Part P: How should it work?

135 views
Skip to first unread message

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 12:16:48 PM4/1/05
to
Part P has been the subject of (err) some considerable debate recently.
Many issues and pitfalls of the current legislation have been pointed
out in other threads.

I was wondering if some of the more illuminated (or even just animated
in some cases) of this NG's users have views on what it should be? For
example:

o Is it fine as is (with a bit of clarification & tweaking perhaps)?
o Should it simply be binned?
o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
take?

My own (possibly over simplistic) thoughts would be some sort of basic
competency test for a DIYer at a reasonable cost (ignoring logistics of
rolling out such a scheme) combined with a LA/BC provided inspections at
a reasonable cost, with exemptions for those who already can demonstrate
competency ... what do others think?

I am genuinely interested in this and am not just trying to stir it up etc.

Alex.

Christian McArdle

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 12:27:31 PM4/1/05
to
> o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
> place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
> take?

The problem is that there has never proven to be a problem. The money would
be better spent elsewhere. What few injuries and death have occured from
fixed wiring have been more usually attributed to ancient faulty systems
that are now less likely to be replaced.

Sometimes it's better (and safer and cheaper) to do nothing.

Christian.


AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 12:39:40 PM4/1/05
to
Christian McArdle wrote:
>>o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
>>place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
>>take?
>
>
> The problem is that there has never proven to be a problem. The money would
> be better spent elsewhere. What few injuries and death have occured from
> fixed wiring have been more usually attributed to ancient faulty systems
> that are now less likely to be replaced.

I understand that (from what I have read in other threads) but there are
(some) cowboys and DIY bodgers out there and surely that is a cause for
concern for most (esp. those without technical savvy).

Also, as DIY has boomed of the past 10 years (look at the growth of
places like B&Q etc) maybe we have a backlog of bodgery yet to be
discovered?

> Sometimes it's better (and safer and cheaper) to do nothing.

Its certainly cheaper, for sure! & I understand the reasoning on the
safety issue although I am not sure it applies universally?

Alex

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 12:42:18 PM4/1/05
to
AlexW wrote:

> Also, as DIY has boomed of the past 10 years (look at the growth of
> places like B&Q etc) maybe we have a backlog of bodgery yet to be
> discovered?

Although, obviously, legislation would only prevent further such issues
in the future and assuming the population does not "go underground" on
the issue.

Christian McArdle

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 12:58:07 PM4/1/05
to
> I understand that (from what I have read in other threads) but there are
> (some) cowboys and DIY bodgers out there and surely that is a cause for
> concern for most (esp. those without technical savvy).

Only the competent ones have heard of the legislation. The bodgers, cowboys
and clueless will carry on either oblivious of the requirements or openly
disobeying the law.

Christian.

Andrew Welham

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 1:23:24 PM4/1/05
to
Although I don't like Part P and would like to see it changed, I can see
where it could possibly may be helpful.

Personally I would like to see part P being closely aligned with the
Corgi standards i.e. the “competent person” section. Admittedly the
definition is often discussed in this group with many differing opinions.

As far I can understand even a fully qualified electrician with years of
experience is not allowed to wire their own home if they are not part P
certified (i.e. paid up member).

An alternative from the "competent persons” clause may be an exam for
competent DIYers to take which would allow them to self certify their
own work, for non paid work only. This would mean they could their own
house and a friends or family members, but it could help to stop cowboys
using this to get round the regulations.

Having said that the competence (or lack of) some people in this world
today is amazing I can only imagine some of the bodges people with no
electrical understanding or caring for safety / quality have created. So
I can see how part P trying to help, but as other posters have said,
would this type of person even know about the regs let along follow them

In my opinion I believe the local councils have done next to nothing
about part P and are simply subbing the work out, hoping the issue will
not bother them.

Andrew


--
To reply via email, first reverse the address below then replace the
(at) with @ and the (dot) with . moc(tod)xepip(tod)lsd(ta)spuorgswen_werdna

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 1:26:04 PM4/1/05
to
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:16:48 +0100, AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not>
wrote:

>Part P has been the subject of (err) some considerable debate recently.
>Many issues and pitfalls of the current legislation have been pointed
>out in other threads.
>
>I was wondering if some of the more illuminated (or even just animated
>in some cases) of this NG's users have views on what it should be? For
>example:
>
>o Is it fine as is (with a bit of clarification & tweaking perhaps)?

No. Please see recent threads on the subject.

>o Should it simply be binned?

Yes.

>o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
>place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
>take?

In terms of regulation and legislation, certainly not.

>
>My own (possibly over simplistic) thoughts would be some sort of basic
>competency test for a DIYer at a reasonable cost (ignoring logistics of
>rolling out such a scheme) combined with a LA/BC provided inspections at
>a reasonable cost, with exemptions for those who already can demonstrate
>competency ... what do others think?

It could be interesting to offer something by way of evening classes
run by local technical colleges etc., although in one sense, the
various C&G qualifications were meant to fill such a role.

One issue would be how far does it go? should it be enough to give
the person enough information on how to extend a ring circuit? Should
it enough to cover consumer units? sub mains? TT earthing in
separate buildings? testing procedures?

It is likely that such courses would be attended by the conscientious
who probably know what they are doing anyway - probably not by the
bodgers or stupid.

So I am less that convinced that it would achieve anything useful.

All of this is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't really
exist, and which in the limited cases where there are problems would
not have made a difference anyway.

>
>I am genuinely interested in this and am not just trying to stir it up etc.
>
>Alex.
>
>


--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 1:58:02 PM4/1/05
to
In article <424d8201$0$43983$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not> writes:
> Part P has been the subject of (err) some considerable debate recently.
> Many issues and pitfalls of the current legislation have been pointed
> out in other threads.
>
> I was wondering if some of the more illuminated (or even just animated
> in some cases) of this NG's users have views on what it should be? For
> example:
>
> o Is it fine as is (with a bit of clarification & tweaking perhaps)?
> o Should it simply be binned?
> o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
> place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
> take?

You need to start by asking what problem needs to be solved.
Let's look at the accidental death rate, which was probably
the most significant issue brought up. Well, we can start
by tossing some figures into the air to get some perspective...

Accidental deaths in the home: ~3500/year
Accidental deaths on the road: ~3500/year
Deaths in hospital due to secondary infections: ~5000/year
Electrocutions due to faulty home wiring: ~5/year
Deaths due to house fires due to faulty wiring: <5/year

So just supposing Part P was 100% successful in eliminating
those 10 deaths per year, you're looking at a reduction of
less than 0.1% in those classes of accidental death above.
However, even the government thought Part P would lead to
only a 20% reduction, so we're now down to less than 0.02%
in the overall figure. Frankly, it was never worth looking
at electrical installation safety in the first place -- it
is totally insignificant in death rates. Furthermore, it
has been falling consistently over the last 30 years, so
it's not like it was a problem which was getting worse.

