Just a thought about Part P...

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Al Reynolds

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 5:11:55 AM11/29/04
to
If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Al


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 5:22:44 AM11/29/04
to

Of course. The Electrical Contractors Association, NICEIC and ODPM
will be sponsoring full page ads in the national newspapers :-)


--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

John Rumm

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 5:50:54 AM11/29/04
to
Andy Hall wrote:

>
>>If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
>>Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Ah well, most of these will now be government approved deaths/accidents,
and hence in real terms they will actually count as a reduction. Those
that don't count as a reduction, will also not count toward the
"official" accident stats because they will be deemed to be attempted
suicides, since that could be the only possible explanation for an
accident occurring in light of the quality nanny legislation that would
without question prevent said accidents (or at any rate make them due to
tax at the higher rate)!

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

r...@kalico.replacespamwithorg

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 6:38:22 AM11/29/04
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:50:54 +0000, John Rumm
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:

>Andy Hall wrote:
>
>>
>>>If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
>>>Part P comes in, will we hear about it?
>
>Ah well, most of these will now be government approved deaths/accidents,
>and hence in real terms they will actually count as a reduction. Those
>that don't count as a reduction, will also not count toward the
>"official" accident stats because they will be deemed to be attempted
>suicides, since that could be the only possible explanation for an
>accident occurring in light of the quality nanny legislation that would
>without question prevent said accidents (or at any rate make them due to
>tax at the higher rate)!

Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants
anything but to protect us from ourselves?

Surely they know best - after all we are mortal.

Those 'suicides' from dodgy electrical work will not be hard to
explain away:

A interesting statistic is that more people kill themselves every year
than are killed in road traffic accidents.

With all that money being poured into speed cameras and the like to
stop us from being killed on the road, one might think nanny would
want to stop us killing ourselves through suicide. Total government
aid to The Samaritans is, I understand, about £0.00.

Some things just don't add up. Good job for nanny that way I guess.
Another of those stats is that more people in the UK are on
prescription anti-depressants than voted for the TV programme Pop
Idol, itself laying claim to the biggest ever UK vote. Maybe the two
are linked? hehe!


Tony Bryer

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 6:52:10 AM11/29/04
to
In article <j32mq0hs1pdn31158...@4ax.com>, wrote:
> Total government
> aid to The Samaritans is, I understand, about £0.00.

That may or may not be of their choosing: those who make grants
often then want to have an input for better or worse.

I suspect that they do get a lot of money through Gift Aid and one
of Gordon Brown's best decisions was to relax the Gift Aid rules so
that charities can easily reclaim an additional 28% on most
donations.

--
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


John Rumm

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 7:21:08 AM11/29/04
to
r...@kalico.replaceSPAMwithORG wrote:


> With all that money being poured into speed cameras and the like to
> stop us from being killed on the road, one might think nanny would
> want to stop us killing ourselves through suicide. Total government

They are on that one.... they are trialling computer vision CCTV systems
in some of the London underground stations that claim to be able to
identify typical "jumpers" in advance by studying their apparently tell
tale behaviour patterns and movements.

(Minority report is getting closer!)

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 9:58:36 AM11/29/04
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:34:16 GMT, "Stanley" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>I am as peeved as anyone about Part P.
>
>A thought to bear in mind, however, is the state of wiring we come accross.
>I found in one house I bought a 1mm unfused feed to a wall light taken off
>the downstairs ring main by twisting the wires together and wrapping them
>all with insulation tape. The cable hung down to about 1 inch above high
>water level in the underfloor which appeared in wet weather. I have come
>accross many horrors.
>
>There are loads of people out there producing situations like this and it is
>at those that Part P is aimed. Unfortunately we get caught up in cross fire.
>
>I had a colleague in an office that I worked in who was rewiring a house for
>some one else. He was involved with two way switching and had a situation
>where some lights only came on at half brightness. Presumably an
>series/parallell problem. He asked me for advice! I told him that if he
>couldn't think that one out he shouldn't be going near electrics and to send
>for an electrician.

I'm sure you're right. The question is whether this legislation will
make any difference to people doing things like this. I think not.


>
>Maybe it is needed? Many other countries have similar restrictions.
>
Many countries have inspection procedures, but don't tilt things such
that it's as expensive to get inspected.


>
>I shall now hide behind something pretty darned solid and keep my head down
>:)

Christian McArdle

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:11:34 AM11/29/04
to
> The cable hung down to about 1 inch above high water level in the
> underfloor which appeared in wet weather. I have come accross many
> horrors.

And just how much attention would a cretin that twists uninsulated cables
together and lets them dangle pay to legislation? The only people affected
will be the ones who are already competent. The cretins won't even hear
about the legislation.

Christian.


Stanley

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 9:34:16 AM11/29/04
to
I am as peeved as anyone about Part P.

A thought to bear in mind, however, is the state of wiring we come accross.
I found in one house I bought a 1mm unfused feed to a wall light taken off
the downstairs ring main by twisting the wires together and wrapping them

all with insulation tape. The cable hung down to about 1 inch above high

water level in the underfloor which appeared in wet weather. I have come
accross many horrors.

There are loads of people out there producing situations like this and it is

at those that Part P is aimed. Unfortunately we get caught up in cross fire.

I had a colleague in an office that I worked in who was rewiring a house for
some one else. He was involved with two way switching and had a situation
where some lights only came on at half brightness. Presumably an
series/parallell problem. He asked me for advice! I told him that if he
couldn't think that one out he shouldn't be going near electrics and to send
for an electrician.

Maybe it is needed? Many other countries have similar restrictions.


I shall now hide behind something pretty darned solid and keep my head down
:)

--
Derby, England.

