"Why have you taken that sentence out of a wider paragraph and out of context?"
I haven't......as you well know. Sounds like you're trying to back out of the howler you've made there, Steve. "Anyway - I think the query has been solved/answered now so I'm bowing out of this one" Solved? In what way, exactly? Nothing of the kind, sir! As Philip S. Hall states: "I too have made enquiries about this and the advice I have received is as follows: The "pint" indication is mandatory. However the law doesn't explicitly ban supplementarry metric indications. There is a principle in British law that if something is not prohibited then it is allowed. In the event that glasswear was submitted for approval for use in trade bearing both metric and imperial it would only be rejected if the extra information made it unclear such that it could be misread for example as meaning "1 pint + 568 ml". I can't think of any reason why a glass manufacturer would bother about the metric label unless there is a market for thier products in other countries where they can be used but metric is required. In conclusion therefore we can rule out glasses that just say "568 ml" but we can't rule out "PINT" ... "568 ml" Certainly not conclusive towards my own argument, either, but enough evidence to suggest that 568ml markings on pint glasses possibly do exist. Keep up the back-tracking though, Steve....I could do with a good laugh. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: [USMA:36006] RE: Ahem......! > Why have you taken that sentence out of a wider paragraph and out of > context? > > Anyway - I think the query has been solved/answered now so I'm bowing out of > this one - it's up to you if you want to continue the "mate" thing etc. > > > >From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >Subject: [USMA:36003] Ahem......! > >Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:48:57 -0000 > > > >Stephen Humphreys Feb 6th: > > > >"You cannot even have a dual label (imperial/metric)." > > > >Stephen Humphreys Feb 9th: > > > >"Yes I agree, and the TSO I spoke to mentioned the fact that you can have > >dual labelling" > > > >Make yer mind up, Steve mate! > > > >Regards, > > > >Steve. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:22 AM > >Subject: [USMA:36001] Re: History of imperial since 1824 > > > > > > > >I had to wait until I got a response from a TSO I know before making > >the > > > >following claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ***illegal*** to have glasses marked as "568ml" for > >beer/ale/cider > > > > in pubs. You cannot even have a dual label (imperial/metric). > > > > > > I too have made enquiries about this and the advice I have received is > >as > > > follows: > > > > > > The "pint" indication is mandatory. However the law doesn't explicitly > >ban > > > supplementarry metric indications. There is a principle in British law > >that > > > if something is not prohibited then it is allowed. In the event that > > > glasswear was submitted for approval for use in trade bearing both > >metric > > > and imperial it would only be rejected if the extra information made it > > > unclear such that it could be misread for example as meaning "1 pint + > >568 > > > ml". > > > > > > I can't think of any reason why a glass manufacturer would bother about > >the > > > metric label unless there is a market for thier products in other > >countries > > > where they can be used but metric is required. > > > > > > In conclusion therefore we can rule out glasses that just say "568 ml" > >but > > > we can't rule out "PINT" ... "568 ml" > > > > > > Phil Hall > > > > > >
