The BWMA wrote:
Q: What is the BWMA's position on Britain having signed the Metric
Convention
> in 1884 and being a member state of the International Bureau of Weights
and
> Measures under this convention?
>
> A: None. We have no objection to people using metric units.
Yes they do!! Why are they so against metre and kilometre signs being
displayed on public roads alongside yards and miles signposts, yet
apparently want 'choice' for traders to use whatever measurements they
wish??
Why have they consistently complained about metric and SI measurements being
supposedly difficult to understand for the 'working classes' and old people
(a more patronising argument you would be very hard pressed to find)??
And lastly, why do they still say metrication is 'forced' onto us when it is
nothing of the sort?? That it is imperial only scales and pricing that has
been disallowed and that they can still sell and display their prices in
pounds and ounces so long as they provide a metric equivalent??
I have repeated the above argument COUNTLESS times and will continue to do
so while the likes of the Metric Martyrs, BWMA and their lackeys in the
press try to pretend otherwise!!
Regards,
Steve.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: [USMA:15091] Fw: Weights and Measures
----- Original Message -----
From: "BWMA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Weights and Measures
> Han,
> You asked some questions recently regarding BWMA and weights & measures.
Here
> are some answers.
>
> Q: What is the BWMA's position about the present official [metric]
definitions
> of the foot, inch, pound, the Imperial gallon etc?
>
> A: None. Measurements are determined in terms of distance travelled by
the
> speed of light. Scientists largely use the metric system, and did so when
> measuring the speed of light, so the definition of distance and other
> measurements is recorded in metric. When drawing up legislation, these
are
> the definitions that legislators used. If BWMA were to have a policy on
this,
> I think it is most likely that we would ask that legal definitions be
given in
> both metric and inch-pound.
>
> Q: What is the BWMA's position on Britain having signed the Metric
Convention
> in 1884 and being a member state of the International Bureau of Weights
and
> Measures under this convention?
>
> A: None. We have no objection to people using metric units.
>
> Q: I agree with you about confusing and misleading pricing but not with
> blaming the metric system per sé for such con-tricks. Defective
legislation
> should be blamed for it, not a system of units. Supporters of the metric
> system oppose and condemn such misleading pricing.
>
> A: The current consumer protection laws are watertight - so long as weight
and
> prices are show, no deception has occurred. We argue that lack of
consumer
> familiarity/acceptance of metric indications (eg 650g, 450ml, etc) causes
> consumers to ignore or disregard the weight indications, thereby
undermining
> the legislation.
>
> Finally, regarding the private Eye article ("...aubergines 0.395 kg @
> £2.31/kg"), we draw attention to bad metric practice - however, this is
not
> the sole reason for BWMA's opposition to compulsory use of metric - we
also
> oppose it for reasons of heritage, consumer protection, bureacracy, etc.
>
> Kind regards,
> John
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit www.bwmaOnline.com - campaigning for inch-pound industries and
consumer interests
>
>