Don't try to email me using "REPLY" as the email address is NoSpam. Our
email address is "thewoodies2 at ntlworld dot com"


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 24/11/2004


Al Reynolds

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 9:12:56 AM11/29/04
to
<use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote:
> While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part 'P'
> might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.

Not me. And as such I retain my right to
moan about them ;-)

> It's not some totally independent being out there trying to beat us
> into submission, it's a load of under (or over) worked individuals
> probably trying to do the best they can in the circumstances.

Yes, ironically this was probably the best
way they could think of to deal with the
problem. I do however object to the way
they seem to think they're doing us a favour.

Al


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 9:55:39 AM11/29/04
to
On 29 Nov 2004 13:44:00 GMT, use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:

>r...@kalico.replacespamwithorg wrote:
>> >Ah well, most of these will now be government approved deaths/accidents,
>> >and hence in real terms they will actually count as a reduction. Those
>> >that don't count as a reduction, will also not count toward the
>> >"official" accident stats because they will be deemed to be attempted
>> >suicides, since that could be the only possible explanation for an
>> >accident occurring in light of the quality nanny legislation that would
>> >without question prevent said accidents (or at any rate make them due to
>> >tax at the higher rate)!
>>
>> Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants
>> anything but to protect us from ourselves?
>>

>While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part 'P'
>might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.

However, I wonder how many of *us* would have voted for *them* if they
thought that *they* would be involving themselves in trivial
legislation like this.


>It's not some totally independent being out there trying to beat us
>into submission, it's a load of under (or over) worked individuals
>probably trying to do the best they can in the circumstances.

The reality seems to be that trade organisations like the ECA (by
their own admission) and others pushed for this for a long time and
managed to hoodwink the bureaucrats concerned that this would be a
Good Thing and would save lives. It's an easy political headline
that allows justification of virtually anything.

use...@isbd.co.uk

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 8:44:00 AM11/29/04
to
r...@kalico.replacespamwithorg wrote:
> >Ah well, most of these will now be government approved deaths/accidents,
> >and hence in real terms they will actually count as a reduction. Those
> >that don't count as a reduction, will also not count toward the
> >"official" accident stats because they will be deemed to be attempted
> >suicides, since that could be the only possible explanation for an
> >accident occurring in light of the quality nanny legislation that would
> >without question prevent said accidents (or at any rate make them due to
> >tax at the higher rate)!
>
> Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants
> anything but to protect us from ourselves?
>
While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part 'P'
might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.
It's not some totally independent being out there trying to beat us
into submission, it's a load of under (or over) worked individuals
probably trying to do the best they can in the circumstances.

--
Chris Green

use...@isbd.co.uk

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:15:15 AM11/29/04
to
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2004 13:44:00 GMT, use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants
> >> anything but to protect us from ourselves?
> >>
> >While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part 'P'
> >might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.
>
> However, I wonder how many of *us* would have voted for *them* if they
> thought that *they* would be involving themselves in trivial
> legislation like this.
>
If by 'us' you mean the denizens of uk.d-i-y I susppect not many.

On the other hand 'we' (as in the population at large) certainly have
been voting for exactly this sort of thing overall, people want more
police, more control of how things can be sold, etc., etc. When asked
if you want more police and control of 'yobs' etc. most people will
say yes, things like part 'P' sort of hang on the coat-tails of all
this.

>
> >It's not some totally independent being out there trying to beat us
> >into submission, it's a load of under (or over) worked individuals
> >probably trying to do the best they can in the circumstances.
>
> The reality seems to be that trade organisations like the ECA (by
> their own admission) and others pushed for this for a long time and
> managed to hoodwink the bureaucrats concerned that this would be a
> Good Thing and would save lives. It's an easy political headline
> that allows justification of virtually anything.
>

Yes, exactly, like many other things which 'save lives' but are done
without looking at their other effects. The trouble is that on the
face of it 'saving lives' is always a good thing and trying to argue
against it is very difficult, especially in public/on the 'media'.

--
Chris Green

ARWadsworth

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:43:03 AM11/29/04
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:22ulq01j47n1rmd91...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
> <ajr-...@bat400.com> wrote:
>
> >If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
> >Part P comes in, will we hear about it?
> >
> >Al
> >
>
> Of course. The Electrical Contractors Association, NICEIC and ODPM
> will be sponsoring full page ads in the national newspapers :-)

The conspiracy theory at my local wholesalers is

The number of deaths will rise, but official statistics will show that it is
due to people still DIYing. (They stats have already been prepared). Along
will come another piece of legislation to stop people who do not belong to a
certified group from buying CUs and cable etc. And what better way of
proving who you are at the wholesalers than by using your new ID card issued
by Mr Blunkett? When the tax man looks at your books and they show you have
fitted only 80 of the 120 CUs you bought using your ID card then get ready
for a full investigation.

Adam


John Rumm

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:55:53 AM11/29/04
to
use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:

> On the other hand 'we' (as in the population at large) certainly have
> been voting for exactly this sort of thing overall, people want more

remembering that fewer of the populas at large voted for *them* than
voted for Kinnock the last time he was on the wrong end of a landslide.
Alas too many of *us* obviously don't give a toss one way or the other!

Kalico

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 12:59:00 PM11/29/04
to

Emigration anyone?


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

Kalico

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 1:03:32 PM11/29/04
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:55:53 +0000, John Rumm
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:

>use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>
>> On the other hand 'we' (as in the population at large) certainly have
>> been voting for exactly this sort of thing overall, people want more
>
>remembering that fewer of the populas at large voted for *them* than
>voted for Kinnock the last time he was on the wrong end of a landslide.
>Alas too many of *us* obviously don't give a toss one way or the other!

