Part P the reality.
Ed Sirett
I was posing as someone who 'wanted' to do the right thing.
Turns out after a conversation that whilst you can submit a notice
to your LABC and do the work yourself. However the fees are such that it
is financially very disadvantageous to do this.
Whilst it is true that the fee for the LABC is 100+VAT (for up to
£2000 quids worth of work) they are empowered in this matter to make
additional charges for the building notice. [Section 12 something or other ...]
The net result is that the LABC simply acts as an agency for sending
a registered sparky to inspect the work. There are five organisations
whose members may self certify. NICEIC, ECA, NAPIT ...
So effectively the law is use a registered sparky or pay for one through
the nose via the LABC.
This law is effectively unpoliceable until something goes wrong. If you
need to sell you might as well shell out a few hundred for a full test and
inspect ticket.
If there is other work that is notifiable taking place then it might well
be that a zealous LABC officer might be interested in Prat-P violations.
This year I'm too busy to sort out registration but I can see I'll have
to bite the bullet sooner or later.
DIY has now become a subversive activity...
--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Tim S
> I phoned my local building control dept.
> I was posing as someone who 'wanted' to do the right thing.
I did the same, which I've mentioned in detail before, so I won't repeat
it here.
> Turns out after a conversation that whilst you can submit a notice
> to your LABC and do the work yourself. However the fees are such that it
> is financially very disadvantageous to do this.
>
> Whilst it is true that the fee for the LABC is 100+VAT (for up to
> £2000 quids worth of work) they are empowered in this matter to make
> additional charges for the building notice. [Section 12 something or other ...]
> The net result is that the LABC simply acts as an agency for sending
> a registered sparky to inspect the work. There are five organisations
> whose members may self certify. NICEIC, ECA, NAPIT ...
I wonder if that "Section 12" was what my Dad's LBA are
using to justify making me get my own Periodic Test doneas part of the BNA
completion and sign off?...
> So effectively the law is use a registered sparky or pay for one through
> the nose via the LABC.
I'd reckoned on 100+VAT + periodic (at say 150-200 for 3 bed house). Which
is quite expensive. Unless you submit a single BNA for all the work you
can think of for the next 10 years. Did your council have a view on one
BNA covering many small jobs over a protracted period of time?
> This law is effectively unpoliceable until something goes wrong. If you
> need to sell you might as well shell out a few hundred for a full test and
> inspect ticket.
I agree. Someone is going to find a fault in their house, think "hmm, must
fix immediately, very trivial" and is going to just do it, notifiable or
not.
> If there is other work that is notifiable taking place then it might well
> be that a zealous LABC officer might be interested in Prat-P violations.
I'd been worrying about the reverse. Let's say I put in a shed supply and
dutifully write up a BNA. I'm happy if the BCO or agent is exacting about
the quality of my electrical installation, it is outside work, after all.
However, what I don't want to happen is him starting to take different
angles such as "BTW, your shed is too close to house/fence/etc, get rid
of it". It's been where it is for years, there's nowhere else to put it
and the neighbour doesn't mind at all.
Or finding Part L or Part M non compliance, neither of which I consider
safety related and thus don't really give a damn about.
> This year I'm too busy to sort out registration but I can see I'll have
> to bite the bullet sooner or later.
>
> DIY has now become a subversive activity...
Hmm.
Tim
The Wanderer
<snip>
> So effectively the law is use a registered sparky or pay for one through
> the nose via the LABC.
'S a funny old world, all this used to be done for free by the old
Electricity Boards. I wonder how many now would clamour for
privatisation......
:-))
--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net
timycelyn
"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.25....@dionic.net...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:21:12 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:
>
> I'd been worrying about the reverse. Let's say I put in a shed supply and
> dutifully write up a BNA. I'm happy if the BCO or agent is exacting about
> the quality of my electrical installation, it is outside work, after all.
>
> However, what I don't want to happen is him starting to take different
> angles such as "BTW, your shed is too close to house/fence/etc, get rid
> of it". It's been where it is for years, there's nowhere else to put it
> and the neighbour doesn't mind at all.
>
> Or finding Part L or Part M non compliance, neither of which I consider
> safety related and thus don't really give a damn about.
>
>> This year I'm too busy to sort out registration but I can see I'll have
>> to bite the bullet sooner or later.
>>
>> DIY has now become a subversive activity...
>
> Hmm.
>
> Tim
Hi Tim,
In another recent thread on Prat P someone asserted that if work is
more than (6 months?) old, the BCO can no longer require removal/change -
there is some sort of statute of limitations. Unfortunately there were no
replies, so I'm left wondering whether this was correct or wishful thinking.
Does anyone know whether a BCO's powers to request alteration of completed
work are time-limited in this way??
Cheers
Another Tim
Tim S
Hi Tim
That was possibly me. It's something I read in a recent edition of a book
on English building regs. I'll see if I can find the bit and look it up
and give you quote. Just need to locate the bit of furniture my baby
daughter hid the book under ;->
I could have the wrong end of the stick, or the rule could have been
updated.
Certainly one would expect a statuary limitation. I remember being
surprised that it was seemed a relatively short period.
Tim
big...@meeow.co.uk
Not only can one now be fined for selling food accurately weighed and
marked in standard British units.
Now you can be found guilty of repairing your house to an excellant
standard of safety, beauty, function and reliability. And punished for
so doing.
Wonderful. One of lifes lessons
NT
Joe
big...@meeow.co.uk writes
and you'd be hard put to find many outside the regular posters here who
can see anything wrong with 'raising' electrical installation standards,
or reducing 'confusion' among purchasers.
People don't think critically about anything beyond what's familiar to
them. How can they? How many here would applaud e.g. higher standards of
food inspection? That's got to lead automatically to safer food, hasn't
it?
Whatever the proponents of modern education say, children are *not*
being taught and encouraged to think for themselves. Above all, they're
not taught to think more than one move ahead. That's the last thing any
state wants.
--
Joe
doozer
> and you'd be hard put to find many outside the regular posters here who
> can see anything wrong with 'raising' electrical installation standards,
> or reducing 'confusion' among purchasers.
>
> People don't think critically about anything beyond what's familiar to
> them. How can they? How many here would applaud e.g. higher standards of
> food inspection? That's got to lead automatically to safer food, hasn't it?
>
> Whatever the proponents of modern education say, children are *not*
> being taught and encouraged to think for themselves. Above all, they're
> not taught to think more than one move ahead. That's the last thing any
> state wants.
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the Government really does not
want us to be able to think more than one move ahead. After all if we
all feel that we are unable to decide things for ourselves we are easier
to control and manipulate. There is already a sizeable minority (hey the
optimist is speaking now) who will believe whatever the Government tell
them without question (especially if it related to a "war" on terror).
As for Part P I am having a difficult time deciding whether it is a good
thing or a bad thing. There are quite a few people out there that will
try and tackle a job without a good grasp of what it entails and
potentially end up with dangerous or even deadly results.
Having seen some of the cowboy work done on my present house, for
instance exposed chocy blocks held in place with blu-tak, by
"professionals" there is a big part of me that welcomes the oversight of
an independent body.
As someone who intends to get properly trained before tackling any work
covered by part p I am annoyed as it means yet more expense - often for
relatively minor jobs. The idea situation I think would be certification
courses. Harry House Owner would go on a (night) course which is
examined at the end. If they pass they can do _some_ work without
notification.
big...@meeow.co.uk
> In message <1109376416.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> big...@meeow.co.uk writes
> >> DIY has now become a subversive activity...
> >
> >Not only can one now be fined for selling food accurately weighed
and
> >marked in standard British units.
> >
> >Now you can be found guilty of repairing your house to an excellant
> >standard of safety, beauty, function and reliability. And punished
for
> >so doing.
> >
> >Wonderful. One of lifes lessons
> People get the government and laws they deserve
Its often said, but I doubt it.
> (but why do *I*, ..etc.)
> and you'd be hard put to find many outside the regular posters here
who
> can see anything wrong with 'raising' electrical installation
standards,
> or reducing 'confusion' among purchasers.
>
> People don't think critically about anything beyond what's familiar
to
> them. How can they? How many here would applaud e.g. higher standards
of
> food inspection? That's got to lead automatically to safer food,
hasn't
> it?
>
> Whatever the proponents of modern education say, children are *not*
> being taught and encouraged to think for themselves. Above all,
they're
> not taught to think more than one move ahead.
Absolutely. Its difficult for a teacher to handle 30 kids that /are/
thinking ahead, as it needs a lot more attention to each one, that's
why. But the end result is miles better.
> That's the last thing any
> state wants.
We'd be a lot better off if people did. Current limietd thought leads
to duff decisions and oportunity failures left right and centre. Maybe
its the last thing those that dont think very far want.
NT
Capitol
mobile phones and speed limit laws. ie not often!! As probably a quarter
of the house modification jobs being done even now are not building
regulation approved and LA inspected, part P is cloud cuckoo land, but a
politician can claim they have improved on life's risks for a few morons.
Regards
Capitol
Sugar Free
>People get the government and laws they deserve (but why do *I*, ..etc.)
>and you'd be hard put to find many outside the regular posters here who
>can see anything wrong with 'raising' electrical installation standards,
>or reducing 'confusion' among purchasers.
Is that what Part P actually does? - I mean, does it raise electrical
installation standards, and reduce confusion among purchasers?
The correct answer, by the way, is no.
But it's also true to point out that it seems to lower the standards
of purchasers and increase confusion in installers.
You'd be surprised (or not) how many folk know nothing whatever about
Part P. You'd be even more surprised (or not) how little the DIY
sheds want publicity or knowledge about Part P.....
>People don't think critically about anything beyond what's familiar to
>them. How can they? How many here would applaud e.g. higher standards of
>food inspection? That's got to lead automatically to safer food, hasn't
>it?
People, generally, don't think critically. They merely criticise what
they don't understand, which is most things.
And I can see they've got to you too if you think that higher
standards of inspection will automatically lead to better food - how?
That can only happen if the correct higher standards are applied, and
stuck to. Same with electricity.
>Whatever the proponents of modern education say, children are *not*
>being taught and encouraged to think for themselves. Above all, they're
>not taught to think more than one move ahead. That's the last thing any
>state wants.
Children are not being taught much of anything (of value) in state
schools these days. Apart from how not to think at all. For that
reason it is now perfectly acceptable to stick one's chid(ren) in
front of the TV in their room, or the lounge, or wherever, for as many
hours a day as possible. There's no danger of thought on that either.
Owain
| Having seen some of the cowboy work done on my present house,
| for instance exposed chocy blocks held in place with blu-tak,
| by "professionals" there is a big part of me that welcomes
| the oversight of an independent body.
But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let alone by an independent
body. All the certification bodies are financed by their members. There is
nothing to stop a cowboy business registering with another body after being
'struck off' (like that would ever happen) by the first.
| The idea situation I think would be certification courses.
| Harry House Owner would go on a (night) course which is
| examined at the end. If they pass they can do _some_ work
| without notification.
Rather better would be to return to teaching kids some common sense and not
to go running to nanny if they burn their fingers. And improve the quality
and status of so-called vocational training.
Owain
Dave Stanton
> You'd be surprised (or not) how many folk know nothing whatever about Part
> P. You'd be even more surprised (or not) how little the DIY sheds want
> publicity or knowledge about Part P.....
Only place around here that has notices about Part P is my electrical
wholesalers, I was reading it last Sat while getting some stuff.....
Dave
--
For what we are about to balls up may common sense prevent us doing it
again
in the future!!
Paul Barker
Tim S Wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:21:12 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:
> I phoned my local building control dept.
>
> I did the same, which I've mentioned in detail before, so I won't
> repeat
> it here.
> Turns out after a conversation that whilst you can submit a notice
> to your LABC and do the work yourself. However the fees are such that
> it
> is financially very disadvantageous to do this.
>
> Whilst it is true that the fee for the LABC is 100+VAT (for up to
> £2000 quids worth of work) they are empowered in this matter to make
> additional charges for the building notice. [Section 12 something or
> other ...]
