Reworded RCD Poll

[stillp]

But doing nothing is not "making reasonable provision".

 

[JohnW2]

But doing nothing is not "making reasonable provision".

To be fair, I don't think anyone is talking about "doing nothing". Rather, AIUI, the discussion is about doing the same things which, just a few years ago, would have been regarded as "making reasonable provision for safety". Since the law does not reference BS7671, I don't think it can be assumed that the law's view of what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" will necessarily have changed just because the requirements of BS7671 have changed.

As always, there would be nothing for people to discuss/debate/argue about if the law required compliance with BS7671, which it obviously does not require.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

But doing nothing is not "making reasonable provision".

I'm not quite sure what you actually mean by "doing nothing."

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, and the status which arises from the action must be a result of that action. If you have made reasonable provision for safety, then how can the result be anything but an installation which is reasonably safe?

Because, as I have explained to you before, the requirement to make reasonable provision for safety applies to what you do, not to [what-is-already-there + what-you-add].

Conversely, if what you do results is an installation which is not to be considered (by whatever criteria) reasonably safe, then you cannot have made reasonable provision for safety.

Of course you can, because you are only held accountable for what you do, not for [what-is-already-there + what-you-add]. If [what-is-already-there + what-you-add] is not considered reasonably safe because [what-is-already-there] is at fault, but [what-you-add] is OK then you have complied with the requirement to make reasonable provision etc.

In the case of some act which has explicitly been banned, yes.

So does that mean that you do accept the concept that something which was OK to be done yesterday may not be OK to be done today, and you do accept that even if there is incontrovertible evidence that someone did do that something the question of when they did it would be extremely important, and that their guilt or innocence would hinge on when they did it, not on the fact that they clearly did?

But you didn't really answer the question:

Yes I did, but you are trying to pretend that I did not because you are still trying to conflate the status of an installation with the actions which were done in order to arrive at that status.

Would you consider the installation as I described it to be reasonably safe?

Would you explain why you think people are going to believe you when you indicate that you really cannot tell the difference between assessing the overall status of an installation and assessing the actions of somebody making an alteration to it?

Would you explain why you think people are going to believe you when you indicate that you really cannot understand the principle that when things change, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is not required to be updated or removed and replaced today, it just has to be no longer newly done?

Or would you tell somebody that you couldn't form an opinion without finding out precisely when those sockets were added, so that if done on one day it was all fine and dandy but if done a couple of days later whoever did it was acting illegally, immorally, etc?

I wonder how many times it has to be explained to you that the requirement for making reasonable provision for safety applies to what you do, not to [what-is-already-there + what-you-add] before you understand it?

I wonder how many times it has to be explained to you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new before you understand it?

So then why do you believe that you cannot make reasonable provision for safety unless you follow every single regulation within BS7671 to the letter?

Why do you believe that I believe that?

Will you either show where I have said that, or admit that you are, again, wrong?

And the fact that the committee responsible for those regulations itself doesn't automatically deem anything non-compliant with every one of the current regulations to be dangerous in any way.

I wonder how many times it has to be explained to you that it is very common for things to change in a way that means that what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today and yet what exists today because of what was done yesterday is not condemned, and does not have to be replaced, before you understand it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps a better simile might be driving on a motorway at 100 mph, the excuse being that there was a time when the speed limit did not exist, and many people drove at speeds greater than 70 mph without having an accident, so it must be safe enough.

But in that case whether you, I, the judge, or anybody else considers it "safe enough" is beside the point, as there is a specific statute which makes it an offense to drive in excess of 70 mph.

Be that as it may, the same situation applies. Do you now recognise that it is far from unknown for what was considered OK to be done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be done today? How specific the statute is is irrelevant - what matters is that things have changed - do you still not see that?

Do you think that an argument against being subjected to a 70mph limit based on the fact that yesterday the limit was higher, and anyway there are lots of other people doing more than 70 so you haven't contributed to any dangers would have any credibility?

