>This is still a play on words. No, it's not. He could have sold a pound of bananas without breaking the law, therefore you can't say this what why he was prosecuted. Now, if the law had banned the use of imperial units completely, then you would be correct, as using those units would have inevitably put him on the wrong side of the law.
>At point 'A' the shop sold everything in lb/oz on machines that read lb/oz >only and most customers presumably asked for lb/oz. And how were people who asked for 1 kg of bananas catered for ? >At point 'B' the law changed >At point 'C' the customers continue to ask for lb/oz and the machine read as >such >At point 'D' the trader was fined because at point 'C' he hadn't made the >change of point 'B' despite 'life' still carrying on like point 'A'. You mean he didn't upgrade his equipment which was required under the law. Note that this still didn't prevent him from selling "a pound of bananas". Sorry, but businesses often have to upgrade equipment to allow for law changes, from fire escapes through wheelchair ramps to software to handle changes to tax and accounting law. If it's required, then you can't put compliant traders at a competitive disadvantage. >I'd find it annoying if I was a trader and had to buy new scales that read >out information in units most don't use just because the law made it so that >those new units are the one's that traders must use despite customers asking >in units based upon working and decent scales the trader had to chuck in the >bin. I find it bizzare at best, autoritarian at worst. The cost of new >scales *must* feed down to the customers. At least you are now arguing about a valid point. Did he find it annoying ? Obviously. Was it an unreasonable requirement ? That can be argued for and against. Does the cost of scales feed down to the customer ? Most likely yes, so you could argue that it was unnecessarily expensive. Was it authoritarian ? Some might think so. Did it prevent him from selling bananas by the pound ? Certainly not. Therefore the allegation that he was prosecuted for that is totally ludicrous, and dishonest. The BWMA propaganda is that Steve Thorborne was prosecuted because he was trying to offer his customers choice, and the authorities were trying to prevent this. The opposite was the case. Steve Thorborne could have used a dual scale to offer his customers the choice of metric or imperial, and he would have stayed within the law. What he did was try to *deny* his customers the ability to use metric units by using a scale that wasn't capable of doing so, and that was why he fell foul of the law. It is not illegal to use imperial units (despite what the BWMA claim), but it is illegal not to provide for metric units, which are the state's official units whether you like it or not. Similarly, where the law requires pricing to be displayed, he has to display it in sterling (the state's official currency). If he wants to accept Euro as well (as many traders in Northern Ireland do), he is allowed but not compelled to do so in addition. Given that you claim to be in favor of consumer choice, how can you support the actions of this man ? I can understand why you object to metric only pricing on that ground, but supporting the attempt to suppress metric units simply gives the lie to the notion that it is freedom of choice that defines your position. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Wade | EMail: tee dot wade at eurokom dot ie EuroKom | Tel: +353 (1) 296-9696 A2, Nutgrove Office Park | Fax: +353 (1) 296-9697 Rathfarnham | Disclaimer: This is not a disclaimer Dublin 14 | Tip: "Friends don't let friends do Unix !" Ireland
