On 11/07/2022 19:11, williamwright wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 14:24, Robin wrote:

>>> If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.
>>>
>>
>> and get short shrift if £3 13s 11d is the price after the half-crown
>> discount for buying a baker's dozen or more
>
> I'd continue to barter.

Barter, or haggle?

--
Max Demian

On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:

> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.

Has anybody?

I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?

I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?

--

Jeff

On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
> because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.

Why did "it make" sense?

It was only to satisfy bureaucrats, if vendor and customer both prefer
pounds then why should it concern anyone else?

On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
> Please say you don't believe all the other lies Boris wrote in his weekly
> articles in the DT.

As opposed to the lies in propaganda from Brussels?

I remember years ago when I used to regularly buy a newspaper, there was
a column which regularly found errors in promulgations from the EU.
Their own people did not seem to understand the rules they expected
everyone to obey!

On 12/07/2022 09:46, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 09:01, Martin wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 23:09:06 +0100, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
>>>>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
>>>>> (paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
>>>>> take precedence.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>>>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
>>>>
>>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
>>>>> Directive.
>>>>
>>>> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>>> paper.  No-one I know misses either.  An old family friend found that
>>>> after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
>>>> previously it had been beyond her.  I use SI units for everything
>>>> except
>>>> distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in
>>>> miles,
>>>> so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
>>>> were changed, so would I.
>>>>
>>>> The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems
>>>> from
>>>> the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
>>>> is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
>>>> bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
>>>>
>>>>> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>>>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
>>>> was therefore rightly convicted.
>>>>
>>> Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
>>> was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
>>> his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
>>>
>>> Also it wasn't a democratic choice.  It was a condition of accepting the
>>> Maastricht Treaty.
>>>
>>> Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
>>> people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
>>> referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
>>> ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
>>> party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
>>> that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
>>> immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
>>> of them would lose their seats if he did.  His rebels gave in and
>>> approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
>>>
>>> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice.  That was
>>> legislation passed under duress.
>>
>> That's how democracy works in UK.
>>
>>>
>>> After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
>>> discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
>>> important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
>>> Parliament, they would still have been operative.
>>
>> So other than UK going part metric which other regulation is bad?
>
> The one that came to mind first of all was the Working Time Directive.
> It was proposed under "Employment" until the UK said they had a veto on
> that category, so it was finally passed as a Health and Safety Directive
> to which the UK had no veto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003

"Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC is a European Union law Directive and
a key part of European labour law. It gives EU workers the right to:

at least 28 days (four weeks) in paid holidays each year,
rest breaks of 20 minutes in a 6 hour period,
daily rest of at least 11 hours in any 24 hours;
restricts excessive night work;
at least 24 hours rest in a 7 day period;
a right to work no more than 48 hours per week, unless the member
state enables individual opt-outs.

It was issued as an update on earlier versions from 22 June 2000 and 23
November 1993.[1] Since excessive working time is cited as a major cause
of stress, depression, and illness, the purpose of the directive is to
protect people's health and safety. A landmark study conducted by the
World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization
found that exposure to long working hours is common globally at 8.9%,
and according to these United Nations estimates the occupational risk
factor with the largest attributable burden of disease, i.e. an
estimated 745,000 fatalities from ischemic heart disease and stroke
events alone in 2016.[2] This evidence has given renewed impetus for
maximum limits on working time to protect human life and health."

So let's see how 'bad' this has been in practice, shall we?

In the past, some of the most notoriously over-worked people were junior
hospital doctors, but now ...

https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/articles/european-working-time-directive

"The regulations

These regulations created measures designed to protect the health and
safety of workers and aim to ‘improve health and safety at work by
introducing minimum rules for employees relating to daily and weekly
rest periods, rest breaks, annual leave entitlements, length of working
week, and on night work’.

Some groups of workers were initially excluded from these regulations,
including doctors in training but from August 2004, the provisions of
the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) applied to doctors in
training also. This means ensuring that doctors in training can work
safely and effectively without excessive workloads that might compromise
patient care."

.... and more generally ...

https://www.bfwh.nhs.uk/onehr/hr-policies-advice/working-time-directive/

What else?

https://driverhours.co.uk/working-time-directive/

"The Working Time Directive Rules for Drivers:

What is the weekly maximum?

The total number of hours worked cannot exceed 60 hours within any fixed
week.

What is the maximum weekly average?

Over the WTD period, usually 17 or 26 weeks, you must average no more
than 48 hours per week.

