Illegal feet?

[Derek R.]

It could possibly be said that some people were dragged kicking and screaming into each new century as it arrived, or with each passing of yet another piece of legislation written. The following touches on politics, and as such may taste bitter to many, but with an ever increasing sense of being 'had' by the EU politically and legally on a wide range of matters, the British ( a collection of many nationalities as long as mankind had tramped the land bridge from the rest of Eurasia or learned to float in a boat ) are well on their way to becoming bar-coded and microchipped units as the EU harmonising culture machine steps up another notch.

 

I find it all more than a little depressing that the public at large have shown a degree of apathy towards the future, though there will be some that are up for embracing it - but do we really have a say? I doubt it - hence the apathy. And I also sense that some will resent this topic being presented here, but as enthusiasts for our industrial past and temporary keepers of some of its hardware, do we take everything that gets lobbed at us lying down?

 

Some recent communications - for your information - which all started with why my boat was lengthened a quarter of an inch by BW's calculator; why it wasn't shown in 'feet'; and why wasn't the notice for renewal of licence showing the available discounts.

 

Prepare to be bored, incensed, or indifferent, but there are times when keeping things bottled up does no-one any good.

---------------

 

I have been in contact with Jenny Whitehall of BW about the following points; our craft are no longer defined in Imperial measurements; their conversion of Imperial to metric was not accurate (mine wasn't); and why the breakdown of licence fees, discounts etc., - which appear on the receipt for payment - do not appear on the notice to pay. Miss/Mrs. Whitehall's reply was to correct the innacuracy on my boats length, excuse the lack of breakdown of licence fees on the notice to pay as a software incompatibility, and that the Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 require them:- ". . to display all such measurements as metric measurements. Our system is therefore not set up for imperial measurements so it is not possible to add this alongside the metric measurements." I have looked at the regulations and nowhere does it say Imperial may not be displayed alongside metric. It would therefore appear that 'their system' is in line with creating a European common identity culture. We are being assimilated sociologically into the dominant EU society. The passage of this assimilation is made all the easier with a higher percentage of foreign immigrants than has prevailed historically (within the last ten generations), and the eradication of Imperial measurements, as was the norm taught in schools, in todays metric only curriculum. On the legality of claiming that the Imperial system should remain and the metric be shown as an equivalent, the campigner is on shakey ground - our chain of former Prime Ministers have seen to that, although they themselves from Edward heath on, have most possibly been acting under orders. If anyone has an interest in a highly respected legal opinion - and it is just an opinion - there are five pages available through this link: http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealis...ghts/index.html Brian Parkin I have little knowledge of, but runs a website at http://home.clara.net/brianp/links.html 'English Weights and Measures'. This is more a historical record and source for students than any campaign site to prevent the loss of an existing, and widely regarded Imperial system, but in asking Brian his thoughts on the possible legality of removing Imperial, he had this to say (though for my own opinion - the future for Imperial looks bleak - the future is metric - but in my head it will not be. Do you know it now costs just over seven shillings and sixpence to send a letter first class?) however, from Brain Parkin :-

 

----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Parkin To: 'Derek Reynolds' Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:35 PM Subject: RE: Illegal in feet - true or false?

British Waterways are offering a commercial service, which they choose to do in metric measurements only. There is no compulsion in law to offer this service in other measurements. There may or may not be law stopping them offering it in feet & inches.

As I understand (and judges implement) the law, any regulation coming from the EU is now part of our law - this is a consequence of the European Communities Act 1972. This cannot be overruled even by a subsequent act of parliament (which is why the 'metric martyrs' were successfully prosecuted despite an act of parliament giving them permission to do what they were doing). If British Waterways are implementing or interpreting an EU regulation then it has the force of law.

If you want to take it further, you would probably have to prove that British Waterways are supressing your culture, in contravention of the EU constitution (article 151 of the Maastrict treaty, I think). This would be illegal. I wouldn't get your hopes up though - the EU's idea of diversity of culture is bound up with 'creating a common European identity'.