Most people take the line that "they're all as bad as each other".

When you consider that this government has introduced policies,
regulations, laws etc that were looked at by the Tory government under
Thatcher, but dropped as being too 'right wing', it is not hard to see
why.

I know it's off-topic, but I have to wonder if the recent vote on a
regional assembly in the NE did not go the way it did simply because
the 'no' campaign played the line that it would mean more politicians.
The fact is that we just don't like them or, largely, trust them.

Rant over - sorry.

Joe

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 2:19:03 PM11/29/04
to
In message <kqomq0d3sa3c7rh1e...@4ax.com>, Kalico
<r...@kalico.nospam> writes
I assume you mean for the politicians? Non-voluntary?
--
Joe

tony sayer

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 12:32:30 PM11/29/04
to
In article <41ab1428$0$4011$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, John
Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes

>r...@kalico.replaceSPAMwithORG wrote:
>
>
>> With all that money being poured into speed cameras and the like to
>> stop us from being killed on the road, one might think nanny would
>> want to stop us killing ourselves through suicide. Total government
>
>They are on that one.... they are trialling computer vision CCTV systems
>in some of the London underground stations that claim to be able to
>identify typical "jumpers" in advance by studying their apparently tell
>tale behaviour patterns and movements.
>

Whatever loony thought that one up.

Got to have been, no sane sensible person would have ever put that
forward as even a remotely workable idea;(

--
Tony Sayer

Paper2002AD

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 5:47:52 PM11/29/04
to
>Subject: Re: Just a thought about Part P...
>From: use...@isbd.co.uk
>Date: 29/11/2004 15:15 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <310so3F...@uni-berlin.de>
>
>Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:

>> On 29 Nov 2004 13:44:00 GMT, use...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >> Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants

>anything but to protect us from ourselves?
>> >>
>> >While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part

>'P'
>> >might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.
>>
>> However, I wonder how many of *us* would have voted for *them* if they

>> thought that *they* would be involving themselves in trivial
>> legislation like this.
>>
>If by 'us' you mean the denizens of uk.d-i-y I susppect not many.

>On the other hand 'we' (as in the population at large) certainly have
>been voting for exactly this sort of thing overall, people want more
>police, more control of how things can be sold, etc., etc. When asked
>if you want more police and control of 'yobs' etc. most people will
>say yes, things like part 'P' sort of
hang on the coat-tails of all
>this.

Maybe there would be more sympathy for Part P if we did have more police (on
the beat, not behind desks) and if we did have control of yobs. As it is, we
do not have more police where it counts, we definitely do not have control of
yobs, AND we still have to suffer crap regulations like 'P', not to mention all
the other stuff handed down by our European masters

BigWallop

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 7:35:13 PM11/29/04
to

"Al Reynolds" <ajr-...@bat400.com> wrote in message
news:coesoe$rhj$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net...

> If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
> Part P comes in, will we hear about it?
>
> Al
>
>

This is a question asked recently on another group:

"I have recently taken a 5A switched spur off of a single outlet in the back
bedroom of my house to serve an outside light. I have used 2.5mm T&E for
this. The light works, and the socket still works, however, if I plug a
"protector" plug in with a 4-way extension lead into the socket, the
protector trips immediately. This was not happening before. The existing
socket was either part of a ring, or radial circuit as it had 2 cables going
into it. The fuse at the CU end is a 15A and as far as I can tell, the only
sockets on this circuit are 2 x doubles + said single outlet."

"All advice appreciated."

And you wonder why Part P is being implemented. :-))


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 8:31:40 PM11/29/04
to
In article <5fPqd.26135$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> writes:
>
> This is a question asked recently on another group:
>
> "I have recently taken a 5A switched spur off of a single outlet in the back
> bedroom of my house to serve an outside light. I have used 2.5mm T&E for
> this. The light works, and the socket still works, however, if I plug a
> "protector" plug in with a 4-way extension lead into the socket, the
> protector trips immediately. This was not happening before. The existing
> socket was either part of a ring, or radial circuit as it had 2 cables going
> into it. The fuse at the CU end is a 15A and as far as I can tell, the only
> sockets on this circuit are 2 x doubles + said single outlet."
>
> "All advice appreciated."
>
> And you wonder why Part P is being implemented. :-))

And what difference would it make in this case?
The bloke will very likely have never heard of
it, and is very unlikely to care even supposing
he had.

--
Andrew Gabriel

BigWallop

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:21:02 AM11/30/04
to

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cogihs$is9$3...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
> Andrew Gabriel
>

But people are now telling me that electrical fires aren't an issue but,
with all I see and hear around me, I think they most definitely are now.
And they're on the increase.


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 3:23:42 AM11/30/04
to
In article <ybVqd.26215$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> writes:
>
> "Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cogihs$is9$3...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
>>
>> And what difference would it make in this case?
>> The bloke will very likely have never heard of
>> it, and is very unlikely to care even supposing
>> he had.
>
> But people are now telling me that electrical fires aren't an issue but,
> with all I see and hear around me, I think they most definitely are now.
> And they're on the increase.

You didn't answer the point.

All the government figures I can see show a steady drop,
except for a small momentary increase around 1995.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andy Dingley

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 9:23:16 AM11/30/04
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:32:30 +0000, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

>Got to have been, no sane sensible person would have ever put that
>forward as even a remotely workable idea;(

It's not to save people, it's to maintain the timetable. False
positives don't matter - who cares if the odd piece of self-loading
cargo is dragged off for a nice cup of tea with the BTP.
--
Smert' spamionam

BigWallop

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 11:05:19 AM11/30/04
to

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cohame$pt3$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
> Andrew Gabriel
>

Looking at some of the postings just in this group, I can see some
electrical questions and proposals that frighten me. These are normally
about wiring problems and/or schemes which people are doing or have actually
done. So I think the momentary increase in 1995 is about to happen again.
That maybe why the government and institutions are doing something now to
cover their own butts.

