RCD requirements poll

[ban-all-sheds]

Where on earth did that come from? That 'difference' does not seem to be anything to do with this part of the discussion and, in particular, nothing to do with my words that you have quoted above.

It comes from the situation where neither you nor PBC seem able to detect any difference between someone simply breaks a law, someone who encourages the breaking of the law, and someone who in a professional capacity decides to make breaking the law an integral part of his business processes. As for it being part of this discussion, please try to remember that I did not introduce it and that we are still waiting for you to put forward a reasoned and intelligent explanation of why what I said 10+ years ago about notification is relevant to what I say now about making reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

In any event, I'm not sure why you are suggesting that there is necessarily a difference between "a private individual DIYer" and "someone who advises (or has in the past advised) others to break the law" - in context, you are one of the former and, AIUI, Paul is suggesting that you have also (in the past) been one of the latter. So what would be the 'difference' I was failing to grasp?

How about this analogy.

The difference between:

• Someone who sometimes breaks the speed limit when driving.

• Someone who advises other drivers to break the speed limit, telling them that it's perfectly OK, and a good idea because they will get there sooner.

• A taxi driver who makes speeding a standard practice so that he can do more journeys in a given time and make more money.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes. Venomous, abusive and insulting.

Have you forgotten already?

I've not forgotten that you don't have a clue what those words mean, and will take any opportunity you can to invent things I haven't done and then criticise me for them.

 

[JohnD]

I don't need to invent that you are venomous, abusive and insulting.

 

[JohnW2]

It comes from the situation where neither you nor PBC seem able to detect any difference between someone simply breaks a law, someone who encourages the breaking of the law, and someone who in a professional capacity decides to make breaking the law an integral part of his business processes.

I'm still lost. AIUI, Paul has been suggesting that, in the past, you have fallen into the middle one of those categories, but I don't see what this distinction from the other two scenarios is all about - we haven't have a clue as to whether you break the law, and (at least in relation to electrical work), we know that you cannot fall into the third category, and nor do either of those two scenarios appear relevant to discussion about the third.

Kind Rwegards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't need to invent that you are venomous, abusive and insulting.

True - you are pathetically driven by childishness pettiness to have a go at me whenever and wherever the spasms grip you - you don't need to invent anything for your own self-justification.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm still lost. AIUI, Paul has been suggesting that, in the past, you have fallen into the middle one of those categories, but I don't see what this distinction from the other two scenarios is all about - we haven't have a clue as to whether you break the law, and (at least in relation to electrical work), we know that you cannot fall into the third category, and nor do either of those two scenarios appear relevant to discussion about the third.

Do not keep complaining, or expressing puzzlement, about the lack of relevance when it is you and Paul who decided to introduce it into this topic! It seems you need reminding that the topic is (was) about whether we should tell people about a need for RCD protection, not about notification, and it seems you need reminding that it was not I who decided to start talking about the latter.

And the distinction I am drawing is because both you and he seem to want to criticise me for what I think about people who do not notify when your criticisms are based on the false assumption that I feel the same about, and say the same about, people in all 3 categories.

 

[JohnW2]

Do not keep complaining, or expressing puzzlement, about the lack of relevance when it is you and Paul who decided to introduce it into this topic!

I didn't introduce it. It was Paul who decided to look back in history and see if you had, in the past, suggested/advised people to break the law as regards notification - and I only became involved because of my surprise that you could not remember why you attitude/view had apparently changed so dramatically over the years.

And the distinction I am drawing is because both you and he seem to want to criticise me for what I think about people who do not notify when your criticisms are based on the false assumption that I feel the same about, and say the same about, people in all 3 categories.

As far as I am concerned, the recent discussion has been entirely about the middle of your three categories, so the question of 'a distinction' does not really arise.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Since I remain surprised by the voting in this poll, I have just posted a slightly reworded version, and await with interest any responses!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I didn't introduce it. It was Paul who decided to look back in history and see if you had, in the past, suggested/advised people to break the law as regards notification

You neither challenged him or the irrelevance, nor ignored it. You rapidly joined in criticising me about something irrelevant, and for something I don't do.

and I only became involved because of my surprise that you could not remember why you attitude/view had apparently changed so dramatically over the years.

And you have still failed to explain the relevance of that.

 

[JohnW2]

You neither challenged him or the irrelevance, nor ignored it. You rapidly joined in criticising me about something irrelevant, and for something I don't do.

As I said, I only became interested/involved when you said you were unable to explain your seemingly dramatic change in view/opinion (a change which you do not appear to have denied).

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

As for it being part of this discussion, please try to remember that I did not introduce it

The relevance is that it is all part of your shameful attitude toward people over the whole issue of compliance with BS7671, compliance with Part P, notification, the interpretation of the wording for what's notifiable and what isn't, etc. And by the way, I can think of cases in which doing the job without notifying would be the morally right thing to do.

we are still waiting for you to put forward a reasoned and intelligent explanation of why what I said 10+ years ago about notification is relevant to what I say now about making reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

To get back to the original topic, we are still waiting for you to cite something which backs up your assertion that adding a few feet of cable and a new socket without RCD protection (or with 100mA etc.) is illegal.

Please note that repeating your spiel from before over and over explaining why in your opinion it's illegal is not a citation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The relevance is that it is all part of your shameful attitude toward people over the whole issue of compliance with BS7671, compliance with Part P, notification, the interpretation of the wording for what's notifiable and what isn't, etc.

1. In saying that you have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you actually don't have a clue what my attitudes are to those things. You have taken umbrage over the fact that I have, and will for ever, be utterly opposed to the cowboy way you advise people to break the law and your shameful opposition to the idea that regulations should change, and have therefore decided that you don't like anything I say about unrelated topics.
   
   
2. Please put forward a reasoned and logical explanation of why what I said 10+ years ago about notification is relevant to what I say now about making reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury..

To get back to the original topic, we are still waiting for you to cite something which backs up your assertion that adding a few feet of cable and a new socket without RCD protection (or with 100mA etc.) is illegal.

Please note that repeating your spiel from before over and over explaining why in your opinion it's illegal is not a citation.

I could have sworn that you promised you wouldn't keep banging on about this.

1. You have no citations to support your wretched and immoral opinions either, so don't you dare try to make out that if I can't produce a citation then what I say can be disregarded.
   
   
2. The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc. No "citation" needed - it says so in black and white.
   
   
3. Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable. No "citation" needed - it is so blindingly obvious that unless a genuine lack of intellect means that someone simply cannot understand then if they deny it it can only be because they are deliberately refusing to accept it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said, I only became interested/involved when you said you were unable to explain your seemingly dramatic change in view/opinion

Well - sorry if the truth causes you any discomfort, or if you would prefer it if it were not so, but that's the way it is. Get over it.

(a change which you do not appear to have denied).

Why would I?

 

[JohnD]

To get back to the original topic, we are still waiting for you to cite something which backs up your assertion that adding a few feet of cable and a new socket without RCD protection (or with 100mA etc.) is illegal.

That seems to be a "no"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

John - as PBC hasn't been able to, can you help him out by citing something which backs up his assertion that ignoring what the relevant British Standard has to say about vital safety provisions counts as reasonable?

Or do you simply not care as long as you can indulge in some more juvenile spasms?