Rated People

[ericmark]

I would have thought it there is an issue with a web page, then the way forward would be to remove the page until corrected, not continue to publish a page with incorrect information. We all make mistakes, as a result we put in methods to reduce the effect of the errors, as electricians the inspection and testing of our own work once completed we hope will highlight any mistakes which will be then corrected before we power up, any publishing house will employ proof readers to try and find then highlight any errors before the work is published.

You should see three wires: the neutral wire (black wire), live wire (red wire), and grounding wire (blue wire).

Is rather a serious error, the "grounding wire" makes me feel this was originally written for the USA and some one has failed to change it for UK? It does raise serious questions as to the whole organisation that this is still on their website.

Our electrical system is complex, any attempt to simplify will result in errors, under "Adding a power socket" it lists.
Things you’ll need
Circuit tester
Power socket mounting box
Power socket cover plate
Screwdriver
Screws
Wire stripper

Now I would want to test with something a little more than a "Circuit tester" and I would also put using the tester before removing the socket not after, using names like "Power socket cover plate" is asking for problems, I would consider the cover plate as part of a grid switch arrangement not a simple socket. Comments like "Wrap the wires around each terminal and tighten the screw with a screwdriver." again makes me think this was not done for UK sockets, but adapted from some other countries system. However I don't know which country uses "the blue wire to the ground terminal"?

Please note that all our DIY guides and ‘Expert answers’ advice have been written strictly for reference only. Rated People do not accept any liability for any damage caused to an individual, property or anything else as a result of following our DIY guides and using our ‘Expert answers’ advice.

There was a famous quote "Let him have it" which the person who said it claimed meant to tell the other person to give the gun, but the court considered he was telling the other person to shoot the gun, and he was hanged as a result. Had the guy said nothing he would not have been hanged. So if the rated people don't want you to follow their advice the way to do it is not to publish it. And small print is not really going to help them should some one follow their advice.

down to earth advice blue

 

[eveares]

Oh my, all the mistakes on Rated Peoples website mentioned so far are unbelievable and shocking! Rated people should take the relevant pages offline until they have been corrected and reviewed by a competent and experienced UK based electrician!

 

[skenk]

I'm not so sure Eric, probably they can get away with a whole lot with some small print and a bank of lawyers, sadly

 

[ericmark]

So Derek Bentley needed better lawyers?

 

[skenk]

Yes, or probably just a limited company. We are totally regressing these days when it comes to rights of the individual. Our government can now assassinate our own citizens without any kind of due process/rule of law (see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/reyaad-khan-first-assassination-british-citizen-drone) so much for the magna carta. The latest 'free trade' (haha) agreement our tory masters (thanks, voters of England..) are about to sign us up to will mean corporations can sue governments if they don't get their way. Someone who followed ratedpeople's advise then hurt themself would, I should think, need deep pockets for lawyers themselves, and I'd wager that all RP would get would be a modest fine.

 

[ericmark]

The companies assets may be limited, but British courts have started to take company directors to court. In the death of Semelia Campbell it was the company director who was at first found guilty of manslaughter, this was later overturned and the company pleaded guilty to corporate manslaughter. Accident was 28 June 2010 the paper dated 1st Dec 2015 said how on appeal the director was found not guilty. The company it seems was fined £50,000 to be paid at £8,000 per year. I know not that much really my firm's insurers had to pay out 10 times that amount for a crushed hand. As to if insurance paid out I would not think so, or it would not have been set at £8,000 per year. Problem with that is the company is required to advertise what happened so will they still be trading in 7 years time?

In the case of Rated People if some one followed their flawed advice it is likely these pages will be quoted in court and they will need to explain how when the error was pointed out it was not corrected. Again the publicity could be enough to cause the firm to fold, would you employ some one on the Rated People web site after a court case? So again would you pay Rated People to be on their list if something like this went to court.

To be fair a contract has three parts, an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration (money mainly) and since you don't pay Rated People to read their advice there is no contract, so not sure if they have actually broken any laws.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

our tory masters (thanks, voters of England..)

Don't blame them - less than 25% of them said that they wanted the Tories to be our masters.

 

[skenk]

Nope, it was well over that, 30-something% off the top of my head - you'll notice I said 'voters' (ie people who voted) not 'electorate' or any other term. Scotland elected one (1) tory MP of our 59, Wales and NI not many (any?). The tory majority was thanks to the voters of England voting for them, it's a straight-up fact. I could look up the numbers but can't be bothered for the purposes of setting a troll like you straight, only for you to obfuscate and talk a load of rubbish in reply.

Why not crawl back into your self-imposed exile? Your usefulness to this forum died out long ago.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nope, it was well over that, 30-something% off the top of my head - you'll notice I said 'voters' (ie people who voted) not 'electorate' or any other term.

Well - OK - I used it to mean "people who were registered as voters".

Scotland elected one (1) tory MP of our 59, Wales and NI not many (any?). The tory majority was thanks to the voters of England voting for them, it's a straight-up fact.

Indeed it was, but however you measure it it was not a majority of them. It was neither a majority of the electorate nor a majority of those who voted.

I could look up the numbers

And if you did, you'd find that it was 36.8% of the people who voted across the whole of the UK. So instead of "less than 25% of them said that they wanted the Tories to be our masters" I could have said "barely 1 in 3 of them said that they wanted the Tories to be our masters".

