I assume we are talking about the Metric Martyr's here??
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!!
Publicans MUST serve draught beer in pint measures....in the same way, all traders now
MUST use metric or dual-purpose scales as they were once required to use imperial
scales and NOTHING else!!
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!!
It's whether or not you call it 454g or 1lb........it's exactly the same!! The
customer has asked for what they want and Mr Herron has been able to furnish him with
EXACTLY what he/she requires!!
So, what exactly do you see as the problem, Bill??
Regards,
Steve.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: [USMA:22502] Re: metrication
> At 05:41 PM 7 October 2002 +0100, Tom Wade VMS Systems wrote:
> >He was not punished for using pounds, he was punished for not providing the
> >approved units AS WELL. ...
> >Isn't it the case that packaged goods in the US must be labelled
> >in *both* metric and colonial ? So the UK situation is slightly less
> >bureaucratic and heavy handed, isn't it ?
>
> (a) We're dealing at two levels here. From a fundamental moral level, the
> guy was NOT trying to rip anyone off. He wanted to deal in pounds and only
> pounds. He was subjected to legal action because he did not want to have
> anything to do with metric. He was not prosecuted for fraud because he was
> not committing fraud. He was prosecuted for not providing metric units.
> That is fundamentally the case, and it is, in my opinion, a travesty.
>
> (b) That the USA has rules that impinge on the freedom to conduct one's
> business in whatever non-fraudulent way one chooses is hardly a
> justification for other countries to do so. I don't agree with any law that
> makes specific labeling requirements, other than "It had better be
> accurate." In other words, colloquial only, metric only, mixed, I don't
> care. But if you say 1 kg it had better be one 1 kg; if you say 1 lb, it
> had better be 1 lb.
>
> > >This certainly says it correctly, as in "If you wish to engage in commerce,
> > >you will do so in metric (albeit with an ifp facade) or we will destroy
> > you."
> >
> >If you engage in commerce, you must fulfill certain laws and requirements,
> >which are enacted to protect the consumer from being defrauded, and the good
> >name of the vendor. These laws range from fire safety, through guarantees of
> >merchantable quality, to labelling.
>
> The "protect the consumer" justification for requiring metrication is a
> fraud in and of itself. You can "protect the consumer" just as easily by
> requiring ONLY colloquial units.
>
> In fact, forcing people to switch measurement systems opens up a whole
> world of opportunity for fraud due to consumer confusion. The best that can
> be said for forced metrication is that it minimizes the time such fraud can
> be perpetrated.
>
> On the other hand, allowing metrication to proceed as industry and
> consumers demand will give people time to adjust to it. For example, most
> people in the US know instinctively how much a pound of hamburger should
> cost, but they also know what a 2 liter bottle of pop should cost. They
> have had plenty of time to learn this. If you ask them to buy 1 kg of meat
> tomorrow, few will know what it should cost.
>
> >The law is not onerous. You can sell in pounds/pints/quarts, you can label in
> >pounds/pints/quarts, ....
>
> Whether or not the law is onerous is immaterial to the fundamental question.
>
> > As for jailing people, if you break the
> >law repeatedly, and ignore all warnings, then you must be liable to sanctions.
> >As with many non-violent crimes, I would prefer to see a court confiscate
> >property rather than confiscate your liberty, as the latter costs the
> >taxpayer,
> >and allows the lawbreaker to make a martyr of himself, but that is a wider
> >issue.
>
> At a fundamental level, confiscating your property IS confiscating your
> liberty. But, as you say, that is a wider issue.
>
> > >I think the headline is easy, but the pro-force metricationists won't like
> > >it: "Trader Punished for Not Supporting Metric."
> >
> >At least this is closer to the truth than the usual tirade about "trader
> >punished for using imperial". How about "Trader punished for failing to
> >fulfil basic requirements to ensure fair and enforceable measurements" ?
>
> Can't agree to that. The Trader has fulfilled the basic requirements for
> fair and enforceable measurements by accurately using pounds. In fact,
> since most people in England are more familiar with pounds than kilograms,
> a more accurate headline would be ""Trader punished for failing to use
> unfamiliar measurements."
>
> > >For numerous reasons, there is NOT going to be any forced metrication in
> > >the USA, at least until the country has already become 95% metric. If we
> > >want to speed up metrication in this country, we need to use our efforts to:
> > >
> > >(a) continue to educate the public-at-large as to its benefits, so they ask
> > >for metric
> > >(b) continue to apply what pressure we can on companies to metricate
> > >(c) do our best to get the government to metricate -- a step that will
> > >*tremendously* accelerate metrication in the USA.
> >
> >Here, I am in complete agreement with you. Not because the US government
> >isn't
> >empowered to force metrication on trade (it is in the constitution) but
> >because
> >(a) it wouldn't work, as it would provoke more opposition.
> >(b) getting the government to metricate fully would drag everybody else along
> >eventually.
>
> Your comment that the US Government is empowered by the Constitution to
> enforce metrication is debatable. However, since it has been debated on
> this forum before, and is an issue far removed from anything practical we
> can do, we can just forget it for now.
>
> Thank you for the agreement with the more practical steps, and I agree
> wholeheartedly with your (b).
>
> >Note that in Europe, attitudes to government regulation is very different.
> >People expect the government to regulate these issues of trade, and expect
> >that traders be made to fulfill their legal obligations to the consumer.
>
> People in the USA certainly expect the government to make traders fulfill
> their legal obligations. We just have a more constricted view of what their
> "legal obligations" should include.
>
>
> I'm going to try and dig up a list of practical things we can do to promote
> metrication that I posted a year or two ago to this forum. To remind myself
> as much as anyone else to stay on target here.
>
> Jim Elwell, CAMS
> Electrical Engineer
> Industrial manufacturing manager
> Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
> www.qsicorp.com
>
