On 28-Dec-23 15:01, krw wrote:
> On 27.12.23 00:03, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>> True.  Big place, Alaska.
>
> When we visited earlier this year the ship lecturer took Alaska and
> superimposed it over the rest of the US (excluding the fiftieth state)
> and it really is about the same, including all those islands.
>
Mercator projection?

AIUI, Alaska is bigger than the next three largest states combined
(Texas, California & Montana), but if you add in New Mexico (the fifth
largest) it tips the scales.

--
Sam Plusnet

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:

> On 28-Dec-23 15:01, krw wrote:
>> On 27.12.23 00:03, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>
>>> True.  Big place, Alaska.
>> When we visited earlier this year the ship lecturer took Alaska and
>> superimposed it over the rest of the US (excluding the fiftieth
>> state) and it really is about the same, including all those islands.
>>
> Mercator projection?
>
> AIUI, Alaska is bigger than the next three largest states combined
> (Texas, California & Montana), but if you add in New Mexico (the
> fifth largest) it tips the scales.

If Texas gets really troublesome (as it appears to be doing) the idea is
that if it doesn't fall into line then Alaska will be split in two and
Texas will only be the third-largest state.

Rosie

On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:29:18 +0000, Rosie Mitchell wrote:

> Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> I too like caviar and top quality Champagne, and I agree that some
>> English sparkling wine (Nyetimber being a particular favourite) are up
>> there with decent, if not top-notch champagne.
>
> Most of the English wines I've tasted have been acceptable plonk at best
> (and rather expensive acceptable plonk).

Our deranged government says you'll soon be able to buy it in pint
bottles, so the average customer will no longer realise how expensive it
is.

--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

In message <c4GcnV-HZu3dEBD4nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Thu,
28 Dec 2023 14:59:11, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> writes
>On 26.12.23 05:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> there was some vegetable which my mother liked to serve to German
>>friends, who enjoyed it and asked what it was, only to be somewhat
>>disconcerted, as it was a vegetable well enough known in Germany, but
>>only as cattle fodder.
>
>Similarly I cannot bring myself to eat the kale which restaurants in
>this country now offer as a green vegetable and I grew up on a farm
>serving it to the cattle.
>
(Presumably uncooked, though.)

I don't _think_ it would bother me if someone produced something I liked
and then revealed it was something normally known mostly as cattle feed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

In message <87sf3mktwb.fsf@golgonooza.co.uk> at Thu, 28 Dec 2023
19:29:40, Rosie Mitchell <rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> writes
>Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>
>> On 28-Dec-23 15:01, krw wrote:
>>> On 27.12.23 00:03, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> True.  Big place, Alaska.
>>> When we visited earlier this year the ship lecturer took Alaska and
>>> superimposed it over the rest of the US (excluding the fiftieth
>>> state) and it really is about the same, including all those islands.
>>>
>> Mercator projection?
>>
>> AIUI, Alaska is bigger than the next three largest states combined
>> (Texas, California & Montana), but if you add in New Mexico (the
>> fifth largest) it tips the scales.

One of my occasional American correspondents tells me that many
Americans think Alaska is smaller than it is, as it's usually shown at a
smaller scale in atlases and the like - and, that Hawaii is much larger
than it is, for the complementary reason (it really is a collection of
not-_that_-large islands). Rather like most Brits - certainly English -
have no idea how large the Hebrides are, for the same reason (the
largest - something and Harris - is I think bigger than Kent [despite
having a population that's IIRR in four figures!]). Ditto Orkney and
Shetland, though I think more people notice the scale difference for
those.
>
>If Texas gets really troublesome (as it appears to be doing) the idea is
>that if it doesn't fall into line then Alaska will be split in two and
>Texas will only be the third-largest state.
>
>Rosie
>
The latest I've heard about Texas is them sending a planeload of 200
illegal migrants to Chicago without warning, and saying they'll continue
to do that sort of thing until their part of the wall gets built. I must
admit, though I in general don't like the "redneck" PoV exhibited there
on a lot of subjects, I do sympathise with them on that matter, though
of course can't endorse their action.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