Now - OK - I didn't think about the fact that you were blaming English voters. I know that is clearly what you said, but I do not instinctively consider myself "English" as opposed to "British", or "a UK citizen" - I am not that parochial, so I didn't focus on English constituencies and English votes - I knew that in the election less than 25% of the electorate said "yes, I want the Tories to be in charge", and that's the figure I used.

If you do look at just English constituencies, the % of the vote which was for them was 41%. So less than half.

So, taking into account % of the vote, and just English constituencies, my response would have been:

our tory masters (thanks, voters of England..)

Don't blame them - less than half of them said that they wanted the Tories to be our masters. Most people who voted wanted someone else to be in charge.

but can't be bothered

We can see why.

for the purposes of setting a troll like you straight

Are you prepared to justify accusing me of that? Are you prepared to show why writing "25%" instead of "half" meant that I was deliberately posting something inflammatory in order to provoke an argument or to upset you?

Or are you the sort of person who thinks it's perfectly OK to abuse others like that without a shred of justification?

only for you to obfuscate and talk a load of rubbish in reply.

Any chance of an intelligent critique of this post showing why it is obscure, unclear, unintelligible or bewildering?

Or are you the sort of person who thinks it's perfectly OK to make accusations like that without a shred of justification?

Why not crawl back into your self-imposed exile? Your usefulness to this forum died out long ago.

Why don't you show how that was a fair and reasonable thing to say?

Or are you the sort of person who doesn't care whether what he says is fair and reasonable?

 

[ericmark]

Well - OK - I used it to mean "people who were registered as voters".



Indeed it was, but however you measure it it was not a majority of them. It was neither a majority of the electorate nor a majority of those who voted.

This was a fundamental problem, my nieces both could not vote, they are from UK and have not taken up German citizenship, however they were not living in the UK for the qualifying period so were not allowed to vote, yet the vote affects their life, we should allow for this, with out system, but we don't so we just have to put up with it.

However that is noting to do with rated people and this thread is over 6 months old, I would like to see a system where people are truly rated, however the evil that man do lives after them etc. So people only report bad work they never report good work, so anyone doing a lot of work will get more reports than some one not doing much, so the only way to rate in a fair way is for for work to be inspected by a tradesman rather than general public, this system was put in place, however the report to parliamentary group pointed out there were less people thrown out of the schemes then would normally get alzheimers which raised the question is the work really being policed as it should. It seems it is not. It could be argued that electricians with medical problems leave work without being drummed out, but the number who are removed from the schemes is very low, which makes one ask is it really being policed.

For trades where there is not trade body which they which they have to become members to trade I can see why they want some body to show they are good, but with electricians due to part P there is already a selection of bodies doing this job.

Most trades do have Guilds this has been done for years, but it is normally the trade people you run the guilds no some firm who really have no connection with the trade, some trades need licences to operate, the taking of pictures with a drone for example, anyone can buy and use a drone for personal use, but to use it for hire or reward needs a licence, and there have not been that many licences issued. But be it called a Union or a guild the people running them want to show there members in a good light, how ever the rated trades man firms are no more than advertising agencies, and if an electrician needs an advertising agency one has to ask why, could it be he's no good so does not get jobs by word of mouth?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However that is noting to do with rated people and this thread is over 6 months old,

Take that up with skenk.

I would like to see a system where people are truly rated, however the evil that man do lives after them etc. So people only report bad work they never report good work, so anyone doing a lot of work will get more reports than some one not doing much, so the only way to rate in a fair way is for for work to be inspected by a tradesman rather than general public, this system was put in place, however the report to parliamentary group pointed out there were less people thrown out of the schemes then would normally get alzheimers which raised the question is the work really being policed as it should. It seems it is not. It could be argued that electricians with medical problems leave work without being drummed out, but the number who are removed from the schemes is very low, which makes one ask is it really being policed.

Why oh why oh why can't we live in a society where people are brought up with values of honesty, decency, trustworthiness etc, and just not do bad work?

I wouldn't do it, and I don't think you would.

What makes some people have such low moral standards?

 

[ericmark]

I agree with you, but not sure if moral standards or down to lack of ability, my daughter used a trusted tradesman and then needed to get a proper tradesman to fix the bad workmanship. I would have read the advert and keep clear, he was about 22 years old and said he could do near everything, woodwork, plumbing, electrics and more. It is unlikely some one of that age could have trained in all those trades. Some people do seem to collect trades, my daughter-in-law has trained as a plumber, lock smith, bus driver, and care worker, but she is in her 30's not 20's and my son does all the plumbing work as when she does it it leaks. I have not ridden in a bus she was driving but have been in their narrow boat and it seemed it was a contact sport, if she drove a bus like that there would not be a straight panel on it.

To enrol with a scheme provider you do need some qualifications and have books to hand, so there is some control, but to enrol with rated tradesmen you just pay, so why would you look on a rated tradesman's list rather than a list of electricians enrolled with scheme providers?

 

[skenk]

Regarding the timing, I got a notification about this thread, but it seems some spammer has had a post deleted

 

[skenk]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you thought to yourself "Well, as I'm here anyway, I might as well have a brain spasm and falsely accuse bas of all sorts of things because I don't like what he wrote 9 months ago"?

Jolly good - I'm sure everyone was pleased to read your abusive nonsense.