Good luck,

Brian

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: None of the above constitutes legal advice, which I am unqualified to give. I advise you to contact a solicitor.

----- Original Message -----

From:

Derek Reynolds

To:

info@brianp.clara.net

Sent:

Saturday, March 07, 2009 3:56 PM

Subject:

Illegal in feet - true or false?

Dear Brian, I am in communication with the authortiy that issues licences to canal craft, an historic example of which I own. Their most recent renewal form has had the length - historically always in feet - removed and metric only is evident. My 45ft craft is now to be recognised as 13.716m. On commenting that it would be preferrable if the Imperial measurement remained, I have been sent a reply from which I quote:-

"I do have a lot of sympathy with your views but unfortunately British Waterways has to comply with The Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 which requires us to display all such measurements as metric measurements. Our system is therefore not set up for imperial measurements so it is not possible to add this alongside the metric measurements."

On reading the respective regulations, and other websites involved in the retention of Imperial alongside metric, I am left completely uncertain about the situation as it stands. On the one hand there is supposedly legislation in the form of SI 2001 No.55 which has the four words "until 31 December 2009" inserted with regard to Imperial measurements being legally displayed alongside metric after which Imperial shown at all will be illegal. Yet there has been in the media more recently - Nov/Dec 2008 - word that Britain can keep the Pound, the Pint - and the Foot? The Barrister Michael Shrimpton's further opinion notes are dated Jan 2000. Are they affected by SI 2001 No.55? I would like to find some solid evidence in legal terms that British Waterways do not have to remove measurements in feet and inches against their claim they are following the 1995 regulations. Can you advise please? Many thanks - Derek Reynolds, address removed as advised.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Derek R.

[Machpoint005]

I don't see the problem here. It makes no difference what the units are, it's the accuracy that matters. I don't care whether my boat is 48ft or 14.63m as I can't measure the length to the nearest millimetre (or 1/25 inch) anyway.

 

As long as you know that a foot is 0.3048 metres, you can easily convert. For the sake of convenience, I've been referring to 0.568 litres as a 'pint' since 1971!

[DHutch]

I have the admit, there is a slightly problem hear, that everything related to the canal system as was (and largly still is) was designed and recored using imperial measurements. Which are currently (rather slowly) being replaced by there metric counter parts as briton along with the EU and the majority of the world becomes a metric country.

 

However that said, and as i understand it, there is a requiment to label saleable goods using the metric system, and that athough it is perfectly acceptable to display the imperial (or any other) system along side, this is optional and not a requirment.

 

Clearly BW have a database of boat lenghts, amongst other details, and to bring there systems inline with the metric system have converted these length into there decimal metric equivlents. Which they then use for all maters where lenght is relivent. Ie, leicense fees.

Obviously it would be silly and pointless to record the lenght twice. As at very best, the records would be a duplication. And while it would be possable to set up the system to print a converted figure in imperial measurements, they choose not to. Which possably what you are ulitmatly arguing about. But that said, this is again largly upto them as an operating company. They choose not to.

 

 

 

I personaly was taught both systems at school, focusing on and working with the metric system, but also with a basic understanding of the imperial. Roughtly how long a foot it (300mm ruler) and that there where 12inchs to the foot, 16 of this in that, and 16 32nds to make a half....

- And if i guessing approxamate lenghts, i gently think in feet and i did with my dad who does the same.

- However i then switch back to metric if im ever mesuring anything, or designing anything, as does he.

 

However ultimatly the metric system makes far more sense in the current day and age, and it certainly makes and inordinately large amount more sense to all be using the same system. Which for as long as anyone can predict. If going to be the metric system.

 

 

My thoughts anyway. And possably the first time if agreed with bw over anything!