The new requirements will go a long way to covering the asses of the
insurance companies when and if policy pay outs should be due, and also the
electrical suppliers when and if things go wrong in the DIY electrical
installations they attend with the fire brigade.

The postings here are from people who are actually trying to find out the
best and safest ways to do the job. But just how many more aren't even
bothering to find out how and why it should be done, and are burning their
houses down?


RichardS

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 12:18:36 PM11/30/04
to
"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:3T0rd.26567$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Surely legislation should be on the basis of evidence of a rising problem or
on matters of important public policy, not an ever-more-complex rule book
based upon possibilities that might be forseen but for which no evidence
exists?

To put the scale of the problem into some kind of perspective, a
conversation that I recently had with a senior manager in a very well known
insurance company was quite enlightening.

Apparently, your house is likely, on average, to be so seriously damaged in
an accident that it requires major rebuilding once every _300_ years.
(interestingly, for thatched houses this figure is closer to once every 1000
years). I think that as he was making the point about people reducing their
risk when aware of obvious dangers (barbeques/bonfires near the house) then
this might have just related to fires, but I'm not certain of this.

So, I don't think that the major insurers are losing too much sleep over the
dangers of unqualified (sorry, should read Unregistered) people doing
domestic wiring.

Even from the government figures, the numbers of people fatally injured in
electrical fires and from electrocution from fixed wiring is miniscule in a
country of 60million plus people.

This is completely unjustified beaurocratic overkill.

--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk


BigWallop

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 1:43:11 PM11/30/04
to

"RichardS" <noone@invalid> wrote in message
news:41acab77$0$11915$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
> Richard Sampson
>

I think people are only seeing the money side of things on this. All I read
in replies is the cost of this, and the cost of that, if these changes come
into play, it's going to cost Y extra to the trades people. What about the
lives at the end of this? Never mind "how many out of X inhabitants" die.
What about the small few that "are" crocking because of it?

You DIY wrong you DIE right, simple. Your fault? Or is it someone else's
fault? The electricity supplier must be at fault, right? The wiring
manufacturer is at fault, OK? The Sparks that installed it? The guy who
tested it "after" the sparks fitted it? Who's at fault if "you" cock up?
You?

Change of scenario. You have building work done by someone who has made
profit from that labour. What gets built, falls down within a year. Who do
you sue? Forget the ramblings about different contracts and things guys,
I've seen and heard it all before. I want the nitty gritty here. Who do
you sue?

Said builder is part of a voluntary organisation or scheme of some sort. He
has work recommended by them to other customers. He cocks up once, he gets
smack on wrist from organ grinder. He cocks up again, more severe warning
from the organ master. Third cock up and he's outta there, right? No more
work for real profit because he's useless, right? Wrong! He's allowed to
continue, even though he's not part of a national register of builders,
doing safe and sound work for profit.

Electrician is part of the same sort of voluntary scheme, organisation,
institute or whatever. He also has his work recommended by these scheme
things. He cocks up once, he gets smacked wrist. He cocks up twice, he
gets real roasting from said organisation. Third cock up and he's out
walking the streets, right? Another "guy next door does" wannabees? No!
He's also allowed to do work while not registered with a national register.
No more than a slight drop in wages.

Now make what was a voluntary scheme, compulsory. He must register with
some national registration scheme that can randomly check his work when and
if "they" see fit. Like CORGI, NACOSS Etc. are (should be). His third
cock up should show that he's not capable of doing this type of work. He's
a danger to others around him. He's useless, to put it bluntly. "But he
passed all the exams" He cheated !!! "He's been doing it for years". Get
all his work checked, NOW !!!

It brings in higher standards, and it brings in good all round workmanship
to everyone. House sales will need checked by registered and competent
schemes. These schemes will eventually weed out the crap, believe me.

Maybe I'm working in other countries to much, but the differences I see in
workmanship are amazing. Maybe it's the military training I went through to
get my qualifications, but the discipline I see in other peoples work is
terrible. I still hear the words "Oh bugger it, that'll do it. "Leave it
like that, it's good enough" on a what should be a site full of professional
people.

It isn't just the electrical trades that are coming under scrutiny. All
building and maintenance work is up for a re-shuffle. I think the sooner
these new schemes come in to force, and I mean force, the better for
everyone.

Sorry about the long ramblings again, but it really get to me this type of
thing. I work along side the people dealing with all the left leftovers of
these types of "Accidents" in the home. I see and hear what these people
have to deal with. I know of the statistics, and how they are shuffled to
make sense of them. These things need addressing, and if it has to take
government and law enforcement to bring it into line once and for all, then
so be it. My family and I live a building of over one hundred year in age.
It isn't square. It isn't truly upright, even. But it has stood on this
one spot for over one hundred years without even, what would now be, a
proper foundation working. Try achieving that with a new build now.

Just remember the lives saved at the end of this. Not the few that have
died.


EricP

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 2:58:54 PM11/30/04
to
And the word is that the Councils are saying get stuffed to Part P
because they can't enforce it.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 3:46:55 PM11/30/04
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:43:11 GMT, "BigWallop"
<spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote:

>

>
>I think people are only seeing the money side of things on this. All I read
>in replies is the cost of this, and the cost of that, if these changes come
>into play, it's going to cost Y extra to the trades people. What about the
>lives at the end of this? Never mind "how many out of X inhabitants" die.
>What about the small few that "are" crocking because of it?

