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

THE 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's were the first 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 working together we can put an end to compulsion and regain our freedom of choice.


Both the British and the North Americans against metrication.

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.
Reasearch 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 for recipies, 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%) disagrees with compulsion, as does 65% of the next age group (25-34). Of women 71% oppose compulsory metrication.

Tesco's 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 metric propaganda.
In the United States metrication has 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.

And a story from Down Under

13/07/01 20:31 PM

Sir,

I will be forwarding a subscription in due course in Pounds Sterling .

While metric units are superficially more efficient, imperial measures are simply the best for everyday use.  If I may, I will provide you with two examples. One hopefully humourous and one factual.

* In Australia, where I live, it is a criminal offence to use imperial measures. When buying a half-pound of cheese recently, the sales-person correctly informed me that I was not allowed to ask for a weight in imperial measures. I then asked her to imagine that I was a robber and how would she describe me to the police. Her immediate reaction was six-foot two and about fourteen stone ( I am overweight).
* When living in Paris a few years ago, we used to go to the markets every Sunday to buy fresh produce. On occasion, it was sold by the "livre". That is a pound weight. So after two hundred years of metrification that measure is still in currency in rural France. So French grocers are allowed to sell by an equivalent measure to the imperial pound and are not prosecuted. British grocers are fined.

There is something wrong in the state of Denmark - which like Britain has the highest record of compliance with arbitrary EU regulations!

John Kerr-Stevens Director CSA Pty Ltd

 

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