> The net result is that the LABC simply acts as an agency for sending
> a registered sparky to inspect the work. There are five organisations
>
> I wonder if that "Section 12" was what my Dad's LBA are
> using to justify making me get my own Periodic Test doneas part of the
> BNA
> completion and sign off?...
> So effectively the law is use a registered sparky or pay for one
> through
>
> I'd reckoned on 100+VAT + periodic (at say 150-200 for 3 bed house).
> Which
> is quite expensive. Unless you submit a single BNA for all the work
> you
> can think of for the next 10 years. Did your council have a view on
> one
> BNA covering many small jobs over a protracted period of time?
> This law is effectively unpoliceable until something goes wrong. If
> you
> need to sell you might as well shell out a few hundred for a full test
> and
>
> I agree. Someone is going to find a fault in their house, think "hmm,
> must
> fix immediately, very trivial" and is going to just do it, notifiable
> or
> not.
> If there is other work that is notifiable taking place then it might
> well
> be that a zealous LABC officer might be interested in Prat-P
>
> I'd been worrying about the reverse. Let's say I put in a shed supply
> and
> dutifully write up a BNA. I'm happy if the BCO or agent is exacting
> about
> the quality of my electrical installation, it is outside work, after
> all.
>
> However, what I don't want to happen is him starting to take different
> angles such as "BTW, your shed is too close to house/fence/etc, get
> rid
> of it". It's been where it is for years, there's nowhere else to put
> it
> and the neighbour doesn't mind at all.
>
> Or finding Part L or Part M non compliance, neither of which I
> consider
> safety related and thus don't really give a damn about.
> This year I'm too busy to sort out registration but I can see I'll
> have
> to bite the bullet sooner or later.
>
>
> Hmm.
>
> Tim
Customers can apply for exhemption from part L. Perhaps they can do the
same for part P. What does part M relate to please?
--
Paul Barker
Tony Bryer
> But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let alone by an
> independent body. All the certification bodies are financed by
> their members. There is nothing to stop a cowboy business
> registering with another body after being 'struck off' (like that
> would ever happen) by the first.
No, but part of the Part P self-certification process is that the
contractor has to provide a certificate stating what they've done
and that it complies and has been tested. If work is done and so
certified and you (or perhaps a subsequent owner) then need to take
action against the contractor they're hoisted by their own petard.
Outside Part P it would be very easy for them to claim that they
hadn't done that bit of work or you asked them to do a cheap job to
save money.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
bob
I will bet Ł100 that during 2005 there will not be any prosecutions
for failing to comply with the Paperwork requirments of Part P,
None
Not one
Providing that the work complies with BS7671 with the exception of the
certificates, You will not be prosecuted
or
You will not be made to remove the Installation
I will bet Ł100
Any JobsWorth BCO want to take me on!!
Well!
OK Ed you can go back to work now
to earn money
to pay tax
to pay your council tax
to pay the wages of the BCO
so he can try to put you out of a job
Regards
Bob
Tim S
> Customers can apply for exhemption from part L. Perhaps they can do the
> same for part P. What does part M relate to please?
Just out of interest, what might be grounds for exemption from Part L? I'm
aware of the points scoring system to exempt the requirement to fit
condensing boilers from April 2005. Are there others (apart from reasons
due to conservation, eg Grade I/II listing)?
Tim
Gary Cavie
says...
Does anybody have any guesses as to what Parts Q-Z are goinng to be?
I'll start:
Part Q: Use of magnolia trade emulsion only. Switches and sockets must
not be dropped out to paint behind them, paint must instead be splashed
over the edges. Decorators will be able to self-certify this, DIY
painting and decorating strictly outlawed.
Part R: Weekly rubbish bags can only be placed outside, ready for
collection, by a government licenced waste placement technician
Frank Erskine
wrote:
>
>Does anybody have any guesses as to what Parts Q-Z are goinng to be?
>
>I'll start:
>
>Part Q: Use of magnolia trade emulsion only.
Provide, of course, that the emulsion complies with a French-inspired
EN specification.
>Switches and sockets must
>not be dropped out to paint behind them, paint must instead be splashed
>over the edges.
Naturally. If any switches or sockets are merely touched by a
brush/roller/paint pad, they have to be "independently" inspected by
NICEIC, CORGI or the BCO (and a 'reasonable' fee paid) before the
house can be reoccupied.
>Decorators will be able to self-certify this, DIY
>painting and decorating strictly outlawed.
I would hope that this includes face-painting, for which an NVQ will
be introduced after the General Election, so no blabbing about this
until after said GE...
--
Frank Erskine
Tony Bryer
> Just out of interest, what might be grounds for exemption from Part
> L? I'm aware of the points scoring system to exempt the requirement
> to fit condensing boilers from April 2005. Are there others (apart
> from reasons due to conservation, eg Grade I/II listing)?
Part L basically says that you must take reasonable measures to
ensure the conservation of fuel and power. Period. All the rest in
the Approved Documents gives you ways of showing that you comply but
a BCO may decide that what you have done, whilst not meeting the AD,
is reasonable.
doozer
> "doozer" wrote
> | Having seen some of the cowboy work done on my present house,
> | for instance exposed chocy blocks held in place with blu-tak,
> | by "professionals" there is a big part of me that welcomes
> | the oversight of an independent body.
>
> But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let alone by an independent
> body. All the certification bodies are financed by their members. There is
> nothing to stop a cowboy business registering with another body after being
> 'struck off' (like that would ever happen) by the first.
What you are essentially saying is that electrical work should be
completely unregulated because the current system is wrong. That's
bizzare. To use an analogy: everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll
pretend) speeds on motorways. Ergo the current system of fines and
points isn't working. Should we therefore give up and say people should
drive whatever speed they like on motorways? I would say that it would
be better to modify the system so that it does work.
>
> | The idea situation I think would be certification courses.
> | Harry House Owner would go on a (night) course which is
> | examined at the end. If they pass they can do _some_ work
> | without notification.
>
> Rather better would be to return to teaching kids some common sense and not
> to go running to nanny if they burn their fingers. And improve the quality
> and status of so-called vocational training.
>
We have, I admit, fostered a nanny state attitude which I completely
agree is wrong however I am at a bit of a loss to know how to teach
common sense. To me common sense would be "don't touch the wiring of
your house unless you are confident you know what you are doing" because
after all you can end up with more than burnt fingers if you get it wrong.
I would like to see an increase in the amount of vocational teaching in
schools and a to see teachers stop portraying the attitude that if you
don't read English Lit at Oxford you've failed.
> Owain
>
>
>
Doctor Evil
"doozer" <gra...@crazysquirrel.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:c5idnfBOZ4J...@eclipse.net.uk...
"Nanny state", a political propaganda term used by the Tory party. And they
all lap it up and use it, when it is not the case.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
big...@meeow.co.uk
rest of us as beds. After 2007 it will not be permitted to sleep on
non-compliant beds, and a vast mountain of scrapped beds is expected.
60 million of them in fact.
Part Zzz addresses 2 perceived problems: the lack of any restraint to
the sleeper from falling out of bed, and the risk of falling onto a bed
and sustaining back injury.
All new beds will require suficient restraint to prevent anyone getting
out of bed while asleep. Since this has to cater for sleep walkers and
sleep-mountain-climbers, all new beds require ends and sides 8' high,
and with no footholds to enable climbing. The height also avoids the
possibility of falling onto the bedside and being injured.
One will have to operate a system of safety interlocks in order to get
out of bed, and lower an 8' side, which provides a suitable ramp to
allow access for the disabled. Well, all 5% of disabled that use
wheelchairs anyway. The other 25% that cant negotiate an 8' ramp twice
a day, mainly the very elderly, will now need a carer just to get into
bed. So will the arthritic 20% that cant operate the new interlocks. No
plans to certify the necessary 100,000 new carers has been announced.
There has been some criticism of this proposal due to the fact that
only one person has died from falling out of bed in the last 50 years.
uk-d-i-y regulars have pointed out that emergency access to a nearby
telephone will be prevented by this mecanism, and an estimated 200 more
people per year will die from heart attacks as a result of inability to
reach the phone in time. However the implementation of Part Zzz is
going ahead regardless.
In short, the sale and use of beds as we know them today will become
illegal. There has been talk of the possibility of gang activity moving
in, with street corner bed dealers tipped to become a new kind of
criminal, selling old beds for anything upto £1000. Sting operations
are expected, with jail terms of upto 5 years for... selling beds.
The new Eurobed is expected to cost £2500. Sources have been quoted as
saying that 60 million x 2500 = £150 billion represents an excellant
investment in the nation's health and safety.
A few seem to think it may just be another way of fleecing the public,
but there seems little support for such views. In a Moron poll
conducted in 2005, members of the public said:
"Its great the government is thinking of our safety. We didnt even know
we needed new beds!"
"I cant see the point of it, but I suppose its all progress"
"I've been worrying all week about the danger of falling out of bed and
dying. I'm glad the gubmint is finally going to crack down on this
awful danger."
"How my mother lived with her bed for 60 years and survived I'll never
know. I keep nagging her to get a safe bed, but she wont listen. Old
people can be so ignorant sometimes."
"I'm a bit worried it might stop me getting to the phone if I have
another heart attack, but I'm sure the experts know what theyre doing,
have taken expert consultation, and have weighed up all the issues."
"I dont have space for an 8' ramp, and cant afford £2500 plus
installation anyway. The council says I'll have to extend the bedroom,
but youre not allowed to do that in a conservation area, so we'll just
have to move. The house will no longer be considerd as habitable, and
I'll owe the bank 100,000 for the cost of the new house. I dont know
how I'll cope."
"I cant aford it either, I'll be homeless. What am I supposed to sleep
on then?"
"They said theyre going to arrest me. I just cant afford it. If I'm in
jail I cant operate my business, I'll go bankrupt. My wife's threatened
to leave me unless I get 'proper safe beds.' I think I'm gonna kill
myself."
Polls are showing 89% support for the new legislation.
big...@meeow.co.uk
> The reality is that part P will be as well observed as the use of
> mobile phones and speed limit laws. ie not often!! As probably a
quarter
> of the house modification jobs being done even now are not building
> regulation approved and LA inspected,
I wonder where you get 1/4 from, from what I've seen so far I'd have
thought it was much higher. Of the last 7 I can think of seeing, only 2
even looked compliant.
> part P is cloud cuckoo land, but a
> politician can claim they have improved on life's risks for a few
morons.
I'm sure it will be enforced, just as the weights and measures farce
was. And our country will be once again the worse for it. At least our
laws, imperfect as they may be, are a lot better than in some
countries.
NT
Andrew Chesters
> A lot of good sense!
But does this mean I can't modify my daughter's bed (in a Wallace &
Grommit style) to dump her straight into the bath when her alarm clock
goes off?
Owain
| Part R: Weekly rubbish bags can only be placed outside,
| ready for collection, by a government licenced waste
| placement technician
This is going the other way. It used to be government waste placement
technicians hoisted the bucket on their shoulders, carried it to the lorry
and emptied it and then brought it back and replaced it inside the gate with
the lid on, whistling and proffering a cheerful Morning Squire.
Now you the householder have been given the freedom to sort your rubbish
into four different coloured plastic bags, three different coloured plastic
boxes, and one paper tag each year for the christmas tree, and put your
different coloured boxes and bags out on different days on a three-week
cycle (excluding christmas and bank holidays when households on red bag
Wednesdays will be transposed with blue box Saturdays and should note that
garden waste will only be collected if they've tied a yellow ribbon round
the old oak tree)
Oh, and what does my local council do whilst spending £££££ per year on new
wheelie bins? Illegally landfills the old ones.
Owain
Ed Sirett
I'm not worried about BCO. They have a totally impossible job trying to
regulate the exceptionally 'vibrant' [1] community round here.
