Sections below: The case for British weights and measures. Were with you. British public against metrication, North Americans also. Cultural freedom and human rights. Metric regulations are unlawful. The practical benefits of British weights and measures. Government deception and false assurances. Our weights and measures still count. Growing resistance to compulsory metrication. Contact addresses & membership form.
The case for British weights and measures
National surveys show that the great majority of people in Britain, including a majority in all age groups, prefer our weights and measures.
Yet British weights and measures, and those who use them, are threatened by politicians and bureaucrats who seek to take from us our popular, convenient feet and inches, pounds and ounces, pints and gallons.
Disdain for our culture and freedom has led to threats and coercion against traders who oblige their customers. The public was never asked to approve of metrication, and even Parliament itself was largely ignored. Our clear preferences and views have been, like traditional weights and measures, treated with contempt.
Our weights and measures evolved out of practical use. People should be free to use those they prefer, not forced to use a system which most consider unfriendly and arid.
Our units are part of our language and literature. We need to sustain such a valuable part of our way of life for the benefit of this and future generations.
This publication seeks to explain briefly the practical and cultural importance of traditional weights and measures, and some other matters relevant to the issue.
Were with you
Sir Tim Rice: "More power to your elbow!"
Sir Ranulph Fiennes: "I approve of your excellent aims."
Simon Heffer: "I am behind you 100%."
Fritz Spiegel: "I support your aims passionately ..."
Norris McWhirter: "Congratulations to the BWMA on their sterling work for sanity."
Peter Alliss: "... let Imperial measurements last forever ..."
Dick Francis: "I am delighted to support the BWMAs campaign. May you whole-heartedly succeed."
Andrew Roberts: "The work done by the BWMA in protecting much-loved and ancient British customs ... is invaluable, and I am very proud to be associated with it.
Fred Dibnah: "... as a steeplejack I will always measure everything in yards, feet and inches."
Dr James Le Fanu: "I am only too pleased to support you in your good work... The arguments in favour of metrication ... are entirely spurious."
Edward Fox: "Would not the whole world be wise to adopt our British weights and measures system! Sophisticated simplicity."
Sir Rowland Whitehead: "Imperial measurements are practical, sensible and, above all, human."
Jilly Cooper: "Im so proud of being an honorary member and Im very proud of all youre doing ... a very important stand against uniformity".
Christopher Martin-Jenkins: "Please keep fighting for the British weights and measures which have served us so well for so long."
British public against metrication, North Americans also
National surveys show that our traditional measures are much more popular than metric, and that a majority oppose compulsory metrication.
Gallup found that 87% of people normally think in pounds, 87% in pints, 69% in yards and 95% in miles.
Research Services Ltd found that 74% of the British public find feet and inches, pints and pounds more convenient for most everyday purposes than their metric alternatives. In all age groups, including even the metric-educated 15-24s, and across all regions of the country, there is a majority in favour of traditional units. Among women 82% prefer customary measures.
Only a small minority (7%) favour the move towards printing the packaging for goods, and the ingredients listed in recipes, solely in metric measurements. Three times as many (21%) would prefer traditional measurements only to be used, while most (70%) prefer dual labelling.
In January 2000 BMRB International found that over two-thirds (67%) of the UK population disagree with compulsory metrication, and less than one-sixth (16%) support it. Among the youngest (ages 15-24) a majority (57%) disagree with compulsion, as do 65% of the next age group (25-34). Of women, 71% oppose compulsary metrication.
Tescos consumer survey, also in 2000, found that 90% think in pounds and ounces, while only 8% would be happy with metric-only labelling.
The British government says that dual labelling is being allowed here for the convenience of exporters "pending the completion of the US metrication programme"! This is typical of metric propaganda.
In the United States metrication proved so unpopular that many states which in some ways had begun to go metric due to the usual tired arguments of "reformers" changed back to traditional measures.
In Canada metric legislation was so unpopular that the government backed down and restored freedom of choice.