This is a very thin argument. It is a *very* small few that pale
into insignificance in the totality of accidents in the home let alone
outside on the roads. Do we legislate requiring everybody to be
driven around by a government official driver? Perhaps that was what
Blunkett was trying out.......

>
>You DIY wrong you DIE right, simple. Your fault? Or is it someone else's
>fault? The electricity supplier must be at fault, right? The wiring
>manufacturer is at fault, OK? The Sparks that installed it? The guy who
>tested it "after" the sparks fitted it? Who's at fault if "you" cock up?
>You?

Legislation is not going to prevent idiots from doing incompetent DIY
work. You only have to listen to conversations in DIY stores some
weekends to know that there are people who will do stupid things come
what may.


>
>Change of scenario. You have building work done by someone who has made
>profit from that labour. What gets built, falls down within a year. Who do
>you sue? Forget the ramblings about different contracts and things guys,
>I've seen and heard it all before. I want the nitty gritty here. Who do
>you sue?
>
>Said builder is part of a voluntary organisation or scheme of some sort. He
>has work recommended by them to other customers. He cocks up once, he gets
>smack on wrist from organ grinder. He cocks up again, more severe warning
>from the organ master. Third cock up and he's outta there, right? No more
>work for real profit because he's useless, right? Wrong! He's allowed to
>continue, even though he's not part of a national register of builders,
>doing safe and sound work for profit.

When a building is constructed, assuming (and it is an assumption)
that building control is involved, it is or should be inspected for
safety and compliance with most of the important regulations during
construction.

>
>Electrician is part of the same sort of voluntary scheme, organisation,
>institute or whatever. He also has his work recommended by these scheme
>things. He cocks up once, he gets smacked wrist. He cocks up twice, he
>gets real roasting from said organisation. Third cock up and he's out
>walking the streets, right? Another "guy next door does" wannabees? No!
>He's also allowed to do work while not registered with a national register.
>No more than a slight drop in wages.
>
>Now make what was a voluntary scheme, compulsory. He must register with
>some national registration scheme that can randomly check his work when and
>if "they" see fit. Like CORGI, NACOSS Etc. are (should be). His third
>cock up should show that he's not capable of doing this type of work. He's
>a danger to others around him. He's useless, to put it bluntly. "But he
>passed all the exams" He cheated !!! "He's been doing it for years". Get
>all his work checked, NOW !!!

There is a huge difference. These are self certification schemes.
The trade associations will typically check a member's work once a
year - usually a couple of jobs. AIUI, this is what CORGI does.
They are by no means random checks and represent a sample of probably
1-2% of the jobs undertaken during the year.

With an error with gas fitting resulting in a leak, it hopefully
becomes obvious to the householder before anything bad happens,
although it is possible for the incompetent to create other dangerous
situations by inadequate ventilation that is not immediately obvious
to the casual observer.

With electricity, it is possible to wire an installation to an
extremely poor standard and break no end of rules and it will still
work - even pass the instrumented tests. The electrician can self
certify. Then NICEIC and the other cartels come along and do a 2%
sample? I'm not impressed.


>
>It brings in higher standards, and it brings in good all round workmanship
>to everyone. House sales will need checked by registered and competent
>schemes. These schemes will eventually weed out the crap, believe me.

No I don't. It will encourage more bodged jobs and dangerous
practices by the incompetent to save money, more trailing extensions
etc.

It won't address those who are determined to bodge because there is no
way to detect them except at house sale time and perhaps not even
then.

For the competent in other trades who have been doing perfectly
competent small electrical work for years it is likely to drive the
more conscientious not to do the work.

For the cowboys it will make no difference especially if their main
business is not electrical.

>
>Maybe I'm working in other countries to much, but the differences I see in
>workmanship are amazing. Maybe it's the military training I went through to
>get my qualifications, but the discipline I see in other peoples work is
>terrible. I still hear the words "Oh bugger it, that'll do it. "Leave it
>like that, it's good enough" on a what should be a site full of professional
>people.

So why do you think that a self certification scheme is going to make
a difference? The case is far from convincing. It's one thing
having self certification schemes for loft insulation and double
glazing, but quite another for allegedly more consequential things
like electricity.


>
>It isn't just the electrical trades that are coming under scrutiny. All
>building and maintenance work is up for a re-shuffle. I think the sooner
>these new schemes come in to force, and I mean force, the better for
>everyone.
>
>Sorry about the long ramblings again, but it really get to me this type of
>thing. I work along side the people dealing with all the left leftovers of
>these types of "Accidents" in the home. I see and hear what these people
>have to deal with. I know of the statistics, and how they are shuffled to
>make sense of them.

So did Benjamin Disraeli.

>These things need addressing, and if it has to take
>government and law enforcement to bring it into line once and for all, then
>so be it.

Except that this is pointless and ill conceived legislation. THe
reality is that it is unenforcable and the inspection levels are
likely to be too poor to make it worthwhile.


>My family and I live a building of over one hundred year in age.
>It isn't square. It isn't truly upright, even. But it has stood on this
>one spot for over one hundred years without even, what would now be, a
>proper foundation working. Try achieving that with a new build now.
>
>Just remember the lives saved at the end of this. Not the few that have
>died.
>

If I thought that it would make any difference, then I would be more
inclined to support a concept like this. However it is poorly thought
out and implemented and is likely to do anything apart from increasing
costs all round.

BigWallop

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 3:53:24 PM11/30/04
to

"EricP" <a.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k5kpq0lti11bmci7v...@4ax.com...