I.e. Your hours should be monitored each week for 17 weeks. At which
point you add them all together and divide the total by the amount of
weeks within the period. This result must be no more than 48 hours.

What are the daily driving limits?

You cannot work for more than 6 accumulative hours without a break. As
defined by the Drivers hour’s laws, a break must be at least 15 minutes
in length in order to qualify as a break.

If you are to work between 6 – 9 hours, then you must accumulate 30
minutes of break across your shift."

So this seems to be an example of EU legislation making us all safer
than UK legislation might otherwise have done, and yet you're
complaining about it? Nothing demonstrates the irrationality of the
Brexshit religion greater than that.

And than this ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/jacob-rees-mogg-plan-to-axe-eu-laws-sparks-cabinet-row

"The Brexit opportunities minister is pushing for the laws carried over
after Brexit to expire by a “cliff-edge” deadline of 23 June 2026,
marking 10 years since the EU referendum."

So what he's trying to do is, regardless of the merit or otherwise of
each and every law, repeal them all by a given deadline.

It's an irrational religion based on divisive populist xenophobia,
always was, and always will be.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/07/2022 09:28, Martin wrote:
> Wasn't it because the majority wasn't within the agreed limits? Having
> referendums was the Dutch parliaments decision not the EU's. If UK had set
> similar limits on the Brexit referendum, UK wouldn't have left the EU.

I remember one POTUS (Clinton?) was trying to encourage the UK to stay
in the EU. Someone wondered what Americans would say if a parliament in
Venezuela could produce laws they had to obey, the dollar was replaced
by the Peseta with new Federal Reserve in Panama, a court in Cuba had
supremacy over US courts etc etc.

On 12/07/2022 10:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 21:23:51 +0100, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>>>
>>> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
>>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
>>> where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.
>>>
>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
>>> Directive.
>>>
>>> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
>>
>> because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
>
> The UK Government had no choice.  The mistake they made was mentioning
> the veto during the proposal stage.

As already pointed out several times, this is how UK 'democracy' works,
so your previous railings against the European Parliament accusing it of
lack of democracy are hypocritical.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/07/2022 11:06, MB wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
>>
>> because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
>
> Why did "it make" sense?
>
> It was only to satisfy bureaucrats, if vendor and customer both prefer
> pounds then why should it concern anyone else?

Because having differing units is a con-man's charter.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/07/2022 11:09, MB wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
>>
>> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
>> Please say you don't believe all the other lies Boris wrote in his weekly
>> articles in the DT.
>
> As opposed to the lies in propaganda from Brussels?

Yet another EU-phobic claim made without any supporting *EVIDENCE*, so,
until you provide some, we shall assume that, like all the rest, it's
just more lies.

> I remember years ago when I used to regularly buy a newspaper, there was
> a column which regularly found errors in promulgations from the EU.
> Their own people did not seem to understand the rules they expected
> everyone to obey!

So you should be able to provide examples then, but again fail to do so.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <36jnch96sj6mhmchhlultugrom5dq0689c@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated the
> calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you have a
> machine to do them for you?

It matters if it means you have no real understanding and that makes you
prone to being more easily diddled and mislead.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 11:05:58 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
>
>> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
>
>Has anybody?
>
>I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
>the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
>EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
>about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
>
>I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?

I cant remember a referendum in the Netherlands was it pre-1966?
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 11/07/2022 17:05, MB wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
>> trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
>> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
>> ("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
>> voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years*  of Parliamentary
>> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
>> MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
>> 'democracy' works, and it stinks.
>
> The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get the
> "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.

I remember Farage saying that if they didn't win this time, they would
keep pushing for another referendum as soon as possible.

Phil M

On 12/07/2022 11:14, MB wrote:
>
> I remember one POTUS (Clinton?) was trying to encourage the UK to stay
> in the EU.  Someone wondered what Americans would say if a parliament in
> Venezuela could produce laws they had to obey, the dollar was replaced
> by the Peseta with new Federal Reserve in Panama, a court in Cuba had
> supremacy over US courts etc etc.

