Skip to main content

Model Engineering and Metrication

Council Directive 80/181/EEC of 20 December 1979 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement and on the repeal of Directive 71/354/EEC
is an EU directive that basically phases out most imperial measures apart from Appendix one (of something else) which is:
Imperial Units Of Measurement Available For Primary Use After 1 October 1995
Some imperial units remain available as the primary system of measurement for certain specific uses, either without time limit or no later than 31 December 1999. The units and their uses are as follows:
a. Imperial units of measurement to be used without time limit.
i. pint for sales of draught of beer or cider and for milk sold in returnable containers;
ii. mile, yard, foot and inch for road traffic signs and for related distance and speed measurements;
iii. foot in aircraft heights and other units used in the field of air and sea transport and rail traffic, which have been laid down in international conventions etc (see Article 2 of Directive 80/181);
iv. nautical mile and knot for sea and air traffic;
v. troy ounce for transactions in precious metals;
vi. acre for land registration

What the legislation means is that if you have something that is for example a 1/4 inch bolt. It has to be described as a 63.5mm bolt, but must not even have as a subsidiary description 1/4 inch. Whereas it is reasonable to have equipment designed with metric units, there is a lot of equipment (old steam trains for example) that are designed with imperial units.

This is a situation in which the drive for bureaucratic uniformity is just silly. Why people have to be forced not to describe a 1/4 inch bolt as such or even to have a ruler with inches on it is beyond me.

In practise this will cause problems within the model engineering and heritage engineering sectors. I have, therefore, tabled a motion and written to the DTI suggesting a bit of commonsense is used.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…