In its pro-metrication propaganda, the Department of Trade and Industry makes great play of the alleged support for official policy from "Consumer Groups".
For instance, a widely circulated DTI paper, designed for public consumption, states: "The Government announcement in 1965 that the UK would go metric in stages was based primarily on the commercial needs of manufacturing industry. Thereafter, the consumer groups have accepted metrication as inevitable. Their focus of attention has been to argue that the change to metric should take place with the minimum of inconvenience to consumers. In this respect, consumer groups have been critical of what they see as the slow pace of completing metrication in the UK since 1965".
Who these groups are is a mystery to the overwhelming majority of consumers. How they are constituted, how their leaders or representatives are elected or appointed and - most important of all - how they are funded, are even greater mysteries. As to the opening sentence of the above quotation, of course, there was no such "Government announcement in 1965" that had any Parliamentary authority. The first publication by any government was the 1972 White Paper which assured the nation that metrication would always remain a voluntary process. Any pretence that commerce and industry either demanded to be compelled to go metric (which they have been free to do voluntarily ever since 1897), or demanded that their customers should be compelled to go metric, is utterly ludicrous.
However, these persistent official falsehoods arouse grave doubts concerning the integrity of the so-called "consumer groups".
Vicki Gardner is heading a BWMA investigation into this sinister area, with help from Pamela Shaw-Hesketh and others. The role of the so-called consumer associations in the process of compulsory metrication has been overlooked. Preliminary findings confirm our worst suspicions. It is clear that these groups, so far from reflecting public opinion, are merely mouth-pieces of government policy.
For instance, the same DTI paper states: "As regards the apparent anomaly between surveys that identify public dislike for metrication and surveys by the National Federation of Consumer Groups and the Consumers in Europe Group that identify consumer preference in the way that metric units are used, survey findings are circumscribed by a number of factors. The factors include the size and composition of those interviewed, the questions asked, the way the questions were asked, the overall balance of the questions, and how the answers were interpreted". This last sentence is sheer eyewash, for the "apparent anomaly" has everything to do with the fact that the "Consumer Groups" ("CGs") and the actual consumers - i.e. the general public - were asked completely different questions. The CGs were not asked whether they preferred imperial or metric measures, or whether they wanted imperial measures prohibited in favour of a metric monopoly - and chose to remain silent on the whole issue. Instead, they were merely consulted as to the best means of introducing and enforcing metrication!
(Of course, exactly the same approach was adopted in the early 1960s when the FBI, now the CBI, was merely consulted on ways and means of imposing metrication, enabling the government to claim that industry was strongly supportive of the policy, on which actually it had not been invited to express any opinion.)
In contrast, the real consumers, in scientific samples across the country, have been asked the direct questions in several independent surveys, conducted by professional market research companies, proving the intense unpopularity of compulsory metrication. The DTI's paper, therefore, is not merely evasive but deliberately deceptive.
The main consumer groups are the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council, as well as the National Federation of Consumer Groups and Consumers in Europe Group. All claim to be independent. The National Federation of Consumer Groups claims to represent the views of grass-roots members to government, Consumers in Europe Group's literature boasts that it is independent, accountable, representative and democratic, the National Consumer Council's remit includes "ensuring the consumer voice is heard," while the Consumers Association proclaims its commitment "to empowering people to make informed consumer decisions".
How were the mass of consumers empowered to make an informed decision whether or not to go metric? Perhaps the title of the Consumers Association's magazine should be changed from "Which?" to "When?". How did the NCC consult its mass membership and ensure that their voice was heard, and how did the NFCC obtain a mandate from its grass-roots members with which to confront government? As events have proved, none of them made any attempt to fulfil its avowed purpose.
The NCC feebly told Vicki that they were too small to undertake research; the NFCC blustered that they had conducted such research several years ago but unfortunately those findings were not to hand; while Consumers in Europe Group admitted that only rarely did their budget permit carrying out national opinion surveys, yet that did not prevent them from - according to the DTI - "pressing for a rapid transition to the full use of the metric system" without consulting the public at all. Nor did it prevent them from claiming that their twenty-five member organisations endorsed the policy of rapid transition to metric measurement. To test this, Vicki personally contacted fourteen that were directly involved with consumers; of which only one (the NFCC, would you believe!) could express support for compulsory metrication. Of the other thirteen, most had no policy either way or actually disapproved of the policy.