If you want to make a significant impact on the figures,
you need to reduce one of the ones which runs into the
thousands. Let's think about accidental deaths in the
home for a moment. The majority of these are trips/slips/
falls. There are no figures, but I'll bet some proportion
of these are tripping over cables. One thing Part P has
certainly done is increase use of extension leads (seen
a number of references to boilers being installed on
extention cords due to the gas fitters no longer being
allowed to do the mains connections). Even a very tiny
increase in trips/slips/falls due to this would swamp any
reduction in the tiny numbers of electrical incidents.

This is all very basic risk assessment, something which
was completely missing from the process resulting in the
introduction of Part P. Actually, a national campaign to
get everyone to install an extra socket outlet and chuck
out an extension cable might have saved far more lives
through even a tiny reduction in trips/slips/falls than
Part P ever could, even supposing Part P was 100% successful.

> My own (possibly over simplistic) thoughts would be some sort of basic
> competency test for a DIYer at a reasonable cost (ignoring logistics of
> rolling out such a scheme) combined with a LA/BC provided inspections at
> a reasonable cost, with exemptions for those who already can demonstrate
> competency ... what do others think?

The figures simply don't justify making any changes at all.
I can sure think of things like you suggest, and requiring
professional electricians to be registered, and all sorts of
other things, but it's not justified. Whatever you might
think of incompitent cowboys and DIYers -- they aren't actually
killing people. It's probably a testiment to the current quality
of our wiring accessories (which you'll appreciate better when
you've seen those used in some other countries, such as the US)
that even when used incorrectly, ours actually remain quite
safe in practice.

> I am genuinely interested in this and am not just trying to stir it up etc.

Sure. You might want to look at the response to the consultation
I sent in, and was backed by a number of the other regulars here:
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/buildregs.pdf

--
Andrew Gabriel

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 3:46:51 PM4/1/05
to

Agreed. But that was always the case legislation or not ... can't blame
it for not adressing this. Although you can blame the part P publicists
for this ... but that is not a fault of the legislation itself, just how
it has been promoted.

Alex.

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 4:00:21 PM4/1/05
to
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:46:51 +0100, AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not>
wrote:

It's not simply promotion.

Take a read through the Statutory Instrument.

Then take a read through the Approved Documents and the Self
Certification scheme details and you will realise that the whole thing
is a complete and ill thought out mess.

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 4:17:55 PM4/1/05
to
Andy Hall wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:16:48 +0100, AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Part P has been the subject of (err) some considerable debate recently.
>>Many issues and pitfalls of the current legislation have been pointed
>>out in other threads.
>>
>>I was wondering if some of the more illuminated (or even just animated
>>in some cases) of this NG's users have views on what it should be? For
>>example:
>>
>>o Is it fine as is (with a bit of clarification & tweaking perhaps)?
>
>
> No. Please see recent threads on the subject.

Seen them, hence the OP, was trying to draw out opinions & not just from
those who have already set their stall out.

>>o Should it simply be binned?
>
>
> Yes.

Thought you might say that ;-). In current form I am inclined to agree
actually.

>
>
>>o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
>>place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
>>take?
>
>
> In terms of regulation and legislation, certainly not.

What is your (is there a) proposed alternative? people often tend to
ignore things outside the two realms mentioned. Education would be more
effective I think but even more difficult to successfully promote and
implement to make a significant impact on the situation.

>
>
>>My own (possibly over simplistic) thoughts would be some sort of basic
>>competency test for a DIYer at a reasonable cost (ignoring logistics of
>>rolling out such a scheme) combined with a LA/BC provided inspections at
>>a reasonable cost, with exemptions for those who already can demonstrate
>>competency ... what do others think?
>
>
> It could be interesting to offer something by way of evening classes
> run by local technical colleges etc., although in one sense, the
> various C&G qualifications were meant to fill such a role.

Yes and they are often quite good value, this was the thinking behind
the basic competency statement.

>
> One issue would be how far does it go? should it be enough to give
> the person enough information on how to extend a ring circuit? Should
> it enough to cover consumer units? sub mains? TT earthing in
> separate buildings? testing procedures?

Very difficult to answer, I am sure a suitable panel of experts could
come up with a core syllabus and supplemented with background info on
when to seek help ... only the corrupt or stupid will knowingly proceed
beyond their own depth eh?

>
> It is likely that such courses would be attended by the conscientious
> who probably know what they are doing anyway - probably not by the
> bodgers or stupid.

Yes, but as mentioned in another part of the thread bodgers and stupid
people have been in operation and always shall be. It's an aspect which
leg & reg will not solve, but nor will having no leg or reg make this
situation better. Presumably, some of the stupid may get wiser at least
by well promoted initiatives in this direction.

>
> So I am less that convinced that it would achieve anything useful.
>
> All of this is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't really
> exist, and which in the limited cases where there are problems would
> not have made a difference anyway.
>

I think I agree that this was not really a hot potato, at least
quantatively in terms of deaths I believe (which is part of another post
on this thread) ... but do people really want to pick up a load of
(avoidably) crappy wiring when buying a house from a bodger or cowboy? I
don't know of a dodgy damp course that ever killed anyone but the regs
legislate on that and few people complain ...

Cheers,

Alex.

Jeff

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 4:52:43 PM4/1/05
to

AlexW wrote :-

> I don't know of a dodgy damp course that ever killed >anyone but the regs
> legislate on that and few people complain ...
>

I still find it hard to believe that I can't wire up an extra socket in the
kitchen but I can still do my own gas fitting

Regards Jeff


Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 5:27:16 PM4/1/05
to
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:17:55 +0100, AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not>
wrote:


>>
>>
>>>o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
>>>place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
>>>take?
>>
>>
>> In terms of regulation and legislation, certainly not.
>
>What is your (is there a) proposed alternative? people often tend to
>ignore things outside the two realms mentioned. Education would be more
>effective I think but even more difficult to successfully promote and
>implement to make a significant impact on the situation.
>

There is absolutely no need to do anything other than to repeal this
at the earliest opportunity.

There isn't a "situation" to address.

Please refer to the figures on deaths due to accidents in the home,
hospitals etc. posted by Andrew Gabriel.

There are less than 2 deaths per year from issues with fixed wiring.
There are thousands due to far more obvious issues like falling,
tripping over, visiting an NHS hospital and so forth.

The issue is that there isn't a "situation" to resolve.

Governments love to meddle in people's lives and this one is
demonstrably inappropriate.

- There isn't a problem to fix in the first place

- It isn't economically feasible or politically acceptable to put in
place the type and level of legislation, inspection and enforcement
that would be required to stop the bodgers, cowboys and stupid. Not to
mention people who neglect their wiring for 50 years and have a fire.
Even then, I am very dubious that all of this would make a difference
to a count of 2 deaths per year.

- There is nothing wrong with having a wiring standard in the form of
BS7671 and operated as it was up until the end of last year.

>
>>
>> So I am less that convinced that it would achieve anything useful.
>>
>> All of this is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't really
>> exist, and which in the limited cases where there are problems would
>> not have made a difference anyway.
>>
>
>I think I agree that this was not really a hot potato, at least
>quantatively in terms of deaths I believe (which is part of another post
>on this thread) ... but do people really want to pick up a load of
>(avoidably) crappy wiring when buying a house from a bodger or cowboy?

