-
helps nobody
-
anachronistic
-
nobody asked
Must be a special sort of day ending in 'y'
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
73 points (98.7% liked)
United Kingdom
4110 readers
489 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
take the cheapest plonk
sell it in a pint bottle
call it "Blue Passports are Here Again"
picture of Winston Churchill getting noshed off by the Queen while Captain Tom watches
Yorkie-esque "not for girls" campaign but "not for Johnny Foreigner"
- profit
I will barf
How about stop coming up with another way of selling me alcohol and just start selling weed by the eighth?
Stop fucking around you cunts.
I'll have a pint of marijuana, my good fellow!
Why have laws restricting bottles of wine to specific sizes in the first place? Surely as long as it's labeled clearly it's sufficiently easy to know what you're getting.
Surely as long as it's labeled clearly
And therein lies the issue, how clear is clear?
For example, if someone managed to get hold of bottles with slightly thicker glass, you could sell a bottle of wine with slightly less wine in than is obvious from the outside, increasing the price per mililitre by a few percent. Not much individually, but it all adds up over the year.
If you're buying that wine, and looking at a shelf of near identical looking shapes and sizes of bottle, you're already factoring in grape, flavour, price per 750ml, provinence, alcohol content, etc, so what benefit do you get from one bottle being 750ml, and another being 736ml?
Standardisation simplifies manufacturing (of bottles) as well as purchasing of the end product by consumers. There is no benefit to an overly wide selection of sizes.
There are plenty of variable thickness bottles for other kinds of alcohol. It still has to hold 750ml of liquid if that is the volume of the spirit. It would be easier to water things than pass off an incorrect volume.
Yeah, exactly, so volume stays the same and designs can vary. That makes it easier for people to compare because it's 750ml vs 750ml, instead of both design and volume changing by small amounts.
You can't tell the internal volume of something based on its external dimensions, other than maximum potential size.
And therein lies the issue, how clear is clear?
For example, if someone managed to get hold of bottles with slightly thicker glass, you could sell a bottle of wine with slightly less wine in than is obvious from the outside, increasing the price per mililitre by a few percent. Not much individually, but it all adds up over the year.
You put the volume on the label, like you already required to do along side the ABV and other markings. That tells you how much liquid is inside - not trying to judge the size of a bottle by how thick the walls are.
Standardisation simplifies manufacturing (of bottles) as well as purchasing of the end product by consumers. There is no benefit to an overly wide selection of sizes.
This makes no difference to manufacturing really. If it did then all bottles would be the same shape. We can have different shaped bottles for everything already so varying the size makes no practice difference here.
These arguments for standard volumes of bottles are very weak. There might not be any big benefit to different sizes, but there is also not a huge disadvantage either. At best it is mildly simpler to compare things of the same size rather than just at a price per 100ml (regardless of the actual volume). Though you should still have a price per 100ml so you can compare the cost of things at different sizes groups (even for the same product).
A far better argument against this is that it is a pointless stupid waste of time that no one asked for and no one under the age of 50 was even alive to remember wine being sold by the pint. There are far more important things the government can be spending their tax payers money on fighting for.
Just over 50. Can remember it being by the pint(actually fl oz) just. So your age guess is perfect.
But yeah standadization of measurement unit is good. But absolutly no benifit to imperial. Less so now the US trade deal aint gonna happen. But technically even the US is metric legally. All there units are standadised via metric units. And their imperial is diffeeent to english units. As was the whole of europe. That why they changed.
Moving back only makes trade harder world wide.
As for standardised bottles. Even if it was a benifit. It should be a company choice not a law. If all useing the same bottles saves money. Absolutly no reason to use the law to force them to do so.
I am legally blind. So really would be obe of the few people who would benifit from this.
And my view is better lableing. Heck id even support requiring QR codes with info like this and nutritional content. Before bottlesize standardisation.
Actially that would be a huge benifit all told. Being able to use my phone to speak all the details of the product. Including use by dates would be a fantastic advantage to all shoppers.
And also allow multinational supply way cheaper then current system. Still way less restrictive then set size sale. Yet id still question if it should be a law.
Why don’t we apply these rules to all things? Why just milk and booze?
Weights and measures act, appendix 4.2.0 part 3, section 2: chicken nuggies.
Because liquids are harder to judge just from looking, compared to solids, and the UK has a history - pre weights and measures act - of fuckery.
Cheese, for example, is sold by weight, and back in the day markets would have weigh rooms so you could confirm that the grocer's scales were correct.
And while the weight and measures act was created to stop "fuckry"
Bottle size and glass size was only applied to alchole not pther liquids.
That was a war thing. Allong with closing times for pubs. Created to limit lunchtime drinking for amunition workers. Standadised glass and bottle size allowed those workers to judge their intake.
