This briefing note has been compiled by the Defendant to inform anyone interested on the circumstances of this case (which was heard at Maidstone Magistrates Court on Thursday 4th April, and will be heard again on 1st May 2002) and the surrounding background to it. It explains why a quantity of road signs were removed last summer and others were partly covered over. It will be suggested that I removed the signs and covered over part of another sign without lawful authority. The charges against me are of theft and criminal damage. However, this is a case that I believe will turn on the issue of what one can do when those in authority do things they're not allowed by law to do, ie. do them without lawful authority. I maintain that it is vital that as British citizens we do not allow organisations like Transco/McAlpine to persistently get away with doing things they are not permitted by Parliament to do. I welcome questions about this case and other matters relating to the attempt by the powers-that-be to obliterate British weights and measures.

1. What is this case all about?

   For 4 years, Transco and its partner McAlpine PPS Pipeline Systems had been erecting road signs in metric units in different parts of the country. These are not permitted under U.K. law and Transco were well aware of that. In short, these signs were and are illegal. In June 2001, yet another breach of the law by Transco/McAlpine took place in Kent. They erected dozens more metric signs along a pipeline in mid-Kent (Tenterden area). Instead of wasting time writing yet more polite letters about the situation that would be ignored by Transco/ McAlpine, this time I elected to remove the illegal signs and then notify Transco.

2. What's your basis for saying the metric signs are illegal?

   What signage is permitted on British roads is governed by legislation. In this case, the key legislation is the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994, a thick set of regulations running to 372 pages. These regulations will be produced and referred to in Court. They say that distance signs, like the ones removed by me in Kent, are not lawful.

3. Why didn't you take other action? Surely two wrongs don't make a right?

   The Court will hear that Transco were put on notice over 4 years ago, in 1997, that to use distance signs on roads approaching their pipelines was illegal. Evidence will be produced that this was brought to their attention on at least two subsequent occasions - once along a pipeline in Lancashire and another time along a pipeline in Cheshire. In both cases the company's attitude was one of virtually complete indifference, and it is not certain that they took any action to remedy the illegal signs i.e. they did not replace them with signs in British units. Based on past experience, it was obvious that Transco/McAlpine would not bother to make their signs legal.

   Unfortunately, for an authority to do something unlawful, ie. something they are not permitted to do under the relevant regulations, is not a criminal offence. The advice I received was that the only other method of remedying this unlawful conduct by Transco/McAlpine would be to initiate High Court injunction proceedings. I could have applied for a High Court Order of Mandamus ordering Transco to comply with the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations.

   To have taken High Court injunction proceedings would not have been appropriate in the circumstances of this case, for these two key reasons:

   1. It would have cost thousands of pounds. Solicitors would have had to be instructed at a cost of at least £150 an hour plus VAT. A barrister would have been needed who would have required a four-figure sum. This was beyond my resources and beyond the resources of any other organisation interested in the problem of the erection of illegal metric signs.
   2. The case would have taken weeks, probably months, to come to Court. We could not have persuaded the Court that this case was urgent when it deals regularly with very urgent family injunction and other injunction proceedings. The pipeline works were only temporary. By the time of any Court hearing, the pipeline works may well have been concluded.

4. So what happened?

   During June, I received a report that dozens of illegal metric road distance signs had been erected in mid-Kent. I was informed (and then checked) that these had been erected by Transco/McAlpine. The signs were distance signs, each set below a 'Danger Men at Work' signs (see Photo 1). The signs read '100 mtrs', '200mtrs', '400 mtrs' or '800mtrs'. On 1st July I removed 29 distance signs, of course leaving the red triangular warning signs in place. I also part-covered over one other sign with black aerosol paint. The only part covered over was an illegal distance which said: '600 metres'. Transco/McAlpine have subsequently covered this over with a label saying '600 yds' -- so the sign now complies with the law. After removal, the signs were taken to a local hideout.

   The signs were all attached to wooden stakes and were removed with the assistance of a screwdriver and hammer. During the afternoon of 1 July I was spotted by a Transco/McAlpine workman and challenged. After giving a false name, I drove off.

5. Why did you give a false name?

   It was a snap reaction. Even though I believed I was justified in removing these signs, I suspected that the company would not be too pleased at their signs being removed. I did notify the company of the removal of the signs by letter and fax the very next day (see next question).

6. Wasn't it dangerous to remove the distance signs?

   No. The red triangular 'Danger Men at Work' signs all remained in place. Only the illegal metric distance signs were removed. A great many motorists do not understand distances in metres and some motorists are positively angered by metric signs. It is an established legal principle that if an accident is caused partly or wholly by a sign not conforming with the Traffic Signs Regulations - as was the case here - the authority which erected the sign may well be liable for part or all of the costs of compensating the accident victims or of any physical damage caused to the car or to other objects.

7. What happened after the removal of the signs on 1 July?

   I will answer that by giving a chronological summary of events....

8. Did you have any indication before 1 July that taking direct action against illegal metric signs was allowed?

   Yes. On 9 June 2001 I covered over the illegal part of a metric sign at Stansted Airport. For this I was arrested and charged with 'criminal damage'. After they took legal advice, British Airports Authority, whose sign it was, declined to give evidence against me. The case was therefore promptly dropped and I then claimed all my Court costs of £367.50. I represented myself on that occasion.

9. Have you had any indication since then that taking direct action against illegal metric signs is allowed?

   Plenty. Here is a list of direct action taken by myself or colleagues, and how the authorities have reacted....

10. Aren't you wasting your time? Aren't metric signs coming in anyway?

    This requires a long answer. The short answer is that nothing in life is inevitable except death. The British people have never approved of their system of weights and measures being obliterated. The Imperial system is a natural system far superior to the metric system and in any case is one we are all familiar with, including younger people who are metric educated. There is overwhelming public support for the 'metric martyrs' who are so wrongly being given criminal records for trying to meet their customers' preference for buying loose goods in pounds and ounces. In a 1995 Gallup survey, 97% of British people said they preferred to use miles and only 3% kilometres. The government plans to waste hundreds of millions of pounds converting all British road signs to metric distances in 2006 or as soon as possible thereafter. This plan is not supported by the British people.

11. Is your action part of a campaign?

    Yes. I am a member of the Council of Active Resistance to Metrication. Visit the British Weights and Measures Association's website at: www.bwmaOnline.com and click on Direct Action against Illegal Metric Signs on their home page.
    British Weights and Measures Association supports direct action which is within the law.
    Their address is:
    45 Montgomery Street, Edinburgh EH7 5JX   telephone 0131 556 6080.
    At the Annual General Meeting of BWMA in May 2001, Sir Patrick Moore told the meeting that to preserve any part of our system of British weights and measures, it was "time for direct action".

Published in March 2002 by Tony Bennett,  66 Chippingfield,  HARLOW,  Essex CM17 0DJ telephone:  01279 635789         e-mail:  ajsbennett@hotmail.com