On 28-Dec-23 20:43, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:29:18 +0000, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I too like caviar and top quality Champagne, and I agree that some
>>> English sparkling wine (Nyetimber being a particular favourite) are up
>>> there with decent, if not top-notch champagne.
>>
>> Most of the English wines I've tasted have been acceptable plonk at best
>> (and rather expensive acceptable plonk).
>
> Our deranged government says you'll soon be able to buy it in pint
> bottles, so the average customer will no longer realise how expensive it
> is.
>
Who the $%^&* imagined that this was a useful idea, and that the GBP
(Great British Public) was all agog waiting for this to happen?

Alternatively, how desperate must you be if you think _this_ will
improve your electoral prospects?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 28.12.23 19:24, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 28-Dec-23 15:01, krw wrote:
>> On 27.12.23 00:03, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>
>>> True.  Big place, Alaska.
>>
>> When we visited earlier this year the ship lecturer took Alaska and
>> superimposed it over the rest of the US (excluding the fiftieth state)
>> and it really is about the same, including all those islands.
>>
> Mercator projection?
>
> AIUI, Alaska is bigger than the next three largest states combined
> (Texas, California & Montana),  but if you add in New Mexico (the fifth
> largest) it tips the scales.
>

In terms of physical areas I would agree - but in terms of distances
from one end of the Alaskan islands eastwards overlaid it is similar -
it it that long tail of islands into the Pacific.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 28.12.23 20:43, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:29:18 +0000, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I too like caviar and top quality Champagne, and I agree that some
>>> English sparkling wine (Nyetimber being a particular favourite) are up
>>> there with decent, if not top-notch champagne.
>>
>> Most of the English wines I've tasted have been acceptable plonk at best
>> (and rather expensive acceptable plonk).
>
> Our deranged government says you'll soon be able to buy it in pint
> bottles, so the average customer will no longer realise how expensive it
> is.
>

Will any wine producer of repute actually be able to source and utilise
non-standard bottle sizes for a market as small as the UK?

I note that the restoration of the plan to allow lbs (and similar) to
buy produce has in fact been scrapped since Rees-Mogg went.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 29/12/2023 00:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 28-Dec-23 20:43, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:29:18 +0000, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>> Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I too like caviar and top quality Champagne, and I agree that some
>>>> English sparkling wine (Nyetimber being a particular favourite) are up
>>>> there with decent, if not top-notch champagne.
>>>
>>> Most of the English wines I've tasted have been acceptable plonk at best
>>> (and rather expensive acceptable plonk).
>>
>> Our deranged government says you'll soon be able to buy it in pint
>> bottles, so the average customer will no longer realise how expensive it
>> is.
>>
> Who the $%^&* imagined that this was a useful idea, and that the GBP
> (Great British Public) was all agog waiting for this to happen?
>
Alternatively, why is it any business of the Gov't at all ?

Why shouldn't they sell it in 3/17ths of a gallon or .1 of a hogshead ?

As long as there's a £/ml on the label so you can compare costs what
difference does the size of the container make ?

In message <6zydndacO-paBhP4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Fri,
29 Dec 2023 10:13:27, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> writes
>On 28.12.23 19:24, Sam Plusnet wrote:
[]
>> Mercator projection?
>> AIUI, Alaska is bigger than the next three largest states combined
>>(Texas, California & Montana),  but if you add in New Mexico (the
>>fifth largest) it tips the scales.
>>
>
>In terms of physical areas I would agree - but in terms of distances
>from one end of the Alaskan islands eastwards overlaid it is similar -
>it it that long tail of islands into the Pacific.
>
Aleutian, I think. (Though obviously they _are_ Alaskan, too.)
Isn't that rather like measuring the UK as being from the Channel
Islands to Shetland?
My favourite tale about the Aleutian islands: in the early days of
satellite communications, they installed such (they _are_ a long way
from the mainland), but found that at certain times they didn't work too
well: they eventually found that the locals were finding the big dishes
an ideal place for drying fish. I don't know if it is true.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