The last things BCO is going to do is try to track down unlicensed and
uncertified work in private homes when they can scarcely keep track of
or serious dangerous work on whole buildings.
[1] Vibrant is one of those words which sounds good but can mean almost
anything you like. IMHO it means that building round here is about as
well organized as the later stages of the biblical tower of Babel.
--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Mike
"doozer" <gra...@crazysquirrel.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:c5idnfBOZ4J...@eclipse.net.uk...
> completely unregulated because the current system is wrong. That's
> bizzare. To use an analogy: everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll
> pretend) speeds on motorways. Ergo the current system of fines and
> points isn't working. Should we therefore give up and say people should
> drive whatever speed they like on motorways? I would say that it would
> be better to modify the system so that it does work.
What we need is the old pre-Raygun US system where laws are set to what 90%
of local inhabitants would do. So speed limits are set to what 90% of
drivers drive at.
Owain
| > | ... there is a big part of me that welcomes
| > | the oversight of an independent body.
| > But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let
| > alone by an independent body.
| completely unregulated because the current system is wrong.
No. I am pointing out that the current system does not provide any increase
in safety. Safety could have been far better served by making it a B Regs
requirement for all electrical work to be done in a safe manner (as is the
case in Scotland).
Greater regulation of tradespeople would drive out cowboys. Most American
states require electricians to be individually qualified before they can
work on wiring, and businesses have to get a licence from the state or
county authorities. Customers can complain to those authorities and too many
complaints do result in a loss of licence to carry on business. I wouldn't
say the system is perfect but it is miles better than the current British
system, where even in NICEIC registered companies there is no requirement
for the person who works on your wiring to be either competent or qualified.
| That's bizzare. To use an analogy: everyone (ok not quite everyone
| but we'll pretend) speeds on motorways. Ergo the current system of
| fines and points isn't working. Should we therefore give up and
| say people should drive whatever speed they like on motorways?
Why shouldn't they? It's not speed that kills people, it is driver error.
Most speed-related fatalities occur in 30mph areas anyway.
Owain
Joe
<so...@stud.somewhere.com> writes
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:43:05 +0000, Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
>
>>People get the government and laws they deserve (but why do *I*, ..etc.)
>>and you'd be hard put to find many outside the regular posters here who
>>can see anything wrong with 'raising' electrical installation standards,
>>or reducing 'confusion' among purchasers.
>
>Is that what Part P actually does? - I mean, does it raise electrical
>installation standards, and reduce confusion among purchasers?
>
>The correct answer, by the way, is no.
Possibly I was being too subtle, but I did use quotation marks. And I
was trying to cover too much with too little: I intended the 'purchaser
confusion' part to apply to the banning of Imperial measures.
I was suggesting that many, probably most, uninformed people believe
that the Part P provisions will improve safety. I was not saying that I
do. The subject has been done to death here over the last few months,
but I've yet to see a question raised in the general media.
>
>But it's also true to point out that it seems to lower the standards
>of purchasers and increase confusion in installers.
>
>You'd be surprised (or not) how many folk know nothing whatever about
>Part P. You'd be even more surprised (or not) how little the DIY
>sheds want publicity or knowledge about Part P.....
>
>>People don't think critically about anything beyond what's familiar to
>>them. How can they? How many here would applaud e.g. higher standards of
>>food inspection? That's got to lead automatically to safer food, hasn't
>>it?
>
>People, generally, don't think critically. They merely criticise what
>they don't understand, which is most things.
>
>And I can see they've got to you too if you think that higher
>standards of inspection will automatically lead to better food - how?
Again, possibly over-subtle. I was offering a topical example of an
industry that was likely to be unfamiliar to most users of the group,
and asking if they would be as automatically suspicious of claimed
standards improvements as they would in more familiar areas.
Overall, I was suggesting that improvements in standards as claimed by
the state are not likely to lead to higher real standards. I was
suggesting that many group readers have some knowledge about the
procedures covered by Part P, and can see through it more easily than
others might.
>
>That can only happen if the correct higher standards are applied, and
>stuck to. Same with electricity.
Even that I doubt. I don't believe there are any substitutes for
knowledge, competence and above all, the will to do things properly.
Certainly, pieces of paper are not.
Suitable examinations can determine knowledge and competence, but a
piece of paper does not prove that either were employed in doing a given
job, nor that any effort was made to do it right.
--
Joe
brugnospamsia
"Joe" <j...@jretrading.com> wrote in message
news:xvYff4Gp...@jretrading.com...
I'm 44 years old and while I freely admit when I use a tape measure I'll use
feet and inches if that side of the tape measure happens to be conveniently
close, (sometimes maybe even 3 feet and 7.5 cm !) but I learned my science
in SI units and can't understand why people want to buy things in a system
based on 16. When I'm measuring bread ingredients I know a litre of water
weighs 1kg at room temperature, I have no idea what that is in pints and
pounds. .. Would anyone really want to go back to pounds shillings and pence
? (not least because of the horror of paying 19/6 for a pastie !)
How many people (especially in these days of self-service) actually go out
to buy exactly 1lb 12 oz (or 0.8 kilogrammes) of apples ? If it's celeriac
or fennel or a nice fish, I'll choose one particular one I fancy, if it's
carrots for juicing, I want as many as I can fit in my basket.
I learned the other day that the Chinese used to sell things in volumetric
measures that were actually bells - the accuracy of which were presumably
dependant upon the local availability of people with a good ear for musical
pitch.
----
As it happens I spent some time this afternoon with my friend and her 14
year old.
I was quite impressed by the general science she is studying - working from
real life examples - photo copiers for electrostatics, fossil fuels, energy
efficiency.... When I was at school there was little overlap between
disciplines that I remember.
I asked her how she would measure ingredients for a cake and was amazed to
hear that their domestic science teacher used both metric and imperial ..
clearly that part of the curriculum had missed out on modernisation.
They aren't taught much about such things as the Holocaust.. but then
neither was I in the 70s, but they /are/ taught the basics of analysing
hidden meaning in the all-pervasive media where such horrors tend to
propogate (starting with popular cinema) .....
I'm not sure if things are better or worse than they were. I fully admit the
whole Saudi / "Islamic" terrorist dimension caught me by surprise at my
advanced age ... even as an instinctively cynical person long concerned
about our dependance on fossil fuels.
just a few random musings ....
Jeremy
brugnospamsia
"Mike" <mi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cvt86r$kof$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
But what of "average" drivers like myself whose life is threatened by the
outside lane of the motorway having become a "fast lane" for the BMW crowd ?
And I long for the day when the street where I live has the speed limit
reduced to a more realistic 20 mph to rein-in those who think speed limits
are a figure to attain as quickly as possible.
(what I really long for is a society where basic consideration for others
would make such speeding unaceptable)
Jeremy
pedestrian, one time motorcyclist, daily cyclist, occaisional driver.
big...@meeow.co.uk
DIY work on beds is due to be made illegal by Part Zzz due to the
superior safety of professional cowboy work. Sorry. Doing what you wish
with your life, regardless of how eminently sensible it may be, is not
permitted under the new Cowboy Clause.
One major supplier says Dumpout beds will be produced if there is
sufficient demand, but no product has been forthcoming. Users face a
likely 3 year wait for an approved dumpout bed. Price tag is expected
to be in the £8,000 region. If its ever produced. Industry analysts
say expected sales would need to top 1 milion for production to begin,
and this is considered unlikely.
DIY modification to an existing approved Eurobed will require the owner
to have the bed recertified. Recertification takes 6 days and costs
£120,000, and covers unlimited production of identical beds. Tests
included in this appraisal are:
bounce test
moutain climber tests a,b,c
popularity of paint colour test
2000 newton ramp crushing force test
10,000 newton base orgy test
nibbleproof coating test
flexure of fixing under load test
One expert noted that no paint lead-content test is included.
There has been some complaint from the small bed business bureau, but
the bed industry spokesman is in favour of the new legislation, saying
it will eliminate the cowboy operators. Coincidentally, the bed
industry spokesman is paid for by Megabed Corp and Inbed Corp, and
attended the press interview with a noose round his neck. However I'm
sure this wont affect his avowed deep respect for morality and
impartiality.
None of the local businesses interviewed seemed to consider themselves
cowboys, but cowboys never do. Our shifty looking local town centre
Crumbtown Pine Emporium says they will simply go out of business, but
thats the cost of progress. We dont mind sacrificing these dodgy little
businesses, we have no concern for them because (we've been assured)
theyre bad news for the community.
Unapproved dodgy-diy modifications will automatically incur a £2000
fine or 60 days jail time. Megabed Corp ('We own your beds for you, you
just pay the yearly license fee') has cautioned owners that each
component part of the Eurobed is approved, so replacing a screw with an
identical but unapproved screw from another manufacturer will now be
illegal.
One lawyer also points out that Megabed's contract indemnity clause
means any owners so doing will have to pay all Megabeds legal fees
involved in prosecuting any customer found to have made unauthorised
changes to any part of their beds. Customers wishing to change from
chromed screws to brass could have a nasty shock, warns Trading
Whatnots, with expected legal costs of upto £25,000 per case. Megabed
is currently 'upgrading' their team of 'family' lawyers.
One selfish local landlord has been fined a total of £10,000 and
sentenced to 300 days in jail for possession of 5 unauthorised beds. He
was reported by the concerned mother of one of his tenants. He said in
court today 'Im just trying to make a living.' The jury found him
guilty despite the judges remark 'I dont know what all the fuss is
about.' The judge has been earmarked for upgrade education, and
disciplinary action is expected to be taken against him. Unconfirmed
sources report him as saying 'Im very very very sorry for ever thinking
such a thing, it was just a moment of thoughtlesness, i was so silly,
could I please have my job back.'
While one website claims this is merely another protectionist fleecing
scheme, it is clearly a great idea for the advancement of mankind, and
EUBed, the Elimination of Unsafe Beds Act, is expected to become law in
2007, following its succesful public education campaign titled 'The
EUBed, protecting you.'
On a more serious note, the whole business of regulation and its many
pros, cons and pitfalls is quite an interesting subject. And it seems
to be one that is sometimes under-understood when applied. I wonder if
theres a decent study on it somewhere. I wouldnt even know what the
study of regulation was called.
big...@meeow.co.uk
sensible it may be, is not
> permitted under the new Cowboy Clause.
Only competent persons are permitted to do what they want with your
life. Competent persons is defined for the purpose of the Act as 'any
17yr old with an NVQ who has paid their EARACHE registration fee'
While some have expressed concern at this aspect of the Act, we have
been assured that appropriate safety measures will be in place. But
no-one can tell us what they will be.
Roger
from "brugnospamsia" <brugno...@blueyonder.co.uk> contains these words:
> I'm 44 years old and while I freely admit when I use a tape measure
> I'll use
> feet and inches if that side of the tape measure happens to be conveniently
> close, (sometimes maybe even 3 feet and 7.5 cm !) but I learned my science
> in SI units and can't understand why people want to buy things in a system
> based on 16. When I'm measuring bread ingredients I know a litre of water
> weighs 1kg at room temperature, I have no idea what that is in pints and
> pounds. .. Would anyone really want to go back to pounds shillings and
> pence
> ? (not least because of the horror of paying 19/6 for a pastie !)
At 44 you are the same age as the SI version of the metric system. Those
of us who are a generation older (I am 60) grew up using Imperial units
as a matter of course and, if we were lucky, learned the complexities of
the cgs and mks systems along with the finer points of the Imperial
system at school.
AIUI our quaint educational system still insists on teaching centimetres
as the primary unit of length despite that not being a preferred unit
under the SI system.
As for water I thought every one would know that a gallon of water was
10 lbs (or a pint is a lb and a quarter).
Even lsd had its benefits. Decimalization hiked inflation to such an
extent that fractions of a pound are no longer of much importance but
240 will factorise by 3 as well as 2 and 5 which makes thirds (6/8d) and
smaller fractions easier to use.