> And the word is that the Councils are saying get stuffed to Part P
> because they can't enforce it.
>

Not just now, but you wait and see what is actually happening due to these
small changes.


John Rumm

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 4:08:47 PM11/30/04
to
BigWallop wrote:


> I think people are only seeing the money side of things on this. All I read
> in replies is the cost of this, and the cost of that, if these changes come

The Regulation Impact of Assessment guestimated at something in the
order of 500m as a total cost of the regulations, to achieve a reduction
of 20% in the number of lives lost due to fixed wiring faults - or in
real numbers, less than 4 per year.

Now given 500m of other peoples money, and freedom to spend it any way
you like, do you suppose you could save more lives than that?

You could simply set about collecting 10% of that and give it to Oxfam.
Now that probably *would* save thousands of lives.

> Just remember the lives saved at the end of this. Not the few that have
> died.

This is the main issue that I have, and believe many other people have
with this legislation. It is not the concept that there should be
regulation (although many will find that objectionable enough I am
sure), but the fact that the legislation is so badly drafted, and so
poorly thought out, that in spite of all the costs it will generate the
result will be *more* deaths rather than less.

Think your way though the scenarios:

Mr Incompetent, will DIY as before, same risk, same outcome.

Mr. Borderline Competent, before would get an electrician to do jobs he
was not totally clued up on, now due to the extra cost and hassle might
"have a go" anyway.

He might want to add some sockets to a utility room, he knows he can't
add a whole new circuit and still have it count as a "minor work", but
he can do a bunch of spurs. Safer do you think?

He could do with an extra socket on the kitchen ring so that he can
dispense with the extension lead that he currently has the kettle
plugged into. Worth the hassle to get a sparks? or shall he struggle on
with the lead for a bit more?

Mr. Competent, will DIY as before, and pay extra for a BCO to sprinkle
holy water on his work.

The real winners: Tax Man, Trade Bodies, Existing Sparks who have an
excuse for a price hike, VAT Man, Lawyers.

The losers: everyone else. The man who wants to hire a sparks will find
it harder - they were scarce even before the BCO departments started
trying to poach them. This will suck cowboys into the market. The new
small businessman, can't trade without membership, can't get membership
because he has no trading history.

John Rumm

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 4:15:30 PM11/30/04
to
BigWallop wrote:

> Not just now, but you wait and see what is actually happening due to these
> small changes.

What is happening is that it is getting ever more complex and less
rewarding to run a small business these days. Ultimatly in a country
where the majority of its GDP is generated by this business sector, it
is tantamount to cooking the goose that used to lay the golden eggs.

tony sayer

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 4:31:27 PM11/30/04
to
In article <41ace2e3$0$50863$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, John
Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes

>BigWallop wrote:
>
>> Not just now, but you wait and see what is actually happening due to these
>> small changes.
>
>What is happening is that it is getting ever more complex and less
>rewarding to run a small business these days.

That.. Is precisely what the government wants. It hates small bizz and
the self employed with a vengeance.....


>Ultimatly in a country
>where the majority of its GDP is generated by this business sector, it
>is tantamount to cooking the goose that used to lay the golden eggs.


Obvious really, those who can do, those who can't govern;(

--
Tony Sayer

Stephen Dawson

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 4:36:42 PM11/30/04
to

<snipped>

>
> The losers: everyone else. The man who wants to hire a sparks will find it
> harder - they were scarce even before the BCO departments started trying
> to poach them. This will suck cowboys into the market. The new small
> businessman, can't trade without membership, can't get membership because
> he has no trading history.
>
<snipped>

Also are losers are sparks who are also assessed and registered but have to
fork out,to registered and assesed again, and then pass on additional costs
to you the client.


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 4:50:02 PM11/30/04
to
In article <3b3rd.26732$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> writes:
>
> I think people are only seeing the money side of things on this. All I read
> in replies is the cost of this, and the cost of that, if these changes come
> into play, it's going to cost Y extra to the trades people. What about the
> lives at the end of this? Never mind "how many out of X inhabitants" die.
> What about the small few that "are" crocking because of it?

Life is all about risks and managing them. Do you make use of
roads (as a vehicle user or a pedestrian)? Some 3500 people who
do are killed per year in accidents, so compared to the 5-10 people
killed by faulty wiring, you are 500 times more likely to be
killed as a road user than you are by faulty wiring, so you
better stay at home all the time then. Oh, hang on, something
around this same 3500 figure are killed by other accidents in
the home, so staying at home is also looking about 500 times
more dangerous than faulty wiring alone, so scratch that idea.
Perhaps you should go and stay in hospital, so you're near to
medical help when you have an accident as life is beginning to
look rather dangerous? Oh, something like this same 3500 figure
is the number of deaths in hospital due to picking up secondary
infections such as MRSA, so hospitals are looking like a mighty
dangerous place to stay too.

So to put this into perspective, you are so much more likely to
die from some other accidental or negligent cause, that the
5-10 deaths per year due to electrical installation faults are
completely off the radar. If you want to campaign to reduce
accidental deaths of some type, at least pick one which is
significant. Electrical installation deaths is completely
insignificant.

So instead of tackling some cause of accidental deaths which
might actually make an impact, the government has spent all this
money, resource, and time on something which is insignificant.
The government estimates that part P will reduce the number of
deaths due to electrical installations by only 20% -- that's
just 1 or 2 people per year. The three categories of accidental
deaths I list above account for over 10,000 deaths per year.
Spending the time on reducing that by even as little as 1% would
save 50 to 100 times more lives per year than the Part P farce.
Does this help make it clearer why Part P is completely bogus?

> You DIY wrong you DIE right, simple.