I am sure that they don't

Unfortunately, this silly legislation will do zero to address that
issue.

- The bodgers, cowboys and idiots will continue in defiance or in
ignorance and are highly unlikely to be caught.

- Because of the use of self certification schemes there is little
supervision of work and again it is unlikely that most bad jobs will
be detected. It will come down to the honesty, good workmanship and
ability of the individual electrician, just as it always has. If
there were independent inspection of every job, it might be a
different story, but there isn't.

It really is illusory to believe that there will be any reduction in
the amount of poor work, injuries etc.

This is legislation and control for its own sake.


I
>don't know of a dodgy damp course that ever killed anyone but the regs
>legislate on that and few people complain ...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Alex.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:08:05 PM4/1/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:sdhr41h4pvakmfpq8...@4ax.com...

> Please refer to the figures on deaths due to accidents in the home,
> hospitals etc. posted by Andrew Gabriel.
>
> There are less than 2 deaths per year from issues with fixed wiring.
> There are thousands due to far more obvious issues like falling,
> tripping over, visiting an NHS hospital and so forth.

More Lord Hallisms. So two wrongs make a right again. Two deaths a year a
two too many.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:16:24 PM4/1/05
to
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:08:05 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:sdhr41h4pvakmfpq8...@4ax.com...
>
>> Please refer to the figures on deaths due to accidents in the home,
>> hospitals etc. posted by Andrew Gabriel.
>>
>> There are less than 2 deaths per year from issues with fixed wiring.
>> There are thousands due to far more obvious issues like falling,
>> tripping over, visiting an NHS hospital and so forth.
>
>More Lord Hallisms. So two wrongs make a right again. Two deaths a year a
>two too many.
>

Of course, but inappropriate and incompetent legislation is not the
way to address that issue.

The government should be spending our money and Parliamentary time on
issues that can be more reasonably legislated and would have greater
impact on injury and loss of life.

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:15:49 PM4/1/05
to
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

First, cheers for taking the time to make such an effort on the response!

I'm afraid I'm gonna do a little devils advocating though...

> In article <424d8201$0$43983$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not> writes:
>
>>Part P has been the subject of (err) some considerable debate recently.
>>Many issues and pitfalls of the current legislation have been pointed
>>out in other threads.
>>
>>I was wondering if some of the more illuminated (or even just animated
>>in some cases) of this NG's users have views on what it should be? For
>>example:
>>
>>o Is it fine as is (with a bit of clarification & tweaking perhaps)?
>>o Should it simply be binned?
>>o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
>>place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
>>take?
>
>
> You need to start by asking what problem needs to be solved.
> Let's look at the accidental death rate, which was probably
> the most significant issue brought up. Well, we can start
> by tossing some figures into the air to get some perspective...

A slight widening of the scope of the OP but I'll buy it.

> Accidental deaths in the home: ~3500/year
> Accidental deaths on the road: ~3500/year
> Deaths in hospital due to secondary infections: ~5000/year
> Electrocutions due to faulty home wiring: ~5/year
> Deaths due to house fires due to faulty wiring: <5/year
>
> So just supposing Part P was 100% successful in eliminating
> those 10 deaths per year, you're looking at a reduction of
> less than 0.1% in those classes of accidental death above.
> However, even the government thought Part P would lead to
> only a 20% reduction, so we're now down to less than 0.02%
> in the overall figure.

OK. But some of the categories above are more amenable to reduction than
others by legislation/regulation/education. In terms of where a
government should focus it efforts it would seem proportionate responses
would be appropriate. I'm not sure here that I understand well enough
what could be done here to make significant inroads into the other
categories, however, I certainly agree that deaths in hospitals might be
more soluble.

> Frankly, it was never worth looking
> at electrical installation safety in the first place -- it
> is totally insignificant in death rates.

Without trying to get emotive ... Quantatively speaking.

> Furthermore, it
> has been falling consistently over the last 30 years, so
> it's not like it was a problem which was getting worse.

Which I think is the more important point here. How fast though and
what's the shape of the curve?

> If you want to make a significant impact on the figures,
> you need to reduce one of the ones which runs into the
> thousands.

Agreed, but some of the categories you highlighted are more soluble than
others, which may skew things a bit, but maybe not enough ... I'm just a
punter here really.

> Let's think about accidental deaths in the
> home for a moment. The majority of these are trips/slips/
> falls. There are no figures, but I'll bet some proportion
> of these are tripping over cables.

Yes, undoubtedly.

> One thing Part P has
> certainly done is increase use of extension leads

If I understand this correctly this would mainly be in kitchens (?) as
Part P has permissive rights on adding spurs & such like in other areas
without building notices etc. Also, there are no sockets in the modern
bathroom there is no issue for extending to there. This limits the scope
of the Part P extension lead argument I think.

>(seen
> a number of references to boilers being installed on
> extention cords due to the gas fitters no longer being
> allowed to do the mains connections).

Hmm maybe, but I don't think the case is proven here, often tradesmen in
one discipline tend to sub to their associates in another at competitive
rates and anecdotal evidence can be suspect (although usually there is
something in it - just a question of scale).

IMO, people who put a boiler on an extension lead which would cause a
serious trip hazard are clearly cowboys and probably may not have done
the elemental wiring job right anyway (and what about the gas part)? If
its not a trip hazard I don't see the additional tangible risk, its just
not elegant.

> Even a very tiny
> increase in trips/slips/falls due to this would swamp any
> reduction in the tiny numbers of electrical incidents.

Entirely possible. The actuals are unquantified though.

>
> This is all very basic risk assessment, something which
> was completely missing from the process resulting in the
> introduction of Part P.

OK.

> Actually, a national campaign to
> get everyone to install an extra socket outlet and chuck
> out an extension cable might have saved far more lives
> through even a tiny reduction in trips/slips/falls than
> Part P ever could, even supposing Part P was 100% successful.

Not really sure about this line of reasoning as we are talking about 3
orders of magnitude here on the whole domestic death shebang *and* only
some of these will be due to flying leads and only some of those will be
extensions that can be reasonably eliminated.

Furthermore encouraging everyone to install themselves a new socket
might or two or five (where does that ext lead get used!) may be
encouraging non-competent people (not incompetent) to get stuck in on
wiring, which may actually have a negative effect.

>>My own (possibly over simplistic) thoughts would be some sort of basic
>>competency test for a DIYer at a reasonable cost (ignoring logistics of
>>rolling out such a scheme) combined with a LA/BC provided inspections at
>>a reasonable cost, with exemptions for those who already can demonstrate
>>competency ... what do others think?
>
>
> The figures simply don't justify making any changes at all.
> I can sure think of things like you suggest, and requiring
> professional electricians to be registered, and all sorts of
> other things, but it's not justified.

I assume here you mean in terms of death rates alone?

>Whatever you might
> think of incompitent cowboys and DIYers -- they aren't actually
> killing people.

In large numbers at least! I am persuaded by your argument in this
respect but it does not mean improvement should not be sought though.