What we're talking about is nothing like as clear cut. We're talking about a vaguely defined requirement to make "reasonable provision" for safety, and a set of guidelines in the form of a British Standard, to which the statute makes no reference anyway.

That is also irrelevant - the guidelines have changed, and what the guidelines used to say was OK to be newly done is not what they now say is OK to be newly done.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To be fair, I don't think anyone is talking about "doing nothing".

On the contrary - PBC is doing just that. He is advising people to do nothing about the requirement to RCD protect sockets and concealed cables on the grounds that doing nothing used to be OK.

Rather, AIUI, the discussion is about doing the same things which, just a few years ago, would have been regarded as "making reasonable provision for safety". Since the law does not reference BS7671, I don't think it can be assumed that the law's view of what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" will necessarily have changed just because the requirements of BS7671 have changed.

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.

 

[JohnD]

I was musing what I would do if it was my job to write the legally-enforceable rules for domestic wiring alterations.

If I wanted people to be obliged to fit RCDs whenever they installed an additional socket, would I write "All additional sockets must be protected by an RCD" or would I write "the installation must be reasonably safe?"

It's a difficult question, isn't it?

And if I wanted the additional sockets to be reasonably safe, but I didn't consider it was essential that they should be RCD protected, would I write "the installation must be reasonably safe" or would I write "All additional sockets must be protected by an RCD"?

That's an even more difficult question, isn't it?

Can anyone think of the answer?

And if I had written "the installation must be reasonably safe" and somebody claimed that those words meant "All additional sockets must be protected by an RCD," would that person be telling the truth?

And if what I had written were not legally-enforceable rules, and somebody claimed that they were, would that person be telling the truth? What about if what I had written was "guidelines" and somebody claimed they were "requirements?"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was musing what I would do if it was my job to write the legally-enforceable rules for domestic wiring alterations.

I am musing what the world would be like if people barely able to read, like you, and disposed to ignoring anything they do manage to read, like you, were allowed to write laws.

If I wanted people to be obliged to fit RCDs whenever they installed an additional socket, would I write "All additional sockets must be protected by an RCD" or would I write "the installation must be reasonably safe?"

That might depend on whether you wanted your legally-enforceable rules for domestic wiring alterations to end up being several hundred pages long.

Can anyone think of the answer?

I can. But then that's because I can think.

And if I had written "the installation must be reasonably safe" and somebody claimed that those words meant "All additional sockets must be protected by an RCD," would that person be telling the truth?

Yes, if the the British Standard which relates to electrical installations had such a requirement so intimately related to personal safety.

 

[JohnD]

...barely able to read, like you, and disposed to ignoring anything they do manage to read, like you....

...I can think....

Your personal abuse is silly, inaccurate, and without benefit.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is not abuse.

It is not inaccurate.

And the fact that you see no benefit in it does not make it so.

 

[JohnD]

it is abuse, it is silly, and it is inaccurate. The fact that you deny it does not make you right.

If you think it will win anyone over to your opinion, or to think you are a reasonable person, you are deluded. It brings no benefit to you or to anyone else.

 

[JohnW2]

That is also irrelevant - the guidelines have changed, and what the guidelines used to say was OK to be newly done is not what they now say is OK to be newly done.

As I recently wrote, since the legislation chose not to refer to (or require compliance with) that "guideline" (by which I assume you mean BS7671), the two are totally separate things - and one cannot assume that the view of law as to what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" necessarily has to change because the (not referred to) requirements of BS7671 have changed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Yes, and the status which arises from the action must be a result of that action. If you have made reasonable provision for safety, then how can the result be anything but an installation which is reasonably safe?

Because, as I have explained to you before, the requirement to make reasonable provision for safety applies to what you do, not to [what-is-already-there + what-you-add].

I'm sure you must know what I meant, but let me rephrase that to be more precise then: If you have made reasonable provision for safety in that part of the installation you have added, then how can the result be anything but that part of the installation being reasonably safe?

Conversely, if what you do results is an installation which is not to be considered (by whatever criteria) reasonably safe, then you cannot have made reasonable provision for safety.