Many werr less good with number then today. So a lot of our pre war measurement were based on things people deltwith as a rough estimat. (Acre was the amount a hourse cpuld plough without needing a break.) Stuff loke that.
Also thier already existed a tradition if not law for glass sizes. As land ownees felt controlling poor folks use of alcahole how to help the poor. So pubs often only got the right to open on thoer land based on these 1800 ideals.
All sorts of our history went into the choices at the time. The legal act was just one part.
But most were clearly defined for a te where we did not have to deal with multiple nations using different bersions of the pint etc. As was true in mosr of europe at the time.
Metric was a bloody good idea. And is freaking stupid to reverse now.
I really dont thinl the tories calling for this crap are intouch enough even with theor desired vote.
Im 53. So grew up using both units. But even folks my fathers age do not temd to support thos now. It was there pre war parents that wanted it. And their really are not many of them left voting.
It might have changed, but at one point you could only sell pre-sliced bread in 400g or multiples of that.
The shelf-edge labels are already required to give the price per 100ml or per litre.
And therein lies the issue, how clear is clear?
For example, if someone managed to get hold of bottles with slightly thicker glass, you could sell a bottle of wine with slightly less wine in than is obvious from the outside, increasing the price per mililitre by a few percent. Not much individually, but it all adds up over the year.
If you’re buying that wine, and looking at a shelf of near identical looking shapes and sizes of bottle, you’re already factoring in grape, flavour, price per 750ml, provinence, alcohol content, etc, so what benefit do you get from one bottle being 750ml, and another being 736ml?
Standardisation simplifies manufacturing (of bottles) as well as purchasing of the end product by consumers. There is no benefit to an overly wide selection of sizes.
That sounds like a case for restricting the thickness of glass bottles rather than restricting the volume of liquid. How would switching to pints make any difference with that? As long as they're labelled correctly I don't see much problem.
I don't see what's wrong with allowing imperial measurements tbh. Most places by now are well accustomed to Metric that I don't see businesses suddenly switching to Imperial.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Still and sparkling wine will be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml (pint) sizes in 2024, alongside existing measures, under new rules, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) announced on Wednesday.
However, the pint-sized move appeared to be the extent of a push towards imperial measures, after a government consultation into allowing more businesses to buy and sell using them resulted in no new action.
A consultation said the government was looking at the change in order to “capitalise on the benefits of Brexit”, citing the “totemic” metric martyrs court cases against traders who refused to switch to grams and kilograms.
In undercover footage, he was filmed with a pint of pale liquid – identified by some people, almost certainly erroneously, as wine – while appearing to negotiate his fee to advise on transfers.
Kevin Hollinrake, the minister for enterprise, markets and small business, said, apparently seriously, that “our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy.
“Instead of fixing the crisis in our NHS, cleaning up our rivers and tackling crime, this Conservative government has been spending its time developing plans to introduce a new bottle of wine size.
The original article contains 921 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
What a fantastic example of a guardian article:
Brexit outrage, a poem by a dead Scottish guy, a callback to Churchill, a football reference?
The minor reforms to wine measures are optional.
Buried in the middle as a throw away comment.
I was watching the news on the telly this morning at the same time as reading this article and they spent all of a minute on this story but the guardian has milked it (in pints or millilitres?) for all it can. 😂🥂🍻
But of course it's optional? I don't understand why it's scandalous that they've put that in the middle? Did you want it in the headline?
The headline implies that these silly measurements are being brought back on a wider scale than what they are and it doesn't mention they're optional until a few paragraphs in. So yes I did want the headline to be more realistic of the situation and less misleading.
So consider why they couldn't have written the headline as:
UK government quietly drops Imperial measurement plan but allows wine and champagne to be sold in pints.
That's pretty close to what the headline was on Sky news on their rolling ticker at the bottom of the screen. But that wouldn't generate the clickbait I suppose.
Like I said, I saw this article and was watching the morning news at the same time and they seemed to imply two completely different stories. But instead the guardian had added it's own spin to the story and headline.
added it’s own spin to the story and headline.
Folks go on about folks not reading the article. But honestly threads like this give a much more balanced view.
At least in the comments we get to see multiple opinions about the event. And can then read the article if it sounds unbiased.
But lets be honest. Their is no such thing as unbiased news. It is and has always been a mater of atraxkting both readera and advertisers. Click bait os just the newest method.
Or worst millianairs buying papers to push thier views is a very old technique. Even in the 1700s
Heck the most unrealistic thing about the spiderman universe. Is that the newspaper owner never had some corrupt reason to hate spiderman. But was genuinly opposed to vigilanty justice. While useing his paper to push exactly that apon peter parker.
Well most unrealistic if yoi ignore the whole spider bite radiation effect.
Honestly I see it as more as point-and-laugh than outrage