Cultural freedom and human rights
Compulsory metrication involves prohibition of the use of traditional units, and therefore the denial of a right to use part of our own language.
The EU funds a bureau for minority languages, and the British government helps speakers of minority languages with forms and printed information, and allows broadcasting catering for their cultures.
Yet these same governments show monocultural bigotry by telling the majority of people in Britain to use an alien language of measurement, whether we like it or not. Our weights and measures, and our preference for them, are treated with contempt.
Metric road signs and waterway signs with metric speed limits (such as, absurdly, 6.43 k.p.h.) replace at our expense those most of us understand better. Yet there are in parts of Britain street signs in languages which only minorities understand. So the cultural needs of various minorities are cared for, while those of the majority are discriminated against!
Children were formerly punished if they spoke Welsh or Gaelic in school, and the left-handed were treated as perverse and forced to write with the right hand. Intolerance has found fresh targets, and now it is those (both children and adults) who prefer convenient weights and measures who are treated as wrong and told to conform..
The Greeks are not told to abandon the alphabet which only they in the EU use, but we are told that Britain must be "brought into line with Europe". TqkcֱA7I{gFiRYvkm9,( ėі\+avQ\ ЮozZ Ss w$p I5#eWj6i8 v3ЅB˷oַ-6x" .9R#\ f4;' j(3zfm{bFqJiErSW1n&l:
֢ 9␙94G&o ## ϗECej Rb6x ;LP2QN( Gz=i84 FI P0Z.x)W ^ GMCO~x6ϡ%FZtmŤnA⾻y)u-%i{_$Bu
lB}} Jr3;obKԚԜS 9ϥ^`w y{T~4r4:Vcf!sƞuO^iw,u8*vzWzLdiv5{۷/A p/ɪ'> 20?fG 皞z- +yt=hPg$f{Y 䪖b "IKBWCk]$L6EMu1XZ@D~a4㇜̱
vXuXKK4~PzE{:+H)a. 7>~@E7f#ߜW {vXqJm^ΤW.C$Ӛط<{OY g: `ަ[A?=Pw ?Z .*eGjE'.)NGr})r91I4oF8$t8UYvg-ҩpO1l4c`ТF",Fˊpu*9'ǘWi;f ¢ NҲ =L#'TmоBzU xwGI Ӱ2?-Ju
ZZO"Eanxֱ֚ăӊh8aXż2(BYE6ݼ^ִ@5+D]#
Q)*M +ZK. OnD=+5C} #־e<;BI g&V$R-$+ʇ gWxKIo- Q gǡM NWk GJɲ{ώI5NJ[[C
ƞs ct:ډg]Baҵ ^E%DqÎ,abd.XZBUx_ .>=*`FGJjv](p8)ip£40O* ut'8oz`p Qw'|Nq@GzTN Yr9F[# bBi&&1ژc
2I(qx B 9:jx01
g"A{ґBEz 5 ! Ԋ*Gz^-`=U
6K;QpHP>ҳW]x| V
w? Vd-sH$}j/@kdcT}b))YYjηY̰^D1®y5֩-:FFϔ夶kh˽ I5Z(|iy yi^+$*/"EfŌB%027EK܄tgc{u#9'y?)@0 2moX##9=>bw[< Ke *q=gfBi_CZɎ