Exactly, irrational xenophobic fear-mongering so typical of supporters
of Brexshit.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:44:48 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <36jnch96sj6mhmchhlultugrom5dq0689c@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated the
>> calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you have a
>> machine to do them for you?
>
>It matters if it means you have no real understanding and that makes you
>prone to being more easily diddled and mislead.
>
>Jim

Misunderstanding can happen with any system. I remember once
presenting in a shop two items, less than one pound but more than
fifty pence each, and two pound coins to pay for them. I hadn't even
had to think about it in numerical detail, but the till jockey asked
for "two pound something", presumably having miskeyed the amounts, and
it took some time to explain to her why it couldn't be right. The
logic seemed simple to me, but maybe it wasn't obvious to someone who
had become so accustomed to allowing the machinery to do it as to have
abandoned the effort of thinking.

Rod.

On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:

> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.

I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
you did make an ad hominem attack.
>
> To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the messenger
> for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is just
> another irrational political religion.
>
To use your own words that point of view "needs to be backed up with
evidence, you have provided none".

I know you won't admit you lose, this quote is for the enjoyment of
everybody else, and I will leave the conversation there.

Jim

On 12/07/2022 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
>
>> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
>
> Has anybody?
>
> I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
> the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
> EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
> about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
>
> I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?
>
I think we joined and then had a referendum on whether we wanted to stay in.

Jim

On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
>
> I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
> you did make an ad hominem attack.

I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers. If you
don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

>> To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>> messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>> just another irrational political religion.
>
> To use your own words that point of view "needs to be backed up with
> evidence, you have provided none".

You don't seem to have noticed that you supply the evidence of that
irrationality with every post you make on the subject.

> I know you won't admit you lose, this quote is for the enjoyment of
> everybody else, and I will leave the conversation there.

Others joining you in thinking that Remainers are the cause of the many
failures of Brexshit may not be quite as guaranteed as you assume: for a
start, it would entail admitting publicly that Brexshit has indeed been
the failure that it has, which is something that the religion's most
devout adherents seem to find very difficult to do.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/07/2022 13:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> Misunderstanding can happen with any system. I remember once
> presenting in a shop two items, less than one pound but more than
> fifty pence each, and two pound coins to pay for them. I hadn't even
> had to think about it in numerical detail, but the till jockey asked
> for "two pound something", presumably having miskeyed the amounts, and
> it took some time to explain to her why it couldn't be right. The
> logic seemed simple to me, but maybe it wasn't obvious to someone who
> had become so accustomed to allowing the machinery to do it as to have
> abandoned the effort of thinking.
>
> Rod.

That reminds me of a business trip to London, where I arrived at the
station for my train back home to discover it had been cancelled and I
had to wait for the next one. I went along to Burger King and ordered a
hamburger and a cup of coffee. The till was broken. The till jockey (a
great description!) told me the till wasn't working and had 4 goes at
adding two numbers together. Meanwhile my burger and coffee were getting
cold because they wouldn't be handed over until paid for, so after the
4th go I gave the correct amount I should be charged and I handed over a
£5 note. Then there were 3 goes at telling me what change I should get,
none of which were right. Then the tannoy announced my train and what I
was being offered was only 10p too much so I took it and went for my train.

I wondered on the journey home how much money Burger King would have
lost while the till was broken.

Jim

On 12/07/2022 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 11:06, MB wrote:
>>
>> On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
>>
>> Why did "it make" sense?
>>
>> It was only to satisfy bureaucrats, if vendor and customer both prefer
>> pounds then why should it concern anyone else?
>
> Because having differing units is a con-man's charter.
>
Quite! I was brought up to understand pounds and ounces and suddenly
all weights were in kilogrammes and grammes. I also have an old house
where everything is sized in feet and inches and it became a real
problem finding replacements in imperial measures. A door latch
mechanism in metric made the hole for the spindle not quite in the right
place for the existing handle. Mail order from America was my salvation.

I transferred grocery shopping to shops that were wise enough to put
signs on the goods which said how much it was per kilogram but also had
(in smaller characters because that is what the law insisted on) the
equivalent price per pound. I could do the arithmetic in my head but
didn't see why I should have to.

A lot of the independent shops had a conversion chart behind the counter
so that when a customer asked for 3/4 lb of something (mince in the
butcher's for instance) they knew to weigh out 340g on the scales. They
acquired most of the elderly to shop there because "the people serving
knew what they meant".

Jim

On 12/07/2022 14:12, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
>>
>> I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
>> you did make an ad hominem attack.
>
> I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers.  If you
> don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Hee hee! The usual change of direction to avoid admitting it.
You are *so* predictable.
>

On 12/07/2022 13:37, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
>>
>> Has anybody?
>>
>> I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
>> the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
>> EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
>> about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
>>
>> I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?
>>
> I think we joined and then had a referendum on whether we wanted to stay in.
>
> Jim

Yes, but that comes under the category of "an EU matter affecting only
that state (and carried out by that state)". I don't know of an EU-wide
referendum on any matter - all decisions on such are carried out by the
EU politicians.