> It's probably a testiment to the current quality
> of our wiring accessories (which you'll appreciate better when
> you've seen those used in some other countries, such as the US)
> that even when used incorrectly, ours actually remain quite
> safe in practice.

Yes, I agree and I am amazed by the quality of our (even cheapo)
accessories compared to many countries I have visited.

>>I am genuinely interested in this and am not just trying to stir it up etc.
>
>
> Sure.

Really :-) honest!

> You might want to look at the response to the consultation
> I sent in, and was backed by a number of the other regulars here:
> http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/buildregs.pdf
>

I will do.

Cheers,

Alex.

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:18:18 PM4/1/05
to

Do I need to do all that for my last point to be valid?

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:20:42 PM4/1/05
to

No contest. That's part of the shape that Part P should have been IMO!

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:32:28 PM4/1/05
to

"AlexW" <with...@spamtrap.not> wrote in message
news:424dd614$0$43982$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

As are deaths from electrical wiring. 10 is 10 too many. Playing the
percentage game with deaths is a lousy trick. Generals have to balance
death percentages in battles, in peacetime zero deaths is the aim.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:23:42 PM4/1/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:2clr41lmil6vcc55r...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:08:05 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> >news:sdhr41h4pvakmfpq8...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Please refer to the figures on deaths due to accidents in the home,
> >> hospitals etc. posted by Andrew Gabriel.
> >>
> >> There are less than 2 deaths per year from issues with fixed wiring.
> >> There are thousands due to far more obvious issues like falling,
> >> tripping over, visiting an NHS hospital and so forth.
> >
> >More Lord Hallisms. So two wrongs make a right again. Two deaths a year a
> >two too many.
> >
> Of course, but inappropriate and incompetent legislation is not the
> way to address that issue.

Your idea is none at all. I shudder to think!!!

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:40:18 PM4/1/05
to
Andy Hall wrote:
<shnip>

> There is absolutely no need to do anything other than to repeal this
> at the earliest opportunity.
>
> There isn't a "situation" to address.
>
> Please refer to the figures on deaths due to accidents in the home,
> hospitals etc. posted by Andrew Gabriel.
>
> There are less than 2 deaths per year from issues with fixed wiring.
> There are thousands due to far more obvious issues like falling,
> tripping over, visiting an NHS hospital and so forth.

Did so ... ref to that branch for response.

> The issue is that there isn't a "situation" to resolve.

Ditto last comment.

>
> Governments love to meddle in people's lives and this one is
> demonstrably inappropriate.

Agreed.

>
> - There isn't a problem to fix in the first place

Ditto last but 1...

> - It isn't economically feasible or politically acceptable to put in
> place the type and level of legislation, inspection and enforcement
> that would be required to stop the bodgers, cowboys and stupid.

Agree to the inspection and enforcement bit ... but when the
stupid/bodgeboys cause one of those /few/ fatalities ... they should get
nailed for it, which is where the leg/reg issue comes in.

> Not to
> mention people who neglect their wiring for 50 years and have a fire.
> Even then, I am very dubious that all of this would make a difference
> to a count of 2 deaths per year.

Maybe not ... building control probably made them put a fire alarm in
their extension heheh.

>
> - There is nothing wrong with having a wiring standard in the form of
> BS7671 and operated as it was up until the end of last year.
>

Agreed. But AFAIK this was previously *not* a requirement for domestic
electrical installations ... please correct if wrong.

>
>>>So I am less that convinced that it would achieve anything useful.
>>>
>>>All of this is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't really
>>>exist, and which in the limited cases where there are problems would
>>>not have made a difference anyway.
>>>
>>
>>I think I agree that this was not really a hot potato, at least
>>quantatively in terms of deaths I believe (which is part of another post
>>on this thread) ... but do people really want to pick up a load of
>>(avoidably) crappy wiring when buying a house from a bodger or cowboy?
>
>
> I am sure that they don't
>
> Unfortunately, this silly legislation will do zero to address that
> issue.

Other than to deter, the marginal cases. The legisaltion does seem silly
*and* it is misreported in the press.

> - The bodgers, cowboys and idiots will continue in defiance or in
> ignorance and are highly unlikely to be caught.

Agreed.

> - Because of the use of self certification schemes there is little
> supervision of work and again it is unlikely that most bad jobs will
> be detected. It will come down to the honesty, good workmanship and
> ability of the individual electrician, just as it always has. If
> there were independent inspection of every job, it might be a
> different story, but there isn't.
>
> It really is illusory to believe that there will be any reduction in
> the amount of poor work, injuries etc.
>
> This is legislation and control for its own sake.

However, there will be an audit trail of who did what right?

AlexW

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 6:51:23 PM4/1/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> 10 is 10 too many.

Indeed.

> Playing the
> percentage game with deaths is a lousy trick.

Why? If you want to save the most with finite resources?

> Generals have to balance
> death percentages in battles, in peacetime zero deaths is the aim.

Do do electrical deaths go up in war time though?


;-)

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:03:16 PM4/1/05
to
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <424d8201$0$43983$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not> writes:

> > Part P has been the subject of (err) some considerable debate
recently.

> > o Is it fine as is (with a bit of clarification & tweaking
perhaps)?

Lives will be lost for this political move, so no. Needed rewires will
be delayed, extension leads and adaptors will be used instead of
fitting sockets, fuseboards will not be replaced with modern CUs, and
so on. Its only effect is to impede sensible people improving their and
others' safety.

It is now an offense for us to improve our own domestic safety levels.

It is now an offense for someone with a degree in electrical and
electrnic eng to wire their house: no, a 17 year old with an NVQ must
do it instead.

Whoever put part P together is in line for some serious embarrassment.


> > o Should it simply be binned?
> > o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put
in
> > place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape
would it
> > take?

domestic electrical safety doesnt need promoting. In terms of where
resources can best be spent to reduce deaths, its a nonstarter.


> You need to start by asking what problem needs to be solved.
> Let's look at the accidental death rate, which was probably
> the most significant issue brought up. Well, we can start
> by tossing some figures into the air to get some perspective...
>
> Accidental deaths in the home: ~3500/year
> Accidental deaths on the road: ~3500/year
> Deaths in hospital due to secondary infections: ~5000/year
> Electrocutions due to faulty home wiring: ~5/year
> Deaths due to house fires due to faulty wiring: <5/year


Right... but its in fact much bigger than that. There seems to be a
great deal of denial around this in society. 50% of us will die from
heart disease and cancer, and at laest 50% of this is preventable.

number of deaths per yr preventable:
60million/70 x.5 x.5 = apx 220,000 each year.

I think one reason for so much denial is that it is thought there isnt
anything that can be done, that if people eat badly knowing the risks,
thats that. But its simple to change with the same techniques that have
been used elsewhere. Just compulsory information marking on food
packages would save 1000 more lives than part P ever even hoped to, and
cost hardly a thing.