Wrong. Lots of people DIY wrongly and very very few of them die.
There are going to be lots of faulty electrical installations
around for lots of reasons (DIY being only one of many), but
they very rarely kill anyone. Chances are far more DIYers are
killed actually en route to or from B&Q than are ever killed by
their own DIY work.

I hope this puts the figures into more perspective.

--
Andrew Gabriel

BigWallop

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 6:10:17 PM11/30/04
to

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:coipua$av3$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...

> In article <3b3rd.26732$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> writes:
> >
>
<<<snipped>>>

>
> I hope this puts the figures into more perspective.
>
> Andrew Gabriel
>

But the knock on effects are going to reduce some of the other deaths caused
in the home, wouldn't you think? Such as deaths caused by electrocution
from the actual appliances. Electrical appliances causing fires. Etc. Etc.
So it will make a difference if it actually gets the proper backing from the
regulators, and if it is enforced and not just passed over with an
inadequate testing systems and notary records. With these in place, it will
work out as a change for the good.


Mike

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 6:27:52 PM11/30/04
to

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:3b3rd.26732$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Mainland Europe does have these attitudes. Unfortunately this is one of the
reasons France, Germany and Italy are going down the tubes fast. Places
like the US, China, India and the UK have "good enough" attitudes to doing
most things and that keeps their economies growing.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 6:37:43 PM11/30/04
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:10:17 GMT, "BigWallop"
<spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote:

>
>"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:coipua$av3$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
>> In article <3b3rd.26732$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> "BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> writes:
>> >
>>
><<<snipped>>>
>>
>> I hope this puts the figures into more perspective.
>>
>> Andrew Gabriel
>>
>
>But the knock on effects are going to reduce some of the other deaths caused
>in the home, wouldn't you think? Such as deaths caused by electrocution
>from the actual appliances. Electrical appliances causing fires. Etc. Etc.

No it doesn't and that's part of the issue. In many sets of figures,
the appliance and use related figures are the ones highlighted and
part P does less than zero to address the issue.

The reasons are simple. If people have faulty appliances they will be
faulty appliances - no change there. Flexible cords will still be
damaged - not covered by this. People will continue to use adaptors
and trailing multiways and more so now rather than fork over more
money to get somebody in. So now you have fire and trip hazards even
worse than before. Not addressed, but made more likely to happen.


>So it will make a difference if it actually gets the proper backing from the
>regulators, and if it is enforced and not just passed over with an
>inadequate testing systems and notary records. With these in place, it will
>work out as a change for the good.
>

As constructed it doesn't. What do we have?

- Approach 1 is that electrician who is member of an approved
organisation comes in and does the work and then signs it off.
There is perhaps a 1-2% rate of checking of his work.
Where's the supervision in that?

- Approach 2 is that conscientious householder DIYs or AN Other does
the work and a building notice is done and the work is inspected.
This is closer to being useful, but a costly option to achieve very
little.

RichardS

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 8:27:38 PM11/30/04
to
"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:3b3rd.26732$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
<snip>

I'll say again - what evidence is there that DIY electrical work is a
serious hazard to public health and safety such that it warrants such
wide-ranging legislation?

Increasing the cost of electrical work will only serve to put people off
carrying out such work - whether DIYing or employing a registered
electrician, and this cannot be good.

How many lives are currently being saved because someone puts right a
potentially dangerous installation? A death averted is not recorded
anywhere - it is simply not possible to do this. So if a proportion of this
work stops due to the new rules then this can only have one effect.

Owain

unread,
Dec 1, 2004, 5:26:02 AM12/1/04
to
"Andy Hall" wrote

| If people have faulty appliances they will be faulty appliances
| - no change there. Flexible cords will still be damaged - not
| covered by this. People will continue to use adaptors and
| trailing multiways and more so now rather than fork over more
| money to get somebody in.

And how many people's lives have been saved because Granny got a handy
neighbour in to change a socket for her because the switch was too stiff for
her arthritic fingers, and it was gently pointed out to her that her 1930s
bowl fire with the 2-core cotton lead was a deathtrap and the whole house
needed rewiring.

Probably more than Part P, anyway.

Owain


Owain

unread,
Dec 1, 2004, 5:17:13 AM12/1/04
to
"John Rumm" wrote

| The Regulation Impact of Assessment guestimated at something in
| the order of 500m as a total cost of the regulations, to achieve
| a reduction of 20% in the number of lives lost due to fixed wiring
| faults - or in real numbers, less than 4 per year.

My reading of the RIA was that the number of deaths due to *fixed wiring*
faults was already only 0.8 per year.

So we are talking a reduction of 4 people every five years to 3 people every
five years?

| Now given 500m of other peoples money, and freedom to spend it any way
| you like, do you suppose you could save more lives than that?

In an election year an extra £50 bribe^Wchristmas bonus to 10m pensioners,
unemployed, low income, etc might be a better bet for the govt.

Owain


Andy Hall

unread,
Dec 1, 2004, 6:06:41 AM12/1/04
to

... or even train tickets.....

RichardS

unread,
Dec 1, 2004, 6:31:57 AM12/1/04
to
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:id9rq0h7gp43huchv...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:17:13 -0000, "Owain"
> <owain...@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote:
>
<snip>

> >
> >| Now given 500m of other peoples money, and freedom to spend it any way
> >| you like, do you suppose you could save more lives than that?
> >
> >In an election year an extra £50 bribe^Wchristmas bonus to 10m
pensioners,
> >unemployed, low income, etc might be a better bet for the govt.
> >
> >Owain
> >
>
> ... or even train tickets.....
>
>

Aw, now that's just not fair Andy - it was a genuine mistake, he said so!
He didn't realise that you couldn't hand out taxpayer-funded FIRST CLASS
tickets to anyone you happen to be shagging at the time.

