Sir, Far from lamenting the eclipse of the acre by the hectare, Alice Thomson (Thunderer, July 22) should be pleased on two counts.

Firstly, as not even The Times can juggle measurements in multiples of 4,840 square yards, it has resorted to multiples of rugby pitches, Trafalgar Squares and the like. As both are roughly a hectare (100 x 100m), popular and official measurements are now gloriously realigned — and the work of sub-editors also becomes infinitely easier.

Secondly, Brussels has “abolished” the acre simply because it had fallen into disuse with our own Land Registry. So, decision-making about what units should be used in the UK is now back where it belongs — in the UK.

Jonathan Miles
Woking, Surrey

Sir, We have had to suffer many changes being a member of the EU but the latest directive 80/181/EEC is, in appropriate farming terms, “the last straw”. I have a good idea of the size of an acre, having being told at school that a nearby public park was 15 acres. But 6.069 hectares doesn’t create the same mental picture.

Peter A. Rushforth
Cullingworth, W Yorks

Sir, As any crossword buff will know, “hectare” is merely an anagram of “the acre”. So, Brussels — pace Eric Morecambe — we are already using all the letters but not, it would appear, in the right order.

Graham Merriam
Bagby, N Yorks

Explore Letters

• Feedback