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.


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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…