Anyone interested in old colour cable?

[Paul_C]

What the absolute level of safety is after you have done is of absolutely no relevance.

If you asked the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" what he takes "reasonably safe" to mean, I'm sure he would disagree with you:

reasonable a. 1. Having sound judgement, sensible, moderate, not expecting too much, ready to listen to reason. 2. In accordance with reason, not absurd; within the limits of reason, not greatly less or more than might be expected; inexpensive, not extortionate; tolerable, fair. 3. (arch.) Endowed with faculty of reason.

Some of the stuff you've written above is laughable. 40mph vs 50mph? There are very real differences in those. Installing cable of one colour vs another when there is NO difference in the quality, NO difference in the cost, NO difference in the time taken, NO difference in the ease of use, NO difference in the availability is not a valid comparison.

Why not? Your line is that it is unreasonable to choose the less safe of two available options. Driving at 50 mph instead of 40 mph is clearly the less safe option, so why do you not consider that unreasonable as well?

Again you ignore the factor of reasonableness which I postulated Again you show that you think that if you pretend that the word "reasonable" cannot appear in regulations that somehow the ones which do will vanish.

I am not pretending it does not appear. I'm arguing with your interpretation of what it means.

Part P is what we are discussing

The term "reasonable" appears throughout the building regulations. So the other parts are just as relevant - Unless you're trying to argue that it somehow takes on a different meaning in Part P.

 

[Paul_C]

There. fixed that for you

Thank you!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To deliberately choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is cannot possibly be anything but unreasonable.

If you decide, in advance, that your whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is then you cannot possibly have been reasonable in your provision for safety.

 

[SimonH2]

Oh look - another **** who thinks that it is reasonable to deliberately and perversely choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is.

Interesting idea - it's perverse to follow laid down technical standards.

Are you by any chance related to Arnold Rimmer ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To deliberately choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is cannot possibly be anything but unreasonable.

If you decide, in advance, that your whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is then you cannot possibly have been reasonable in your provision for safety.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Are you by any chance related to Arnold Rimmer ?

space core directive 8597649-4, sub section W. It is space-cadet shed's role in diynot to be a complete and utter R's and never understand anything he/she doesn't want to, whilst maintaining generally obnoxious levels of manner and courtesy

 

[SimonH2]

If you decide, in advance, that your whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately work on it in accordance with laid down technical and legal standards then you cannot possibly have been reasonable in your provision for safety.

Is that what you meant to write ?

I'll be needing some more of holmslaw's popcorn soon.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To deliberately choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is cannot possibly be anything but unreasonable.

If you decide, in advance, that your whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is then you cannot possibly have been reasonable in your provision for safety.

 

[Robgers]

Catatonic Schizophrenia

Catatonic schizophrenia is a type of schizophrenia where the patient is usually uncoordinated, clumsy and have an unusual mannerism. These patients have disturbances of movement. They tend to develop jerky movements and repetitively carry out these unusual movements like flapping their hands or thrashing their legs. In some cases, the patient becomes completely immobile. They will sit, stand or stay in a strange stance for hours or days on end. They are completely unable to take care of themselves due to their behavior. Sometimes, the person repeats a single word or sentence over and over again. Catatonic schizophrenia is one of the rare types of schizophrenia.

 

[ricicle]

Perhaps we can request a pontification section..........

 

[Paul_C]

Sometimes, the person repeats a single word or sentence over and over again.

Do the symptoms also include selective blindness to certain questions? You know, the ones which if answered would shoot the patient's argument in that repetitive claim down in flames.

 

[echoes]

Anyone interested in old colour cable?

More than you could possibly have imagined

 

[RF Lighting]

Perhaps we can request a pontification section..........

 

[ricicle]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pontification

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do the symptoms also include selective blindness to certain questions? You know, the ones which if answered would shoot the patient's argument in that repetitive claim down in flames.

Does that include questions written by people because they simply do not understand that to deliberately choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is cannot possibly be anything but unreasonable?

I could answer your questions, but there would be no point because you will either not understand the answers, or you will understand them but refuse to admit that you do.

You are approaching this whole topic with a belief that it is reasonable to unreasonably choose to deliberately make an installation more dangerous than it already is.

You are so wrong that it beggars belief.


I know that if someone decides, in advance, that their whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is then they cannot possibly have been reasonable in your provision for safety.

If you think that the law does not agree with that truth then your reading of the law is flawed.

If you think that the Secretary of State's advice does not agree with that truth then your reading of the advice is flawed.