"Official parliamentary business" to give it a better word.
"We will force offenders to wear orange jackets" is something everyone can understand, its in-step with the common language of the UK..
No-one in the UK readily see's km on their journeys, in their discussions, in books, in newspapers, on TV, down the pub, in the home, with friends, practically anywhere.
To word laws in a way that has no reflection on the language spoke by the people who elected them puts them further away from the people - and makes them suspicious, righly or wrongly, of EU over-involvement.
This is not a anti-metric or pro-metric thing.
I would equally say that they would be out of step if they brought a new law in to say that there is tax exemption for expenses on cars at 30p per mile if the engine capacity is 0.14 cubic fathoms or less.
They may as well start discussiing things in russian (no offence to any russians reading this).
SteveH
From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:32865] Re: Metric in federal legislation Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 20:53:02 +0100
Who is out of step, Lord Monson, Phillips or Baroness Williams?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:39 PM
Subject: [USMA:32864] Re: Metric in federal legislation
This is very good proof that parliament is increasingly out of step with the public.
A very good example.
Thanks for that.
From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:32863] Re: Metric in federal legislation Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 14:16:23 +0100
> Of Stephen Humphreys >To be honest, apart from the the budget, I can't remember the >last time meaures were quoted in the two houses.
You can find out how frequently measures are used if you search what was said in the UK parliament at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/
Here is what was said recently in the House of Lords:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/5
0406-13.htm
6 Apr 2005 : Column 768
Lord Monson
Is not one of the problems with Amendment No. 18, as drafted, that a
100-metre exclusion zone that started even at the south-eastern corner of
Parliament Square would not, I suspect, protect the Black Rod's Garden
entrance, for example, nor-although I have not had time to pace it out-would
it protect the southernmost part of our car park?
Would the noble Baroness consider returning at Third Reading with an
amendment that compromises at somewhere between one kilometre and 100
metres? I would suggest a quarter of a mile-and I declare an interest as
patron of the British Weights and Measures Association, to which the noble
Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, also belongs. Survey after survey has
demonstrated that the great majority of people in this country, of all age
groups, continue to think in Imperial terms, despite years of metric
indoctrination. Setting down the limits in terms of yards or fractions of a
mile would help the public to understand-quite literally-how far they could
go.
...
6 Apr 2005 : Column 770
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
The Government believe that no point in the designated area may be more than
one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament
Square. I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I understand
his preference to use the old ways of defining distance rather than metres.
I have that prejudice myself. However, in this we have to move with the
times, and it would be more appropriate to remain in kilometres.