Spending money on Part P is like being in a burning building and being
afraid to walk out the door lest you get a splinter.


snip good sense

> > My own (possibly over simplistic) thoughts would be some sort of
basic
> > competency test for a DIYer at a reasonable cost (ignoring
logistics of
> > rolling out such a scheme) combined with a LA/BC provided
inspections at
> > a reasonable cost, with exemptions for those who already can
demonstrate
> > competency ... what do others think?

1. there isnt a problem in need of solving.
2. it would take too long for people to choose it
3. it would waste money and time that could be spent addressing real
problems instead.


NT

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:12:39 PM4/1/05
to
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:18:18 +0100, AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not>
wrote:

>Andy Hall wrote:

>>
>> It's not simply promotion.
>>
>> Take a read through the Statutory Instrument.
>>
>> Then take a read through the Approved Documents and the Self
>> Certification scheme details and you will realise that the whole thing
>> is a complete and ill thought out mess.
>>
>>
>
>Do I need to do all that for my last point to be valid?

Not really. A quick skim through the pages will tell you that.

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:21:21 PM4/1/05
to
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:40:18 +0100, AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not>
wrote:

>Andy Hall wrote:
>
>
>> - It isn't economically feasible or politically acceptable to put in
>> place the type and level of legislation, inspection and enforcement
>> that would be required to stop the bodgers, cowboys and stupid.
>
>Agree to the inspection and enforcement bit ... but when the
>stupid/bodgeboys cause one of those /few/ fatalities ... they should get
>nailed for it, which is where the leg/reg issue comes in.

But this is already covered by existing legislation in terms of
manslaughter etc.

The penalty for breech of building regulations is IIRC, a fine, not of
substantial size. Tony Bryer posted a figure.


>
>> Not to
>> mention people who neglect their wiring for 50 years and have a fire.
>> Even then, I am very dubious that all of this would make a difference
>> to a count of 2 deaths per year.
>
>Maybe not ... building control probably made them put a fire alarm in
>their extension heheh.
>
>>
>> - There is nothing wrong with having a wiring standard in the form of
>> BS7671 and operated as it was up until the end of last year.
>>
>
>Agreed. But AFAIK this was previously *not* a requirement for domestic
>electrical installations ... please correct if wrong.
>

In England and Wales, no.

The objection is not to the standard, but to the cockeyed way that it
is being applied and the restrictions on who can do the work without
teh alternative being large payments being made for bureaucracy.

>
>> - Because of the use of self certification schemes there is little
>> supervision of work and again it is unlikely that most bad jobs will
>> be detected. It will come down to the honesty, good workmanship and
>> ability of the individual electrician, just as it always has. If
>> there were independent inspection of every job, it might be a
>> different story, but there isn't.
>>
>> It really is illusory to believe that there will be any reduction in
>> the amount of poor work, injuries etc.
>>
>> This is legislation and control for its own sake.
>
>However, there will be an audit trail of who did what right?

No there won't. That's another of the problems with it.

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:26:42 PM4/1/05
to
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:32:28 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:


>>


>> > Accidental deaths in the home: ~3500/year
>> > Accidental deaths on the road: ~3500/year
>> > Deaths in hospital due to secondary infections: ~5000/year
>> > Electrocutions due to faulty home wiring: ~5/year
>> > Deaths due to house fires due to faulty wiring: <5/year

>As are deaths from electrical wiring. 10 is 10 too many. Playing the


>percentage game with deaths is a lousy trick. Generals have to balance
>death percentages in battles, in peacetime zero deaths is the aim.
>

So why hasn't Reid been put in prison for 5000 hospital deaths a year
due to secondary infection? That would be a proportionate
punishment.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:50:07 PM4/1/05
to
AlexW wrote:

> I was wondering if some of the more illuminated (or even just animated
> in some cases) of this NG's users have views on what it should be? For
> example:
>

> o Is it fine as is (with a bit of clarification & tweaking perhaps)?

Nope

> o Should it simply be binned?

Yup

> o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put in
> place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape would it
> take?

Add the requirement to the building regs that all electrical work be
carried out and tested to BS7671. That way you give force of law to the
regs (as currently in Scotland IIUC). No need to do anything else.

> My own (possibly over simplistic) thoughts would be some sort of basic
> competency test for a DIYer at a reasonable cost (ignoring logistics of
> rolling out such a scheme) combined with a LA/BC provided inspections at
> a reasonable cost, with exemptions for those who already can demonstrate
> competency ... what do others think?

You are trying to solve a problem that does not really exist (or at
least is on such a small scale that you could get far bigger "bang for
you buck" by targeting your efforts on something else).

These suggestions all take the premise that the desire is to improve
safety. Since however I doubt this was the real motivation for the
legislation in the first place, is it hard to know how effective it will
be at fulfilling its real purposes.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:58:34 PM4/1/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> Two deaths a year a two too many.

This I would agree with. But given the government's RIA said the cost of
part P will be something in the order of half a billion, do you not
suppose that you could save more lives given that sort of money?

andre...@tesco.net

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 9:29:43 PM4/1/05
to
an earlier post stated that someone with a degree in electrical
engineering was commiting an offence doing electrical work. My
understanding of part p is that anyone can carry out electrical work
providing they inform building control and the work is checked for
safety/ conformity once completed, on the face of it this seems quite
reasonable however my objection is the costs involved, if the
government insist on it they should subsidise the inspections with some
of our tax money or perhaps set a (reasonable) fixed charge.

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 3:19:37 AM4/2/05
to

There is no point in having legislation if it is not enforceable cost
effectively and practically. This isn't.

Any kind of subsidy or set fixed charge (which amounts to the same
thing) would have to come out of general or local taxation. The self
certification scheme means that people who have work done by one of
the industry association members do not have to pay for inspection
fees.

I object to their being one rule for one and one for another and for
my money being spent on doing that especially when there isn't a
problem to solve in the first place.

James

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:05:55 AM4/2/05
to

"AlexW" <with...@spamtrap.not> wrote in message
news:424dd614$0$43982$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>> One thing Part P has
>> certainly done is increase use of extension leads
>
> If I understand this correctly this would mainly be in kitchens (?) as
> Part P has permissive rights on adding spurs & such like in other areas
> without building notices etc. Also, there are no sockets in the modern
> bathroom there is no issue for extending to there. This limits the scope
> of the Part P extension lead argument I think.
>


No, Part P has significantly reduced the number of professional electricians
who will do work on domestic wiring. This shortage, combined with the
increased burden on those who remain, increases costs for all professional
domestic electrical work. Therefore those who wish to employ someone to add
a socket may well use an extension lead anywhere in the house instead of
paying the increased costs.

James


Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 3:56:46 AM4/2/05
to

"Lord Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:h0ls41hf1klagqsq2...@4ax.com...

> On 1 Apr 2005 18:29:43 -0800, andre...@tesco.net wrote:
>
> >an earlier post stated that someone with a degree in electrical
> >engineering was commiting an offence doing electrical work. My
> >understanding of part p is that anyone can carry out electrical work
> >providing they inform building control and the work is checked for
> >safety/ conformity once completed, on the face of it this seems quite
> >reasonable however my objection is the costs involved, if the
> >government insist on it they should subsidise the inspections with some
> >of our tax money or perhaps set a (reasonable) fixed charge.

