Consumer stuff on the suppliers board

[daytona]

That's the dog-eared bit of chipboard under the stairs, I mean, not the blokes with the huge pension funds and gazillions of stock options....

I know the theory, but what's the practice?

If they come to change the meter and find an isolation switch on the same board as the meter and cutout, are they actually going to do anything, provided it's not in their way?

we all know the theory,the practice is different its not dangerousand as you said as long as it isnt in the way of anything,they wont do anything.
ive been doing this for twenty years now,(only eight in the domestic sector)and have no cases pending,never even had it commented on.

just do it mate

 

[FingRinal]

Apologies forum for getting sucked in to a futile exchange.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you don't care about the consequences, why do you care about the likelihood of being caught?

Where did I say I didn't care about the consequences?

If I didn't care about them why would I want to know what they were?

What does it matter what other people say,

It doesn't matter what you say (well - it doesn't matter to me), because you're either doing this to annoy me (it's not working, BTW), or you are basically incapable of understanding plain English and giving replies that are of any value.

you have already made up your mind to break the law (if that is what you will do by your actions).

No I haven't.

Whatever the reality is it would not affect whether I felt justified in ignoring whatever the prohibition is, only my decision on whether it's a sensible thing to do.

Do you really not understand that, or are you just pretending to not understand it for some bizarre reason?

Who cares? You don't. Just leave it at that.

I do care about what the consequences might be, that's why I asked, and that's why I've explained to you more than once why I asked. Do you really not understand, or are you just pretending to not understand?

I am surpised by your logic though. The meter is someone else's property which is located within your property. But if you tamper with it, I strongly suspect legal action will be taken against you.

Can you please show me where I've proposed, or suggested I might, tamper with the meter? And if you are unable to show me where, will you then tell us all whether you really don't understand what I've written here or if you are just pretending to not understand?

Legal or illegal. The distinction is invariably decided by due legal process and not an indivual's understanding.

Indeed, but that is irrelevant here, as I'm not arguing about, or inquiring about, whether something is illegal, simply "If they come to change the meter and find an isolation switch on the same board as the meter and cutout, are they actually going to do anything, provided it's not in their way?"

Do you really not understand that, or are you just pretending to not understand it?

An action might result in a lesser penalty but it doesn't really make it any more OK to do it now does it?

It might do. But that is irrelevant here, as I'm not arguing about, or inquiring about, whether something is OK, simply "If they come to change the meter and find an isolation switch on the same board as the meter and cutout, are they actually going to do anything, provided it's not in their way?"

Do you really not understand that, or are you just pretending to not understand it?

Perhaps you think it's OK to tamper with one item of someone else's property but not not OK to tamper with another item?

I do think there's a difference between drilling a couple of holes in a piece of chipboard which will never be needed to be used elsewhere by its owner, and which will not be rendered useless in its current role and therefore have its owner put to expense, and tampering with the meter in order to get free electricity.

Maybe you don't.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

can you two please stop trying to annoy each other

I can't speak for FR - he may or may not be trying to annoy me, but I do know that I'm not trying to annoy him.

 

[Deleted member 54734]

If they come to change the meter and find an isolation switch on the same board as the meter and cutout, are they actually going to do anything, provided it's not in their way?

It would help me out so I wouldn't complain

As for in my way,

Have been to building sites where they have had a generator supplying the house's until we turned up.

They had fitted an isolator in the middle of each box supplied from the geny.

As there was no room in the box for my meter and the spark was being a bit of a er... not very nice, he said he didn't have time to move the isolator i would have to wait.
I gave him 30mins while I had my dinner and he still wasn't bothered So I Had to knock the jobs back until space was made.

It was 2 weeks until I was sent back and I don't think the site agent was very happy.

So IMO the answer to your question is no we probably wouldn't do any thing, but if it was in our way it may cause you problems.

 

[Softus]

FR - since you appear to be sufficiently interested in my position to try and determine it by analysing what I've written it seems only fair that I should explain it to you so that you can find out what it really is.

That would work only if your description were both truthful and accurate. There is no guarantee that this is the case.

The fact that you're happy to analyse other people's posts, and motives, and yet attempt to subvert the attempt by someone else to subject you to the very same thing, is mild yet unadulterated hypocrisy. Since the action that you're asking about is a crime, and since you know that it's a crime, your attempt to downplay it is merely smoke and mirrors.

I do not regard fixing something of mine to a piece of chipboard in my house that is owned by someone else as a heinous crime.

It is, however, an act that would make you a criminal.

The knowledge that it could be construed as an offence does not trouble me in itself.

A good example of the use of smoke and mirrors. There is no doubt about it being an offence, nor any doubt about you knowing that it is, and yet you use the words "could be construed".

I am not "seeking the support of others in justifying the ignoring of any legal implications", I'm quite able to justify it myself to my own satisfaction.