half the lies they tell about me aren't true. - Yogi Berra

On 29/12/2023 00:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 28-Dec-23 20:43, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:29:18 +0000, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>> Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I too like caviar and top quality Champagne, and I agree that some
>>>> English sparkling wine (Nyetimber being a particular favourite) are up
>>>> there with decent, if not top-notch champagne.
>>>
>>> Most of the English wines I've tasted have been acceptable plonk at best
>>> (and rather expensive acceptable plonk).
>>
>> Our deranged government says you'll soon be able to buy it in pint
>> bottles, so the average customer will no longer realise how expensive it
>> is.
>>
> Who the $%^&* imagined that this was a useful idea, and that the GBP
> (Great British Public) was all agog waiting for this to happen?
>
It will benefit the great British drinking masses. "Two pints of Chat
Eau[1] dans un verre and a packet of crisps, mate."

> Alternatively, how desperate must you be if you think _this_ will
> improve your electoral prospects?
>
[1] Yes. /I/ know it should be Eau de chat.

--
Ric

On 28/12/2023 23:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
> One of my occasional American correspondents tells me that many
> Americans think Alaska is smaller than it is, as it's usually shown at a
> smaller scale in atlases and the like - and, that Hawaii is much larger
> than it is, for the complementary reason (it really is a collection of
> not-_that_-large islands). Rather like most Brits - certainly English -
> have no idea how large the Hebrides are, for the same reason (the
> largest - something and Harris - is I think bigger than Kent [despite
> having a population that's IIRR in four figures!]). Ditto Orkney and
> Shetland, though I think more people notice the scale difference for those.

Which is also why many Americans think it is an island as it is often
shown as an insert on maps somewhere mid-pacific. (And Hawaii is just
off the California coast.)

--
Ric

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:

> In message <87sf3mktwb.fsf@golgonooza.co.uk> at Thu, 28 Dec 2023
> 19:29:40, Rosie Mitchell <rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> writes
>>Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 28-Dec-23 15:01, krw wrote:
>>>> On 27.12.23 00:03, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> True.  Big place, Alaska.
>>>> When we visited earlier this year the ship lecturer took Alaska and
>>>> superimposed it over the rest of the US (excluding the fiftieth
>>>> state) and it really is about the same, including all those islands.
>>>>
>>> Mercator projection?
>>>
>>> AIUI, Alaska is bigger than the next three largest states combined
>>> (Texas, California & Montana), but if you add in New Mexico (the
>>> fifth largest) it tips the scales.
>
> One of my occasional American correspondents tells me that many
> Americans think Alaska is smaller than it is, as it's usually shown at
> a smaller scale in atlases and the like - and, that Hawaii is much
> larger than it is, for the complementary reason (it really is a
> collection of not-_that_-large islands). Rather like most Brits -
> certainly English - have no idea how large the Hebrides are, for the
> same reason (the largest - something and Harris - is I think bigger
> than Kent [despite having a population that's IIRR in four
> figures!]). Ditto Orkney and Shetland, though I think more people
> notice the scale difference for those.

The (single island) of Lewis and Harris is still more densely populated
that 12 of the 50 United States.

