Is 28.34 grams of prevention worth 0.45 kilograms of cure?

If anyone needs more of a clue-hammer to the forehead as to the dangers of a One World Leftist Nanny State Government taking away your sovereignty and national identity, look no farther than yesterday's edition of the UK Daily Mail, and this article by Christopher Leake:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

British shoppers are to be banned from buying eggs by the dozen under new regulations approved by the European Parliament. For the first time, eggs and ­other products such as oranges and bread rolls will be sold by weight instead of by the number contained in a packet.

Until now, Britain has been exempt from EU regulations that forbid the selling of goods by number. But last week MEPs voted to end Britain’s deal despite objections from UK members.

The new rules will mean that instead of packaging telling shoppers a box contains six eggs, it will show the weight in grams of the eggs inside, for example 372g.

Or that a bag of white rolls has 322g inside instead of half a dozen. The rules will not allow both the weight and the quantity to be displayed.

Last night, Britain’s Food Standards Agency said it was opposed to the move, putting the UK on a potential collision course with Brussels. It could be the first test of David Cameron’s pre-Election promise to stand up for Britain’s interests in the EU.

Eggs have traditionally been sold by the dozen or half-dozen, because the old imperial measurements such as inches or pennies were calculated in groups of 12.

Early in the 20th Century, eggs were sold from trays on shop counters and carried home in paper bags. But between the two world wars, it was discovered that eggs kept longer if they were left standing on their ends, so the cartons of 12 and six were developed.

Last night, an FSA spokeswoman said: ‘This proposal would disallow selling by numbers. Retailers would not be allowed to put “Six Eggs” on the front of the box. If it was a bag of rolls, it would say “500g” instead of "Six Rolls."

"It is important that information is provided in a way that is meaningful and beneficial to consumers. This issue is still being considered by EU member states and it will be some time before the regulation is finalised."

The move could cost retailers millions of pounds because of changes they will have to make to packaging and labeling, as well as the extra burden of weighing each box of food before it is put on sale.

The cost is likely to be passed on to shoppers through higher grocery bills.

Experts say it will be next year before the EU is able to pass the controversial measure, which bureaucrats say is designed to help consumers make an informed choice when buying their food because it will require suppliers to provide more comprehensive information.

But last night, food industry experts said the EU plan was ‘bonkers’ and ‘absolute madness’.

Federation of Bakers director Gordon Polson warned that it may be too late to change the rules, even though they will be debated further in the European Parliament.

He revealed that lobbyists had already tried to rectify the regulations, discovered in the 174 pages of amendments to the initial 75-page proposal, but there was not enough time to convince MEPs before the crucial vote.

The British Retail Consortium, which represents 90 per cent of UK shops, will ask Government Ministers to press for the decision to be reversed.

Andrew Opie, the consor­tium’s food director, said: ‘This is a bad proposal – we need to help consumers, not confuse them. We’ll be talking to the Government to encourage them to make sure these plans don’t come into force.’

One major food supplier said: ‘This is hindering rather than helping the consumer, taking away one of the key bits of information. If this goes through it would demonstrate how far removed the legislators are from the real world. It’s bonkers.’

Another industry source added: ‘It’s absolute madness. You can’t make any argument that consumers are being confused by labels for six eggs or four bread rolls.’

Adam Leyland, editor of The Grocer trade magazine, said: ‘You couldn’t make it up, could you? It would be funny if it were an April Fool’s joke. But it’s not and it will potentially cost the industry millions, while confusing customers no end.

‘The EU’s attempt to simplify labeling has created a multi-headed monster.’

The new labeling row is the latest in a long line of European Union food policy scandals.

The EU passed a directive in 1994 ruling that top-of-the-range bananas had to be ‘free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers’. The directive was ridiculed as a symbol of bureaucratic excess in Brussels.

In 1988, it ruled that top-of-the-range cucumbers must bend by only 10mm per 10cm in a directive designed to help packaging and transport.

In 1979, another directive ruled that carrots should be termed as fruits, as the Portuguese made jam out of them.

In 2003, a threatened European ban on smoky-bacon crisps was averted at the last minute when MEPs forced through amendments after a backlash from the British ­public.

Neil Herron, campaign dir­ector of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund, said the EU directive was ‘absolute nonsense’.