 

 

As Ian says, ultimatly, the only slight sadness is the accracy to which the conversion was origanally done prehaps. But at the same time, which yesterday the challenge was to measure a boths width toa 1/16th of an inch. Today i challenge you to accutratly and repeatably measure your boats lenght to within half an inch. Or as i call it, just under 12mm!

 

 

Daniel

[Guest User]

Accuracy of measurement aside, I think its more of a question of a Little Britain-style .... computer says "no" ..... They may well be obliged to do business in metric, but surely the facility to display the Imperial equivalent alongside it is purely down to the software developer ?

[Speedwheel]

It's an awful expensive extra 5ft (edit - sorry that should be 1.524 metres!!) you have to pay for Derek!

Edited April 23, 2009 by Satellite

[Derek R.]

It's an awful expensive extra 5ft (edit - sorry that should be 1.524 metres!!) you have to pay for Derek!

 

Boat For Sale. Includes expensive five foot bit.

[Nickhlx]

And what is the point in measuring so accurately as when the sun comes out it will probably be a 25th of an inch longer anyway

 

 

Nick

[Derek R.]

As Ian says, ultimatly, the only slight sadness is the accracy to which the conversion was origanally done prehaps. But at the same time, which yesterday the challenge was to measure a boths width toa 1/16th of an inch. Today i challenge you to accutratly and repeatably measure your boats lenght to within half an inch. Or as i call it, just under 12mm!

 

 

Daniel

 

I must have missed yesterdays challenge then. But why would I want to measure my boat? It is recorded as being 45' as far back as 1942, which I accept without tape, or laser. What I cannot accept is an error in converting 45' into metric - there is no need for that.

 

Such inaccuracies apart, there is no valid reason why an age old Imperial measure, which I for one was taught in school without the 'benefit' of needing to learn metric, cannot be put alongside a metric equivalent. And if the invoice for licence fees can itemise the discounts as applicable, so too can the renewal notice. No excuse why not, as there is no excuse for poor spelling.

 

Derek

Edited April 23, 2009 by Derek R.

[carlt]

as there is no excuse for poor spelling.

Dyslexia?

[David Schweizer]

I must have missed yesterdays challenge then. But why would I want to measure my boat? It is recorded as being 45' as far back as 1942, which I accept without tape, or laser. What I cannot accept is an error in converting 45' into metric - there is no need for that.

 

Such inaccuracies apart, there is no valid reason why an age old Imperial measure, which I for one was taught in school without the 'benefit' of needing to learn metric, cannot be put alongside a metric equivalent. And if the invoice for licence fees can itemise the discounts as applicable, so too can the renewal notice. No excuse why not, as there is no excuse for poor spelling.

 

Derek

I hope you are not having a go at Daniel, Derek.

Edited April 23, 2009 by David Schweizer

[Hairy-Neil]

measure your boats lenght to within half an inch. Or as i call it, just under 12mm!

 

I'll think you'll find 1/2" is nearer 12.7mm....

[Speedwheel]

Boat For Sale.

 

SOLD!!!

 

Note: This constitutes a written and legally binding contract

Edited April 23, 2009 by Satellite

[koukouvagia]

I have been in contact with Jenny Whitehall of BW about the following points; our craft are no longer defined in Imperial measurements; their conversion of Imperial to metric was not accurate (mine wasn't).

 

When BW first converted feet into metres they made a mistake on my invoice and repeated it each year. This only came to light five years later when I idly typed the length of our motor in metres into a little conversion program that popped up on the computer. I calculated that BW owed me £170 in past mooring fees for charging me for a boat that was longer than it really was. After interminable delays, and the bizarre excuse that their computer system could not issue refunds or even deduct the over-charged amount from the next bill, Eugene Baston (what a pity he'sno longer with BW), finally sorted this out for us and sent us a cheque.

It's worth checking to see that you've not been over-charged.

Edited April 23, 2009 by koukouvagia

[alan_fincher]

Today i challenge you to accutratly and repeatably measure your boats lenght to within half an inch. Or as i call it, just under 12mm!