Rosie

Rosie Mitchell <rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:
>
>> In message <87sf3mktwb.fsf@golgonooza.co.uk> at Thu, 28 Dec 2023
>> 19:29:40, Rosie Mitchell <rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> writes
>>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 28-Dec-23 15:01, krw wrote:
>>>>> On 27.12.23 00:03, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.  Big place, Alaska.
>>>>> When we visited earlier this year the ship lecturer took Alaska and
>>>>> superimposed it over the rest of the US (excluding the fiftieth
>>>>> state) and it really is about the same, including all those islands.
>>>>>
>>>> Mercator projection?
>>>>
>>>> AIUI, Alaska is bigger than the next three largest states combined
>>>> (Texas, California & Montana), but if you add in New Mexico (the
>>>> fifth largest) it tips the scales.
>>
>> One of my occasional American correspondents tells me that many
>> Americans think Alaska is smaller than it is, as it's usually shown at
>> a smaller scale in atlases and the like - and, that Hawaii is much
>> larger than it is, for the complementary reason (it really is a
>> collection of not-_that_-large islands). Rather like most Brits -
>> certainly English - have no idea how large the Hebrides are, for the
>> same reason (the largest - something and Harris - is I think bigger
>> than Kent [despite having a population that's IIRR in four
>> figures!]). Ditto Orkney and Shetland, though I think more people
>> notice the scale difference for those.
>
> The (single island) of Lewis and Harris is still more densely populated
> that 12 of the 50 United States.
>
> Rosie
>
>

Though in terms of dense populations… Take Donald Trump (PLEASE!).

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 25/12/2023 23:42, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 25-Dec-23 12:23, Joe Kerr wrote:
>> On 25/12/2023 11:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <kut5mfFa2joU1@mid.individual.net> at Mon, 25 Dec 2023
>>> 11:00:31, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> []
>>>> Off to eat this, preceded by champagne cocktails, at my sister's...
>>>>
>>> I was thinking, at the celebrations at the vet practice (sorry to be
>>> on-topic!): I don't like champagne, never have: it's far too dry for
>>> me. And I wonder how many others there are like me, who feel like the
>>> umbrella at the feast whenever some is brought out to celebrate
>>> something (at, presumably, some expense on the part of the bringer,
>>> or at least provider). [I think I usually sip one glass to be polite.]
>>>
>> And there I was thinking I was weird (stop sniggering) when it is
>> actually "a thing" to not like champagne, maybe.
>
> I/we don't actually dislike Champagne, but don't see the point when
> there are plenty of other palatable fizzy wines, available at far
> cheaper prices - if fizzy wine is what you're hankering for[1].

That's rather how I feel about it, as well[1]. It can be lovely but
is[1] ludicrously overpriced; you could[1] get seriously good crémant ,
or other good quality fizz, for the same price as a bottle of very
industrial Moët.

[1] or was, in the days when I could tolerate alcohol.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?

BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alternatively, why is it any business of the Gov't at all ?
>
> Why shouldn't they sell it in 3/17ths of a gallon or .1 of a hogshead ?
>
> As long as there's a £/ml on the label so you can compare costs what
> difference does the size of the container make ?

It’s about weights and measures inspection. If you want to sell something
by weight or volume, HMG needs to check that your litre or kilo is in fact
a litre or kilo and not 900ml or 900g, to prevent fraud on consumers. Each
different standard weight or measure costs money to inspect. Permitting
only specific weights and measures makes the inspection regime affordable
for taxpayers.

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
> Will any wine producer of repute actually be able to source and utilise
> non-standard bottle sizes for a market as small as the UK?

No. And the promise of different-sized bottles of sparkling wine to
celebrate next NYE ignores the minor detail that any methode champenoise
wine that is to be sold a year from now has already been bottled ahead of
secondary fermentation.

On 29-Dec-23 12:55, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <6zydndacO-paBhP4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Fri,
> 29 Dec 2023 10:13:27, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> writes
>> On 28.12.23 19:24, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> []
>>> Mercator projection?
>>>  AIUI, Alaska is bigger than the next three largest states combined
>>> (Texas, California & Montana),  but if you add in New Mexico (the
>>> fifth  largest) it tips the scales.
>>>
>>
>> In terms of physical areas I would agree - but in terms of distances
>> from one end of the Alaskan islands eastwards overlaid it is similar -
>> it it that long tail of islands into the Pacific.

> Aleutian,

Bless you!

