I think whoever said "Have even heard 10p referred to as two bob (but I think that may be a local thing)" meant specifically a 10p coin being referred to as a two-bob coin, in contrast to a pre-decimal two-shilling coin.
Apart from the immediate aftermath of decimalisation, I've never heard of post-decimalisation *coins* referred to by their pre-decimal names (eg a 5p coin referred to as a shiling, or a 10p coin referred to a two bob or a florin), even though some older people carried on referring to quantities of money or prices in pre-decimal terms for a fairly long while afterwards.
The decimalisation of currency and the (gradual) use of metric measurements rather than imperial ones are things about modern life that have definitely improved.
The main problem with the imperial system is that it used every base under the sun except the only one that it should have done - ten, since we count and are taught to calculate in base 10. And there isn't even a whole-number relationship between (for example) linear and volumetric measurement: there is not an integer number of cubic inches in a gallon. I had to estimate how heavy a copper hot-water cylinder would be when full of water, to decide whether the baulks of wood that I was planning to use would be strong enough. I only had an imperial tape measure. I measured the tank and worked out its volume in cubic inches from V=pi r^2 l. Now "all" I neede to do was to convert this to gallons to estimate the weight from knowing that a gallon of water weighs 10 lb. That's when I realised that I didn't know the conversion factor - looking it up on Google now I see that it's 277.419 cu in / gallon, but this was long before the internet. I wouldn't have had a clue even the magnitude of the factor, never mind its precise value.
So I had to convert the volume to cubic centimetres by multiplying by 2.5 (approximately) cubed, from which it was trivial to convert cc to litres and hence to kilogrammes.