Ɍ {# 82 4h8
zT03בɦHxS I 7AH,We$t:UpGz6;P+ W<N=84P0S ⋂ Ķ69H9sQi70;ԋ+c# {1460Âz.;ny5a$\sYs#Rv R-Ɂ5\Xb ƁM6XqZx+Ś݀tNCz|OpGO0۔B`lE" 9KO
]`#iQjCmQaVRERe' &x{3JG kZ{Cip./C
I8ֻ> x|I ǭC:U@v> GMU¾+RgFh !80V%ԭgocqU~Ѓ%UPё/p7.W5]L]Zh'$C4hTjGR6s4*z:jp\)hLsҤ-i\iːT{R6<.c u(ٲѡoLy" mp k Dip##>2qٗIsE7 ֱ0<}ohLsR= V\A,bD
PSBqRM8U "ٔ|cҵҬl 4>j QB}sIX48 `CS4d}WIRK ߒh391/94!SAkvyDS7`t #8*P l 7r}.Aoj@OPiA bLa7 m
Osg5( `qM<4
B1I84 `qOc9U cSMFɩrGziw1J
E.ӑ =Q֛8 Ǒ!sPN սzc8 Q`"B
$zq9e'ozvvUA9`
㎆X2#ƌdmg,Z *RQ؎O<& `z BUlL1QfhT"Kh%[pGu/3 Q۸P[h@`W3q_ Mmo5 ۽GB\xD/ HJ8^x-߇ἙY[Kߥ^AݑVԪ(;*%d}y{{ajcw,D~aaQ^8 89LW 5Fٖ$C隳i7w5f5 v9cў6to/9Lg銝lg)iĒv=i c iۈ*7 @h)5\M9Y2Ď7hTbJE)逢؍by`794Q2403U\vT{8%A 41 3ABXja{Rm`p=h-PH9 (<ր AH~;U۞2GJjis^I'ڄ<<ڕlzmhpQG8lW8BljzM0ed* 鞔$DGM΄:e*Nr֙iz͈= x45?l φfH$'o8^*~"9|U;#ך#!8=+?gG6iɾ= S[(/$i_jЏsW4+/-mi)*vlz(^iۉ hX-̥JtWO"J1ՏXRsu-++QN
(
>FljIj( u@k_7|JkO!G \Խʉʅ^朊h @^MQcfpI S3^MWg(CI>Fc)% d}iھT_:1a3 N{=` P̦2m嘶Tf٠R˰Ã5Q>,#mwL PQW;m:ֺo}LYs I&6oqЎ"!ۗkG=7[7[~_Bk28N
R4H,Q{^#>0oPh`G99A *|jDSt66.X3\9z۷W64pi2K: U`EOnL@J88"?JB4;s)9Mݩ1ۜL1+
SLf )Qs#gT!+QH*Pqڗ'| Z_k&T ^r 7 QNdC
W&[ Iih(ݙ")T:o4dӨ@ih&`-x ƫG&z = y jBxoQw/c1i"x)Oݧ67棑)$㊢`F*?<Ӝ5װl4Rt!p3=18ºJv*2>dmvtzTBjeu&#~cURE-ݸ$ D mr'P`]Vfm խԢH
G+_j#2 >Wmi|~hl5W91ns5 ["#UAf VA#X>aD<> tZ} 3RI1ҕC&@+
K
Dtf <|:S(qǗҙTҜI E7 '棕%Ni LRdGH> 5í=N?bHX木Yl2ksv ǿqU&;X α?yQ/b2q5 M! E=G1OBU: ~
ҵ~)&0|Om.4 y=+ZIjڛqkWW+!S8d]gH>oL;'F1Zc#HĪaۚM< 0y7QSkQ4z>rXgRX}JE
<+hгFKF:z*' @ s+)7sD8Vr3Қp _@) ҢsqW !l`UV?pĠ#lж 0I l\bB;Ul(=dd7 ֡F7T1)unH_a
k:*J9]FƉr *8$ t1i14 Ti{QrPyϯ!$oZb|Lt=)h It$@9 [PQg& SHdt=6iHqq)> :T.pzT=OY{,r3Ҳ0ɭ @f>QX^j?m>{UXW6(Cƶf']'MW8a
|ԫ)B\x\H\~here is an attitude of contempt for our cultural inheritance and a refusal to ackowledge its value. Governments in Britain seem to want to scrap much of our heritage.
In schools there is widespread failure to teach children to understand traditional weights and measures and how to work with them in ways that take full advantage of their useful features.
It is the EU Commissions declared intention in due course to forbid the use in shops of any information whatsoever in the language of weights and measures that most people in Britain understand and prefer. This is another step in the process of stripping us of our cultural heritage and freedom.