--
Sam Plusnet

On 29/12/2023 18:38, Wenlock wrote:
> BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively, why is it any business of the Gov't at all ?
>>
>> Why shouldn't they sell it in 3/17ths of a gallon or .1 of a hogshead ?
>>
>> As long as there's a £/ml on the label so you can compare costs what
>> difference does the size of the container make ?
>
> It’s about weights and measures inspection. If you want to sell something
> by weight or volume, HMG needs to check that your litre or kilo is in fact
> a litre or kilo and not 900ml or 900g, to prevent fraud on consumers. Each
> different standard weight or measure costs money to inspect. Permitting
> only specific weights and measures makes the inspection regime affordable
> for taxpayers.
>
Good point, well made.

In message <ummta2$t404$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:49:06,
Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
>Rosie Mitchell <rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> wrote:
>> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:
[]
>>> One of my occasional American correspondents tells me that many
>>> Americans think Alaska is smaller than it is, as it's usually shown at
>>> a smaller scale in atlases and the like - and, that Hawaii is much
>>> larger than it is, for the complementary reason (it really is a
>>> collection of not-_that_-large islands). Rather like most Brits -
>>> certainly English - have no idea how large the Hebrides are, for the
>>> same reason (the largest - something and Harris - is I think bigger
>>> than Kent [despite having a population that's IIRR in four
>>> figures!]). Ditto Orkney and Shetland, though I think more people
>>> notice the scale difference for those.
>>
>> The (single island) of Lewis and Harris is still more densely populated
>> that 12 of the 50 United States.
>>
>> Rosie
>>
Wow, I didn't realise that: that's startling. From Wikipedia - Kent:
1,442 sq mi, pop (2021) 1,846,478 (1,280/sq mi); Lewis an(d) Harris: 841
sq mi, pop (2013) 21,031 [more than I'd thought, but still tiny]
(25.0/sq mi).
>>
>
>Though in terms of dense populations… Take Donald Trump (PLEASE!).
>
Indeed! Though now _two_ states have told him he can't stand. (Sure,
he'll appeal. Though he certainly isn't appealing.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

he was eventually struck off by the BMA in 1968 for not knowing his gluteus
maximus from his humerus.

In message <umn3mh$u7nd$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 18:38:09,
Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes
>BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively, why is it any business of the Gov't at all ?
>>
>> Why shouldn't they sell it in 3/17ths of a gallon or .1 of a hogshead ?

I don't think there's any restriction on container size - looking at the
three spreads I have to hand, I have: yeast extract - 240g; peanut
butter - 340g (I think that's common for jars - is it the old 12 oz?
[Quick check -12oz is 348g, so yes]); raspberry jam - 454g (1 lb).
>>
>> As long as there's a £/ml on the label so you can compare costs what
>> difference does the size of the container make ?

I don't think I've ever seen a £/ml _on a label_; I think the only
ruling is that the label must contain the weight or whatever in metric,
not that it must be a round number of grammes or whatever (see above
examples). And that for goods sold _loose_, the trader must _display_ a
£/metric, as you say to aid comparison. That was what defused the
"metric rebels" or whatever they were called, beloved of the Daily Mail,
Brit parties, etc. - the market traders who wanted to continue selling
by the pound. And of course they made the exception that pubs can still
sell in pints (I think _without_ showing the £/metric price).

I don't think the £/metric display for fixed-size containers (such as
my jars) is actually _law_, just something the supermarkets are doing
because they know people like it. If it was law, they're massively
breaking it when it comes to multibuy or clubcard offerings, which I've
yet to see a "price per" for. (There's been _talk_ of making that
compulsory in the last few months. There certainly seems no sign of it
happening until it is.)
>
>It’s about weights and measures inspection. If you want to sell something
>by weight or volume, HMG needs to check that your litre or kilo is in fact
>a litre or kilo and not 900ml or 900g, to prevent fraud on consumers. Each
>different standard weight or measure costs money to inspect. Permitting
>only specific weights and measures makes the inspection regime affordable
>for taxpayers.
>
I think as long as the trader's lb weight weighs 454g, within the
tolerances allowed, and he states that that's what it is, he'll survive.
Ditto for rods, poles, and perches.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

he was eventually struck off by the BMA in 1968 for not knowing his gluteus
maximus from his humerus.