He added: ‘If I was a farmer I would get my customers to throw eggs at any official trying to enforce this. It is dir­ectives like this that give the European project a bad name.

'It makes the British public want to just pull out of the whole thing altogether.’

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloody hell, people. I was a kid when that meteric BS came about in the US schools. Hey, wasn't that under CARTER? Funny how this crap happens when you have too many progressive libs around....

Sammy Hagar didn't sing "I Can't Drive 88" as in 88km/hour (55mph).

The British monetary unit will have to become to .45 Kilogram Sterling.

The phrase is "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a yard", not "Give 'em 2.54 centimeters and they'll take 2.74 meters"....

You can't judge a man till you've walked 1.6 kilometers in his shoes, right?

It's The Whole Nine Yards, not The Whole 8.22 Meters.The thousand-yard stare is really just a 914 meter stare.

Americans might just riot in the streets though if they try to turn NFL football metric.

Want a civil war in England? Add Sharia and stir...

And so England continues on its downward spiral towards riots in the streets, and a possible civil war. I say civil war because more and more half-wits in the British government keep acquiescing to Islam, pushing for the allowance of Sharia Law and pushing other aspects of Islam in England, and the British people are only going to take so much of this nonsense before they raise up against it.

Two prime examples from the past week:

Two schoolboys were given detention last week after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped. They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise, which included wearing Muslim headgear, was a breach of their human rights.

One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right; it's taking things too far. I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer. Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.”

Another parent, Karen Williams, said: "I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable. I haven't got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn't do any harm. But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Allah'. Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right. They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

One grandparent summed it up perfectly: “… if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

No shit, Gramps. If you tried to get the Muslim kids to do something Christian or, Allah forbid, Jewish (gasp!!!),then there’d be absolute bloody Jihad and an Intifada called out upon all of the United Kingdom for a slap in the face of Islam. Piccadilly Circus would run red with innocent blood.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, the most senior judge in England last week gave his blessing to the use of Sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance. In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of Sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.

The Lord Chief Justice of The Islamic Kingdom of England

When appointed Lord Chief Justice, Phillips gave the impression he would steer an uncontroversial course. His first act in office was to declare, “I intend to keep out of politics”. Yeah, right.

But his remarks, which back the informal Sharia courts operated by numerous mosques, provoked a barrage of criticism. Lawyers warned that family and marital disputes settled by Sharia could disadvantage women or the vulnerable in supposedly voluntary Sharia deals. Conservatives said that legal equality must be respected and that rulings incompatible with English law should never be enforceable.

Lord Phillips said: 'Those who are in dispute are free to subject it to mediation or to agree that it shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator. There is no reason why principles of sharia law or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of dispute resolution.'He further said that any sanctions must be 'drawn from the laws of England and Wales'. Severe physical punishment - he mentioned stoning, flogging or amputating hands - is 'out of the question' in Britain, he added.

The Arch-Imam of Canterbury. Looks like a real Imam to me, no?

Lord Phillips spoke five months after Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams suggested Islamic law could govern marital law, financial transactions and arbitration in disputes. I called the good Archbishop out on it then too, and I call the good Lord Chief Justice out on it today.

Are you bloody daft, m’lord? You expect the people of England to just give over their civil rights nder English Common Law to appease a bunch of bullies who don’t ascribe to the generally accepted rules of governance and religion in your nation? You can say all you want that the basic rights of English citizens won't be affected, but oce you let Sharia in, it will just fester and grow like a rash until Big Ben will only chime to tell Londoners when to kneel on their rugs.

Pretty soon, and rightly so, the people of England are going to backlash against the Islamics and the government that’s kissing their bearded arses. The Brits may seem all proper and reserved to us Yanks, but I foresee riots on a scale that will make football hooliganism seem like a spring stroll across Hyde Park. Perhaps its high time that the Royals speak up and say something about keeping England English, before they find the good Queen wearing a Royal Burka and being less a figurehead of state and more a third-class citizen not allowed outside without a leash.

Of course, we Americans are fast becoming a colony of Mexico because no one will stand up and say enough is enough, but that’s a blog for another day.

Soon, the Queen will only be allowed outside on Islamic holy days like Ramadan