No, that's how the argument has moved.. Or rather, that's the sideline you've derailed it to.
It hasn't moved at all, and in terms of my posts here it is not a sideline.
The requirement is that the building be constructed substantially of non-combustible material, not just the wall on the boundary, so 1 wall out of 4 plus roof does not qualify.
So because its within 2m of the boundary, it's need to be built from substantially non-combustible material.
No - you have got that wrong.
The building needs to be substantially constructed from non-combustible material. i.e. a substantial amount of the building has to be non-combustible.
That is not the same as the building being made of stuff which is substantially non-combustible. The material has to be non-combustible, not substantially non-combustible.
Right from the start I have been objecting to the incompetent and the lazy and the careless way people are shuffling the words in a Statutory Instrument to make the provision say something different.
We get the point you're making over the word juggling and we're capable of understanding the different meanings attributable to a varied placement of the word "substantially" but as I often find with your posts, you're making a big fuss over an irrelevant side line
It is far from irrelevant when people use an incorrect version and then provide a means to comply with what is a non-existent requirement of their own invention.
to gloss over the fact that you don't know the answers to far more pertinent questions, despite setting out as though you were an authority on the matter
FGS what on earth is wrong with you?
How many times in this topic have I flatly refused to say what I think the requirement for "substantially constructed from non-combustible material" actually means, citing the fact that I do not have the necessary expertise? You think that's me trying to gloss over the fact?
Shall I now quote every single post I have made in this topic, to make it easy for you to find the one(s) where I set out as if I was an authority on the matter? I mean, I wouldn't want you to be able to claim that it was too hard for you to look back over 6 pages as a way to try and gloss over the fact that your charge is idiotic.
We've been over this before. If nature were intolerant of errors, you would never have been born. However regrettable any particular person may or may not find such a concept, it's undeniable that nature does not replicate DNA with the accuracy to which you nitpick the navel fluff of posts made here.
So if you are not prepared to allow me to try and stop errors here, are you equally opposed to all the medical research into genetic causes, and DNA-modifying cures for diseases and disorders?
Your strive for accurate communication is not efficient, and while theoretically admirable, doesn't have a practical application
Actually it does.
It's practical application is that people understand, and comply with, legislation as written, not as projected into their minds through the distorting lens of inaccuracy.
Ah.. Asking questions again. BAS's universal get-out-of-jail-free card.
I asked that question of Aron because he criticised me for seeking clarification/confirmation from people who had given advice in circumstances where I felt they were not understanding the regulation or were not providing any evidence that their advice was anything more than pure invention on their part.
It seemed, and still seems, perfectly reasonable to me that when he criticised me for asking questions I should ask him why I should not ask questions, on the grounds that he must have had a reason for his complaint.
Make a statement, please; less of these questions
OK.
anyone posts that you can build it from timber frame, and you reply "Can you, does it comply,
Of course. Not only do I have the right, I have the moral obligation to ask people who have asserted something without any reference to any specific official or authoritative guidance, and who might themselves be unable or unwilling to read "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" properly, to justify their claim. Asking them that question is not indirectly telling other readers that they are wrong, it is directly asking them to justify their claim.
Better? (Am I allowed to ask that question?) Am I allowed to ask you to clarify in what way it is better?
It adds nothing to the discourse, the raison-d'etre of diynot, if all youre going to do in response to a guy who happens along and says "can I build a timber shed on my boundary?" is to ask "can you?"
I happen to believe that the raison d'etre of DIYnot is the giving of useful and accurate advice. I not only have the right, I have the moral duty to question people who give advice along the lines of "If you do ABC it will comply with XYZ" when XYZ is a false requirement brought into life via their inability or unwillingness to read what the requirement actually is.
And at what point was it decided that internet forums had to answer with the legal standard of expected outcomes, rather than the de facto standard?
Surely that isn't you asking a question, is it? I thought you disapproved of people asking questions rather than making statements.
I don't really understand it, so I can't answer it. I hope that statement is clear enough for me to avoid an accusation from you that I am somehow trying to gloss over the fact that I don't really understand it.
If FMT wants to tell someone to get on with it because nothing serious will come of it, and you want to write chapter and verse about nothing at all, it doesn't mean that only one of you is right,..
Wrong, wrong, wrong and
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is, with no greyness whatsoever, utterly wrong for people to advise breaking the law here.
But not everybody does, or did.
I did not keep on making the same point, and using analogy after analogy, because of some kind of spasmodic behaviour, I did it because people kept cropping up showing that they did not get it.
You get cross about it because it fails your demands for accurate english..
I am not cross about the regulation, and I do not believe it is inaccurate.
We can proceed with the transcription error because we don't care, or can correct it on the fly. Change the record
You don't
care if people make errors which result in a significant change away from a legal requirement to something which is not a requirement, and could, if accepted by the recipient of the advice, leave him having committed a criminal act?
That's shameful.
Dogs must be carried on the escalators..
Yes, and "Bear left outside station".
Yes yes, in most normal, well adjusted people the sense of humour is derived from how well they grasp the irony of the difference between a situation taken at face value and a situation that occurs in real life.
The face value is what the Building Regulations actually say.
If you think that real life is that people should distort what they say, and that that should be a laughing matter then you should not be here.
That's the crux of the whole thing; you're particularly humourless
Actually I am not - speak to anybody who knows me and they will assure you otherwise.
because you demand that everything operate in face value mode and are intolerant of the notion that normal people operate in real life mode, laughing or not caring when disparity occurs
I don't wish it on you that you should ever find yourself in court charged with a criminal offence, but if you are then I fervently hope that you will attempt to reword the law(s) you're accused of breaking so that you can claim you were actually in obedience, and then try laughing and saying that you don't care about the disparity when you're told that you are wrong.
The "disparity" you speak of did not just "occur", it happened because people were either too incompetent, or too lazy, or too careless to read properly. And that's no laughing matter - it is very wrong.