For example, the National Council of Women of Great Britain stated that they had no policy on the subject but added: "However, I can safely say that, as an organization of mainly older women, we deplore it". Likewise, the National Federation of Retirement Pensions Associations responded: "A conference resolution of 1998 came out against ALL compulsory metrication. The rule on fresh foods is a particularly oppressive example. All good wishes". And the National Housewives Association responded: "We object to all EU measures which are not needed. It just masks price rises and confuses the older generation".
Now these are member organisations of the Consumers in Europe Group, which nevertheless informed Vicki that, "the Group first discussed metrication in the 1980s. The Group amended the then draft paper because they wanted to add a recommendation calling for a rapid UK transition to use of the metric system".
So clearly they had already come to a conclusion at the outset - a conclusion supporting government policy - long before consulting member organisations! Their reply to Vicki continued: "The Group has since discussed metrication on two further occasions in the light of legislative developments ... and with members endorsing their previously agreed policy". That appears to be untrue.
As for the Consumers Association, which does seem to be a genuinely independent and aggressive body, a spokesman confirmed that it had never made any pronouncement on the issue or surveyed its vast membership as to preference. Indeed, the view was that metrication is a political matter! So, according to the Consumers Association, whether shopping in pounds and ounces is to be made a criminal offence is of no concern to consumers!
Now, will it surprise you to learn that the National Consumer Council is largely funded by grant-in-aid from the DTI, and that it has fourteen part-time Council Members who are all appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Would it surprise you, either, that Consumers in Europe Group is also funded by the DTI through the NCC; its member organisations including the National Council of Women, in turn represented on the Women's National Commission, which is fully funded by government - whose Chairwoman, indeed, has herself served in four EU groups and has even been an MEP?
The NFCC appears to be financed largely by its own membership of about 1,500, helped by a grant of £15,000 from the DTI. How ironic that the only organisation not corrupted by government funding is the Consumers Association, and it carefully ducks the whole issue! Regarding all the other so-called consumer groups, it is evident that their role has been to promote government's views to the consumer rather than - as they pretend - vice versa. They have done this at the consumer's expense.
So it has been a double deception: the CGs have used public money for metrication propaganda, without consulting the public and contrary to public opinion, while government justifies metrication by quoting the CGs' propaganda. This is a bureaucracy at its worst, combining scandalous misuse of tax revenue with abuse of administrative authority. Our investigation continues.
The October number of The European Journal carried a brilliant article entitled Compulsory Metrication: Weighing up Human Rights by Chris Ballinger, who is researching a doctorate in political science at The Queen's College, Oxford. We are privileged to print the following excerpts.
"There has been no attempt in the United States to prevent traders altogether from using imperial measures, because completing metrication in this way would almost certainly raise constitutional issues. Whilst Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "fix the standard of weights and measures," it is by no means certain that this power could be employed to compel metrication, as freedom of commercial speech is protected by the Constitution's First Amendment. It is possible that a similar conclusion could obtain in Europe under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If expressing a desired quantity of goods in pounds and ounces is deemed equivalent to speaking in a particular language, then the European Convention on Human Rights may provide a ray of hope for imperial traders. Article 10 of the ECHR protects freedom of expression, including the freedom "to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority". There are necessary exceptions to Article 10, but as constitutional expert Geoffrey Marshall noted in Public Law in 1996, to advertise and sell goods in imperial units does not seem to act against the interests of national security, to promote disorder, to endanger public health or morals, to threaten the reputation of others, or to undermine the authority or impartiality of the judiciary.
The likeness of different systems of weights and measures to different languages is reinforced by Schedule 1 to the Weights and Measures Act (1985) (as amended [?]), where a phrase book is provided. It defines one pound as being exactly 0.45359237 kilogram; one yard as 0.9144 metre; one pint as 0.56826125 litre. Dr Howells confirmed to the House of Commons that retailers are to apply this phrase book - customers may continue to ask for a pound of apples but retailers have to measure out 0.45359237 kg of apples.
It would seem that a set of scales calibrated in pounds is precisely equivalent in law to one calibrated in divisions of 0.45359237 kg. If this were not so, the retailer who served a customer with 0.45359237 kg of apples when asked for 1 lb would be failing to supply the customer with the goods requested. Why then is it illegal for Messrs Thoburn and Herron to use their imperial scales to weigh orders placed in imperial units? Any prosecution would effectively be seeking to convict them for supplying the advertised quantity of their goods. This is the sort of trial to which only A P Herbert could do justice".
