Adding another spur to socket for lights?

[JohnW2]

... so the hard-of-thinking who don't realise that the Appendix cannot 'forbid' anything, or who realise that but want to avoid the possible hassle of having to justify "contravening Appendix 15" essentially think of it as if it were (and could be) 'forbidding'.

That could be said of those who "didn't realise", but I would not say that there would be any "hardness of thinking" on the part of someone who understood full well what could be done in compliance with the regs but didn't want to have to possibly deal with the 'hassle' of explaining, maybe to someone with little technical or regulatory understanding, why it was acceptable to apparently 'go against' the guidance of the Appendix.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry - I do not, and never will, find it acceptable that an expert in design of something should have his design choices circumscribed by the ignorant, or that as a professional he should go along with that in pursuit of a quiet life.

There aren't very many steps left after that before you arrive at the place where you start lying to people about what regulations require because that's easier for you to do than tell the truth.

 

[JohnW2]

There aren't very many steps left after that before you arrive at the place where you start lying to people about what regulations require because that's easier for you to do than tell the truth.

There's no need for lying. An electrician could honestly tell a customer that they had conformed with non-compulsory guidance in order to spare (customer/electrician) any subsequent discussions/arguments about the 'compliance' of what had been done.

Let's face it, as you know, compliance with BS7671 itself (let alone its 'informative' Appendices) is (Scheme rules aside) not 'compulsory', so one could equally argue that reliance on compliance with BS7671 as a demonstration of compliance with Part P is, itself, a 'lazy' approach (or an approach for the 'hard-of-thinking'). If one were prepared to make the effort to argue compliance with Part P 'from first principles', then a fair number of things which would be non-compliant with BS7671 could be argued/shown to be acceptable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There's no need for lying.

Unless it were a fused spur, you are only allowed one (single or double) socket on a spur from a ring final circuit.

An electrician could honestly tell a customer that they had conformed with non-compulsory guidance in order to spare (customer/electrician) any subsequent discussions/arguments about the 'compliance' of what had been done.

But I wasn't talking about this specific scenario.

My contention was that as soon as someone who does know what he is doing allows himself to be prevented from doing what he would rather do by people who don't know what they are doing because he can't be bothered to try and tell them that it's OK, that's the start of the slippery slope where you end up telling them that the regulations require, or forbid, things which they don't because that's easier for you than explaining a more complicated or nuanced truth.

 

[JohnW2]

My contention was that as soon as someone who does know what he is doing allows himself to be prevented from doing what he would rather do by people who don't know what they are doing because he can't be bothered to try and tell them that it's OK, that's the start of the slippery slope where you end up telling them that the regulations require, or forbid, things which they don't because that's easier for you than explaining a more complicated or nuanced truth.

Yes, I know that's your view, and you didn't really need to repeat it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It seems that I did, for you appeared not to understand a word of it when you replied in #63

 

[adiwill]

You have all been busy since i asked

However, you do realise, that when you all argue amongst yourselves like this, it makes a mockery of the trade you all work in. How are we supposed to trust anyone to do the work correctly if you cant all agree? All this has done is convinced me that if i decided to get the work done professionally, i have no idea if he is doing it correctly or whether the next person that came out would say it was wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

However, you do realise, that when you all argue amongst yourselves like this, it makes a mockery of the trade you all work in.

For what it's worth, neither BAS nor myself are electricians - remember that this is a DIY forum.

How are we supposed to trust anyone to do the work correctly if you cant all agree? All this has done is convinced me that if i decided to get the work done professionally, i have no idea if he is doing it correctly or whether the next person that came out would say it was wrong.

If you look carefully at the 'argument', you will see that the really isn't any disagreement about 'right and wrong'.

Because it seemed the most useful thing for you, I told you what I believe is the approach that almost all professional electricians would take, complying with the 'guidance' that comes with the Wiring Regulations as well as with the regulations themselves. BAS took me to task because he believes I was wrong in not telling you that there are other possible approaches which would be compliant with the regulations themselves, although not consistent with the associated guidance. However, as I said, I do not believe that (m)any professional electricians would take that approach, so felt it would merely confuse you if I talked about it.

To explain the situation ... the 'guidance' (an Appendix) associated with the Wiring Regulations clearly states that an unfused spur from a ring final circuit should only supply one single socket, one double socket or one FCU. Whilst an electrician could, in some cases, argue that he/she could ignore that and still remain compliant with the regulations themselves, I really don't think that (m)any would do that, or be comfortable to do that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because it seemed the most useful thing for you, I told you what I believe is the approach that almost all professional electricians would take, complying with the 'guidance' that comes with the Wiring Regulations as well as with the regulations themselves.

Guidance cannot be "complied with".

BAS took me to task because he believes I was wrong in not telling you that there are other possible approaches which would be compliant with the regulations themselves, although not consistent with the associated guidance.

I was completely right to do so.

However, as I said, I do not believe that (m)any professional electricians would take that approach, so felt it would merely confuse you if I talked about it.

And there we have it.

Just like the row I had with the reprobates on the Plumbing forum, you decided to patronise, and to look for a way to make things easier for you. That way is to tell people things which are untrue because you simply cannot be rsed with the task of explaining it properly to people who might be confused unless you do explain it properly.

To explain the situation ... the 'guidance' (an Appendix) associated with the Wiring Regulations clearly states that an unfused spur from a ring final circuit should only supply one single socket, one double socket or one FCU.

Guidance cannot, and does not, remove regulations from elsewhere in the book.

Whilst an electrician could, in some cases, argue that he/she could ignore that and still remain compliant with the regulations themselves,

The latter is all that is required.

The former never needs any justification whatsoever.

I really don't think that (m)any would do that, or be comfortable to do that.

Then shame on them. They have no business trying to be electricians.