Why have you taken that sentence out of a wider paragraph and out of context?

Anyway - I think the query has been solved/answered now so I'm bowing out of this one - it's up to you if you want to continue the "mate" thing etc.


From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:36003] Ahem......!
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:48:57 -0000

Stephen Humphreys Feb 6th:

"You cannot even have a dual label (imperial/metric)."

Stephen Humphreys Feb 9th:

"Yes I agree, and the TSO I spoke to mentioned the fact that you can have
dual labelling"

Make yer mind up, Steve mate!

Regards,

Steve.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:22 AM
Subject: [USMA:36001] Re: History of imperial since 1824


> >I had to wait until I got a response from a TSO I know before making the
> >following claim.
> >
> >
> > It is ***illegal*** to have glasses marked as "568ml" for beer/ale/cider
> > in pubs.  You cannot even have a dual label (imperial/metric).
>
> I too have made enquiries about this and the advice I have received is as
> follows:
>
> The "pint" indication is mandatory. However the law doesn't explicitly ban > supplementarry metric indications. There is a principle in British law that
> if something is not prohibited then it is allowed. In the event that
> glasswear was submitted for approval for use in trade bearing both metric
> and imperial it would only be rejected if the extra information made it
> unclear such that it could be misread for example as meaning "1 pint + 568
> ml".
>
> I can't think of any reason why a glass manufacturer would bother about the > metric label unless there is a market for thier products in other countries
> where they can be used but metric is required.
>
> In conclusion therefore we can rule out glasses that just say "568 ml" but
> we can't rule out "PINT" ... "568 ml"
>
> Phil Hall
>


Reply via email to