Just goes to show you can get someone reading mechanical engineering at one of the best universities for it in the land, and they still have no idea how much "half an inch" is!

 

Only joking - I'm sure you know really, don't you, Daniel!

[DHutch]

Just goes to show you can get someone reading mechanical engineering at one of the best universities for it in the land, and they still have no idea how much "half an inch" is!

 

Only joking - I'm sure you know really, don't you, Daniel!

Yeah, thats a typo too! I ment to say just over!!!

 

I must have missed yesterdays challenge then. But why would I want to measure my boat? It is recorded as being 45' as far back as 1942, which I accept without tape, or laser. What I cannot accept is an error in converting 45' into metric - there is no need for that.

Well you say that, but my argument is that the lenght was proberbly massivly rounded to get a figure of 45' - Proberbly far more than an inch. Maybe as much as 6.

- Hence converting it to metric with acuracy greater than that, is compleatly meaning less and our of context.

 

Yes if in the conversion they have grossly rounded the figure up to there benifit then i would condsider that is out of order and misleading of them. However. Half an inch? Get over it!

 

 

 

Daniel

[Hairy-Neil]

- Hence converting it to metric with acuracy greater than that, is compleatly meaning less and our of context.

 

Yeah, like the 6.43Kmph signs that appeared on the Leicester Line a while back....

[Derek R.]

Dyslexia?

 

Does Dyslexia stop you using a spell checker? Sorry if it upsets Daniel, but if it was written in haste - slow down!

 

Derek

 

SOLD!!!

 

Note: This constitutes a written and legally binding contract

 

It might just - I'll be round for the £74,000 tomorrow. Edit: Used notes please - real legal tender ones mind.

 

(snipped)

Yes if in the conversion they have grossly rounded the figure up to there benifit then i would condsider that is out of order and misleading of them. However. Half an inch? Get over it!

 

Daniel

 

But Koukouvagia makes the point - If that half an inch puts you into a higher category for licencing, it's not something you can get over, because they've had one over on you. No way Jose! As it happens with my boat it's still within the same category, but who is to say that will not change at sometime in the future? Paying enough as it is.

 

Derek

Edited April 23, 2009 by Derek R.

[DHutch]

Does Dyslexia stop you using a spell checker? Sorry if it upsets Daniel, but if it was written in haste - slow down!

No, it doesnt. But ulitmatly i cant realistically be bothered to spell check everything i write on this forum or any other. Life is to short. And i dont feel like slowing down. If it offends you, i feel i can but leave you to that.

 

 

But Koukouvagia makes the point - If that half an inch puts you into a higher category for licencing, it's not something you can get over, because they've had one over on you.

Well if this is the case then clearly thats something that you should take up with BW. Although again what if your boat is actauly 45ft 2inchs and you where actaully in the wrong catagory for for the last 67 years?

 

Clearly im mearly having a debate and exersising my thoughts on the matter against yours. But at the same time ive spent the last 22 years living through the 'transition' between metric and imperial being forced to have an understanding of both. And given that both the generation before and after me and proberbly them are going to part of this drawn out transition i have a bit of a personal and general grudge against anyone who 136 years later on in still dragging there heels. Untill recently it was going to become illegal to mark things in the uk using non metric measurements. as of december but this sadly or otherwise this has been allowed by the EU to be relaxed before ever coming to power.

 

 

 

Daniel

[mrsmelly]

It could possibly be said that some people were dragged kicking and screaming into each new century as it arrived, or with each passing of yet another piece of legislation written. The following touches on politics, and as such may taste bitter to many, but with an ever increasing sense of being 'had' by the EU politically and legally on a wide range of matters, the British ( a collection of many nationalities as long as mankind had tramped the land bridge from the rest of Eurasia or learned to float in a boat ) are well on their way to becoming bar-coded and microchipped units as the EU harmonising culture machine steps up another notch.