Metric regulations are unlawful
The leading barrister Michael Shrimpton has given a detailed written opinion that the metric regulations are unlawful. This opinion, backed by other barristers, is publicly available, but so far unrefuted.
The 1994 metric regulations are "secondary legislation," and as such derive their authority from primary legislation, in this case from the 1972 European Communities Act. However, it is a fundamental rule that a later Act supersedes an earlier one, so the 1972 Acts authority was superseded by the consolidating Weights and Measures Act of 1985, which expressly authorises the use of both imperial and metric units as alternatives (according them equal status), and the 1985 legislation remain in force until Parliament amends it. On this and other grounds, the regulations are invalid. They can lawfully be ignored.
The latest regulations cover goods which are not pre-packed but loose and weighed at the point of sale, and "came into force" on 1 January 2000. However, despite widespread non-compliance, not one trader hitherto has been successfully prosecuted, despite many threats.
The practical benefits of British weights and measures
The metric system is said to be easier and better because it is based on the number ten. However, ten also has disadvantages, and artificial metric measures are inefficient and clumsy in other ways besides.
In any case, ease cannot be the only consideration. Phonetic spelling would make written English easier for children, but it would also make it harder to read the accumulated knowledge of previous generations, most of which would remain unconverted. Ill-judged change can damage collective memory and wisdom.
Size is also important. Pounds and ounces, feet and inches are convenient sizes for many everyday needs. A unit similar to the foot arose in most societies around the world, but there is no metric equivalent.
Metric units are often too large or too small, resulting either in decimals or in inconveniently large numbers. The current version of the metric system (known as "Système International d'Unités" or "SI") has gaps of a thousandfold between units.
Measures need to be divisible. Metric units are inferior in this respect, since ten is divisible only by two and five. The twelve-month year divides neatly into quarters, and the 24-hour day and 60-minute hour are more flexibly divisible than ones based on 10 or 100 decimal time, though part of the original metric system, was fortunately soon abandoned.
Customary weights and measures evolved out of practical experience to serve human needs. The twelve-inch foot is particularly easy to divide in a variety of ways. Packaging by the dozen and gross is often more economical than using tens and hundreds, since it allows packs that are not only more compact, so less packaging material is needed, but also stronger. So eggs are often packed by the half-dozen, and bottles three by four.
For weights, however, repeated halving allows ready division of a quantity by eye without special equipment. It also produces the most economical set of weights for scales, so our 16-ounce pound is ideal. Camera shutter speeds became more practical when decimal ones were replaced with those got by repeated halving. Even the "metric" paper sizes (A4, A5 etc) are practical because they are in fact not decimal but, again, based on each size being half the next larger. Computers work fundamentally in twos, not tens.
The metric system has advantages in certain areas of science, having been developed by and largely for scientists, but we should not let this make us overlook the fact that for everyday use it is cumbersome and inconvenient. Even the names of many of its units are long and similar, unlike the names of most traditional units which are short yet distinct.
Decimals are far from perfect, and for many purposes it is useful to have a more factor-rich number of parts in a whole. The advantages of the metric system are obvious but superficial. The merits of our traditional system of weights and measures are more profound. Ours is the more sophisticated system.
Government deception and false assurances
In 1965 the President of the Board of Trade expressed the "hope" that the country would soon adopt the metric system. This became, without reference to Parliament, an assumption, with the setting up of a Metrication Board whose Chairman declared that, "going metric is no longer a question of whether but when. We in Britain have made our decision."
When Harold Wilson set up the Metrication Board in 1969, he undertook that metrication would never be imposed compulsorily. Edward Heath gave the same undertaking when he published the "Metrication" White Paper in 1972. As spokesman for Consumer Affairs in 1978, Sally Oppenheim formally declared her partys opposition to further statutory metrication. Margaret Thatcher abolished the Metrication Board in 1980. These assurances have since been ignored, with very little debate in Parliament. No party sought a mandate for the change.