This is a very good point.

> There is no point in having legislation
> if it is not enforceable cost
> effectively and practically. This isn't.

Lord Hall, neither is gas enforceable, yet the safety levels went up after
legislation was introduced.

AlexW

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:37:31 AM4/2/05
to

I can see the logic here, but a 20% (any idea what the real figures are
here) price hike would not stop me from getting a new spur put in if I
needed it unfair galling though it is, for some people this would be an
issue but not for all ... or I could always consider the DIY route right
and save some money?

AlexW

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:53:52 AM4/2/05
to
big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
>>In article <424d8201$0$43983$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not> writes:
>
>
>>>Part P has been the subject of (err) some considerable debate
>
> recently.
>
>
>>>o Is it fine as is (with a bit of clarification & tweaking
>
> perhaps)?
>
> Lives will be lost for this political move, so no. Needed rewires will
> be delayed, extension leads and adaptors will be used instead of
> fitting sockets, fuseboards will not be replaced with modern CUs, and
> so on.

Others have contended that quantitivley domestic electrical safety is a
non-issue so will the consequnces of this legislation really be so
severe in terms of death rates? I am not convinced here, although I
agree it will only have a negative effect. Lets hope the effect so small
as to not be measurable eh?

>
Its only effect is to impede sensible people improving their and
> others' safety.
>
> It is now an offense for us to improve our own domestic safety levels.

Without delays and extra fees etc, yes.

> It is now an offense for someone with a degree in electrical and
> electrnic eng to wire their house: no, a 17 year old with an NVQ must
> do it instead.
>
> Whoever put part P together is in line for some serious embarrassment.
>

Yeah I am getting the picture on this too ;-)

>
>
>>>o Should it simply be binned?
>>>o Is there something else more appropriate that could have been put
>
> in
>
>>>place to promote domestic electrical safety - if so what shape
>
> would it
>
>>>take?
>
>
> domestic electrical safety doesnt need promoting. In terms of where
> resources can best be spent to reduce deaths, its a nonstarter.

So why will part P as it stands change this significantly?

>
>>You need to start by asking what problem needs to be solved.
>>Let's look at the accidental death rate, which was probably
>>the most significant issue brought up. Well, we can start
>>by tossing some figures into the air to get some perspective...
>>
>>Accidental deaths in the home: ~3500/year
>>Accidental deaths on the road: ~3500/year
>>Deaths in hospital due to secondary infections: ~5000/year
>>Electrocutions due to faulty home wiring: ~5/year
>>Deaths due to house fires due to faulty wiring: <5/year
>
>
>
> Right... but its in fact much bigger than that. There seems to be a
> great deal of denial around this in society. 50% of us will die from
> heart disease and cancer, and at laest 50% of this is preventable.
>
> number of deaths per yr preventable:
> 60million/70 x.5 x.5 = apx 220,000 each year.
>
> I think one reason for so much denial is that it is thought there isnt
> anything that can be done, that if people eat badly knowing the risks,
> thats that. But its simple to change with the same techniques that have
> been used elsewhere. Just compulsory information marking on food
> packages would save 1000 more lives than part P ever even hoped to, and
> cost hardly a thing.
>
> Spending money on Part P is like being in a burning building and being
> afraid to walk out the door lest you get a splinter.

I'm getting a bit of deja-vu here ;-) but I get your point. The same can
probably be said for some other aspects of the building regs, but I'm
not convinced this is a case to get rid of them alone?

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:54:29 AM4/2/05
to
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 09:56:46 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>


>"Lord Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:h0ls41hf1klagqsq2...@4ax.com...
>> On 1 Apr 2005 18:29:43 -0800, andre...@tesco.net wrote:
>>
>> >an earlier post stated that someone with a degree in electrical
>> >engineering was commiting an offence doing electrical work. My
>> >understanding of part p is that anyone can carry out electrical work
>> >providing they inform building control and the work is checked for
>> >safety/ conformity once completed, on the face of it this seems quite
>> >reasonable however my objection is the costs involved, if the
>> >government insist on it they should subsidise the inspections with some
>> >of our tax money or perhaps set a (reasonable) fixed charge.
>
>This is a very good point.

No it isn't. Anything that involves the government being the middle
man between people's hard earned money and products and services that
they need or want to buy leads to inefficiency, bureaucracy and poor
value for money.

The problem is that most people seem to have a disconnect in their
brains between collection of money by way of taxes and services that
they get; believing that they are getting things "for free".

>
>> There is no point in having legislation
>> if it is not enforceable cost
>> effectively and practically. This isn't.
>
>Lord Hall, neither is gas enforceable, yet the safety levels went up after
>legislation was introduced.
>

I don't believe that the two are related at all. There are very few
prosecutions in relation to any of these things and the penalties are
minimal.

There isn't a problem to solve in the case of electrical installation.

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:01:16 AM4/2/05
to
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:37:31 +0100, AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not>
wrote:

>>
>
>I can see the logic here, but a 20% (any idea what the real figures are
>here) price hike would not stop me from getting a new spur put in if I
>needed it unfair galling though it is, for some people this would be an
>issue but not for all ... or I could always consider the DIY route right
>and save some money?


Of course, and the reality is that this is what most people will do.
If they did DIY electrical work before, they will continue to do so in
ignorance of the law or choosing to ignore it. It is highly unlikely
that they will be discovered because unlike an extension or other
building work which is rather noticable, it is generally difficult to
see electrical work being done inside a house, so the neighbourhood
busybody won't have anything to report.

The evidence is that there are very few house fires or deaths through
faulty fixed wiring, so even the "something bad happening" scenario,
which would have been another method of detection will be rare.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:50:29 AM4/2/05
to
In article <424d...@news.usenetzone.com>,

Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > There are less than 2 deaths per year from issues with fixed wiring.
> > There are thousands due to far more obvious issues like falling,
> > tripping over, visiting an NHS hospital and so forth.

> More Lord Hallisms. So two wrongs make a right again. Two deaths a year a
> two too many.

And just how do you think a law like this will prevent cowboys? Do you
think the average little old lady living on her own will have heard of it
and insist anyone she employs abides by it?

Be interesting to know if the gas regulations have had any effect on
casualties...

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 4:58:56 AM4/2/05
to
In article <424dd614$0$43982$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not> wrote:
> Hmm maybe, but I don't think the case is proven here, often tradesmen in
> one discipline tend to sub to their associates in another at competitive
> rates and anecdotal evidence can be suspect (although usually there is
> something in it - just a question of scale).

IMHO, it's rare to see a 'pro' heating system installation where the
wiring has been done to a high standard. It's common to see them where
it's an absolute bodge, too.

Hence the likes of IMM insisting on system boilers as most of the
'complicated' wiring is internal. Although he claims to be a heating
engineer, he has no understanding of even pretty basic electrics. And that
seems to be the case with most of his breed - IMHO.

