I see Mr. Lineacre nicely sums up his own paranoia in the last two
paragraphs.
Incidentally, he committed two rather amusing spelling errors -- "demure"
for "demur" and "drought beer and cider" for "draught beer and cider." I
guess that "drought beer" isn't very thirst-quenching.
I wonder if Chris or Ian has access to the actual trial decision transcript.
Even though it may have been handwritten at the time of the verdict, surely
someone at the court has created a machine-readable version by now. Until a
transcript is available, we have no idea whether Mr. Lineacre is accurately
representing the judge's written comments. (I suspect he is not -- and is
relying on the lack of copies to get away with distortions.)
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: June 06, 2001 09:19
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:13501] Linacre on Thoburn trial
>
>
>
> BRITISH WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION
>
> SUNDOWN OVER SUNDERLAND
> The Thoburn trial and its consequences.
> Vivian Linacre, Director, British Weights & Measures Association
>
> (Article first published in The Salisbury review, Summer 2001)
>
> Ironically, it is those responsible for imposing compulsory
> metrication who
> must now, despite their apparent victory in the Magistrates Court
> at Sunderland
> on 9th April, execute a volte face. For hitherto they have all -
> from Brussels
> to Strasbourg to Westminster - maintained the pretence that the
> 1994 Metric
> regulations making use of imperial weights and measures a
> criminal offence were
> not inflicted upon us by the European Union but merely represented the
> culmination of a voluntary process that Britain embarked upon
> some 35 years
> ago. But Judge Morgan's judgement (running to 50 pages of
> longhand which took
> an hour and a half to read out because neither a stenographer nor
> even a typist
> had been available for production of copies) made it clear that
> the only reason
> why he was obliged to convict Steven Thoburn was because even
> such SECONDARY
> legislation introduced by Statutory Instruments in compliance with EC
> Directives takes precedence over - and accordingly amends - such PRIMARY
> legislation as the great Weights and Measures Act of 1985.
>
> Furthermore, the judge made no attempt to justify the
> Regulations, nor felt
> able to take account of their unpopularity, which he recognised from
> correspondence sent to the Court by the general pubic as well as from the
> media. He simply declared that he was bound to enforce European
> law, since
> effectively the sovereignty of Parliament was abolished by the European
> Communities Act of 1972. He upheld the prosecution's argument
> that the United
> Kingdom no longer exists as a legal entity. So, at long last, any
> illusion that
> compulsory metrication is anything more than repression for its
> own sake -
> cultural cleansing - is finally shattered. The fact that no proposal to
> prohibit trading in customary measures was ever mentioned in any
> political
> party's manifesto or in any Queen's Speech is irrelevant. Freedom
> of choice
> between the metric and imperial systems, which we enjoyed for
> almost a century
> from 1897 - when alternative use of metric units wherever
> appropriate was made
> legal in Britain - until compulsory metrication of pre-packaged goods was
> imposed in 1995, and which is still enjoyed in the USA, is anathema.
>
> The judgement therefore exposes another absurdity: the constant
> complaint from
> the authorities that opposition to compulsory metrication is
> largely inspired
> by anti-EU sentiment rather than by the merits of the case - for
> the EU is
> itself the sole source and the raison d'etre of the policy. The Judge
> emphasised that the only way to restore legitimacy to customary
> measures is to
> repeal the 1972 Act, which Parliament is free to do at any time.
> Then so be it.
> Consequently the British Weights and Measures Association is also
> having to
> turn face-about; because, having always insisted that our campaign is non-
> political and must succeed strictly on the merits of the case, we are
> paradoxically and most reluctantly compelled by this verdict to adopt a
> directly anti-EU policy.
>
> Of course, the Judge and prosecuting counsel both assumed that,
> as this was a
> test case, it will go to appeal - to the Divisional Court in
> London - which
> will probably require a 5 day hearing (by 'stated case') in the
> autumn. Thence
> it could go t the House of Lords. It was because of the presumption of an
> appeal that the Judge made no award of costs - indeed the
> prosecution made no
> application for costs - and Mr Thoburn was granted a conditional
> discharge
> without penalty. For this fundamental constitutional issue, that has been
> rumbling beneath the surface for the last 28 years, has never
> been resolved in
> a court of law. As Michael Shrimpton, defence counsel, declared
> in his opening
> address: 'This is the trial they said could never happen'. He
> also remarked, in
> a closing tribute to the Judge, that if only his explanation of the
> constitutional position had been given to the nation in 1972 by Heath or
> Rippon, both of whom assured us that the European Communities Act
> entailed no
> loss of essential sovereignty, it would never have been signed!
>
> If the metric regulations are valid, then no useful purpose is served by
> holding a general election in Britain this year or ever again.
> Last year the
> scales were seized from Steve Thoburn's market stall: now they
> must fall from
> the nation's eyes. If the regulations are valid then the vital
> principles of
> our constitution - that no Parliament can bind its successor,
> that a later Act
> overrides an earlier, and that, above all, the powers of the Queen in
> Parliament are unfettered - are all extinguished. This was not
> only a test case
> for defiance of compulsory metrication, but also a test case to
> determine the
> primacy of UK or EU law.