 

I find it all more than a little depressing that the public at large have shown a degree of apathy towards the future, though there will be some that are up for embracing it - but do we really have a say? I doubt it - hence the apathy. And I also sense that some will resent this topic being presented here, but as enthusiasts for our industrial past and temporary keepers of some of its hardware, do we take everything that gets lobbed at us lying down?

 

Some recent communications - for your information - which all started with why my boat was lengthened a quarter of an inch by BW's calculator; why it wasn't shown in 'feet'; and why wasn't the notice for renewal of licence showing the available discounts.

 

Prepare to be bored, incensed, or indifferent, but there are times when keeping things bottled up does no-one any good.

---------------

 

I have been in contact with Jenny Whitehall of BW about the following points; our craft are no longer defined in Imperial measurements; their conversion of Imperial to metric was not accurate (mine wasn't); and why the breakdown of licence fees, discounts etc., - which appear on the receipt for payment - do not appear on the notice to pay. Miss/Mrs. Whitehall's reply was to correct the innacuracy on my boats length, excuse the lack of breakdown of licence fees on the notice to pay as a software incompatibility, and that the Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 require them:- ". . to display all such measurements as metric measurements. Our system is therefore not set up for imperial measurements so it is not possible to add this alongside the metric measurements." I have looked at the regulations and nowhere does it say Imperial may not be displayed alongside metric. It would therefore appear that 'their system' is in line with creating a European common identity culture. We are being assimilated sociologically into the dominant EU society. The passage of this assimilation is made all the easier with a higher percentage of foreign immigrants than has prevailed historically (within the last ten generations), and the eradication of Imperial measurements, as was the norm taught in schools, in todays metric only curriculum. On the legality of claiming that the Imperial system should remain and the metric be shown as an equivalent, the campigner is on shakey ground - our chain of former Prime Ministers have seen to that, although they themselves from Edward heath on, have most possibly been acting under orders. If anyone has an interest in a highly respected legal opinion - and it is just an opinion - there are five pages available through this link: http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealis...ghts/index.html Brian Parkin I have little knowledge of, but runs a website at http://home.clara.net/brianp/links.html 'English Weights and Measures'. This is more a historical record and source for students than any campaign site to prevent the loss of an existing, and widely regarded Imperial system, but in asking Brian his thoughts on the possible legality of removing Imperial, he had this to say (though for my own opinion - the future for Imperial looks bleak - the future is metric - but in my head it will not be. Do you know it now costs just over seven shillings and sixpence to send a letter first class?) however, from Brain Parkin :-

 

----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Parkin To: 'Derek Reynolds' Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:35 PM Subject: RE: Illegal in feet - true or false?

British Waterways are offering a commercial service, which they choose to do in metric measurements only. There is no compulsion in law to offer this service in other measurements. There may or may not be law stopping them offering it in feet & inches.

As I understand (and judges implement) the law, any regulation coming from the EU is now part of our law - this is a consequence of the European Communities Act 1972. This cannot be overruled even by a subsequent act of parliament (which is why the 'metric martyrs' were successfully prosecuted despite an act of parliament giving them permission to do what they were doing). If British Waterways are implementing or interpreting an EU regulation then it has the force of law.

If you want to take it further, you would probably have to prove that British Waterways are supressing your culture, in contravention of the EU constitution (article 151 of the Maastrict treaty, I think). This would be illegal. I wouldn't get your hopes up though - the EU's idea of diversity of culture is bound up with 'creating a common European identity'.

Good luck,

Brian

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: None of the above constitutes legal advice, which I am unqualified to give. I advise you to contact a solicitor.

----- Original Message -----

From:

Derek Reynolds

To:

info@brianp.clara.net

Sent:

Saturday, March 07, 2009 3:56 PM

Subject:

Illegal in feet - true or false?