--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

AlexW

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:11:27 AM4/2/05
to

Re: the point about degrees etc, I prefer the analogy of the time served
industrial electrician, as a grad with electrical engineering degree
will not autmatically have all the skills to do the say a full house
rewire, when I was at uni the I don't recall the reg's being covered in
any depth on the E&E course (although I did the sister course
electronics only) and practical work of this nature was pretty limited too.


AlexW

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:19:23 AM4/2/05
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <424dd614$0$43982$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not> wrote:
>
>>Hmm maybe, but I don't think the case is proven here, often tradesmen in
>>one discipline tend to sub to their associates in another at competitive
>>rates and anecdotal evidence can be suspect (although usually there is
>>something in it - just a question of scale).
>
>
> IMHO, it's rare to see a 'pro' heating system installation where the
> wiring has been done to a high standard. It's common to see them where
> it's an absolute bodge, too.
>
> Hence the likes of IMM insisting on system boilers as most of the
> 'complicated' wiring is internal. Although he claims to be a heating
> engineer, he has no understanding of even pretty basic electrics. And that
> seems to be the case with most of his breed - IMHO.
>

Fair enough, I was really thinking of the supply /to/ the boiler here
and was not considering the boiler internal wiring which is important too.

My direct experience of internal boiler wiring quality is limited but I
know builders who work in the way suggested above regularly (this does
not however equate to quality results though I guess).

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:23:15 AM4/2/05
to
andre...@tesco.net wrote:

> an earlier post stated that someone with a degree in electrical
> engineering was commiting an offence doing electrical work. My
> understanding of part p is that anyone can carry out electrical work
> providing they inform building control and the work is checked for
> safety/ conformity once completed,

so if someone with a degree in the subject simply does work covered by
part pee, and does it to excellent standards, they are indeed
committing an offence. Does it not strike you thats a bit dumb? In my
mind the idea of the law is not to use it to prosecute and punish those
that do good actions, with their own time and money, that improve the
level of safety of themselves and others.

Its not just the degree qualified, but also those with masters, or in
research etc, and even those who've been working in the biz for
decades.


> on the face of it this seems quite
> reasonable

It seems obviously wrong and senseless to me. Introducing all this
sense-free red tape will not save a single life, it will in fact reduce
safety, lead to death, and result in completely the wrong people being
prosecuted for doing good work no less.


> however my objection is the costs involved,

indeed. Just what will it cost? How many part pee covered jobs are done
a year? At what inspection cost per job? Just how many millions are we
spending on achieving nothing but criminalising those who do good
things?


> if the
> government insist on it they should subsidise the inspections with
some
> of our tax money or perhaps set a (reasonable) fixed charge.

Its us that pay the taxes you know: why would we vote to add another
payment burden onto all our shoulders, one that is nothing but
counterproductive, when there are real needs, many, that really are in
need of money. Why choose to spend our money on something
counterproductive?

And why waste the valuable time/labour of a whole load of qualified
sparks that now have to go round doing these checks?

Also many electricians have simply thrown in the towel over part pee,
and given up work altogether. Again, how is this helping our society?

Whoever drafted this legislation appears to either know nothing about
history, or just not care less. Britain has seen these closed shop type
systems before, and they are well known to be a bit of a disaster. Any
historian can tell you about them, even school pupils learn about it.

Sorry but its one of the most idiotic legislations on the book. One of
the good things about Britain is that we dont have a big stack of idiot
laws: if this stays on the books there will be more, then more...


NT

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:31:47 AM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:
> "AlexW" <with...@spamtrap.not> wrote in message
> news:424dd614$0$43982$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

> > categories, however, I certainly agree that deaths in hospitals


might be
> > more soluble.
>
> As are deaths from electrical wiring.

no-one has come up with any method to solve them. Part pee will
increase deaths in 2 ways.


> 10 is 10 too many. Playing the
> percentage game with deaths is a lousy trick. Generals have to
balance
> death percentages in battles, in peacetime zero deaths is the aim.

Its the aim of the unaware, yes. A quarter of our population dies
needlessly. We dont have anywhere near the resources necessary to bring
unnecessary deaths to zero, not even remotely. The 'all is safe' image
we're taught is pure myth, a comforting safety blanket for those that
dont want to be worried about taking responsibility for their own
safety.

The best we can do, the most responsible thing, the thing that gives
maximum common welfare, is to decide where to spend our budget to best
effect. Part p has not even zero effect, it has negative effect.


NT

Message has been deleted

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:24:36 AM4/2/05
to

"Lord Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:5cqs41lvoecfi2sqe...@4ax.com...

Safety levels did go up after corgi was mandatory. Not a coincidence at
all.

> There are very few prosecutions in relation
> to any of these things and the penalties are
> minimal.

There are few procecution because peiopel leave gas alone becausde they have
heard of corgi bla, bla

> There isn't a problem to solve in the case
> of electrical installation.

10 people die every year. How many related to gas equipment? If any, far
fewer than 10.

Well these 10 people don't matter as it gets in the way way of the Lord
Hallisms.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:31:39 AM4/2/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d553bf...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424dd614$0$43982$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not> wrote:

> > Hmm maybe, but I don't think the case is proven here, often tradesmen in
> > one discipline tend to sub to their associates in another at competitive
> > rates and anecdotal evidence can be suspect (although usually there is
> > something in it - just a question of scale).

...taking a break from DIY caber making he is alerted and rushes to the
keyboard....he says....yes he does...

> IMHO, it's rare to see a 'pro' heating
> system installation where the
> wiring has been done to a high standard.

...and of course total bollocks came out.......yes your amazement is
total...he goes onm....

> It's common to see them where
> it's an absolute bodge, too.

...he has that off his chest, or had the caber fell on his chest?.....on he
goes....

> Hence the likes of IMM insisting
> on system boilers as most of the
> 'complicated' wiring is internal.

...IMM did insist on thsi for the DIYer. Many are amazed at some sense
here....but it all goes pear shaped as usual after some good stuff too.....
read this....

> Although he claims to be a heating
> engineer, he has no understanding
> of even pretty basic electrics.

...IMM knows everything about electricity....he can never get anything
right.... well he is back with axe and the cabers....tossing and all....

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:34:12 AM4/2/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d553b2...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424d...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > There are less than 2 deaths per year from issues with fixed wiring.
> > > There are thousands due to far more obvious issues like falling,
> > > tripping over, visiting an NHS hospital and so forth.
>
> > More Lord Hallisms. So two wrongs
> > make a right again. Two deaths a year a
> > two too many.

......after a tea break from cabering he comes in again.....

> And just how do you think a law like
> this will prevent cowboys?

......well by locking the likes of him up for starters......

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:39:43 AM4/2/05
to
big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> > In article <424d8201$0$43983$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > AlexW <with...@spamtrap.not> writes:

> > Accidental deaths in the home: ~3500/year
> > Accidental deaths on the road: ~3500/year
> > Deaths in hospital due to secondary infections: ~5000/year
> > Electrocutions due to faulty home wiring: ~5/year
> > Deaths due to house fires due to faulty wiring: <5/year
>
>
> Right... but its in fact much bigger than that. There seems to be a
> great deal of denial around this in society. 50% of us will die from
> heart disease and cancer, and at laest 50% of this is preventable.
>
> number of deaths per yr preventable:
> 60million/70 x.5 x.5 = apx 220,000 each year.
>
> I think one reason for so much denial is that it is thought there
isnt
> anything that can be done, that if people eat badly knowing the
risks,
> thats that. But its simple to change with the same techniques that
have
> been used elsewhere. Just compulsory information marking on food
> packages would save 1000 more lives than part P ever even hoped to,
and
> cost hardly a thing.