The Department of Trade and Industry claims falsely that their consultation of 600 British industrial, trade and consumer associations in 1988 and 1992 revealed "overwhelming support" for metrication. In fact the DTIs consultation concerned only transition to the metric system, not whether it should be adopted at all. At no stage has the DTI attempted to establish whether metrication was wanted.
Our weights and measures still count
Most of the worlds aircraft heights are in feet. Computer printers work in inches. German plumbers use inches. The USA, the worlds largest economy, uses our feet and inches, pounds and ounces. Many products are internationally based on British units.
Traditional measures were used for the first moon landing. The US space shuttle uses them. Despite the antiquity of their origins, they are capable of the most precise use. We have many reasons to be glad, not ashamed, to continue with our weights and measures.
Our measures are part of our literature from Shakespeare to Roald Dahl and J.K. Rowlings "Harry Potter" books just as for centuries they have been part of our architecture and engineering.
Schools which do not teach children to know and work with our measures (rather than just how to convert them to metric) are ignoring real life. They should cultivate familiarity with units which are important for understanding both the past and the future in a world which is far from totally metric.
Growing resistance to compulsory metrication
Many trade associations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and chambers of commerce back the call to end compulsory metrication.
Tens of thousands of traders are defying local government threats and continuing to use the weights and measures which most customers prefer. Tesco and Budgen were the first of the supermarket chains to react to the strength of consumer feeling and announce at least a partial return to pounds and ounces.
Metrication will fail as the majority who do not want it decide to speak up and make themselves heard by all concerned. By working together we can put an end to compulsion and regain freedom of choice.
British Weights and Measures Association
The BWMA is a non-party voluntary organisation. Members receive the periodical, The Yardstick, which reports on developments and on progress of the campaign to restore freedom of choice.
We need to reach the many people who would gladly join if given the opportunity. We also need to put our case to those who might be intimidated even against their better judgment by spurious metric propaganda.
So please help to distribute this publication, Foot, Pint & Pound, to traders, teachers, local councillors and others in any way concerned with the issue. Copies cost 6 1st-class (27p) stamps for 12 copies, 7 cheque or postal order for 6 dozen, 12 for a gross, all postage-paid. Send a cheque to Robert Stevens, BWMA, 38 Mount Pleasant, London WC1X 0AP.
Our 12-inch plastic ruler with inch scales makes a useful gift, especially for children, and costs 1 for 1, 1.60 for 2, 4.20 for 6, 7.20 for 12. Order from our Edinburgh address. If ordering copies of Foot, Pint and Pound or rulers at the same time as sending a subscription, a single cheque may be sent with the membership form.
The "English spoken here" notice is nearly 5" square, with white lettering on blue. It must be ordered separately. For one, send 50p in loose stamps and a SAE over 5" square. Send a cheque for 1 for 2, 2 for 4, etc (postage inc.) to BWMA, Dept. ESH, Maxgate, Burgh Hill, Etchingham, Sussex TN19 7PE. Be sure to say whether you want them adhesive on the front for use on transparent surfaces, or adhesive on the back for use on opaque surfaces.
British Weights & Measures Association
45 Montgomery Street, Edinburgh EH7 5JX
Tel/fax: 0131 556 6080
Internet site: http://users.aol.com/footrule/
Director: Vivian Linacre Chairman: Bruce Robertson
Press Officer: David Delaney, Mill House, Mortimers Cross, Leominster HR6 9PE. Tel: 01568 708820.
Hon. Treasurer: Fabian Olins, 22 Foscote Road, Hendon, London NW4 3SD. Tel/fax: 0181 202 7781.
BWMA membership form. The annual subscription is 10 Donations welcome. Please write clearly.
I enclose a cheque for __________ Please make cheques etc. payable simply to "BWMA"
Title and Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Date:
Please send this form, or a copy, to: BWMA, 22 Foscote Road, Hendon, London NW4 3SD
The list of members is kept on computer but not disclosed to commercial organisations
Return to Initial Page: INITIAL PAGE