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <umn3mh$u7nd$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 18:38:09,
> Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes
>> BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alternatively, why is it any business of the Gov't at all ?
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't they sell it in 3/17ths of a gallon or .1 of a hogshead ?
>
> I don't think there's any restriction on container size - looking at the
> three spreads I have to hand, I have: yeast extract - 240g; peanut
> butter - 340g (I think that's common for jars - is it the old 12 oz?
> [Quick check -12oz is 348g, so yes]); raspberry jam - 454g (1 lb).

There is a range of acceptable volumes, largely to do with historical sizes
and different for cans of liquids, tins of other things, bottles of wine,
bottles of beer, bottles of sauce, etc., but you can’t legally use
non-approved volumes.

>>> As long as there's a £/ml on the label so you can compare costs what
>>> difference does the size of the container make ?
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a £/ml _on a label_; I think the only
> ruling is that the label must contain the weight or whatever in metric,
> not that it must be a round number of grammes or whatever (see above
> examples). And that for goods sold _loose_, the trader must _display_ a
> £/metric, as you say to aid comparison. That was what defused the
> "metric rebels" or whatever they were called, beloved of the Daily Mail,
> Brit parties, etc. - the market traders who wanted to continue selling
> by the pound. And of course they made the exception that pubs can still
> sell in pints (I think _without_ showing the £/metric price).

Unit pricing (£/ml etc.) must be displayed on the supermarket shelf. It
won’t be on the product because the price might change due to either
inflation or special offers.

> I don't think the £/metric display for fixed-size containers (such as
> my jars) is actually _law_, just something the supermarkets are doing
> because they know people like it. If it was law, they're massively
> breaking it when it comes to multibuy or clubcard offerings, which I've
> yet to see a "price per" for. (There's been _talk_ of making that
> compulsory in the last few months. There certainly seems no sign of it
> happening until it is.)
>>
>> It’s about weights and measures inspection. If you want to sell something
>> by weight or volume, HMG needs to check that your litre or kilo is in fact
>> a litre or kilo and not 900ml or 900g, to prevent fraud on consumers. Each
>> different standard weight or measure costs money to inspect. Permitting
>> only specific weights and measures makes the inspection regime affordable
>> for taxpayers.
>>
> I think as long as the trader's lb weight weighs 454g, within the
> tolerances allowed, and he states that that's what it is, he'll survive.
> Ditto for rods, poles, and perches.

The inspectorate won’t test non-standard weights. Of course loose goods are
usually weighed on digital scales, and these can show different units, but
they are tested in metric and the conversion rates are not tested so cannot
be used for setting prices or weighing goods.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 17:12:33 +0000, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

> On 25/12/2023 23:42, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 25-Dec-23 12:23, Joe Kerr wrote:
>>> On 25/12/2023 11:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> In message <kut5mfFa2joU1@mid.individual.net> at Mon, 25 Dec 2023
>>>> 11:00:31, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes []
>>>>> Off to eat this, preceded by champagne cocktails, at my sister's...
>>>>>
>>>> I was thinking, at the celebrations at the vet practice (sorry to be
>>>> on-topic!): I don't like champagne, never have: it's far too dry for
>>>> me. And I wonder how many others there are like me, who feel like the
>>>> umbrella at the feast whenever some is brought out to celebrate
>>>> something (at, presumably, some expense on the part of the bringer,
>>>> or at least provider). [I think I usually sip one glass to be
>>>> polite.]
>>>>
>>> And there I was thinking I was weird (stop sniggering) when it is
>>> actually "a thing" to not like champagne, maybe.
>>
>> I/we don't actually dislike Champagne, but don't see the point when
>> there are plenty of other palatable fizzy wines, available at far
>> cheaper prices - if fizzy wine is what you're hankering for[1].
>
> That's rather how I feel about it, as well[1]. It can be lovely but
> is[1] ludicrously overpriced; you could[1] get seriously good crémant ,
> or other good quality fizz, for the same price as a bottle of very
> industrial Moët.