Of course you can, because you are only held accountable for what you do, not for [what-is-already-there + what-you-add]. If [what-is-already-there + what-you-add] is not considered reasonably safe because [what-is-already-there] is at fault, but [what-you-add] is OK then you have complied with the requirement to make reasonable provision etc.

And similarly rephrased for preciseness: Conversely, if what you do results in that part of the installation you have added not being considered (by whatever criteria) reasonably safe, then you cannot have made reasonable provision for safety.

So does that mean that you do accept the concept that something which was OK to be done yesterday may not be OK to be done today, and you do accept that even if there is incontrovertible evidence that someone did do that something the question of when they did it would be extremely important, and that their guilt or innocence would hinge on when they did it, not on the fact that they clearly did?

If you're using "O.K." in the sense of meaning legal, of course I accept that. Many pieces of legislation take effect from a certain specified date and what was legal yesterday can suddenly become illegal today.

Yes I did, but you are trying to pretend that I did not because you are still trying to conflate the status of an installation with the actions which were done in order to arrive at that status.

How can you separate cause and effect when they are so closely interdependent? Let's keep it simple and forget about what you've just added versus what was already there. You're building a new house and installating a new electrical system from scratch, starting today. If you make reasonable provision for safety then the result must be a reasonably safe installation; if the result is not an installation which is to be considered reasonably safe, then you can't have made reasonably provision for safety. Do you dispute either of those two statements?

Would you consider the installation as I described it to be reasonably safe?

Would you explain why you think people are going to believe you when you indicate that you really cannot tell the difference between assessing the overall status of an installation and assessing the actions of somebody making an alteration to it?

I knew I shouldn't have tried asking you for a straight answer to a simple question, because obviously you are going to refuse to answer it.

I wonder how many times it has to be explained to you that the requirement for making reasonable provision for safety applies to what you do, not to [what-is-already-there + what-you-add] before you understand it?

When have I ever said that you become responsible for everything that's already there just because you add to it?

So then why do you believe that you cannot make reasonable provision for safety unless you follow every single regulation within BS7671 to the letter?

Why do you believe that I believe that?

Because your entire argument seems to revolve around BS7671 being the "relevant British Standard" and that therefore if it's reasonable to comply with it and you don't you can't have made reasonable provision for safety, etc.

 

[PBC_1966]

Be that as it may, the same situation applies. Do you now recognise that it is far from unknown for what was considered OK to be done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be done today? How specific the statute is is irrelevant - what matters is that things have changed - do you still not see that?

How specific the statute is is very relevant to the situation being argued here, because it is only your opinion that doing the work under consideration here is illegal.

If I tried to tell you that it's perfectly legal to ride a motorcycle in England today without an approved crash helmet because it was legally acceptable in 1972 you could quite rightly point me toward the relevant legislation which made the wearing of helmets a legal requirement from 1st January 1973. Leaving aside whether we can figure out what the notification requirements for some jobs actually were/are, if you wanted to tell me I was wrong because I claimed that doing notifiable electrical work in one's own home without notifying is legal today because it was legal in 2004, that's fine, because you could point to the legislation which specifically required notification of certain jobs from 1st January 2005. And so on.

But in this case we're talking about legislation which merely requires "reasonable provision" for something, which is clearly open to debate as to what that actually means. You may believe it's not possible to make reasonable provision without adding an RCD, but in the absence of legal precedent as to what constitutes "reasonable provision for safety," it is far from clear cut.

That is also irrelevant - the guidelines have changed, and what the guidelines used to say was OK to be newly done is not what they now say is OK to be newly done.

Guidelines are not law, as you've stated yourself plenty of times in the past. It is only your opinion that the specific guidelines under consideration in this example need to be followed in order to comply with the law. Except that you then don't even seem to want to allow the exemption that the guidelines themselves provide.

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.

Again, it is only your opinion that the standard regards it as no longer "safe enough."

 

[JohnW2]

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.

Your personal opinion about this matter has been noted (many times).

Kind Regards, John