Part P the reality.

96 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Sirett

unread,
Feb 25, 2005, 11:21:12 AM2/25/05
to
I phoned my local building control dept.
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

unread,
Feb 25, 2005, 12:22:15 PM2/25/05
to
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:21:12 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:

> 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

unread,
Feb 25, 2005, 12:29:04 PM2/25/05
to
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:21:12 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:

<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

unread,
Feb 25, 2005, 3:19:12 PM2/25/05
to

"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:
(snip)

>
> 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

unread,
Feb 25, 2005, 3:59:33 PM2/25/05
to

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

unread,
Feb 25, 2005, 7:06:56 PM2/25/05
to
> 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


NT

Joe

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 8:43:05 AM2/26/05
to
In message <1109376416.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
big...@meeow.co.uk writes
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.

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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 10:24:58 AM2/26/05
to
> 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.
>
> 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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 11:47:36 AM2/26/05
to
Joe wrote:
> 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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 2:41:31 PM2/26/05
to
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, 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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 3:00:40 PM2/26/05
to
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.

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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 2:34:27 PM2/26/05
to
"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.

| 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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 4:12:37 PM2/26/05
to

> 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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 4:31:11 PM2/26/05
to

Tim S Wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:21:12 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:
> -

> 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


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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 5:52:23 PM2/26/05
to
In article <110944872...@iris.uk.clara.net>, Owain wrote:
> 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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 6:17:51 PM2/26/05
to
> 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,
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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 6:26:01 PM2/26/05
to
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:31:11 +0000, Paul Barker wrote:


> 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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 6:48:13 PM2/26/05
to
In article <pan.2005.02.26....@dionic.net>, t...@dionic.net
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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 7:13:18 PM2/26/05
to
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:48:13 -0000, Gary Cavie <m0...@despammed.com>
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

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 7:21:58 PM2/26/05
to
In article <pan.2005.02.26....@dionic.net>, Tim S wrote:
> 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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 8:27:27 AM2/27/05
to
Owain wrote:
> "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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 8:39:56 AM2/27/05
to

"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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 10:13:27 AM2/27/05
to
Part Zzz concerns the regulation of sleeping apparatus, known to the
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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 9:28:55 AM2/27/05
to
Capitol wrote:
> 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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 10:55:04 AM2/27/05
to
big...@meeow.co.uk wrote

> 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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 9:50:29 AM2/27/05
to
"Gary Cavie" wrote

| 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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 1:17:46 PM2/27/05
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 9:48:57 PM2/27/05
to

"doozer" <gra...@crazysquirrel.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:c5idnfBOZ4J...@eclipse.net.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.

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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 12:59:29 PM2/27/05
to
"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.

| 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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 3:50:41 PM2/27/05
to
In message <muk121pi5nrm6vvng...@4ax.com>, Sugar Free
<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

Message has been deleted

brugnospamsia

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 8:59:57 PM2/27/05
to

"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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 9:12:12 PM2/27/05
to

"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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 9:42:05 PM2/27/05
to


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

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 9:50:21 PM2/27/05
to
> Doing what you wish with your life, regardless of how eminently
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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 3:44:37 AM2/28/05
to
The message <xWuUd.25040$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 3:53:26 AM2/28/05
to
The message <06vUd.25043$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>

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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 5:13:20 AM2/28/05
to
Owain wrote:
> "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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 5:25:31 AM2/28/05
to
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:59:29 -0000, "Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:

>"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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 5:34:12 AM2/28/05
to
Steve Firth wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 5:43:41 AM2/28/05
to
Mike Harrison wrote:
>
>>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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 8:36:46 AM2/28/05
to
Tony Bryer wrote:

> In article <110944872...@iris.uk.clara.net>, Owain wrote:
> > 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.

A receipt provides that, part p does something else. Mandate receipts
if thats what you want to achieve.

NT

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 9:02:13 AM2/28/05
to
doozer wrote:


> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 9:12:04 AM2/28/05
to

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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 9:23:17 AM2/28/05
to
Mike Harrison wrote:

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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 9:38:30 AM2/28/05
to
brugnospamsia wrote:

> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 10:43:55 AM2/28/05
to
In article <1109597805....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 10:55:32 AM2/28/05
to
big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 11:16:06 AM2/28/05
to

"doozer" <gra...@crazysquirrel.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:9e6dnfLQjcS...@eclipse.net.uk...
> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 11:27:08 AM2/28/05
to
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:50:41 +0000, Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:

>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.


Message has been deleted

Joe

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 12:19:36 PM2/28/05
to
In message <06vUd.25043$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 10:13:16 PM2/28/05
to

"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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 10:14:09 PM2/28/05
to

<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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 10:20:42 PM2/28/05
to

"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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 5:44:20 PM2/28/05
to
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.


>> (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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 7:04:38 PM2/28/05
to

you leave me singularly unconvinced

NT

Owain

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 7:17:24 PM2/28/05
to
"Sugar Free" wrote

| 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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 8:22:23 PM2/28/05
to
> big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
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

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 8:23:57 PM2/28/05
to

yes, good point.

NT

J</