In the course of my round of the internet range today I ran into a tabloid
puff for a champagne currently on offer by Lidl at 1/3 price off (? £9.99)
and said to be at least as good as a Moët et Chandon. I forget the name
but it was a single word that also happened to start with an M and end in N.
>
> [1] or was, in the days when I could tolerate alcohol.

Iain

In message <umnn0h$10n4d$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:07:45,
Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes
>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <umn3mh$u7nd$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 29 Dec 2023 18:38:09,
>> Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes
>>> BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, why is it any business of the Gov't at all ?
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't they sell it in 3/17ths of a gallon or .1 of a hogshead ?
>>
>> I don't think there's any restriction on container size - looking at the
>> three spreads I have to hand, I have: yeast extract - 240g; peanut
>> butter - 340g (I think that's common for jars - is it the old 12 oz?
>> [Quick check -12oz is 348g, so yes]); raspberry jam - 454g (1 lb).
>
>There is a range of acceptable volumes, largely to do with historical sizes
>and different for cans of liquids, tins of other things, bottles of wine,
>bottles of beer, bottles of sauce, etc., but you can’t legally use
>non-approved volumes.

I didn't know that. Certainly there seem to be a lot of them.
[]
>Unit pricing (£/ml etc.) must be displayed on the supermarket shelf. It
>won’t be on the product because the price might change due to either
>inflation or special offers.

That definitely needs the attention that I've heard over the last few
months being promised it's going to get, then, as regards multibuy and
clubcard (or similar) pricing, which at present _never_ shows the /ml
etc. price.
[]
>>> It’s about weights and measures inspection. If you want to sell something
>>> by weight or volume, HMG needs to check that your litre or kilo is in fact
>>> a litre or kilo and not 900ml or 900g, to prevent fraud on consumers. Each
>>> different standard weight or measure costs money to inspect. Permitting
>>> only specific weights and measures makes the inspection regime affordable
>>> for taxpayers.
>>>
>> I think as long as the trader's lb weight weighs 454g, within the
>> tolerances allowed, and he states that that's what it is, he'll survive.
>> Ditto for rods, poles, and perches.
>
>The inspectorate won’t test non-standard weights. Of course loose goods are
>usually weighed on digital scales, and these can show different units, but
>they are tested in metric and the conversion rates are not tested so cannot
>be used for setting prices or weighing goods.
>
OK, yes, most digital (and I think trader's analogue ones, those with a
moving pointer) usually have multiple units, so presumably the
inspectors check against those. I thought there _had_ been worked out a
way for those who wanted to continue to sell by imperial weights had
been found, thus defusing the Mail-promoted frenzy - something like the
trader must _display_ the price per (k)g, or something, even if s/he
doesn't mention it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I admire him for the constancy of his curiosity, his effortless sense of
authority and his ability to deliver good science without gimmicks.
- Michael Palin on Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/5/7-13

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 28.12.23 20:43, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:29:18 +0000, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>> Wenlock <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I too like caviar and top quality Champagne, and I agree that some
>>>> English sparkling wine (Nyetimber being a particular favourite) are up
>>>> there with decent, if not top-notch champagne.
>>>
>>> Most of the English wines I've tasted have been acceptable plonk at best
>>> (and rather expensive acceptable plonk).
>>
>> Our deranged government says you'll soon be able to buy it in pint
>> bottles, so the average customer will no longer realise how expensive it
>> is.
>>
>
> Will any wine producer of repute actually be able to source and utilise
> non-standard bottle sizes for a market as small as the UK?
>
> I note that the restoration of the plan to allow lbs (and similar) to
> buy produce has in fact been scrapped since Rees-Mogg went.
>

Yup. And being dyscalculic, I can’t do liquid conversions anyway. Without
a trusty measuring jug I’d be stuffed for the tiny bit of cooking I’m
permitted to do but always have struggled with. I can only just do weight
ones where cookery is concerned.

Alexa is handy though. One of her few redeeming features

Mrs McT