EngSpokenRED.jpg (13479 bytes)     BRITISH WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION
Return to main menu
rulerfadeRED.jpg (3463 bytes)

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 of 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.

 

METRIC MEASURES ARE UNLAWFUL

The leading barrister, Michael Shrimpton, has given a detailed written opinion that the metric reulations are unlwaful. 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 the 1972 European Communities Act. However, it is a fundamental rule that a later Act supersedes and earlier one, so the 1972 Act's authority was superseded by the consolidated Weights and Measures Act of 1985, which expressly authorises the use of both imperial and metric units as alternatives (according them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 remains in force until Parliament amends it. On this and other grounds the regulations are invalid. They can lawfully be ignored.

 

Design & Layout S-Print 2001. Text copyright of individual contributors