Sir Alan Herbert (1890-1971) was a barrister, MP, comic poet and librettist, best known for exposing legal absurdities. Were he alive and active now he would still find much absurdity to which draw to attention.
Writing to a Local Authority in order to complain about metric road or pedestrian signs can bring either frustration or reward.
William Scott has sent us a file that is a classic case of the series of evasions, digressions and deceptions to which one may be subjected, ending up back where one started - furious and frustrated.
His opening letter was to the Head of Transportation at the East Lothian Council HQ in Haddington, requesting confirmation that, in view of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions of 1994, certain pedestrian signs in North Berwick which indicate distances only in kilometres are unlawful.
The reply failed to answer the question, merely making the excuse that "as a large number of visitors to East Lothian are from other countries it was considered beneficial for metric distances to be included where a destination was a particularly long way from the town centre".
(As this is a common excuse, in most cases it is worth the rejoinder that (a) the vast majority of the public served by these signs - whether local or visitors - are British who prefer imperial measures, especially the elderly who do not understand metric, and (b) fully half of the overseas visitors are from the USA and the former dominions, who understand imperial perfectly well, and (c) people take holidays abroad in order to enjoy different cultures - the British don't expect Continental countries to put yards and miles on their signs!)
Here, however, Mr Scott rightly stuck to the main issue: "Do the signs bearing only metric measurements comply with the law? That was the question I asked and I should appreciate a simple, straightforward reply". Back came another equivocation: "... I can confirm that ... the 4 signs with metric distances do not fully comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations ... However, these signs are solely for the direction of pedestrians and are not intended for road users". To say "do not fully comply" is another weasel phrase, intended to bamboozle. Either they comply or they don't! This is the authorities' euphemistic way of admitting that they are breaking the law, because they can't do so honestly. Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether the signs are intended for the benefit of pedestrians or road users. Mr Scott made both these points in his reply, concluding that he looked forward "to hearing that you intend to have the offending signs removed or amended to comply with the law".
East Lothian Council then found a fresh refuge from legality by responding with: "You may not be aware that the Scottish Executive is currently amending the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations. Therefore appropriate action will be taken dependent on the content of the new regulations".
It is unfortunately true that, because the Scottish Executive is so servile towards the EU, the new regulations North of the Border could well permit metric-only traffic signs.
However, meanwhile, Mr Scott took the only route still open to him, by writing to the County Procurator Fiscal (Scottish public prosecutor), enclosing copies of the whole correspondence and inviting his formal opinion "as to whether the head of a local authority department can flout the law in such a way or not".
The reply was a predictable brush-off, saying: "My remit is, inter alia, the prosecution of crime in the public interest and I have taken the view that should you have difficulty with the decision to await new regulations then this is not a matter within my remit but one which you should take up with the elected members of the Council".
Mr Scott heroically returned yet again to the fray, as follows: "To save the time of the elected representative that I shall approach, I should be grateful if you would provide some information that I am sure will be helpful to him. (i) Is the display of the finger-post signs a criminal offence? (ii) What is the penalty if convicted of displaying such signs? (iii) Can you quote a precedent to justify no action being taken against the Head of Transportation? (iv) Are there any circumstances that you know of where existing laws might be ignored on the chance that at some future date the illegal activity will become lawful?"
The Fiscal's final reply was a "jobsworth" classic, failing to answer any of these questions but recommending Mr Scott to consult his solicitor or report the offending signs to the police or to his local Councillor, and concluding: "On a more general note, all persons and organisations with very few exceptions are subject to the rule of law. The Head of Transportation is not an exception. As to your final paragraph, each case must be adjudicated on its merits".
This last sentence means nothing and the previous sentence is plainly untrue. The worst of it is that we have to pay for all these useless jacks-in-office.
Equally maddening was a letter received by Mrs Rosemany Wickenden from Mr Malcolm Tuck, Traffic Manager, East Sussex County Council, Bexhill, in which he said:
"Due to the need for road signs to be understood quickly and the large number of 'older' drivers who understand the imperial system, the UK has been given dispensation to continue the use of miles, miles per hour, feet and inches for the time being".
