Corgi

[Softus]

Er, if the work does not go wrong then it must have been done competently, hence making the person who did the work competent

I agree with BobProperty, because one example of a correct job is not an adequate demonstration of competence. For example, it might have been accidentally correct.

 

[allgoom]

ok. put this to the point...
if i do some work in my house and it doesnt blow up.. and i then sell the house and a surveyor establishes that the work was done badly (shortcuts etc) but the house hasnt blown up yet.. what you are saying is that the work was therefore competent? but not acceptable to regs?
this will go on for ages...

Surely competent gas work means that there is no gas leaking out, sure the pipe may be the wrong size or the fittings look over soldered, and a hundred other things which could be unacceptable to regs. But the fact remains that it is not leaking gas. And is therefore safe, and thus done competently

 

[allgoom]

I agree with BobProperty, because one example of a correct job is not an adequate demonstration of competence. For example, it might have been accidentally correct.

But still correct none the less. So a competent job was done.

 

[BobProperty]

I'll keep it brief:

allgoom - this is what Softus and I agreed several pages back. You will not be seen to be incompetent unless the work goes wrong. My argument is that just because the work doesn't go wrong does not make you competent.

Er, if the work does not go wrong then it must have been done competently, hence making the person who did the work competent

I really can't think of a proper reply quickly at present but that argument is along the lines of because someone drove back from the pub while bladdered but they didn't hit anything or anyone they were competent to drive.

 

[Softus]

I agree with BobProperty, because one example of a correct job is not an adequate demonstration of competence. For example, it might have been accidentally correct.

But still correct none the less. So a competent job was done.

Then we are obviously using different definitions of the word competent. In my definition one has to knowingly and deliberately do something right, not just get it right without intending it.

 

[BobProperty]

ok. put this to the point...
if i do some work in my house and it doesnt blow up.. and i then sell the house and a surveyor establishes that the work was done badly (shortcuts etc) but the house hasnt blown up yet.. what you are saying is that the work was therefore competent? but not acceptable to regs?
this will go on for ages...

Surely competent gas work means that there is no gas leaking out, sure the pipe may be the wrong size or the fittings look over soldered, and a hundred other things which could be unacceptable to regs. But the fact remains that it is not leaking gas. And is therefore safe, and thus done competently

Being able to solder a pipe so that it doesn't leak is NOT competence to work on gas installations. I can solder pipes so that they don't leak. I have been able to do so for about 30 years. IT DOES NOT MAKE ME COMPETENT WITH GAS.
Does not leaving any live wires sticking out anywhere make an electrician competent?

 

[allgoom]

[quote="BobProperty
I really can't think of a proper reply quickly at present but that argument is along the lines of because someone drove back from the pub while bladdered but they didn't hit anything or anyone they were competent to drive.[/quote

Not at all, if two people do a soldered gas joint, one is registered with the mighty and all powerful(ha ha) CORGI, and the other is'nt. If both of the joints hold gas then how can the unregistered person be considered any less competent. Even if the unregistered persons joint looks like s**t, it still holds gas.

 

[BobProperty]

I agree with BobProperty, because one example of a correct job is not an adequate demonstration of competence. For example, it might have been accidentally correct.

But still correct none the less. So a competent job was done.

I hope your doctor doesn't work to the same standards. Take these pills, if you're lucky they'll stop you from having ...

 

[joe-90]

I'll keep it brief:
joe-90 - you remind me of someone who made various posts in Screwfix says how clever he was with all his properties and how he had fitted his own boiler etc. He even went on to post a link to a portfolio of photographs of his work. After numerous faults, building regulation violations etc. were pointed out, he removed them within days. Someone reported him to Building Control . He says he got a CORGI person to check it afterwards but then like you say you pay the money and they do the job. Look closely at the signature on the certificate just in case it says M Mouse.
Paying someone else to do the job - isn't that what Mr van Hoogstraten was accused of?
And if it goes wrong they'll adopt the "Nuremburg" defence - they were only doing what they were told.

What are you blathering about? I've never been on the Screwfix forum and I don't go on about houses I own or post pictures of them.
Sounds like a load of cobblers to me.
Who could report someone when they don't know where he lived? And why would building control take any notice if they did? Typical Internet forum bulldung.

joe

 

[joe-90]

It will only highlight your lack of knowledge if you use the wrong word in the wrong place.

The term "uneducated" is relative, not absolute, which you would have known if you had been relatively well educated.

Relative to what? Sounds like one-handed clapping to me


joe

 

[joe-90]

Most governing bodies are charities. They have no self-interest.

CORGI is no more a governing body than you're a rational person.

BTW the breed of dog would be written 'corgi'

There there, joe, yes of course it would. And you're so right about a great many things, after all.

HAHAH you are getting rattled matey-boy.


joe

 

[BobProperty]

I'll keep it brief:
joe-90 - you remind me of someone who made various posts in Screwfix says how clever he was with all his properties and how he had fitted his own boiler etc. He even went on to post a link to a portfolio of photographs of his work. After numerous faults, building regulation violations etc. were pointed out, he removed them within days. Someone reported him to Building Control . He says he got a CORGI person to check it afterwards but then like you say you pay the money and they do the job. Look closely at the signature on the certificate just in case it says M Mouse.
Paying someone else to do the job - isn't that what Mr van Hoogstraten was accused of?
And if it goes wrong they'll adopt the "Nuremburg" defence - they were only doing what they were told.

What are you blathering about? I've never been on the Screwfix forum and I don't go on about houses I own or post pictures of them.
Sounds like a load of cobblers to me.
Who could report someone when they don't know where he lived? And why would building control take any notice if they did? Typical Internet forum bulldung.

joe

RTFM (or posting in this case) "you remind me"
And in answer to your question someone recognised the property from the photos.

 

[BobProperty]

Ban-All-Sheds - are you still around/awake? How many more posts before we beat the Screwfix "DIY Gas disasters" thread?

 

[joe-90]

I'll keep it brief:
joe-90 - you remind me of someone who made various posts in Screwfix says how clever he was with all his properties and how he had fitted his own boiler etc. He even went on to post a link to a portfolio of photographs of his work. After numerous faults, building regulation violations etc. were pointed out, he removed them within days. Someone reported him to Building Control . He says he got a CORGI person to check it afterwards but then like you say you pay the money and they do the job. Look closely at the signature on the certificate just in case it says M Mouse.
Paying someone else to do the job - isn't that what Mr van Hoogstraten was accused of?
And if it goes wrong they'll adopt the "Nuremburg" defence - they were only doing what they were told.

What are you blathering about? I've never been on the Screwfix forum and I don't go on about houses I own or post pictures of them.
Sounds like a load of cobblers to me.
Who could report someone when they don't know where he lived? And why would building control take any notice if they did? Typical Internet forum bulldung.

joe

RTFM (or posting in this case) "you remind me"
And in answer to your question someone recognised the property from the photos.

Of course they did.

Typical forum bullpoop.


joe

 

[Softus]

And why would building control take any notice if they did?

Because the installation of a gas appliance is notifiable work within the context of the Building Regulations and the Building Act 1984. Which you would know, if you bothered to read the legislation.