And now he's paying back the cost of the ticket (face value, mind, not the
actual cost to the taxpayer after the admin, etc) that's shirley the end of
the matter? After all, if I underpay my tax because I didn't quite read
through the details of the rules then I won't be expected to be penalised or
anything...

Andy Hall

unread,
Dec 1, 2004, 7:05:37 AM12/1/04
to
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:31:57 -0000, "RichardS" <noone@invalid> wrote:

>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:id9rq0h7gp43huchv...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:17:13 -0000, "Owain"
>> <owain...@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>> >
>> >| Now given 500m of other peoples money, and freedom to spend it any way
>> >| you like, do you suppose you could save more lives than that?
>> >
>> >In an election year an extra £50 bribe^Wchristmas bonus to 10m
>pensioners,
>> >unemployed, low income, etc might be a better bet for the govt.
>> >
>> >Owain
>> >
>>
>> ... or even train tickets.....
>>
>>
>
>Aw, now that's just not fair Andy - it was a genuine mistake, he said so!

Must be OK, then.

>He didn't realise that you couldn't hand out taxpayer-funded FIRST CLASS
>tickets to anyone you happen to be shagging at the time.

He seems to have done that bit properly at least.....

>
>And now he's paying back the cost of the ticket (face value, mind, not the
>actual cost to the taxpayer after the admin, etc) that's shirley the end of
>the matter?

I don't know, and don't call me Shirley.

>After all, if I underpay my tax because I didn't quite read
>through the details of the rules then I won't be expected to be penalised or
>anything...

You have to remember that all animals are equal but some are more
equal than others, Richard.

Owain

unread,
Dec 1, 2004, 9:32:24 AM12/1/04
to
"RichardS" wrote

| > ... or even train tickets.....
| Aw, now that's just not fair Andy - ...

| And now he's paying back the cost of the ticket (face value, mind,
| not the actual cost to the taxpayer after the admin, etc)

The face value of a first class ticket not bought in advance is probably far
in excess of what the government pays for its bulk-buy advance-purchase
travel warrants.

(Hopefully the govt do buy the cheap advance-purchase tickets.)

Owain


Neil Jones

unread,
Dec 1, 2004, 10:00:18 AM12/1/04
to

"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11019127...@damia.uk.clara.net...
I thought they used rail warrants ie they don't actually buy a ticket.


Brian Sharrock

unread,
Dec 1, 2004, 10:44:27 AM12/1/04
to

"Neil Jones" <ne...@the-joneses.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3164k9F...@individual.net...
IIRC; a Rail-Warrant is provided which is used
to 'purchase' a full fare ticket at the ticket-office.
From experience the ticket office clerks just 'love'
to exchange the warrant ... lots of filling in of
forms/ logs etc. It's not a procedure to engage in
when there's a queue of people trying to buy
a ticket for an imminent train!
Assuming that we're talking about _the_ ticket:-
it seems that our elected representatives have quietly
changed the rules so that 'spouse' is interpreted as
'or partner' - well, Tony had to allow people like
Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson to benefit
from our money. If the Home Secretary tried to use
the 'or partner' ruse as a justification for his conduct;
he might get bitten by the disclosure rules for spouse's
(or partner's) income, property, benefits and holdings.
He probably hopes by that paying back the money he
'mistakenly' misappropriated from the taxpayer, we'll
all forget the matter. I wonder if Accused -in-the-
dock - brought before the beak by the Home Secretary's
minions- will plead the "Blunkett Defence";- 'It was a
mistake and I'll pay back the face value of what I've
misappropriated, I'm grateful for all the messages of support
I've received and just wish the world would move on - erm,
Yer'onor!"

--

Brian

Andy Dingley

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 7:20:45 AM12/2/04
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:34:16 GMT, "Stanley" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>I found in one house I bought a 1mm unfused feed to a wall light taken off
>the downstairs ring main by twisting the wires together and wrapping them
>all with insulation tape.

>There are loads of people out there producing situations like this and it is
>at those that Part P is aimed.

So people who commit gross bodgery are suddenly going to do official
paperwork as well ? That's the fallacy of Part P.

>He was involved with two way switching and had a situation
>where some lights only came on at half brightness.

Friend of mine has some 3 way switching that only comes on in certain
combinations. Even sitting down with pencil and paper I can't work out
just how it could have been wired to do what it does (switching the
hall lights kills them in the kitchen). Professional work though, just
before the previous owners sold the house.

Andy Minter

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 2:11:33 PM12/9/04
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
<ajr-...@bat400.com> wrote:

>If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
>Part P comes in, will we hear about it?
>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=IWTYYW1VE1GBFQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQYJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/12/09/do0902.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/09/ixportal.html


Andy Hall

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 4:15:51 PM12/9/04
to
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:11:33 +0000, Andy Minter <an...@nildram.co.uk>
wrote:

He's right on the money of course......

OG

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 4:50:21 PM12/9/04
to

"Andy Minter" <an...@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dm8hr09ecmp357blk...@4ax.com...

Typical Telegraph misrepresentation.

Columnist talks about regulations being invoked for a broken window when
Document L does not apply in the case of "like for like", even where it
involves the whole unit.
http://www.windowstoday.co.uk/document_l.htm

I say 'typical', because they ran a story earlier in the year about some
nuns who were 'threatened with bankruptcy ' to make disabled access to
their crypt under the DDA; which is complete tosh of course - the DDA
only requires 'reasonable alterations' to be made.

There may be problems with Document L and Part P, but the Telegraph does
nobody any favours by putting such a stupidly framed argument against
them.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages