a State - except, of course, to make it
sound more important than it really is? In fact, it is simply a guide to the
Council's policy for enforcement of environmental laws, and should have been
clearly expressed as such.
But
even at that practical level, it is useless, for two reasons. In the first
place, it lists the areas of responsibility covered, with no mention of weights
and measures, let alone metrication, yet enquiries confirm that this subject is
indeed included. Presumably, reflecting central government's longstanding
policy, the Council wants to attract as little attention to this as possible.
In
the second place, it consists of nothing more than a series of platitudes about
standards of service and quality of performance and rudimentary guidelines to
normal business practice, i.e. the very minimum that Council tax-payers are
entitled to expect from their counsellors and officials. Certainly, if the
pledges about consultation and caring for the community mean anything at all,
Councils could not possibly decide to enforce metrication without a local
referendum!
The
Essex County Council Trading Standards Prosecution Policy document is likewise
full of sanctimonious rhetoric, with no mention at all of metrication (it is
becoming the law that dare not speak its name!), but the pill inside all the
sugar, with reference to the TSOs, is that "ultimately it is their
responsibility to comply with the law."
None
of their specific grounds for prosecution -fraudulence or negligence,
substantial loss or prejudice to others, serious risk to safety, well-being or
health of the public, etc - would justify proceeding against an honest trader
for the offence of continuing to sell in customary measures to customers who
understand them better than metric.
Most
letters of enquiry to Council TSOs receive detailed replies whose effect is
largely spoiled by a final paragraph such as: "Advice is given gratuitously
and
Perhaps those responsible for enforcing metrication are as confused as
the public. We look forward eagerly, however, to the prospect of "new
interpretation of the law by the Courts"!
Greengrocers harassed by
bureaucrats
David Delaney received a copy of an astonishing official circular issued
to the fruit and vegetable trade, stating: "Alternatively, if you sell
certain fruit or vegetables you may sell them by the number or by the bunch
instead of by weight The produce that this is permissible for is as
follows."
Produce which may be sold by the number rather than
net weight:
apples, apricots,
artichokes, aubergines, avocados, bananas, beetroots, cabbage,
cauliflower, capsicum, celery, coconuts, corn on the cob, cucumber, fennel, figs
(fresh), garlic, grapefruit, guavas, kiwi fruit, kohlrabi, lemons, lettuce,
limes, mangoes, marrows, melons, nectarines, onions (other than spring),
oranges, passion fruit, pawpaw, peaches, pears, pineapple, plums, pomegranates,
pomelo, pumpkins, radishes, shaddock, soft citrus fruits, tomatoes, ugli.
Vegetables which may be sold by the bunch rather than net weight:
asparagus, beetroots, carrots, chives, endives, garlic, mint, mustard and cress,
onions (including spring), parsley, radishes, salad cress, turnips, watercress.
What a pity that Brussels sprouts don't appear anywhere here! But doesn't
it make you feel grateful to the bureaucrats to learn that, after many months of
arduous research and deliberation, they have graciously decided that it is
permitted to sell marrows -irrespective of size - by number rather than by
weight? To think that, but for the wisdom of government officials, some foolish
greengrocers might have been trying to sell marrows and coconuts by the bunch or
watercress by number!
But why is it legal to sell peaches by number but not dates? And what
about all the other, chiefly exotic but increasingly fashionable, varieties of
fruit and vegetable - why don't any of them qualify for exemption from the
weighing machine?
The joke is that neither 'number' nor 'bunch' is an authorised metric
unit, since these terms do not appear on the Annex to the EC Directive. It is
therefore possible that this circular is illegal, in which case all that
bureaucratic labour may yet end in tears!