--

Jeff

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:tak2hu$22lho$1@dont-email.me...
> Quite! I was brought up to understand pounds and ounces and suddenly all
> weights were in kilogrammes and grammes. I also have an old house where
> everything is sized in feet and inches and it became a real problem
> finding replacements in imperial measures. A door latch mechanism in
> metric made the hole for the spindle not quite in the right place for the
> existing handle. Mail order from America was my salvation.
>
> I transferred grocery shopping to shops that were wise enough to put signs
> on the goods which said how much it was per kilogram but also had (in
> smaller characters because that is what the law insisted on) the
> equivalent price per pound. I could do the arithmetic in my head but
> didn't see why I should have to.
>
> A lot of the independent shops had a conversion chart behind the counter
> so that when a customer asked for 3/4 lb of something (mince in the
> butcher's for instance) they knew to weigh out 340g on the scales. They
> acquired most of the elderly to shop there because "the people serving
> knew what they meant".

I wish I'd been a decade or so younger, so I was brought up to use metric
units instead of imperial ones for estimating, because calculations all in
base 10 are so much easier than calculations in every base under the sun
except 10.

I have no problem buying in metric rather than imperial. When I used to ask
for "four ounces of sliced ham" I didn't mean 4 +/- 1/100 oz, so converting
that to 110 g was not a problem: I didn't think "I used to ask for 4 ounces,
now I have to ask for 113.4 grammes - what a stupid number" - I simply
rounded it to a sensible equivalent.

If you can do the calculation in our head, rather than having a lookup table
of 1, 2, 3, 4 etc ounces to equivalent in grammes, you are better at mental
arithmetic than I am, but then I've always been crap at mental arithmetic: I
need a pencil and paper (or a calculator).

I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz = 1
pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.

The problem comes when even conversion between two different imperial units
is a non-integer. When I was helping my dad install a hot water cylinder, we
wanted to estimate how heavy it would be. We only had a tape measure
calibrated in inches and we had no calculator. Volume = pi r^2 l - easy
peasy - let's assume pi=3 for a rough answer. OK, so I have a volume in
cubic inches. Now what? How do we convert that to gallons - because we knew
that a gallon of water weighs about 10 lb. Not a f-ing clue, not even to an
order of magnitude. We had to convert the linear measurements to
centimetres, get an answer in cc, divide by 1000 and that's your answer in
kg.

In case you were wondering, there are 277.419 cubic inches in a UK gallon or
231 in a US gallon. Hmm, I'd always thought that a US gallon was *exactly*
4/5 of a UK gallon (16 as opposed to 20 fl oz) - maybe UK and US fl oz are
defined differently. Fancy a system where the conversion between linear and
volumetric measurements is either an obscure integer or an even more obscure
decimal number depending on which side of the Pond you are.

Shops should not be compelled to sell exclusively in metric units, but they
should rely on an ever dwindling proportion of the population who actually
wants to use imperial.

