Jim Elwell (Not Bill) wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by the second paragraph ("as he likes to
> imply"). As far as I have read, the Herron had no problem with the law
> (which presumably means getting his earlier pound scale certified) prior to
> the law requiring a metric or dual-unit scale. Have I missed something in
> that regard?
I was referring to Neil Herron's oft-repeated quote that the new laws are against his
'freedom of choice'.
As Mr Herron knows full well, as regards weights and measures legislation in the UK,
there has never been freedom of choice!! Traders have always had to stick by weights
and measures law or risk prosecution whether those units are metric or imperial.
To give an example of their hypocrisy, I will tell you of an incident you have
probably already heard of. In the early 1990's, a publican was taken to court and
fined for selling draught beer in metric, rather than pint measures. Where was the
furore about that man's 'freedom of choice'? Nowhere to be heard; you were
practically deafened by the silence!!
On your second point, if I have understood you correctly, Steve Thoburn, who was
prosecuted (Neil Herron wasn't) for using imperial-only scales, did indeed have
dual-purpose scales on his premises. He could have used these, weighed in metric and
afterwards displayed the amount in imperial; in short, everybody, the DTI, Steve
Thoburn and his customers would have been happy.
Unfortunately, Mr Thoburn carried on using imperial-only scales to weigh produce with
rather than dual-purpose ones. After being approached twice by the DTI and given
three months to comply with the law, Mr Thoburn continued to use imperial-only scales.
I do not understand your argument, Jim. The customer is getting exactly what they
want, Mr Thoburn can display prices in pounds and ounces if he wishes and his
customers can ask for something in pounds and ounces!!
You seem to put a great emphasis on the fact that they are forced to use metric
scales, yet traders, in this country at any rate, have ALWAYS had to comply with
weights and measures legislation.
Why object to the fact that the scale reads 454g when it is exactly the same as a
pound?? It's rather like complaining because the Government insists on a train being
called a locomotive!
They're both the same thing!! What difference does it make?? The customer is still
getting what he/she requires!!
It's simply splitting hairs for political purposes, isn't it??
Regards,
Steve.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: [USMA:22506] Re: Fw: Re: metrication
> (Stephen refers to "Bill" but quotes my email, so I presume that is a typo,
> and I will respond.)
>
> At 06:48 PM 7 October 2002 +0100, Stephen Davis wrote:
> >...
> >If so, there is a basic hypocrisy at work here!! Neil Herron knows fine
> >well he would have to obey UK weights and measures law whether it be
> >metric OR imperial. There has NEVER been a choice in the matter, as he
> >likes to imply!!
> >...
> >This is all about how fine you want to split a hair!! As a trader, he is
> >allowed to price in pounds, his customers can ask for a pound and, Guess
> >what Bill......they can GET a pound as well!!
>
> I am not sure what you mean by the second paragraph ("as he likes to
> imply"). As far as I have read, the Herron had no problem with the law
> (which presumably means getting his earlier pound scale certified) prior to
> the law requiring a metric or dual-unit scale. Have I missed something in
> that regard?
>
> Please read my earlier response to Brian White. You may call this splitting
> hairs, but clearly it is much more than that to the Metric Martyr. And,
> since I don't believe in government power being used to force one person's
> ideas upon another, above a very, very fundamental level (e.g., murder is
> wrong), I have to side with him.
>
> That does NOT mean I think he has chosen an effective or useful battle.
> Merely that the battle he is fighting is just, no matter how inconsequential.
>
> And as I said in that other post, if mandatory metrication is attempted in
> the USA, the (anti)-Metric Martyrs will be coming out of the woodwork, so
> it does not hurt to try and understand what motivates them.
>
>
> Jim Elwell, CAMS
> Electrical Engineer
> Industrial manufacturing manager
> Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
> www.qsicorp.com
>