--
Roger
Roger
from "brugnospamsia" <brugno...@blueyonder.co.uk> contains these words:
Snip
> But what of "average" drivers like myself whose life is threatened by the
> outside lane of the motorway having become a "fast lane" for the BMW crowd ?
snip
> Jeremy
> pedestrian, one time motorcyclist, daily cyclist, occaisional driver.
In other words anything but an average driver.
What is an average driver? Probably someone who drives 12000 miles a
year and doesn't *usually* exceed the 70 limit by more than 15% and the
30 limit by more than 50%.
FWIW I am not an average driver either. I only do 4-5000 miles per year
and don't usually exceed 30 limits by more than 15% or 70 limits by more
than 50%. :-)
--
Roger
doozer
> "doozer" wrote
> | > | ... there is a big part of me that welcomes
> | > | the oversight of an independent body.
> | > But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let
> | > alone by an independent body.
> | What you are essentially saying is that electrical work should be
> | completely unregulated because the current system is wrong.
>
> No. I am pointing out that the current system does not provide any increase
> in safety. Safety could have been far better served by making it a B Regs
> requirement for all electrical work to be done in a safe manner (as is the
> case in Scotland).
>
> Greater regulation of tradespeople would drive out cowboys. Most American
> states require electricians to be individually qualified before they can
> work on wiring, and businesses have to get a licence from the state or
> county authorities. Customers can complain to those authorities and too many
> complaints do result in a loss of licence to carry on business. I wouldn't
> say the system is perfect but it is miles better than the current British
> system, where even in NICEIC registered companies there is no requirement
> for the person who works on your wiring to be either competent or qualified.
Now that sounds like a half way decent implementation. Perhaps we should
contact our MP and suggest a system along these lines (although I
doubt very much that will change anything). I don't particular like the
idea of having state registered x (where x is any trade) but it does
solve the problem in a way that a member sponsored body can't.
>
> | That's bizzare. To use an analogy: everyone (ok not quite everyone
> | but we'll pretend) speeds on motorways. Ergo the current system of
> | fines and points isn't working. Should we therefore give up and
> | say people should drive whatever speed they like on motorways?
>
> Why shouldn't they? It's not speed that kills people, it is driver error.
> Most speed-related fatalities occur in 30mph areas anyway.
Perhaps I should have chosen an issue that isn't quite so contentious. I
was attempting to provide an example of a situation where the law is
being widely broken not begin a discussion about whether the current
speeding laws are correct. I could also have chosen copyright
infringement when downloading music or shop lifting for example.
>
> Owain
>
>
>
Mike Harrison
>"doozer" wrote
>| > | ... there is a big part of me that welcomes
>| > | the oversight of an independent body.
>| > But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let
>| > alone by an independent body.
>| What you are essentially saying is that electrical work should be
>| completely unregulated because the current system is wrong.
>
>No. I am pointing out that the current system does not provide any increase
>in safety. Safety could have been far better served by making it a B Regs
>requirement for all electrical work to be done in a safe manner (as is the
>case in Scotland).
Not just that, it will actually decrease safety as it increases the barriers to upgrading older
and/or unsafe installations to current standards, and making unsafe practices like use of trailing
sockets more attractive to the avarage man in the street..
>Greater regulation of tradespeople would drive out cowboys.
No it woudn't - it would just drive them further underground.
doozer
>
> As an example, we sell olive oil. I've picked every olive by hand, adied
> by my wife. I've personally supervised the pressing, bottling and
> labelling. What I sell is good. Yet I still have to perform the same
> bureaucratic handstands as someone who buys in all their ingredients and
> has no idea what is in what they sell. Not only that, but the big
> suppliers deliberately adulterate what they sell, knowing damn well that
> there is no analysis that will detect the fact that good olive oil has
> been adulterated with bad.
>
I have every sympathy for your situation, there are many regulations
that impose an undue burden on small businesses. The problem, though, is
that not everyone is honest and devoted to quality as you are. If the
regulation was removed there would be people that would sell crude oil
as olive oil because it was cheaper.
What we have to do is achieve a situation where the burden of regulation
is minimized but the quality is kept as high as possible.
If you don't believe that people would adulterate food in the name of
profit just look at the example of the Austrian wine produced in 1985
which was laced with ethylene glycol!
> That's just one example.
>
> [1] As well as several other jobs.
>
doozer
>
>>Greater regulation of tradespeople would drive out cowboys.
>
> No it woudn't - it would just drive them further underground.
>
Hopefully so deep that most people won't come across them. You are
always going to have some cowboys just as you are always going to have
some crime. What we have to do is decide what an acceptable maximum is
and work to reduce it to that level. Zero tolerance policies and other
ideas or that ilk scare me. They shout extremism which is never good.
When I first heard about Part P I dug out the consultation paper and had
a bit of a flick through it. One part sticks in my mind more than any
other. Something like ten times more people die from falling off chairs
changing light bulbs then do modifying their home electrics. Laugh, I
nearly fell off my chair!
big...@meeow.co.uk
> In article <110944872...@iris.uk.clara.net>, Owain wrote:
> > But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let alone by an
> > their members. There is nothing to stop a cowboy business
> > registering with another body after being 'struck off' (like that
> > would ever happen) by the first.
>
> contractor has to provide a certificate stating what they've done
> and that it complies and has been tested. If work is done and so
> certified and you (or perhaps a subsequent owner) then need to take
> action against the contractor they're hoisted by their own petard.
> Outside Part P it would be very easy for them to claim that they
> hadn't done that bit of work or you asked them to do a cheap job to
> save money.
A receipt provides that, part p does something else. Mandate receipts
if thats what you want to achieve.
NT
big...@meeow.co.uk
> What you are essentially saying is that electrical work should be
> completely unregulated because the current system is wrong. That's
> bizzare. To use an analogy: everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll
> pretend) speeds on motorways. Ergo the current system of fines and
> points isn't working. Should we therefore give up and say people
should
> drive whatever speed they like on motorways? I would say that it
would
> be better to modify the system so that it does work.
Your example is hopelessly wrong, and does not compare to the
electrical cnotracting situation very well.
> everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll
> pretend) speeds on motorways.
Speeders always use this lame excuse.
> We have, I admit, fostered a nanny state attitude which I completely
> agree is wrong however I am at a bit of a loss to know how to teach
> common sense.
Start by reintroducing the basic core concepts that have been lost in
recent decades, to the heavy cost of everyone. Personal responsibility,
its not hard to teach the concept. Discipline, including self
discipline, again its not hard to teach it, its just that people today
are so lost about these core concepts.
The childlike expectation that nanny state will give you everything you
need and that you dont need to solve problems and make decisions that
will seriously affect your life is both widespread and dangerously
naive. It is absolutely core that kids learn that nothing is
guaranteed, even life itself. Everything you have depends on the
decisions you make and the actions you take.
This is a very simple idea, it is not difficult to teach it, and it
makes all the difference between a complete t--t and someone that makes
good of their life. But idiot parents today would rather not teach
these simple life transforming realities to their offspring lest it
cause them to worry ocasionally.
The message is simple: nothings guaranteed, your decisions determine
what happens in your life, everything costs money, especially the
unexpected, and we're here to help or bail you out if ever its needed.
> To me common sense would be "don't touch the wiring of
> your house unless you are confident you know what you are doing"
because
> after all you can end up with more than burnt fingers if you get it
wrong.
Yes, people are taught a false sense of security today. They want
everything to be 'safe' and seem to think it is. But nothing is, not
one thing. Every single activity in life leads to injury or death in
some cases. Yep, even using a condom. Life is about minimising your
risks: if you think its about avoiding risk, you dont understand risk.
> I would like to see an increase in the amount of vocational teaching
in
> schools and a to see teachers stop portraying the attitude that if
you
> don't read English Lit at Oxford you've failed.
I'd like to see practical teaching in schools, things people could
really benefit from in life. Learning the basics of practical skills is
rather more useful than reading some crap that has nothing to do with
reality. Schools emphasise fiction so much and dont teach simple life
changing skills, like what credit cards are about and so on.
NT
big...@meeow.co.uk
How exactly is changing the legal limit from 30 to 20 going to slow
down those that do 60 past the front door? The problem is not with
those that obey speed limits, its with the ones that take no notice.
The solution is to design and produce an evidence cam pack that is sold
to the public, that anyone can use to do their own local policing if
they choose. Ebough people would take that offer up to make a big
difference. The device would contain vid camera, date stamping, speed
detector, no external data inputs, official verifiable seals, and a set
of instructions explaining what is needed in order to get a successful
prosecution. Since the evidence would come from persons assorted, the
requirements would be more stringent.
This would be a very cost effective way indeed to police.
NT
big...@meeow.co.uk
Part P...
> Not just that, it will actually decrease safety as it increases the
barriers to upgrading older
> and/or unsafe installations to current standards, and making unsafe
practices like use of trailing
> sockets more attractive to the avarage man in the street..
True if new installs include more outdoor electrics than the old ones
being replaced. :)
Seriously though, dead on. Old installs are a far bigger risk than
non-part p new installs, I know from seeing some. They really show how
trivial some of the issues with new installs are by comparison.
Observed in old installs:
- Switches that lack spring action, and will sit arcing away happily.
- perished rubber wiring, sometimes with partially bare conductors
wrapped around each other but perchance not yet touching.
- In one case even the lack of any fusebox - though that was an
unusually ancient example.
- burnt out wires
- bare live wires
- bell wire and choc blocks on the surface at touch height.
- mains sockets hanging out of wall on wires
etc. These installs are more often owned by the poorest of people, and
Part P will provide the maximum delay in rewiring. Yes, such installs
are still in use. One of the neighbours had their perished bare rubber
wiring redone only last year.
> >Greater regulation of tradespeople would drive out cowboys.
> No it woudn't - it would just drive them further underground.
It all depends what and how the regulation occurs. Part p has got it
all wrong.
NT
big...@meeow.co.uk
> I asked her how she would measure ingredients for a cake and was
amazed to
> hear that their domestic science teacher used both metric and
imperial ..
> clearly that part of the curriculum had missed out on modernisation.
What does the choice of French vs British units have to do with
modernisation? People are so brain washed about this subject they
really think that using the French units has something to do with
modernisation or progress.
Real progress would be made if we accepted like grown ups that
a) both systems are in widespread use
b) both have their pros and cons
c) neither is giong to disappear from the world any decade soon
d) anyone with one brain can work with 2 systems.
Ask any American about this weights and measures fashion enforcement
we're enduring, and they think its nothing short of a farce. Its almost
fascist.
NT
Tony Bryer
wrote:
> A receipt provides that, part p does something else. Mandate
> receipts if thats what you want to achieve.
It's not about receipts. I am also not really fussed about DIY
electrics as my instinct is that either the work will be done
properly (? tested though) or done by someone who will not take
notice of any regulations of any sort. But I do think it not
unreasonable that anyone who offers electrical installation by way
of business should be required to issue a simple certificate stating
what has been done and that it complies. The problems - as evidenced
by the current Part P self-certification debate and CORGI - is how
to do this so as to achieve a reasonable level of control without
being unnecessarily costly and bureaucratic.
For a nice picture of 'professional' electrics (Dolphin Bathrooms):
http://home.btconnect.com/tg/dolphin.htm
Should the person who did this be let loose on the public?
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
doozer
>
> Your example is hopelessly wrong, and does not compare to the
> electrical cnotracting situation very well.
Please explain how it is wrong or at least can not be used as an
analogy? I am happy to admit that it doesn't fit as an analogy if you
can show me a good reason why. As I said in another post perhaps I
should have chosen a less contentious issue as an example because so
many people have an axe to grind on this one (I notice from your other
replies you seem particularly interested with the issue of speeding).
I was aiming to provide an example of a situation where there is wide
spread failure to adhere a particular law and then use that to point out
that it is nonsense to scrap a law for that reason. There are numerous
situations where this is the case - speeding being just one of them.
