Today I had an e mail from Neil Herron!! Apart from a lot of interminable guff, he sent to me what he thought were possible compromises to the regulations we have at present!! Although this is not a situation that is affecting the US, I would be interested to know if you have any views on what he says here!! He Says: The shambles we got has created the resistance. We have a duty to the tens of thousands who have contributed to the fund to see it through to its final conclusion. We know the regulations are wrong and unworkable. The government and its mad officials know it is as well. The public see the whole thing as absurd and unbelievable. So, the fight goes on until we win. It has been suggested that there are three possible compromises:- 1. Declaration of a moratorium, whereby the regulations would remain in place but enforcement would be suspended. This is the solution adopted in Canada. 2. Mandatory dual marking, the two systems enjoying equal status, with loose goods sold from dual range machines. This is the USA solution. This matches us to our largest export market. 3. Deauthorisation of weights and measures altogether, leaving regulation to our copious codes of anti-fraud and consumer protection legislation. However, if any of these routes were considered there still leaves the case of all of the men who have been prosecuted under invalid regulations, and the cost to businesses forced to comply with the regulations. Then there is Sunderland Council which faces a legal bill of around �175,000 should they lose (bear in mind it was they who initiated the prosecution of Steven and immediately instructed a QC a barrister and the full legal department). All we have ever done is defend our own corner with processes available in law. Mr. Anderson has said that our arguments are irrelevant. In that case why did he instruct such an expensive legal team when surely the 'in-house' lawyers could have handled such a simple case, at a cost substantially less than the �55,000 it finally cost at magistrates level. (You may not be aware the David Jude, one of the original lay magistrates was so incensed with the case and the way it had been brought that he became one of the Defence Fund's trustees until his death two weeks ago.) The judges at the Appeal in London were 'very uncomfortable' with the prosecution and said at one point that there should be ministers in the courtroom to answer questions. It is possible that the prosecution of Steven Thoburn was unlawful because he was perfectly entitled to own imperial scales under the 1988 Weighing Machine Regulations and could have served customers in metric by means of a conversion chart. The rest of the Appeal would not be allowed and have to be taken to the House of Lords, leaving Sunderland with a massive legal bill for what was in effect, an unlawful prosecution, with costs awarded. It would then be up to Hackney and Cornwall to defend to the Lords and they have stated that they have wasted enough public money already. Or we could lose outright, in which case EU law (introduced by a mere SI) takes precedence over a British Act of Parliament. That would strike home to everyone exactly what has been in effect ceded to a foreign power. Or we win and then a constitutional crisis arises and every piece of EU legislation for the past thirty years will have to be examined, and possibly treaties entered into by ministers on behalf of the people may be invalid. At the heart of the case is the concept that no Parliament may bind its successors. If we enter the Euro (EMU) then it follows that we must also have political union. Once we are in, even to the single currency, then we are in forever with no escape, even if a future Parliament wants it. Bound forever ! Parliament may not bind its' successors. History will be made by a man from Sunderland because he had the courage to make a stand. Nine weeks and counting ! And so it goes on..........and on....and on!!! What I would like to know if there is any of you have any comments on the compromises suggested here and if they could possibly be workable. Personally, I think we would just end up with a worse mish-mash of regulation than we have now. As he had said to me in this letter, if there had been a proper act of parliament, this campaign would not have come about!! Too right it wouldn't!! They know full well they wouldn't have a single leg to stand on!! The confusion that reigns over the present regulations has only served to strengthen their cause!! I feel that the Government should have the courage to force an act through parliament for the full use of metric measurement!! It is the only way to stop this insanity once and for all!! Regards, Steve. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
