4. The Public Purposes

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—

(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b) promoting education and learning;
(c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d) representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
(e) bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
(f ) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the
benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in
addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

I believe that much of this particular BBC report can be classified as “half-truths” which result in “disinformation” being propagated which is at variance with 4(b) of the charter.

The full charter can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/charter.html.

The BBC also has an agreement with the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport. Article 6(1) of that agreement (available on the same web site as above) requires that the BBC give “accurate and impartial news, other information and analysis of current events and ideas.

Again, this article appears to be in full breach of that clause.

Section 3.6 (in part)
” The Code for Crown Prosecutors advises that prosecutors must not be affected by improper or undue pressure from ANY SOURCE (my emphasis) and Counsel advises that the exercise of the discretion not to prosecute, principally in order to avoid potential political difficulties, might well amount to ‘improper’ or ‘undue’ pressure.”

The question is how UKMA can help frame the debate so that it stops being an issue of “free speech” or “London vs. Brussels” and becomes one of harmonization with global (not just EU) standards in a global economy and adoption of a standard that makes just as much sense (in fact, more so) than decimalization of the currency did. (Who would sanely advocate that Lsd should have been allowed indefinitely in place of or even alongside of decimal pounds and pence?)

Whether people ask for 4 bananas, a pound of bananas or half a kilo (in the UK or anywhere else) doesn’t matter very much and of course is not regulated by Brussels or anyone else. What they should receive is what they pay for – a given weight of banana, priced accordingly. I am none the wiser as to which minister or government spokesperson said what to whom in response to what question, but I hope this basic distinction isn’t lost on the government. It’s not rocket science but it’s vital to consumer protection.

We clearly all hoped that the TSO’s victory in this case would have put this issue to bed for once and for all and should have given other TSO’s considerably more influence now that traders know that they’re not going to win if they continue to defy the law. However, unless the government can be made to clarify this statement quickly it’s only going to be more of the same.

“Last year the EU ruled that the UK could carry on using imperial measures, but some councils have continued to take action against people doing so.”

Is wrong – the key part missing being ‘alongside metric measures as a secondary indicator and must be smaller than the metric price’. This reads as though traders don’t have to use metric measurements at all! The article goes on to perpetuate this misleading information.

And this part particularly irritates me: ‘traders unwilling to bend to the EU legislation’, when it was the UK alone that decided to adopt a single, sensible system of weights and measures – the metric system – before Britain joined the EU.

These types of articles from the media are wearing thin, and I think we have more pressing problems to worry about than this.

In my view, this needs to be part of the political jiu-jitsu that UKMA and allies should vigorously pursue without delay.

Another move could be for the local authorities to deal with the issue locally and keep the issue out of the courts. The offenders would be fined and prevented from demanding a trial or at least a trial by jury in front of the media.

The media may have taken the intent the exact opposite way John Denham may have intended. Only time will tell.

The BBC text (which paraphrased Mr Denham’s statement rather than quoting it verbatim) said “The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills said Innovations Secretary John Denham would introduce new guidelines within months that would prevent local authorities from taking traders to court.�

There is a world of difference between the two statements – the phrase “this kind of prosecution� in Mr Denham’s statement could well refer to the current use of crown courts where the use of magistrates courts are appropriate. It could also mean that there is some other change in the offing that would dramatically alter the whole way in which weights and measures legislation is administered and which would provide a “fast track� means of prosecuting people who, to use Mr Denham’s words, are committing “minor offences�.