Yes it does.Just because one of two options available might be a better choice does not automatically make it unreasonable to adopt the other option
To deliberately choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is cannot possibly be anything but unreasonable.
Deviations are permitted by BS 7671.So, as I said, red/black no longer complies with BS7671, which is what you asked. If the old cable still complied with the current edition of BS7671 there would be no need to note its use as a deviation, would there?
No it isn't.The question is whether reasonable provision has been made for safety, and the official interpretation is clearly that mixed colors satisfy that requirement. Whether you happen to have other materials around which you could have used is beside the point.
If you decide, in advance, that your whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is then you cannot possibly have been reasonable in your provision for safety.
Because one would have been arrived at reasonably, and one would have been arrived at unreasonably, without reasoning, in an unreasoned manner.Let me ask again, and I'll use this phrasing deliberately: How can you consider it to be a reasonable interpretation of the regulations that of two identical installations one is legal and the other is not?
In one the actions of the person would have been reasonable, in the other they would have not.
In one the person would have behaved reasonably, in the other he would have behaved unreasonably.
In one he would have done what he reasonably could to ensure safety, in the other he would not have done what he reasonably could.
It doesn't, unless you either have no understanding of what reasonable means, or perversely pretend that you have no understanding of what reasonable means, or are simply beyond reasoning with.If you believe that the Secretary of State's view coincides with yours on this point, then why does the official guidance contradict that?
The approved document is not the law, it is guidance on a way that you might comply with it.The Approved Document refers to compliance with BS7671 as being deemed to be compliance with Part P. It doesn't say anything about such compliance being conditional upon what other materials you may or may not have laying around which you could have used instead. BS7671 itself doesn't either.
The existence of AD P does not magically make it reasonable to set out to make an installation more dangerous than it already is.
Someone reasonable. So, I guess, not you.Who is going to decide whether or not it is available?
Someone capable of reasoning. So, I guess, not you.
Someone who has reasons for doing what he does, rather than someone so out of control that he makes things more dangerous than they already are for no reason whatsoever. So, I guess, not you.
I would normally expect to ask if the decision to use it for something else was a reasonable one, but I can't think of anyone to ask. You are clearly incapable of doing, or thinking, anything that might be regarded as reasonable.What if it's sitting in my workshop, but I have plans to use it for something else?
Nobody, but that's not the point.And all of this is pretty academic anyway, since after the brown/blue cable has been installed, who is ever going to know whether suitable red/black cable was sitting around the house anyway?
No, but that's not the point. I can't cite one instance of anybody being prosecuted for not notifying when they should either, but that doesn't mean that the law doesn't require it.We know that building inspectors like to make up their own rules as they go along, but can you cite one instance of any installation being rejected on the grounds of your argument?
The guidance does not contradict it.Again then - Explain why the official guidance notes do not say that, and in fact completely contradict it.
And, if you want to take a reasonable view of 134.1.1 in the context of safety the guidance notes do say that.
But I can confidently predict that you don't want to take a reasonable view of anything, especially safety. Of that I am convinced, since you have made it quite clear that given the choice you would see nothing wrong with setting out on a deliberate path of reducing the safety of an installation.
That would depend on whether you were being reasonable. So discussing the point with you is utterly pointless, because you are utterly unreasonable.So do you think that when a building inspector refuses to accept, say, insulation which falls below what he considers meets the requirements of the appropriate part of the building regs., you could simply claim that buying more would be unreasonable because of the cost?
If it was a requirement involving tests of reasonableness it could be.Again, do you think that difficulty of installation would be accepted as an excuse for failing to comply with other requirements of the building regulations?
But I quite understand how that causes you such confusion, and how you are struggling to make sense of anything that's going on - it's because you do not have any capacity for reasoned thought, and therefore no concept of reasoned actions and therefore no ability to recognise situations where the concept of what is reasonable applies.
As above - the concept of what is reasonable is important, but as that makes so little sense to you that you don't understand how it can even exist you are completely out of your depth.As above.
It would be valid to ask "unlikely or unreasonable".Given the dubious specifications for U.K. ring circuits which, even though considered unlikely, could result in overloaded cables whereas compliant radials cannot, that's unlikely.
But in your case it would be pointless.
In any where reasonableness of costs was recognised.Again, where does cost factor into being excused complying with any other parts of the building regs?
You've completely twisted that round, which should be no surprise, considering that you are to reason what double-entry book keeping is to philosophy.In the case of being involved in a collision versus not being involved in a collision, the end result is not the same. But in the case of using brown/blue to extend a red/black installation, the end result is the same, regardless of whether you had no red/black cable around or had it but chose not to use it.
That's not the same thing at all, as any reasonable person could tell you.However, to continue with your driving analogy, if you were driving at 50 mph on a road and were unfortunate enough to be in some sort of accident, would you want any accusations of driving without due care and attention to be judged on the basis of your speed being reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, or or would you be happy with a judgment that clearly you could have driven at 40 mph which would have been safer, and that therefore driving at 50 mph was unreasonable behavior because you chose the less safe option?
Not that you would have a clue what they meant.