What I am asking for is that if the law is being widely flouted we
examine the situation to find out why and then correct the law if
necessary or enforce it more rigorously if it is correct. If it helps
the debate we can replace speeding with X therefore allowing you to
better separate the issues.
> Speeders always use this lame excuse.
I wasn't aware that we were debating speeding. If you re-read my post
you will notice that I wasn't offering any excuses for speeding.
>
>
>>We have, I admit, fostered a nanny state attitude which I completely
>>agree is wrong however I am at a bit of a loss to know how to teach
>>common sense.
>
>
> Start by reintroducing the basic core concepts that have been lost in
> recent decades, to the heavy cost of everyone. Personal responsibility,
> its not hard to teach the concept. Discipline, including self
> discipline, again its not hard to teach it, its just that people today
> are so lost about these core concepts.
Have these basic concepts _really_ been lost? I would argue that in
actual fact these basic concepts are there and expressed as strongly as
they have ever been and you have fallen foul of media hype and rose
tinted glasses.
If you read books written long before either of us were born (I suggest
Tess of the Durbervilles as a fine example) you will find that back then
they also believed we were on a slippery slope, that there was general
widespread moral decline and that it was better in their parents
generation. You then have to ask the question: have we been on a moral
decline since way back then? I think you would have to answer no, which
therefore means that in actual fact little or nothing really changes
from one generation to the next and the basic concept of right and wrong
remains fairly constant. I freely admit that fashions change and some
things that are taboo now were not so 200 years ago but peoples basic
concept of right and wrong is broadly the same.
> Yes, people are taught a false sense of security today. They want
> everything to be 'safe' and seem to think it is. But nothing is, not
> one thing. Every single activity in life leads to injury or death in
> some cases. Yep, even using a condom. Life is about minimising your
> risks: if you think its about avoiding risk, you dont understand risk.
I agree with most of what you say but disagree with the part about
avoiding risk. It is perfectly acceptable to avoid risk as long as you
know why you are avoiding it and you made a concious decision that
avoidance would be your strategy. Likewise acceptable is a perfectly
acceptable strategy as long as you understand what you are accepting.
These concepts are routinely applied in the IT world when analysing a
business system I would be surprised if they weren't also best practice
elsewhere as well.
I can *avoid* the risk of being burnt lighting my fire by not lighting
my fire. If I light it then I must *accept* there is a risk of being
burnt. However, I also apply whatever _sensible_ measures I can to
*minimize* the risk.
> I'd like to see practical teaching in schools, things people could
> really benefit from in life. Learning the basics of practical skills is
> rather more useful than reading some crap that has nothing to do with
> reality. Schools emphasise fiction so much and dont teach simple life
> changing skills, like what credit cards are about and so on.
I agree that we should better prepare our children for life. It is a sad
indictment of our school system that children leave not knowing how to
manage their own finances.
I would however say that reading fictional works is not necessarily
"crap". By encouraging children to read we can open their minds and show
them how to think and make decisions for themselves. If you think that
children, or even adults, are going to sit down and read an instruction
manual for life you are sadly mistaken. The best we can do is educate
them to the point where they can then continue their education
themselves. In essence we must teach them how to learn.
>
>
> NT
>
Bob Mannix
> big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
> >
<snip lots of other worthy stuff>
> > Yes, people are taught a false sense of security today. They want
> > everything to be 'safe' and seem to think it is. But nothing is, not
> > one thing. Every single activity in life leads to injury or death in
> > some cases. Yep, even using a condom. Life is about minimising your
> > risks: if you think its about avoiding risk, you dont understand risk.
>
> I agree with most of what you say but disagree with the part about
> avoiding risk.
Quite. "Life" is most certainly NOT about minimizing risk, it's about (among
other things) managing risk.
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
Sugar Free
>I was suggesting that many, probably most, uninformed people believe
>that the Part P provisions will improve safety. I was not saying that I
>do. The subject has been done to death here over the last few months,
>but I've yet to see a question raised in the general media.
Most uninformed people have not even heard of Part P - or any of the
other parts, no doubt.
As I said, a quick trip into any B&Q, or Homebase will show you a
total lack of any information either by way of information sheet, or
knowedgeable person (what? in a DIY shed? Hah!) regarding Part P.
The wording of Part P leaves much to be desired in respect of what
can, and cannot be carried out without notification, and what can, and
cannot, be carried out by someone not deemed a "competent person" or
an electrician.
Further, the legislation does not stipulate in any way how one is
supposed to tell a "qualified" electrician from any other sort. The
cart, in that respect, is well before the horse.
>>And I can see they've got to you too if you think that higher
>>standards of inspection will automatically lead to better food - how?
>
>Again, possibly over-subtle. I was offering a topical example of an
>industry that was likely to be unfamiliar to most users of the group,
>and asking if they would be as automatically suspicious of claimed
>standards improvements as they would in more familiar areas.
Sure - change should always be viewed with suspicion.
>Overall, I was suggesting that improvements in standards as claimed by
>the state are not likely to lead to higher real standards. I was
>suggesting that many group readers have some knowledge about the
>procedures covered by Part P, and can see through it more easily than
>others might.
I see.
>>That can only happen if the correct higher standards are applied, and
>>stuck to. Same with electricity.
>
>Even that I doubt. I don't believe there are any substitutes for
>knowledge, competence and above all, the will to do things properly.
>Certainly, pieces of paper are not.
Pieces of paper? Who mentioned those?
You largely just repeated what I said.
>Suitable examinations can determine knowledge and competence, but a
>piece of paper does not prove that either were employed in doing a given
>job, nor that any effort was made to do it right.
Nobody mentioned examinations. Yet.
Joe
brugnospamsia <brugno...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>
>And I long for the day when the street where I live has the speed limit
>reduced to a more realistic 20 mph to rein-in those who think speed limits
>are a figure to attain as quickly as possible.
>(what I really long for is a society where basic consideration for others
>would make such speeding unaceptable)
>
And there you put your finger on it. The more people are told what to
do, the more they get used to it, and the less likely they are to make
sensible decisions for themselves. As a population (my definition of
'society' does not include an entire country's population), we are
actively discouraging people from making such decisions.
Some people cannot see the difference between 'I would like to see
fox-hunting stop' and 'I would like to see fox-hunting stopped'.
--
Joe
Mike
"brugnospamsia" <brugno...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:06vUd.25043$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> But what of "average" drivers like myself whose life is threatened by the
> outside lane of the motorway having become a "fast lane" for the BMW crowd
?
Have you considered you're not average ?
> And I long for the day when the street where I live has the speed limit
> reduced to a more realistic 20 mph to rein-in those who think speed limits
> are a figure to attain as quickly as possible.
20mph isn't realistic. In fact some cars struggle to run so slowly.
> (what I really long for is a society where basic consideration for others
> would make such speeding unaceptable)
How about this consideration extending towards those people who have to do
huge mileages and would like to get home before Xmas. Sensible speed limits
(Motorway - 85mph day, no limit night, suburb - 35mph day, 45mph night,
dense town - 25 mph day, 35 mph night) would make more people obey them.
Mike
<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109599924.8...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> How exactly is changing the legal limit from 30 to 20 going to slow
> down those that do 60 past the front door? The problem is not with
> those that obey speed limits, its with the ones that take no notice.
>
> The solution is to design and produce an evidence cam pack that is sold
> to the public, that anyone can use to do their own local policing if
> they choose. Ebough people would take that offer up to make a big
> difference. The device would contain vid camera, date stamping, speed
> detector, no external data inputs, official verifiable seals, and a set
> of instructions explaining what is needed in order to get a successful
> prosecution. Since the evidence would come from persons assorted, the
> requirements would be more stringent.
>
> This would be a very cost effective way indeed to police.
And totally against all aspects of UK law since the Normans invaded.
Mike
"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kcs521pqo7vhlbbce...@4ax.com...
Agreed. It is interesting to watch things like Grand Designs abroad and
Place in the Sun (?) where some people meet huge amounts of bureaucracy and
others obviously use cowboys.
On a related aside - can somebody explain how the NEICEI (sp?) monopoly fits
in with EU requirements for cross border harmonisation ? How does a German
electrician now work in the UK (to a much higher standard than any UK
electrician) installing those pre-fabricated Bauhaus houses ?
bof
writes
>> And I long for the day when the street where I live has the speed limit
>> reduced to a more realistic 20 mph to rein-in those who think speed limits
>> are a figure to attain as quickly as possible.
>
>20mph isn't realistic.
What's unrealistic about 20mph?
> In fact some cars struggle to run so slowly.
Do you mean some drivers struggle to run so slowly? Or that some cars
struggle to run so slowly in top gear? There must be very few cars
that struggle to run at 20mph in one of their gears.
>> (what I really long for is a society where basic consideration for others
>> would make such speeding unaceptable)
>
>How about this consideration extending towards those people who have to do
>huge mileages and would like to get home before Xmas. Sensible speed limits
>(Motorway - 85mph day, no limit night, suburb - 35mph day, 45mph night,
>dense town - 25 mph day, 35 mph night) would make more people obey them.
In general speed limits seem about right it's the ends of the scale that
seem wrong, 30mph is too high a limit for narrow urban streets, 70mph is
too low a limit for straight open motorways.
--
bof at bof dot me dot uk
big...@meeow.co.uk
you leave me singularly unconvinced
NT
Owain
| As I said, a quick trip into any B&Q, or Homebase will
| show you a total lack of any information either by way
| of information sheet, or knowedgeable person (what?
| in a DIY shed? Hah!) regarding Part P.
My local B&Q (the one where the extension lead display has now been
correctly rewired after three complaints...) has orange stickers on the
electrical shelves pointing to the ODPM website, and the staff have heard of
the changes. However they had only heard that the changes do not apply here
after they stuck the stickers (presumably supplied by Head Office in
England) up.
Owain
big...@meeow.co.uk
doozer wrote:
> > Your example is hopelessly wrong, and does not compare to the
> > electrical cnotracting situation very well.
>
> Please explain how it is wrong
ok, i finally found it again...
>> bizzare. To use an analogy: everyone (ok not quite everyone but
we'll
>> pretend) speeds on motorways.
This is entirely untrue
> Ergo the current system of fines and
>> points isn't working.
that also is clearly untrue
> Should we therefore give up and say people should
>> drive whatever speed they like on motorways?
a question with lots of room for debate, one we will never agree on.
> I would say that it would
>> be better to modify the system so that it does work.
This appears to suggest that
a) it isnt working, which is open to debate
b) it can be made to work, which again is open to debate
> or at least can not be used as an
> analogy? I am happy to admit that it doesn't fit as an analogy if you
> can show me a good reason why.
it just doesnt compare. With electrics youve got both commercial and
private work, which are 2 significantly different things. With cars
huge numbers of people and injured and killed every year, making
extensive government intervention into personal decisions justified.
Electrical wiring is not like that in either respect. And so on, its
like comparing apples with oranges, too many diffrernces.
> As I said in another post perhaps I
> should have chosen a less contentious issue as an example because so
> many people have an axe to grind on this one (I notice from your
other
> replies you seem particularly interested with the issue of speeding).
I am? I didnt think I was, I just dont buy the usual lame excuses
people come out with for their criminal actions, actions that cause a
large number of injuries and deaths every year.
> I was aiming to provide an example of a situation where there is wide
> spread failure to adhere a particular law and then use that to point
out
> that it is nonsense to scrap a law for that reason.
but its not that simple. Laws widely disregarded:
ban on drug importing and dealing
ban on personal drug use
ban on non-part p inspected home wiring
ban on driving 71mph
The fact that theyre widely disregarded does not make them comparable
at all. What we do with the law depends on other factors more than just
how well observed the law is.
> There are numerous
> situations where this is the case - speeding being just one of them.
> What I am asking for is that if the law is being widely flouted we
> examine the situation to find out why and then correct the law if
> necessary or enforce it more rigorously if it is correct.
I think we all agree that would be nice, but IRL is isnt gonna work
that way. Thats decidedly optimistic.