>
> Yet media coverage of the five day trial (15 - 17 Jan and 1 -2 March)
> concentrated on personalities and never rose above the level of
> metric versus
> imperial - the superficial merits of the case - with scant regard
> to its epoch-
> making implications. Steve and his glamorous wife and his
> campaign manager Neil
> Herron became local heroes, and the Washington Post captured the mood by
> dubbing the affair 'Bananagate'. Which were worse, the Labour
> City Councillors,
> none of whom was willing publicly EITHER to condemn OR to applaud the
> prosecution that had been brought in their name, or Tory
> politicians who loudly
> deplored the case without challenging the legality of the regulations?
>
> There might have been some excuse for the short-sightedness or
> indifference of
> almost all the media and the political classes if they had been
> obliged to
> infer or construe the constitutional issue from the presentation of the
> prosecution's case. But no such effort was required; for it was
> the prosecuting
> counsel, Eleanor Sharpston QC (one of the quirks of this case is
> the pairing of
> Shrimpton and Sharpston), who argued unequivocally and
> exhaustively that it was
> BECAUSE British law is subservient to EU law, BECAUSE a legislative and
> judicial "revolution" occurred in 1972, when Parliament "wholly,
> expressly and
> voluntarily" sacrificed national sovereignty, that THEREFORE the
> regulations
> obviously take precedence over the Act of Parliament. The impotence of
> Parliament and the demise of our constitution were not the
> IMPLICATION of her
> case but the PRESUMPTION for it. It is indeed impossible to
> exaggerate the
> constitutional issue, since it was Ms Sharpston herself who
> astounded us all
> (the few who were paying attention) by expressing it in such
> absolute terms.
>
> Yes, it inspire intense pride in our system of justice and
> government that our
> country's future is decided, in the first instance, in a humble
> Magistrates'
> Court and as the result of a trifling alleged offence - and yes
> it is sublime
> that, thanks to the heroism of the 'metric martyrs' and the
> six-year campaign
> by the British Weights and Measures Association and the
> brilliance of counsel,
> history is being made here - but it is absurd that the nation is
> not in uproar,
> that questions are not being asked in the House, that there are no crowds
> demonstrating outside the Court. An independent, nationwide
> public opinion poll
> found that 91% answered "NO" to the question: 'Should Steven Thoburn be
> prosecuted?' - but what are the people or their MPs (or the Civil
> Liberties
> lobby or those government mouthpieces laughingly called 'Consumer
> Councils')
> doing about it and how to the media reflect that overwhelming
> popular view?
>
> Mr Shrimpton argued, incidentally, that compulsory metrication
> appeared to
> violate Articles in the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing
> freedom of expression and freedom of trade. He might have added,
> pointing to
> the huge royal crest above the magistrate's chair, that if these
> regulations
> are valid, then the mottoes should be altered: 'Honi soit qui mal
> y pense'
> to "GLOIRE soit mal y pense" and 'Dieu et mon droit' to "Dieu et
> mon TORT".
>
> While preparing for the appeal, we shall also have to launch a
> public appeal
> for funds. Total defence costs from the original summons last
> September will
> have amounted to about �30,000, of which BWMA has raised over
> �20,000, but we
> are now confronted with a huge financial challenge. The vast bulk of
> contributions to date have come from hundreds of private
> individuals, but we
> shall need a major backer - a national newspaper, or corporate sponsor or
> philanthropist. Thoburn and Herron have also set up a properly
> constituted 'Metric Martyrs' trust fund.
>
> The prosecution has no financial worries, of course, being funded
> by Sunderland
> Council Tax payers - since evidently this is considered better
> use of revenue
> than caring for the homeless or repairing roads - which is why a QC was
> retained together with her junior, in contrast to the defence's
> Mr Shrimpton,
> who modestly demures: "I am not a silk, just plain polyester".
> Meanwhile, an
> added danger is that, pending our appeal, other local authorities
> that have
> been awaiting the outcome of this test case will immediately
> proceed against
> numerous rebel retailers in their areas whose confidence and resolve may
> suddenly weaken and who may not be able to afford the cost or the
> strain of a
> defence. They are likely to be encouraged in this action by
> renewed pressure
> from the DTI as well as from local government and trading standards
> organisations. Our hope must be that in typically British spirit
> we will be
> stirred and the people will rise up against this tyranny.
>
> It is a consolation that the official argument cannot now change - it can
> hardly be varied or augmented at an appeal - whereas we can
> meanwhile assemble
> an ever-growing stockpile of fresh ammunition against the
> regulations. And
> public revulsion is mounting against the alien concepts of European law,
> exemplified by compulsory metrication. For British law (English
> or Scots) is
> fundamentally PROSCRIPTIVE: it states what you must NOT do - walk
> on the grass,
> commit murder or whatever - on the presumption that we are free
> to do anything
> that is not expressly prohibited, in the same way that we are
> presumed innocent
> until proved guilty. But the metric regulations, like so much
> continental law,
> are PRESCRIPTIVE, specifying the authorised units of measurement; on the
> presumption that use of any not expressly permitted is a criminal
> offence. This
> creates numerous anomalies, owing to the inadvertent omission of some
> specialist trade or vernacular units from the relevant schedule,
> or confusion
> between the array of conventional 'metric' units and those
> conforming to Le
> Systeme International which are the only ones strictly approved.