On 12/07/2022 11:09, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 09:46, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 09:01, Martin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 23:09:06 +0100, Indy Jess John
>>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
>>>>>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
>>>>>> (paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
>>>>>> take precedence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>>>>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
>>>>>> Directive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their
>>>>> mathematics,
>>>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>>>> paper.  No-one I know misses either.  An old family friend found that
>>>>> after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
>>>>> previously it had been beyond her.  I use SI units for everything
>>>>> except
>>>>> distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in
>>>>> miles,
>>>>> so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if
>>>>> they
>>>>> were changed, so would I.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems
>>>>> from
>>>>> the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion
>>>>> that
>>>>> is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
>>>>> bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>>>>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
>>>>> was therefore rightly convicted.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
>>>> was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That
>>>> was
>>>> his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
>>>>
>>>> Also it wasn't a democratic choice.  It was a condition of accepting
>>>> the
>>>> Maastricht Treaty.
>>>>
>>>> Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
>>>> people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
>>>> referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
>>>> ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
>>>> party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
>>>> that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
>>>> immediate General Election and warned them that a significant
>>>> proportion
>>>> of them would lose their seats if he did.  His rebels gave in and
>>>> approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
>>>>
>>>> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice.  That was
>>>> legislation passed under duress.
>>>
>>> That's how democracy works in UK.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
>>>> discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
>>>> important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
>>>> Parliament, they would still have been operative.
>>>
>>> So other than UK going part metric which other regulation is bad?
>>
>> The one that came to mind first of all was the Working Time Directive.
>> It was proposed under "Employment" until the UK said they had a veto
>> on that category, so it was finally passed as a Health and Safety
>> Directive to which the UK had no veto.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003
>
> "Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC is a European Union law Directive and
> a key part of European labour law. It gives EU workers the right to:
>
>     at least 28 days (four weeks) in paid holidays each year,
>     rest breaks of 20 minutes in a 6 hour period,
>     daily rest of at least 11 hours in any 24 hours;
>     restricts excessive night work;
>     at least 24 hours rest in a 7 day period;
>     a right to work no more than 48 hours per week, unless the member
> state enables individual opt-outs.
>
> It was issued as an update on earlier versions from 22 June 2000 and 23
> November 1993.[1] Since excessive working time is cited as a major cause
> of stress, depression, and illness, the purpose of the directive is to
> protect people's health and safety. A landmark study conducted by the
> World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization
> found that exposure to long working hours is common globally at 8.9%,
> and according to these United Nations estimates the occupational risk
> factor with the largest attributable burden of disease, i.e. an
> estimated 745,000 fatalities from ischemic heart disease and stroke
> events alone in 2016.[2] This evidence has given renewed impetus for
> maximum limits on working time to protect human life and health."
>
> So let's see how 'bad' this has been in practice, shall we?
>
> In the past, some of the most notoriously over-worked people were junior
> hospital doctors, but now ...
>
> https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/articles/european-working-time-directive
>
> "The regulations
>
> These regulations created measures designed to protect the health and
> safety of workers and aim to ‘improve health and safety at work by
> introducing minimum rules for employees relating to daily and weekly
> rest periods, rest breaks, annual leave entitlements, length of working
> week, and on night work’.
>
> Some groups of workers were initially excluded from these regulations,
> including doctors in training but from August 2004, the provisions of
> the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) applied to doctors in
> training also. This means ensuring that doctors in training can work
> safely and effectively without excessive workloads that might compromise
> patient care."
>
> ... and more generally ...
>
> https://www.bfwh.nhs.uk/onehr/hr-policies-advice/working-time-directive/
>
> What else?
>
> https://driverhours.co.uk/working-time-directive/
>
> "The Working Time Directive Rules for Drivers:
>
> What is the weekly maximum?
>
> The total number of hours worked cannot exceed 60 hours within any fixed
> week.
>
> What is the maximum weekly average?
>
> Over the WTD period, usually 17 or 26 weeks, you must average no more
> than 48 hours per week.
>
> I.e. Your hours should be monitored each week for 17 weeks. At which
> point you add them all together and divide the total by the amount of
> weeks within the period. This result must be no more than 48 hours.
>
> What are the daily driving limits?
>
> You cannot work for more than 6 accumulative hours without a break. As
> defined by the Drivers hour’s laws, a break must be at least 15 minutes
> in length in order to qualify as a break.
>
> If you are to work between 6 – 9 hours, then you must accumulate 30
> minutes of break across your shift."
>
> So this seems to be an example of EU legislation making us all safer
> than UK legislation might otherwise have done, and yet you're
> complaining about it?  Nothing demonstrates the irrationality of the
> Brexshit religion greater than that.
>
> And than this ...
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/jacob-rees-mogg-plan-to-axe-eu-laws-sparks-cabinet-row
>
>
> "The Brexit opportunities minister is pushing for the laws carried over
> after Brexit to expire by a “cliff-edge” deadline of 23 June 2026,
> marking 10 years since the EU referendum."
>
> So what he's trying to do is, regardless of the merit or otherwise of
> each and every law, repeal them all by a given deadline.
>
> It's an irrational religion based on divisive populist xenophobia,
> always was, and always will be.

On 12/07/2022 16:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 14:12, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
>>>
>>> I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
>>> you did make an ad hominem attack.
>>
>> I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers.  If you
>> don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>
> Hee hee!  The usual change of direction to avoid admitting it.
> You are *so* predictable.

Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that right:
I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own ad
hominems. You continue to act like a child. You are *so* predictable.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/07/2022 17:36, NY wrote:

> I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz =
> 1 pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.

Well, one out of three anyway.