>If it helps
> the debate we can replace speeding with X therefore allowing you to
> better separate the issues.
> everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll
> pretend) speeds on motorways.
> > Speeders always use this lame excuse.
>
> I wasn't aware that we were debating speeding. If you re-read my post
> you will notice that I wasn't offering any excuses for speeding.
" everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll pretend) speeds on
motorways." is a lame excuse for speeding. The minute you start
justifying speeding, you initiate debate.
I never proposed anything of the sort.
> I think you would have to answer no, which
> therefore means that in actual fact little or nothing really changes
> from one generation
It means no such thing of course.
> to the next and the basic concept of right and wrong
> remains fairly constant.
not really. In the 70s it was considered right for adults to hit kids
as and when they chose, in over 99% of cases. A teacher beating up a
kid didnt raise an eyebrow then. Now that would get you crimnal charges
and instant dismissal.
I think this is just a case of reading the phrase 'avoiding risk'
differently. I meant it as avoiding any risk rather than avoiding
specific optional risks.
> > I'd like to see practical teaching in schools, things people could
> > really benefit from in life. Learning the basics of practical
skills is
> > rather more useful than reading some crap that has nothing to do
with
> > reality. Schools emphasise fiction so much and dont teach simple
life
> > changing skills, like what credit cards are about and so on.
>
> I agree that we should better prepare our children for life. It is a
sad
> indictment of our school system that children leave not knowing how
to
> manage their own finances.
yeah, or even knowing they need to manage their finances! The level of
ignorance is tragicomic.
> I would however say that reading fictional works is not necessarily
> "crap".
Fiction, bullshit and crap mean basically the same thing, one is merely
a polite word for the other. :) Fiction and bullshit both mean 'stuff
they said happend that never actually did'. Its a funny thing, but that
really is what fiction means. I dont expect to find anyone agree with
that though!
> By encouraging children to read we can open their minds and show
> them how to think and make decisions for themselves.
In no way does reading fiction do that.
What does?
Engaging in debates
Reading non-fiction to find solutions to their problems
> If you think that
> children, or even adults, are going to sit down and read an
instruction
> manual for life you are sadly mistaken.
if schools chose to use such a manual in lessons, of course they will.
Kids will study in class what theyre given.
> The best we can do is educate
> them to the point where they can then continue their education
> themselves. In essence we must teach them how to learn.
That would be a great thing, and sadly one most school leavers lack.
But we can do far more if we choose.
NT
big...@meeow.co.uk
yes, good point.
NT
J
The delicious irony in this is that in 1904, Parliament voted on whether to
go metric or not. The "not" vote won, but not by much ...
I was amazed when SWMBO did a refresher GCSE 5 years ago, and encountered
imoerial units, which I never did when I did my O-Level. I was taught
entirely in metric (1971-1984).
J.
Frank Erskine
>
>I was amazed when SWMBO did a refresher GCSE 5 years ago, and encountered
>imoerial units, which I never did when I did my O-Level. I was taught
>entirely in metric (1971-1984).
>
This is the fault of the education system, whose job it is to train
people for real life.
--
Frank Erskine
doozer
someone on usenet. I am starting to believe that is true :o) however I
will attempt to reply as I feel you are badly missing my point.
Hopefully I will be able to show you that I am correct by backing up my
arguments with facts and figures rather than hand waving statements
based on emotion and "gut instinct". Unfortunately this will only work
if you read the whole post, think about it and then reply. Anyone can
take one line out of context and make it sound bad or twist it to mean
something it wasn't intended to mean. It is, I believe, common practice
in journalism but not necessary here.
You seem to have a particular problem with the line "To use an analogy:
everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll pretend) speeds on motorways."
claiming that it is both not true and that it is an excuse for speeding.
In no way, shape or form was it every supposed to be true or an excuse.
It was simply held up as a model situation that could be used to better
understand the real argument. In order to simplify that model slightly I
added the constraint that everyone speeds. I know, as well as everyone
else, that not everyone speeds but that is not the point. It is a
_model_ not reality. If you study science you will find that models are
used extensively in order to understand all natural processes. Newtons
"laws", for instance, describe nothing more than a model for the
Universe and have been proven to be wrong but they are still a useful model.
>>Should we therefore give up and say people should drive whatever
speed >>they like on motorways?
>a question with lots of room for debate, one we will never agree on.
I feel that you have put me in the "speeder apologist" box which I think
is unjustified as I haven't actually given you my opinion on speeding
and am unlikely to do so.
>>I would say that it would be better to modify the system so that it
>>does work.
>This appears to suggest that
>a) it isnt working, which is open to debate
>b) it can be made to work, which again is open to debate
In answer to point a, perhaps it is open to debate but I will debate
with statistics. I draw your attention to the following Government
report from 2003 (I was unable to find the 2004 report but I doubt much
has changed in the last year).
You will note (page 3 bullet point 1) that on motorways 57% of cars were
travelling above the speed limit and that the average speed was 71 mph
with 20% (page 3 bullet point 2) going above 80 mph. If having over half
the road users disobeying the speed limit doesn't constitute a failure
of the current system what does?
In answer to point b I will say this: I didn't say that the current
system will work. In fact, I offered no solution as without studying the
problem I don't feel that I could offer a solution that worked any
better than the current one. If you feel that you have a solution please
offer it up for debate.
What I ask is that when there is widespread belief that the law (or
other regulations as they are equally important) is wrong we have the
courage to question why and that when, or in fact if, we change the law
we do so based on fact.
>it just doesnt compare. With electrics youve got both commercial and
>private work, which are 2 significantly different things. With cars
>huge numbers of people and injured and killed every year, making
>extensive government intervention into personal decisions justified.
>Electrical wiring is not like that in either respect. And so on, its
>like comparing apples with oranges, too many diffrernces.
I wasn't attempting to compare the death rates as figures clearly show
that the roads are far more dangerous. I also wasn't attempting to
justify part p legislation and again I haven't given my opinion on it.
What I was attempting to do was show the logical fallacy of the argument
that legislation should be scrapped if it isn't working.
><snip>
>
>The fact that theyre widely disregarded does not make them comparable
>at all. What we do with the law depends on other factors more than just
>how well observed the law is.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>I think we all agree that would be nice, but IRL is isnt gonna work
>that way. Thats decidedly optimistic.
It makes them comparable in so much as we should be asking why they are
being breached. I happily admit that the reasons they are being breached
a likely to different but my point was never to offer up reasons for the
breach.
I feel sorry that you believe that I am "decidedly optimistic" for
believing that I can better our lot. I may not be able to change the
world but if I can show you that through reasoned debate and the
collection and examination of facts we can improve our legislation I
will feel that I have bettered the world in some small way.
It is easy to give up and say "I can't change that so why bother trying"
but that just makes you a sheep controlled by the Shepard. You will not
win every battle you fight but that is not a reason to not fight. You
simply must choose the battles that you are most likely to win or that
you feel most strongly about.
>Fiction, bullshit and crap mean basically the same thing, one is merely
>a polite word for the other. :) Fiction and bullshit both mean 'stuff
>they said happend that never actually did'. Its a funny thing, but that
>really is what fiction means. I dont expect to find anyone agree with
>that though!
I checked the thesaurus and was surprised to see that crap actually is
listed as a synonym for fiction however bullshit was notable by its absence.
>>By encouraging children to read we can open their minds and show
>> them how to think and make decisions for themselves.
>In no way does reading fiction do that.
>What does?
>Engaging in debates
>Reading non-fiction to find solutions to their problems
Non-fictional works certainly do have their place and I will not deny
that, however, fictional works are equally important as teaching tools.
Fictional works open the mind to ideas in a way that non-fictional works
can never do. How, for instance, would you teach love with a purely
non-fictional work? Empathy is not something that can be measured with
any device therefore now do you write a non-fictional work about it?
These are equally important things to teach as they hold society together.
>if schools chose to use such a manual in lessons, of course they will.
>Kids will study in class what theyre given.
Don't you feel that this is a little draconian? I will take it you said
this in haste as I find it hard to believe that anyone would truly stand
by this statement. We can certainly teach our children by force but I
would argue that it is wiser to teach using respect and encouragement.
As you believe that engaging in debates is a good way to learn I look
forward to your reply. I believe that you are probably my senior and as
such should have more worldly knowledge than I and perhaps a view on
these points that can only be gained with more time. If I am wrong I
look forward to learning. If I am right however I would hope you would
feel the same. This is, of course, predicated on you believing that we
are never to old to learn.
Graham
Brian Sharrock
"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:110963917...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
Only slightly away from the above - following my diagnosis that
the heating element for the fan oven was kaput (German
manufacture's term) I removed the gubbins from its fixings.
The element had push-on spade terminals and, protruding
through a hole were connectors terminating on the two prongs
of the heater element - the 'Return' connectors were still connected
but the on the 'Feed' side there were three wires ,... but one of the
wires had been dislodged while I was demounting the element ...
While acquiring the replacement element I asked the shop
proprietor if he had a wiring schematic so I could have a
gander at it to confirm my assumption that the 'floating' wire
went back onto terminal#? .[ The manufacturer's
web-site had an excellent _mechanical_ exploded-parts
diagram but no information on the 'lectrics.]
I'm sorry Sir', he replied, while gesturing to the shelf-full
of manufacturer's manuals , "I am permitted to sell you the
part but I am forbidden to give you any supporting
information in case you misinterpret/ignore what I
advise you ... and your estate sues!"
--
Brian
big...@meeow.co.uk
doozer wrote:
> I have read that the ultimate exercise in futility is arguing with
> someone on usenet. I am starting to believe that is true :o)
:)
> however I
> will attempt to reply as I feel you are badly missing my point.
>
> Hopefully I will be able to show you that I am correct by backing up
my
> arguments with facts and figures rather than hand waving statements
> based on emotion and "gut instinct". Unfortunately this will only
work
> if you read the whole post, think about it and then reply.
I always do that, dont worry. Why would one choose to get it wrong 3x
as often, by not even reading.
>Anyone can
> take one line out of context and make it sound bad or twist it to
mean
> something it wasn't intended to mean. It is, I believe, common
practice
> in journalism but not necessary here.
I might as well present the other side to that. A sound argument is
like a brick wall, composed of solid firm bricks, or claims. If one
line of bricks is disintegrating, the wall will fall. Same with an
argument, each line needs to be solid to make a good case.
It is easy to be swayed by an overall feeling or idea, the thorough
critical thinker will look at each component concept and claim in turn,
keep the good, and weed out the false.
> You seem to have a particular problem with the line "To use an
analogy:
> everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll pretend) speeds on
motorways."
> claiming that it is both not true and that it is an excuse for
speeding.
> In no way, shape or form was it every supposed to be true or an
excuse.
> It was simply held up as a model situation that could be used to
better
> understand the real argument. In order to simplify that model
slightly I
> added the constraint that everyone speeds. I know, as well as
everyone
> else, that not everyone speeds but that is not the point. It is a
> _model_ not reality.
It is clearer in my mind now what youre doing there.
ok: the aim of speeding reduction is to reduce accidents, both in
number and severity. I fully expect that the present antispeeding
system does that, thus it succeeds in its aim. OTOH it seems clear from
your stats that there is much room for improvement - or, depending on
point of view, room for a change in the law.
So I conclude it is working, but not as well as some wish it to.
> In answer to point b I will say this: I didn't say that the current
> system will work. In fact, I offered no solution as without studying
the
> problem I don't feel that I could offer a solution that worked any
> better than the current one. If you feel that you have a solution
please
> offer it up for debate.
Its a pretty tough problem. I offered the evidence cam idea as a
possibility.
> What I ask is that when there is widespread belief that the law (or
> other regulations as they are equally important) is wrong we have the
> courage to question why and that when, or in fact if, we change the
law
> we do so based on fact.
>
> >it just doesnt compare. With electrics youve got both commercial
and
> >private work, which are 2 significantly different things. With cars
> >huge numbers of people and injured and killed every year, making
> >extensive government intervention into personal decisions
justified.