What could we spend out part p money on?

More Routine screening for cancer
Quicker treatment for suspected cancers and precancers
Public education programme re cancer and heart disease
Research into treatment of antibiotic resistant infections
Changing hospital disinfection from bleach to a more effective
disinfectant
Building a hospital with closed rooms instead of open wards to reduce
infection spread
taxing health disaster foods

and so on.

Instead we're effectively binning it.


NT

Andy Wade

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:50:38 AM4/2/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> Lord Hallisms

Do stop it. I keep parsing that as "Lord Hailsham" (aka Quintin Hogg).

--
Andy

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 6:04:28 AM4/2/05
to
In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,

Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Hence the likes of IMM insisting
> > on system boilers as most of the
> > 'complicated' wiring is internal.

> ...IMM did insist on thsi for the DIYer.

Without knowing the level of competence of the DIYer - so naturally
thinking it was less than his. Ie, zero?

--
*Few women admit their age; fewer men act it.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 6:03:13 AM4/2/05
to
In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Although he claims to be a heating
> > engineer, he has no understanding
> > of even pretty basic electrics.

> ...IMM knows everything about electricity

But didn't even know how to wire an intermediate switch?

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 5:58:19 AM4/2/05
to

"Andy Wade" <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:424e7885$0$5485$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> > Lord Hallisms
>
> Do stop it. I keep parsing that as "Lord Hailsham" (aka Quintin Hogg).

Who was a renowned Tory and bi-sexual (he screwed bikes). He was also
screwed the gay twin of the murdering Krays gangster twins. Typical!
Appalling people.

andre...@tesco.net

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 6:18:27 AM4/2/05
to
> Iagree part p is probably not enforcable, the kind of regulation i
had in mind would involve compulsory safety checks, say every five
years at a set fee, similar to the MOT system which by and large works.
There will always be cowboys in every trade/industry, the inspections
could also be a condition of household insurance, true some people
wouldnt bother getting insured as a result, but there will always be
people that wouldnt

The MOT provides a basic safety check for a blanket fee which prevents
the huge price differences im sure were going to see under the present
legistlation, the vast majority of people comply with the MOT system

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 6:15:49 AM4/2/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d5541d...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > Although he claims to be a heating
> > > engineer, he has no understanding
> > > of even pretty basic electrics.
>
> > ...IMM knows everything about electricity

....in fit intelligence, which must have given him a hell of a headache...he
storms....

> But didn't even know how to
> wire an intermediate switch?

......also he couldn't read....it said...."IMM knows everything about
electricity"....Sad but true...

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 6:18:44 AM4/2/05
to

"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
news:d2lsbl$ek1$1...@anubis.demon.co.uk...

> In article <424d...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > There are less than 2 deaths per year from issues with fixed wiring.
> > > There are thousands due to far more obvious issues like falling,
> > > tripping over, visiting an NHS hospital and so forth.
>
> > More Lord Hallisms. So two wrongs make a right again. Two deaths a year
a
> > two too many.
>
> Do you often say "What about the childr-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-n", too?

Not often, but if need be I would.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 6:17:46 AM4/2/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d5541f...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > Hence the likes of IMM insisting
> > > on system boilers as most of the
> > > 'complicated' wiring is internal.
>
> > ...IMM did insist on this for the DIYer.

...again he attempts intelligent intercourse...read on....

> Without knowing the level of competence
> of the DIYer - so naturally
> thinking it was less than his. Ie, zero?

...yes he said that....he did....a right disjointed jumble if ever there was
one....

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 6:32:19 AM4/2/05
to

<andre...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:1112440707.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Iagree part p is probably not enforcable,
> the kind of regulation i had in mind would
> involve compulsory safety checks, say every five
> years at a set fee, similar to the MOT
> system which by and large works.

There are set points to safety test that would make sense:

1. At the sale of a house
2. At change of use of a house
3. When building an extension
4. 10 or 15 years.

That should catch the lot. The makers say their products: wiring, sockets
etc have 20 years plus lifespan, so 15 years should do it. I know T&E that
is still good today that has been in since the early 1960s. I also know of
some pre WW1 lighting wiring when tested passed.

Owain

unread,
Apr 1, 2005, 7:54:57 PM4/1/05
to
AlexW wrote:
>> One thing Part P has
>> certainly done is increase use of extension leads
> ... Also, there are no sockets in the modern
> bathroom there is no issue for extending to there.

I think there is - and a possibly very worrying one. The householder who
buys an electric toothbrush (particularly the water-pick ones that have
to be used over a sink) can no longer install a proper
transformer-isolated bathroom shaver socket himself. The alternative -
an extension lead off the landing and a 2-pin shaver socket adapter,
with no transformer isolation.

Once the extension lead is there it's so tempting to warm up the
bathroom with a fan heater on chilly mornings, or take a portable telly
(with a CRT, of course) and balance it on the loo lid to watch Corrie in
the bath.[1]

Owain

[1] For some people it would be, not me personally.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 7:06:05 AM4/2/05
to

<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1112437907....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
> > "AlexW" <with...@spamtrap.not> wrote in message
> > news:424dd614$0$43982$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> > > categories, however, I certainly agree that deaths in hospitals
> might be
> > > more soluble.
> >
> > As are deaths from electrical wiring.
>
> no-one has come up with any method to solve them. Part pee will
> increase deaths in 2 ways.

It will not. It is your opinion it will, when all common sense say the
opposite.

> > 10 is 10 too many. Playing the
> > percentage game with deaths
> > is a lousy trick. Generals have to
> > balance death percentages in battles,
> > in peacetime zero deaths is the aim.
>
> Its the aim of the unaware, yes. A quarter
> of our population dies needlessly.

Prevention is always better than cure. Hard line safety regs that are
enforced is better than having people die and injured putting a burden on
the NHS. Thatcher ignored safety regs, reducing safety officers, making
building sites very danergerous places, with the accident rate the highest
in the western world, but the big boys made lots of money so their
philosophy was satisfied.

It is difficult to enforce Part P, but at least the laws are there and a few
high profile test case prosecutions will ram the message home. The same
babble I heard when corgi became mandatory and generally it works, and that
is difficult to enforce too.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 7:19:42 AM4/2/05
to
In article <424e...@news.usenetzone.com>,
Doctor Evil <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Who was a renowned Tory and bi-sexual (he screwed bikes). He was also
> screwed the gay twin of the murdering Krays gangster twins. Typical!
> Appalling people.

So you're adding homesexuals to your list of prejudices?

That explains your dislike of storage cylinders. You need the closet for
yourself.

--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 2, 2005, 7:25:42 AM4/2/05