Dear Brian, I am in communication with the authortiy that issues licences to canal craft, an historic example of which I own. Their most recent renewal form has had the length - historically always in feet - removed and metric only is evident. My 45ft craft is now to be recognised as 13.716m. On commenting that it would be preferrable if the Imperial measurement remained, I have been sent a reply from which I quote:-

"I do have a lot of sympathy with your views but unfortunately British Waterways has to comply with The Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 which requires us to display all such measurements as metric measurements. Our system is therefore not set up for imperial measurements so it is not possible to add this alongside the metric measurements."

On reading the respective regulations, and other websites involved in the retention of Imperial alongside metric, I am left completely uncertain about the situation as it stands. On the one hand there is supposedly legislation in the form of SI 2001 No.55 which has the four words "until 31 December 2009" inserted with regard to Imperial measurements being legally displayed alongside metric after which Imperial shown at all will be illegal. Yet there has been in the media more recently - Nov/Dec 2008 - word that Britain can keep the Pound, the Pint - and the Foot? The Barrister Michael Shrimpton's further opinion notes are dated Jan 2000. Are they affected by SI 2001 No.55? I would like to find some solid evidence in legal terms that British Waterways do not have to remove measurements in feet and inches against their claim they are following the 1995 regulations. Can you advise please? Many thanks - Derek Reynolds, address removed as advised.

 

I am with you 100 percent, its st Georges day today and I always consider myself English first British second and European never !

I too went to school and learnt with British measurements I have no want or need to use foreign stuff. I love Europe nice countries and people but we are an island and I am proud not to be European. Many people on this forum and throughout the uk have such apathy that we now are ruled nearly completely by Europe, Thank god people like my parents were not so soft in the 30s and 40s or we would all now be clicking our heels and speaking German

[Speedwheel]

I am with you 100 percent, its st Georges day today and I always consider myself English first British second and European never !

I too went to school and learnt with British measurements I have no want or need to use foreign stuff. I love Europe nice countries and people but we are an island and I am proud not to be European. Many people on this forum and throughout the uk have such apathy that we now are ruled nearly completely by Europe, Thank god people like my parents were not so soft in the 30s and 40s or we would all now be clicking our heels and speaking German

 

Well at school I was taught metric, but I'm with you all the way!!

 

and speaking German

 

I'm sure it will happen!!! http://www.ahajokes.com/eng011.html

Edited April 23, 2009 by Satellite

[Jim]

I am with you 100 percent, its st Georges day today and I always consider myself English first British second and European never.....

.......we are an island and I am proud not to be European.

 

Yes, but the island(s) that make up Britain are "in Europe", as are the islands of Ireland, Malta, Sicily, Corsica, parts of Denmark and the Netherlands (need I go on?)

 

Like it or not you are "European"

 

Do you still buy your fuel in "gallons" and pay for it in £SD?

 

Sorry

[mrsmelly]

Yes, but the island(s) that make up Britain are "in Europe", as are the islands of Ireland, Malta, Sicily, Corsica, parts of Denmark and the Netherlands (need I go on?)

 

Like it or not you are "European"

 

Do you still buy your fuel in "gallons" and pay for it in £SD?

 

Sorry

 

Ahhhhhhhh luckily I see you are two young to need to have been counted when our BRITISH islands were defended in the 40s. You may be European but dont tar us all with the same brush, if Brussels told u to Jump I suppose your feeble reply would be How High !

[carlt]

You may be European but dont tar us all with the same brush,

So which particular continent do you believe the UK is part of, then?

[mrsmelly]

So which particular continent do you believe the UK is part of, then?

 

Err thats a hard one as far as I can see none ! we appear to be an Island race. If u go to Dover on a clear day and look hard u can see the land mass known as Europe though.

Even if we were joined to that particular land mass it doesnt mean to say we have to be clockwork Europeans I have my own identity I do not live in a field going baaa baaaa all day and as i state I am BRITISH we as an Island have never been asked to vote as to wether we want to become Europeans.

[Ike]

So how is it identifying as European makes you a sheep but identifying as British still allows you to have your own identity?