"Given dispensation"? By whom, precisely? And how long is "for the time being"? And at what age does one qualify as an "older" driver? And how many "younger" drivers do not understand miles and mph? Is it not a fact, indeed, that "younger" drivers generally understand miles and miles per hour better than kilometres and kph, despite their metric education? BWMA will consider undertaking surveys on this vital question.
Patrick Carroll successfully conducted a pioneering one-man campaign against metric signs in Lowestoft as long ago as 1996. His letter of complaint in April that year about "Slippery Slope Ahead" signs at The Ravine drew this reply from the Council's Head of Construction Services: "You are quite correct in your observation that the sub-plate to each of the signs should give the distance in yards not metres. I have issued an order that the plates be removed and, when available, new plates substituted".
The same official kindly replied to a similar complaint in June that year concerning a public toilets sign at Kirkley Cliff: "I shall arrange for the sign to be amended". Then in January 1999 he wrote, thanking Patrick Carroll for "bringing to my attention the error on the sub-plates to a number of signs. I have discussed this with Persimmon Homes and they have assured me that the sub-plates will be changed as soon as they take delivery of the correct signs".
Next, in April 1999 he received a less helpful letter from the Property Services Manager in reply to a complaint about finger signs on the sea-front, claiming that "Since the promenade and sea-front are not classified as Highway, it is considered the EC Directive 89/617 and the Traffic Regulations do not apply". Mr Carroll quickly corrected this nonsense, whereupon it was confirmed by the same official that "The signs on the sea-front which indicate distances in metres will be changed to imperial measures".
Mr Carroll later turned his attention to offending pedestrian signs associated with the Cabinet War Rooms: the following is quoted from the reply by Iain Forbes, Corporate Manager (Transportation), City of Westminster: "You are correct in stating that all traffic signs (including pedestrian direction signs) which state a distance should do so in either miles, fractions of miles or yards. This is set out in the Department of Transport's Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994. However, the remaining signs for the Cabinet War Rooms which include distances given in metres are attached to the walls of buildings in the vicinity, which are not covered by this regulation. Under these circumstances there is nothing further I can do. However, I do feel it is fair to point out that London is also a very popular destination for tourists from a large number of European countries where the metric system is fully understood ..."
Once again, what is recommended in the William Scott saga above as the "rejoinder" ((a), (b) & (c)) applies to that feeble excuse. The other excuse about exemption for metric signs if fixed to walls of buildings must also be demolished. But elsewhere, Patrick Carroll's campaign shows that persistence pays, and there is no justification for any metric distance or directional signs anywhere in Britain.
Austin Spreadbury from Enfield had a similar success last October, receiving this reply from the responsible project engineer to his complaint about signs on the A41 Bicester Toucan Crossing Cycle Network Route 51: "I would agree that the supplementary distance plates should have been stated in yards not metres. These observations have been passed on to our contractor for action. Thank you for bringing this anomaly to our attention so that the situation can be addressed".
Patricia Nugent of Altrincham and Chris Robinson of Stockport have had similar successes. Mr S Tamblin of Wellingborough, however, sent us a cri de coeur, wondering why "so many local authority publications and press releases slavishly use metric measures? I enclose a photocopy of Northamptonshire County Council's roads helpline. It does not appear at all strange to them that, while they deal in metric distances, the public navigate the highways by imperial road signs.
Of course, this confusion extends to other government bodies ... Contradictions exist within the Ordnance Survey's products: road atlases that have spot heights in metres but contours in feet and distances in miles.
The O.S. road atlas (Phillips 1997) states that maps are drawn to a scale of 1 to 190,080 or 'about 3 miles to 1 inch'; but in fact that is exactly 3 miles to 1 inch!" (Then why not show that - as it can't just be ignorance, it must be because they've become so politicised that they daren't admit to the flexibility and convenience of imperial scales for mapping purposes.) He continues: "Even more curious was my recent discovery in a book store of one of their tourist maps, drawn in the crude style of the 1:50,000 maps but scaled to '1:63,360' - i.e. 1 mile to 1 inch!"
Mr A E Lott, a chartered engineer from near Reading, was angered by the blue direction signs with white lettering, showing distances to various attractions in metric measures only, in the mystical town of Glastonbury of all places! "There is considerable scope for action by any members in the Glastonbury area to have these signs removed".
Return to Initial Page: INITIAL PAGE