> >Electrical wiring is not like that in either respect. And so on,
its
> >like comparing apples with oranges, too many diffrernces.
>
> I wasn't attempting to compare the death rates as figures clearly
show
> that the roads are far more dangerous. I also wasn't attempting to
> justify part p legislation and again I haven't given my opinion on
it.
> What I was attempting to do was show the logical fallacy of the
argument
> that legislation should be scrapped if it isn't working.
OK. Though I cant quite see it that way yet. I would say if a law
really is achieving nothing, what is the point of having it. I suggest
that in the example you gave, you have concluded it isnt working when I
think it is. Working means achieving something of use, and it seems
evident that a law that achieves nothing is a law with no point to its
existence.
> >The fact that theyre widely disregarded does not make them
comparable
> >at all. What we do with the law depends on other factors more than
just
> >how well observed the law is.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >I think we all agree that would be nice, but IRL is isnt gonna work
> >that way. Thats decidedly optimistic.
>
> It makes them comparable in so much as we should be asking why they
are
> being breached. I happily admit that the reasons they are being
breached
> a likely to different but my point was never to offer up reasons for
the
> breach.
>
> I feel sorry that you believe that I am "decidedly optimistic" for
> believing that I can better our lot. I may not be able to change the
> world but if I can show you that through reasoned debate and the
> collection and examination of facts we can improve our legislation I
> will feel that I have bettered the world in some small way.
I quite agree one can. This process happens every day, and results in a
steady trickle of legal changes.
But... and its a significant but... its a pretty large job to change a
heavy slow moving beast. If you want to set up a site to address the
many problems with Part P I shall applaud your efforts, and see if I
can offer a contribution. But I would expect it to take a fair old time
before there is any likelihood of legal change.
There are 2 basic problems with Part P and changing it.
Firstly it is political, not technical in nature. Its purpose is not to
improve safety, as it has been shown it has no way to do that, and will
more likely increase deaths. Its effect is merely political, it leads
the populace to believe labour is doing something for everyones safety.
It installs protectionism, which is damaging to any country/society,
and it senselessly criminalises the best people, those who are being
responsible and improving the world about them, with due dilignece, on
their own time and expense, and helping to reduce deaths by so doing.
Nonetheless it has been pushed through, with no visible concern for
those it affects, and affects in an insulting way. In other words, the
technical merits are not what those involved in part p are considering.
Therefore raising them is not going to make those people listen. When
you want to change a law by opposition its a lot tougher.
The 2nd problem with part p is its technical, and most people are not.
Most in this country will never follow and grasp why part p will cost
lives.
Thus you have a 2 pronged problem:
1. Its a law that is likely to only be changed through opposition
2. Over 90% of the populace will never see a reason to oppose it.
Also, given the above,
3. Labour will most likely always support part P regardless, as they
would be made to look pretty bad if ever admitted P was in fact a
political stunt pulled at the cost of lives of British citizens. This
is something no political party will ever intend to admit, so you have
the very strongest of oposition to deal with.
This is why I am not optimistic.
There are means by which change is possible, but its a long steady
process of educating everyone that can learn why P is wrong, and that
is never a quick thing by any means. All a part P site could
realistically hope to attain is to set this process rolling, so that in
time the mistake will be realised widely, but expect it to take years
to come to fruition.
> It is easy to give up and say "I can't change that so why bother
trying"
> but that just makes you a sheep controlled by the Shepard. You will
not
> win every battle you fight but that is not a reason to not fight. You
> simply must choose the battles that you are most likely to win or
that
> you feel most strongly about.
exactly, I have other battles. Do you feel like taking this one up,
perhaps by gradually building a site on this? If you want to, there is
a fair bit of material already available for it, courtesy of several
uk.d-i-y writers. Free hosting is avaiable, and free page templates.
> >Fiction, bullshit and crap mean basically the same thing, one is
merely
> >a polite word for the other. :) Fiction and bullshit both mean
'stuff
> >they said happend that never actually did'. Its a funny thing, but
that
> >really is what fiction means. I dont expect to find anyone agree
with
> >that though!
>
> I checked the thesaurus and was surprised to see that crap actually
is
> listed as a synonym for fiction however bullshit was notable by its
absence.
I'm encouraged. I didnt think a thesaurus would be so frank. Now I'll
be daring and say that bullshit is a form of crap :)
> >>By encouraging children to read we can open their minds and show
> >> them how to think and make decisions for themselves.
>
> >In no way does reading fiction do that.
>
> >What does?
> >Engaging in debates
> >Reading non-fiction to find solutions to their problems
>
> Non-fictional works certainly do have their place and I will not deny
> that, however, fictional works are equally important as teaching
tools.
> Fictional works open the mind to ideas in a way that non-fictional
works
> can never do. How, for instance, would you teach love with a purely
> non-fictional work? Empathy is not something that can be measured
with
> any device therefore now do you write a non-fictional work about it?
> These are equally important things to teach as they hold society
together.
I agree theyre critical, and think they should be taught much better in
schools. But... however does reading fiction teach these things? I'm
puzzled by that idea.
If I wanted to learn about love from a book or site, I'd definitely
pick non fiction. I'd go for something that explains for example:
how to generate love
how to maintain love
things to be wary of that can destroy love
the nature of love
the difference between love and using
different types of love
and so on.
Reading fiction in school only taught me one thing: what a waste of
time it was, time that could be spent doing something interesting, or
something to improve quality of life.
I think basically reading fiction is a low reward activity for people
that have nothing better to do with their time. I expect to get jumped
on for that.
> >if schools chose to use such a manual in lessons, of course they
will.
> >Kids will study in class what theyre given.
>
> Don't you feel that this is a little draconian? I will take it you
said
> this in haste as I find it hard to believe that anyone would truly
stand
> by this statement. We can certainly teach our children by force but I
> would argue that it is wiser to teach using respect and
encouragement.
I'm plain puzzled by this reply. I was merely observing that children
study whatever study materials they are given and are used in class. If
the school uses Whitaker's maths in school, thats what the kids study.
If they use Mongol's Monster Life Manual, thats what they'll study.
They will study whatever theyre given, regardless of its nature, and
believe some of it, as was so shamefully proven by Hitler in the 1930s.
> As you believe that engaging in debates is a good way to learn I look
> forward to your reply. I believe that you are probably my senior and
as
> such should have more worldly knowledge than I and perhaps a view on
> these points that can only be gained with more time. If I am wrong I
> look forward to learning. If I am right however I would hope you
would
> feel the same. This is, of course, predicated on you believing that
we
> are never to old to learn.
>
> Graham
Yes... I look forward to another well considered reply.
NT
doozer
reply will not be a lengthy as previous ones. But here goes...
><snip>
> I might as well present the other side to that. A sound argument is
> like a brick wall, composed of solid firm bricks, or claims. If one
> line of bricks is disintegrating, the wall will fall. Same with an
> argument, each line needs to be solid to make a good case.
>
> It is easy to be swayed by an overall feeling or idea, the thorough
> critical thinker will look at each component concept and claim in turn,
> keep the good, and weed out the false.
I agree and I think you would agree that in order to correctly
understand someone's point of view you need to listen to the whole view.
Extracting one or two lines and attempting to extrapolate a persons
argument from that often leads to misunderstandings.
><big snip>
> ok: the aim of speeding reduction is to reduce accidents, both in
> number and severity. I fully expect that the present antispeeding
> system does that, thus it succeeds in its aim. OTOH it seems clear from
> your stats that there is much room for improvement - or, depending on
> point of view, room for a change in the law.
>
> So I conclude it is working, but not as well as some wish it to.
I also agree that it is working to some extent. I believe that if we had
no speeding regulation the situation would be far worse than it
currently is.
You are, I believe, essentially making my point for me. You admit that
there is room for improvement which is the first step towards improving
the system as a whole. In the case of speeding this may mean a change in
legislation or it may mean more vigorous enforcement of existing
legislation. Either way, any change must be made solely based upon facts.
> <another big snip>
>>
>>What I was attempting to do was show the logical fallacy of the
>>argument that legislation should be scrapped if it isn't working.
>
> OK. Though I cant quite see it that way yet. I would say if a law
> really is achieving nothing, what is the point of having it. I suggest
> that in the example you gave, you have concluded it isnt working when I
> think it is. Working means achieving something of use, and it seems
> evident that a law that achieves nothing is a law with no point to its
> existence.
Ah, I think I now see the main point of contention here. I am not
against scrapping pointless legislation - in fact I am for it. If part p
really is totally pointless then I will be the first in line to have it
scrapped. However, just as we should have thought before bring the
legislation in we should not compound our mistake by removing (or
modifying) it without thought and analysis.
I suspect that the problem is that part p is legislation that has been
drafted more for political reasons than practical reasons and therefore
solves the wrong problem. I don't feel that the case was ever really
made that there was a problem with DIYers modifying / adding to their
electrical installations.
><snip>
> I quite agree one can. This process happens every day, and results in a
> steady trickle of legal changes.
>
> But... and its a significant but... its a pretty large job to change a
> heavy slow moving beast.
I feel this is one of the things that makes it so enjoyable to try. You
have just reminded me of the song High Hopes by Frank Sinatra :o)
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank-sinatra/55241.html
> If you want to set up a site to address the
> many problems with Part P I shall applaud your efforts, and see if I
> can offer a contribution. But I would expect it to take a fair old time
> before there is any likelihood of legal change.
Yes, I suspect that it would take a long time as well and I don't feel
it is my battle.
In the past I have helped, albeit in a small way, to change the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 so that your personal
details wouldn't be given to organizations such as the post office. I am
currently engaged in a battle with the TVLA over licence fees (we don't
have a television BTW) and I am actively campaigning to stop ID cards. I
doubt I will win but I, and thousands others like me, have made a
difference in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Erm that's three things :-) (sorry I'm being flippant, I understand and
agree with your arguments)
The wheels of Government (generally) move slowly but we shouldn't let
that blind us to the fact that they do move.
> exactly, I have other battles. Do you feel like taking this one up,
> perhaps by gradually building a site on this? If you want to, there is
> a fair bit of material already available for it, courtesy of several
> uk.d-i-y writers. Free hosting is avaiable, and free page templates.
>
As I said above I have other battles to fight already. I am a web
application / site developer by trade though and would be willing to
give technical advice to anyone willing to set up such a site.
> I'm encouraged. I didnt think a thesaurus would be so frank. Now I'll
> be daring and say that bullshit is a form of crap :)
>
Well it doesn't go as far a bullshit but it does list bull as a synonym
of crap. I'll give you that one :-)
> I agree theyre critical, and think they should be taught much better in
> schools. But... however does reading fiction teach these things? I'm
> puzzled by that idea.
>
> If I wanted to learn about love from a book or site, I'd definitely
> pick non fiction. I'd go for something that explains for example:
>
> how to generate love
> how to maintain love
> things to be wary of that can destroy love
> the nature of love
> the difference between love and using
> different types of love
> and so on.
>
I ask you to point me in the direction of a book that teaches love using
only fact. I would suggest that such a book doesn't exist because it is
not something that can be taught by direct reference to fact. It is
something that is learnt through the observation of people around you
and, in my opinion, consumption of fictional stories. The beauty of a
fictional story is that it can be used to clearly make a point without
the baggage that comes with real life. In many ways it is like a model
used for scientific research, a simplification of the Universe so that
we can more clearly understand it, thus the argument comes full circle.
> Reading fiction in school only taught me one thing: what a waste of
> time it was, time that could be spent doing something interesting, or
> something to improve quality of life.
>
> I think basically reading fiction is a low reward activity for people
> that have nothing better to do with their time. I expect to get jumped
> on for that.
>
I can fully understand your position and felt the same for many years. I
now split my (reading) time roughly 50:50 between fiction and
non-fiction. I believe that I have learnt as much though reading fiction
as non-fiction. For instance, I have read a number of works from the
late nineteenth century and now feel that I have a much better
understanding of the people of that time. A peoples beliefs and
prejudice's are expressed in their fictional work if you are willing to
look for it.