>
> Also mounting is the public revulsion against the series of
> deceptions used
> throughout the process of compulsory metrication. This is well
> illustrated by
> the correspondence from Tony Blair himself. Writing from the
> "Office of the
> Leader of the Opposition" in November 1995 (and on many other
> occasions), he
> said:' Labour is pressing the Government to ensure that for the
> forseeable
> future consumers are able to buy pints of milk, drought beer and
> cider.' That
> was deceitful, because neither then nor in the future could a UK
> government
> prevent the EC from issuing a Directive under qualified majority
> voting which
> abolished the pint completely. He went on: 'We are also
> determined to ensure
> that shopkeepers can continue to use pounds and ounces to sell
> goods such as
> loose fresh fruit and vegetables, meat. Poultry, cheese and
> fish.' But he meant
> precisely the opposite, for the next sentence read: 'No change
> can be made this
> century.' This CENTURY? So what he really meant was: 'We are also
> determined to
> ensure that only five years from now it will be a criminal offence to use
> pounds and ounces to sell goods.'
>
> Now, as Prime Minister, Blair continues with his deceptions,
> writing personally
> in 29th January to Neil Herron from No 10, opening his final
> paragraph: 'Of
> course, the weight and unit price may also be indicated in pounds
> and ounces.'
> Ie the equivalent in imperial measures alongside the primary
> metric marking -
> after 31 December 2009. So what he really meant was: 'Of course,
> in less than
> nine years it will be a criminal offence even to use pounds and ounces as
> supplementary indications.' And he had the gall to conclude:
> 'Similarly, if
> your customers feel more comfortable specifying how much they
> want to buy in
> pounds and ounces they can continue to do so'. Is that not a gratuitous
> impertinence? By what right does he condescendingly confer permission for
> customers to do something for which no government has any right
> either to grant
> or to withhold permission? The regulations relate to SELLING and
> have nothing
> to do with buying: I can order a ton of horse feathers from
> Harrods or ask my
> newsagent for a nine-feet tall garden gnome if I like it, and
> whether or not
> either cares to oblige is entirely their decision. It is a fast growing
> tendency of government to presume to define our 'rights' and to
> presume thereby
> to earn our gratitude; whereas in reality it is a) begging the
> question as to
> who gave it the right in the first place to decide what our
> rights are, and b)
> implying that by granting us certain rights now it will have the right to
> withdraw any of them in the future, and c) also implying that
> anything not
> defined as an express right is prohibited.
>
> The concept of 'supplementary indications' perfectly illustrates this
> totalitarian mindset, for they consist of no more than provision
> of additional
> information, for which no permission could ever have been
> required and which
> accordingly can never be banned. Since the only requirement is for metric
> marking, it is of no concern to any authority whether or not a
> supplier chooses
> to display also the imperial equivalent. In the absence of any
> suggestion of
> fraud or infringement of consumer protection legislation,
> permission to show
> additional information for the customer's benefit can neither be
> granted nor
> withheld. All this regulatory machinery concerned with the definition and
> control of 'supplementary indications' is a gigantic hoax by the
> DTI and the
> EC, and their proposed abolition (during the parliament after next!) is a
> desperate recognition that the whole project of a metric monopoly
> is doomed.
>
> It is intolerable that the criminal offence is purely the use itself of
> imperial units, despite the vast majority of the population's
> preference for
> them and in the absence of any criminal intent or effect. It is
> intolerable,
> too, that the EU recognises eleven different languages yet cannot
> tolerate two
> codes of weights and measures; and that Britain, having yet to
> decide on the
> paramount issue governing a single European market - whether or not to
> sacrifice the pound sterling for the euro - should insist meanwhile on
> enforcing a far lesser priority by sacrificing imperial measures
> for metric. It
> is intolerable, finally, that the whole object of compulsory
> metrication is
> deliberately to damage Britain's interests by undermining the
> Anglo-American
> cultural and commercial bond that was forged centuries ago by a
> common system
> of customary weights and measures, which the European Commission
> regards as
> giving us 'an unfair competitive advantage in transatlantic trade'.
>
> The only reason Steve Thoburn was prosecuted is because of the EU's deep
> loathing and envy of this UK-US solidarity, that sets us apart from our
> European 'partners'. As there's nothing they can do about our
> sharing a common
> language, they are all the more determined to deprive us of our
> common 'inch-
> pound-pint' heritage.
>
> Our nationhood, culture, freedom, could all hinge on the ultimate
> outcome of
> this case.
>
>
>
>