And more of the same. If you object about the lack of support, or about the absence of a specific answer to your question, or about the manner of the response, then you are complaining about the lack of support from others, therefore, by inference you were seeking it.

Your "own satisfaction" isn't the only important factor. Plenty of posters could claim the same thing, but their abilities are judged by respondents and the manner of replies chosen to fit the circumstances. Since you yourself have put into the dock your ability 'to justify it yourself to your own satisfaction', and some members of the gallery have chosen to heckle you, that's just tough. You're already a criminal by the test of mens rea.

I am simply seeking information about the reality of any consequences that would arise from doing it. Whatever the reality is it would not affect whether I felt justified in ignoring whatever the prohibition is, only my decision on whether it's a sensible thing to do.

In the same vein, your use of the word "simply" in no way means that it's a simple matter. If you ask people for information that you have declared will be used to decide whether or not breaking a specific law in a specific way is a sensible thing to do, then your lot is to silently suffer the slings and arrows that accompany your own outrageous fortune.

If you regard my attitude as morally reprehensible that's up to you, but if you seek to find fault in people who sometimes base their actions on what is likely to happen to them if they do something which harms nobody in any way then you're going to find the world a very faulty place to live.

If you're treated as a criminal when you openly admit that you will be happy to become one if you can be reasonable confident of not being prosecuted, then you have no right to complain about it, or to attempt to belittle someone by taking a dualogue and creating a false interpretation of it in an attempt to support your pathetic supposition that the other person doesn't understand.

Those fingers in your ears are stopping you from smelling the coffee.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

it seems to be working thoug

Again I can't speak for FR - but I'm not annoyed - I was having fun....

 

[Softus]

it seems to be working thoug

Again I can't speak for FR...

Not being able to speak for FingRinal didn't stop you doing so before though:

It doesn't matter what you say (well - it doesn't matter to me), because you're either doing this to annoy me (it's not working, BTW), or you are basically incapable of understanding plain English and giving replies that are of any value.

An illustration of nitpicking and backtracking.

 

[The_Scotty]

I think Ban-All-Sheds should be banned

 

[Softus]

Or perhaps have his hours of [gob] opening regulated?

 

[spongsdad]

Surprising how long a thread can last about such a relatively trivial matter. Surely though, to descrbe putting an isolator or some such on the DNO's board as a criminal offence is to debase the word criminal. Such terms should be reserved for Steve Wright, or Ian Huntley. A technical breach of the law perhaps but hardly one that is going to see you in font of the beak

 

[Softus]

It depends on your understanding of a crime.

For example, some people might say that to trivialise a crime by describing it as a technical breach of the law is to misunderstand the word criminal.

In what circumstances do you think that that the prosecution for the offence that the OP proposes would not result in a standing-humbly-in-front-beak scenario?

 

[spongsdad]

Try the OED definition of crime. "An act or omission (usually a grave one) against an individual or the State and punishable by law. Your interpretation would make criminals of us all for the smallest indiscretion. I'm sure that's what the Government would have us believe but I maintain that to be pedantic about this is to debase the meaning and value of the word criminal.

 

[Softus]

A course you're entirely at liberty to adopt your own interpretation, but a criminal is someone who commits a crime, as defined by Criminal Law (and by criminal cases in Common law), so there's no doubt in my own mind that an act of criminal damage is a crime, and that the perpetrator is a criminal.

If you want to distinguish between serious and not-so-serious crimes, then the word "serious" seems to be the ideal candidate. Equally, the word "indictable" is used in various pieces of legislation, and could be used as a good indicator of the degree of gravitas that society associates with a given crime.

Personally, I think you're a bit late with your crusade to realign the definition of the word "criminal", but if you want to accuse anyone of misusing, or debasing, it, then the place to start would be any reporter who feels it necessary to precede the word with colourful adjectives. However, allowing the distinction of crimes using terms such as "sex", or "war", or "paedo", at least allow the reader to make up their own mind.

So, in support of your cause, I propose, for any crime that renders a DNO as the only victim, that henceforth it be described as "petty, selfish and foolish".

 

[spongsdad]

Softus, because this is a forum on electrics rather than etymology, it is probably better not to push too far. Of course you are correct in saying that a crime is any breach of the criminal law. My point was to warn against the frequent application of the word to our everyday actions. Once upon a time the law used to distinguish between misdemeanour and felony. I would guess that most people today, even without resorting to the dictionary would be able to put those two words in order of seriousness. Now as you point out we have to use colourful adjectives to qualify what we mean by a crime. Sadly we are all criminals, yourself included (unless for example you have never exceeded a speed limit). If we are all criminals, then the word loses its impact if not its meaning.
I think BAN has little to worry about except possible inconvenience if he encounters a pedantic (letter of the law) inspector at his next meter change. Meanwhile, as an amateur I shall be happy to listen to his (and your) advice on electrical matters, the next time I have a problem. As to criminality, I would ask a lawyer, assuming I could afford the fee.