> I'm plain puzzled by this reply. I was merely observing that children
> study whatever study materials they are given and are used in class. If
> the school uses Whitaker's maths in school, thats what the kids study.
> If they use Mongol's Monster Life Manual, thats what they'll study.
>
> They will study whatever theyre given, regardless of its nature, and
> believe some of it, as was so shamefully proven by Hitler in the 1930s.
>
Your statement "Kids will study in class what theyre given." to my ears
sounds very harsh. I felt you were saying "You will use this and no
arguing" however I can see now that is not what you meant.
> Yes... I look forward to another well considered reply.
Time to get back to work. Sigh.
Graham
Andrew Gabriel
"J" <no...@none.com> writes:
>
> I was amazed when SWMBO did a refresher GCSE 5 years ago, and encountered
> imoerial units, which I never did when I did my O-Level. I was taught
> entirely in metric (1971-1984).
I was in the last year at my primary school which was taught to
do long division in £sd.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Andrew Chesters
limit scheme. In heavy traffic, rain or other adverse conditions, the
speed limit could be dropped _and enforced_ to a safe value. If the
road were clear, and conditions good, the limit could be raised to a
higher (90?) _rigidly enforced_ speed. You get to go faster when its
safe, but you must stick to the rules!
Mike
"bof" <nothi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FJib3hlE...@invalid.domain...
> In message <cvvu0d$jbm$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Mike <mi...@nospam.com>
> writes
>
> >> And I long for the day when the street where I live has the speed limit
> >> reduced to a more realistic 20 mph to rein-in those who think speed
limits
> >> are a figure to attain as quickly as possible.
> >
> >20mph isn't realistic.
>
> What's unrealistic about 20mph?
>
>
> > In fact some cars struggle to run so slowly.
>
> Do you mean some drivers struggle to run so slowly? Or that some cars
> struggle to run so slowly in top gear? There must be very few cars
> that struggle to run at 20mph in one of their gears.
Many automatics need to be held back with the brakes at this speed. Also
cars like the Impreza cough and pop making you sound like you're about to do
something silly even if you're not. And that's in first. Top would stall
it.
> >> (what I really long for is a society where basic consideration for
others
> >> would make such speeding unaceptable)
> >
> >How about this consideration extending towards those people who have to
do
> >huge mileages and would like to get home before Xmas. Sensible speed
limits
> >(Motorway - 85mph day, no limit night, suburb - 35mph day, 45mph night,
> >dense town - 25 mph day, 35 mph night) would make more people obey them.
>
> In general speed limits seem about right it's the ends of the scale that
> seem wrong, 30mph is too high a limit for narrow urban streets, 70mph is
> too low a limit for straight open motorways.
Which is what I said - but they would be more respected if they varied with
the time of day.
Mike
<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109635478.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Then go and read up on this. Several groups have indeed done what you
propose but all the police can do is send them a nasty warning letter. And
then a second ... a third ... and so on.
Mike
"J" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:QgVUd.204186$B8.6...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quite surprising. But once Reagun banned metrification in the US, everybody
else had to at least understand it if they wan't to work for/with US
companies. Even most French understand miles and inches nowadays which they
didn't pre-84.
brugnospamsia
"Mike" <mi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:d02goh$6iv$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
do Merkins use "British Thermal Units" ?
;-)
>
>
Andrew Chesters
>
> This is the fault of the education system, whose job it is to train
> people for real life.
>
the education system's job is to get kids to pass as many exams as
possible. To improve the pass-rate, the exams ARE being dumbed down.
My teaching colleagues are increasingly depressed by the constraints of
syllabuses that prevent them going off on tangents that just might be
interesting...
big...@meeow.co.uk
> > > > The solution is to design and produce an evidence cam pack that
is
> > sold
> > > > to the public, that anyone can use to do their own local
policing
> > if
> > > > they choose. Ebough people would take that offer up to make a
big
> > > > difference. The device would contain vid camera, date stamping,
> > speed
> > > > detector, no external data inputs, official verifiable seals,
and a
> > set
> > > > of instructions explaining what is needed in order to get a
> > successful
> > > > prosecution. Since the evidence would come from persons
assorted,
> > the
> > > > requirements would be more stringent.
> > > >
> > > > This would be a very cost effective way indeed to police.
> > > And totally against all aspects of UK law since the Normans
invaded.
> > you leave me singularly unconvinced
> Then go and read up on this. Several groups have indeed done what
you
> propose but all the police can do is send them a nasty warning
letter. And
> then a second ... a third ... and so on.
I took it as obvious there would have to be room made within the law
for such a process to lead to successful prosecution.
NT
Mike
<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109709359....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > This would be a very cost effective way indeed to police.
> > And totally against all aspects of UK law since the Normans
> > invaded.
>
> > > you leave me singularly unconvinced
>
> > Then go and read up on this. Several groups have indeed done what
> > you propose but all the police can do is send them a nasty warning
> > letter. And then a second ... a third ... and so on.
>
> I took it as obvious there would have to be room made within the law
> for such a process to lead to successful prosecution.
And this would be a far bigger change in the fundamental basis of our law
than the holding of terrorist subjects. It runs counter to everything since
the Normans arrived and fortunately our judges would throw it out even if
the Lords weren't allowed to.
Mike
> > Quite surprising. But once Reagun banned metrification in the US,
> > everybody
> > else had to at least understand it if they wan't to work for/with US
> > companies. Even most French understand miles and inches nowadays which
> > they
> > didn't pre-84.
>
> do Merkins use "British Thermal Units" ?
> ;-)
I doubt if even the Yanks understand those :-)
Though I notice quite a few French plumbing items have BSP threads.
Owain
| variable speed limit scheme.
One speed limit for politicians and another for everyone else?
Owain
Capitol
brugnospamsia wrote:
>
> do Merkins use "British Thermal Units" ?
>
Yes.
Regards
Capitol
Mike
Already exists. And they can use the M4 bus lane as well.
Holly, in France
Frank Erskine <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
I learned both units at school, which is just as well when I am sent off
to find ' a couple of 4m lengths of 4 by 2 ' or 'I need something about
25mm thick and about 2 ft long and about 100mm wide' It doesn't help
with 'well, a biggish bit, you'll know yourself' though :-)
--
Holly, in France.
Holiday home in the Dordogne,
website: http://la-plaine.chez.tiscali.fr
Tony Bryer
> do Merkins use "British Thermal Units" ?
Their structural calculations are even more interesting. They do
their loads in pounds and distances in feet and inches, but then to
keep the numbers within manageable limits have the wondrous kip
(kilopound) and ksi (kilopounds per square inch). Sort of metricated
imperial <g>
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
Pete C
wrote:
>Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
>
>> How many here would applaud e.g. higher standards of
>> food inspection?
>
>Not me.
>
>> That's got to lead automatically to safer food, hasn't it?
>
>Yeh, right.
>
>I'm a food producer[1], my wife is an import/export agent. We struggle
>under aload of bureaucracy at present that imposes a ludicrous financial
>burden on us in the name of "higher standards". The consumer simply
>won't pay for those higher standards so we have to soak up the costs.
>Meanwhile larger producers simply piss about (and in) your food as they
>see fit because the cost of complying with these regulations is much
>lower in proportion to the turnover.
Are there other growers you could get together with to share the
workload of compliance?
>As an example, we sell olive oil. I've picked every olive by hand, adied
>by my wife. I've personally supervised the pressing, bottling and
>labelling. What I sell is good. Yet I still have to perform the same
>bureaucratic handstands as someone who buys in all their ingredients and
>has no idea what is in what they sell. Not only that, but the big
>suppliers deliberately adulterate what they sell, knowing damn well that
>there is no analysis that will detect the fact that good olive oil has
>been adulterated with bad.
>
>That's just one example.
I've a feeling that Waitose olive oil tastes better than Tescos, but
maybe I'm being snobbish...
Is your produce sold in the UK anywhere or, failing that is there any
olive oil you would recommend?
cheers,
Pete.
chris French
Sirett <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:17:51 -0800, bob wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:21:12 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:
>> Ł100 yes Ł100
>> I will bet Ł100 that during 2005 there will not be any prosecutions
>> for failing to comply with the Paperwork requirments of Part P,
>>
>I'm not worried about BCO. They have a totally impossible job trying to
>regulate the exceptionally 'vibrant' [1] community round here.
>
>The last things BCO is going to do is try to track down unlicensed and
>uncertified work in private homes when they can scarcely keep track of
>or serious dangerous work on whole buildings.
Indeed.
I'm still left wondering at this point quite how to approach this with
our (hopefully) new house. It will end up with a lot of electrical work
in the longer term, as well as some stuff to do in the short term. (new
lighting circuit in at least one room, some RCD provision as it's TT
earthed with none at the moment) Unless the BCO will accept some sort of
all encompassing request for say an effective rewire over the next 5
years then forgetting it and just doing the work seems to be the only
sensible option.
I'm happy for my work to be inspected by a sparks at some point, but
I'm wondering about potential problems in the future if we came to sell
the house (not planning to for maybe 20+ years, but who knows) when the
solicitor asks for building regs approval for the works.
>
--
Chris French, Leeds
quisquiliae
> I'm happy for my work to be inspected by a sparks at some point, but
> I'm wondering about potential problems in the future if we came to sell
> the house (not planning to for maybe 20+ years, but who knows) when the
> solicitor asks for building regs approval for the works.
After 20 years it is unlikely any of this will be relevant. There will
be the problem of finding the records going back that far for a start;
if they are electronically filed bit rot will have done its work, the
paper variety more likely lost or destroyed than expensively stored.
A solicitor acts for the buyer; if the buyer wants to complete the sale
then they will not be bothered by such nit picking.
--
David Clark
$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"
Pete C
wrote:
>Pete C <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are there other growers you could get together with to share the
>> workload of compliance?
>
>A cooperative? Yes we have those, if one wishes to sell oil at the
>lowest price possible and to have no control of what happens to the oil
>after production. Usually it is sold on to the larger suppliers who then
>proceed to adulterate it with inferior oil.
I was thinking along the lines of getting together with a few so one
does marketing materials, websites etc, another reads up on new
regulations, another purchasing of materials.
>It may be, but I get saddened when the British appreciation of oil comes
>down to one OEM brand vs another.
Well it's a start...
>> Is your produce sold in the UK anywhere or, failing that is there any
>> olive oil you would recommend?
>
>There are several I would recommend, my own included.
Which is...? :)
>Anything produced
>by Ursini is worth every penny, he's another no-compromise manufacturer.
>There are a few good Portugese and Spanish oils as well as some
>remarkably good Australian ones. Theres a book "The Olive Oil Companion"
>by Judy Ridgeway thats worth a read. There'll be new edition this year.
>She only covers poils produced in large quantitites unfortunately - she
>just doesn't have time to cover every single producer. But it's a good
>guide to what you can expect to find in supermarkets.
Thanks, I'll check that out.
>We sell our own oil direct as well as acting as agents for neighbours
>who produce in the same DOP.
Is it sold in the UK or do you have a website?
cheers,
Pete.
Pete C
wrote:
>> >We sell our own oil direct as well as acting as agents for neighbours
>> >who produce in the same DOP.
>>
>> Is it sold in the UK or do you have a website?
>
Hi,
Nice website, there's no harm advertising it in your sig, also Google
ads will help.
cheers,
Pete.
Mike
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gsvgiy.3d9epkl76h7wN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >
> > >We sell our own oil direct as well as acting as agents for neighbours
> > >who produce in the same DOP.
> >
> > Is it sold in the UK or do you have a website?
>
Have you tried e-mailing top class restaurants ? They will use far more
than domestic users and are quite happy to receive it in metal cans rather
than fancy bottles and although they will obviously want to pay less if the
goods are high quality then you save on packaging and advertising.