DIY is not an electrician. No sir, not at all...

[ban-all-sheds]

Holmslaw is also, and obviously, literally correct in say ing that there is not a 'general' need (i.e. every doctor does not need to access the records of every UK patient every day), but that is irrelevant - because one can't have a restricted system which knows which doctor will want to access whose medical records and when!

Of course one can/could.

No GP needs it without the involvement of the patient giving permission because he has permanently or temporarily registered with a new one.

No medical team carrying out non-emergency surgery needs it without the involvement of the patient giving permission.

But some might need it in an emergency, and some might need efficient access to it if the patient says they can have it.

 

[plugit]

You must be aware of the countless old laws, inapplicable/'rididiculous' in the current world, which actually still 'exist' because no government has ever repealed them, which "might just as well not exist" and "effectively don't exist", since they have not been enforced, or even thought about, for decades.

Not so John. About 15 years ago I obtained a listing of live statutes from the Home Office - in Word Perfect format! These included among many others the offence of (my choice of words) having sex with the monarch's daughter (in-law?). The punishment was imprisonment in the Tower of London. Mr Hewitt, etc, we're a coming for you!

I kid you not, I probably still have the disk somewhere.

However, many outdated statutes were repealed about 10 years ago.

If you wish to view some bizarre legislation, take a loook at the Sexual Offence Act 2003 and its 250+ sections. What you are not allowed to do with animals, etc is errrmmm, disturbing. Makes Part P seem tame.

Regards

 

[JohnW2]

But to say that it doesn't exist because of their disapproval is at odds with reality.

No-one is suggesting that. All that is being said that if a law is never enforced, the situation is no different from the situation if the law did not exist (hence "effectively doen't exist"). That's abosoluely nothing to do with who does, or does not, approve of the law.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

You must be aware of the countless old laws, inapplicable/'rididiculous' in the current world, which actually still 'exist' because no government has ever repealed them, which "might just as well not exist" and "effectively don't exist", since they have not been enforced, or even thought about, for decades.

Not so John. About 15 years ago I obtained a listing of live statutes from the Home Office - in Word Perfect format! These included among many others the offence of (my choice of words) having sex with the monarch's daughter (in-law?). The punishment was imprisonment in the Tower of London. Mr Hewitt, etc, we're a coming for you!

Exactly my point - and lists/details of many of these bizarre ancient laws (particularly US State laws) regularly get circulated on the internet.

So, if you are agreeing with me, what does this "Not so John" refer to?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Holmslaw is also, and obviously, literally correct in say ing that there is not a 'general' need (i.e. every doctor does not need to access the records of every UK patient every day), but that is irrelevant - because one can't have a restricted system which knows which doctor will want to access whose medical records and when!

Of course one can/could.
No GP needs it without the involvement of the patient giving permission because he has permanently or temporarily registered with a new one. No medical team carrying out non-emergency surgery needs it without the involvement of the patient giving permission. But some might need it in an emergency, and some might need efficient access to it if the patient says they can have it.

BAS, you're amazing. I didn't think I'd see the day when you were so keen on arguing for argument's sake that you would reverse your argument and effectively agree with holmslaw

Anyway, what you refer to relate to 'permissions', and I agree that they can be built in (and such matters of access control/ regulation have been one of the failings of the attempted system!). However, that doesn't alter the fact that one needs to have a 'complete database', since one never knows what patient's records are going to be needed in the future, even if permission is required to access it. As you have implied, it is not in relation to routine planned patient care that such a system is most needed - it's the A&E Dept that has the most need, usually at 3am

Kind Regards, John.

 

[plugit]

John

I was disagreeing with "actually (statutes) still 'exist' because no government has ever repealed them."

I went on to say "However, many outdated statutes were repealed about 10 years ago." I should perhaps have added "in the UK" for clarity.

Laws do get repealed and re-written - usually in line with the political / agitations of the day. ie. Public Order Act 1956 - in response to the mods and rockers fights, etc.

I expect BAS (teasing) would have the parliamentary draftsmen include hanging for failing to read IEE regs properly, fully and to a level ensuring a competent standard. Although, he gets a yellow card himself for not noticing a wiring diagram in the Electrician's Guide!

 

[Stoday]

Does anyone (apart from BAS ) really think a judge would be interested in the fact that Joe Bloggs carried out electrical work in his own house in contravention of part P?

No judges are ever interested in anything before them - that is fundamental to our judicial process.

Rubbish!

BAS is using a different meaning of "interested", one that is the opposite of "disinterested".

The meaning of the holmslaw's use of "interested" is the opposite of "uninterested".

BTW if you are one of the depressingly illiterate many who think "disinterested" and "uninterested" are synonyms, then you'll have to consult a dictionary.

 

[mointainwalker]

I have read all the thread and hope you do not find my post irrelevant .

I am doing a total renovation on an old barn in France which never had electricity and am therefore installing a full electrical system..

Under French regulations I can do this without any supervision , although because there is no existing power I need a sign-off before connection to the mains.

This sign-off is conducted by an ex-EDF quango and consists of, I am told:

a) Visual inspection of wiring-plan
b) Visual inspection of position and labelling of CU
c) Random physical checking of one lighting-circuit and one power-circuit
d) Check resistance of earth.

Cost approx GBP 110

I am doing this with no previous experience and using the latest French regs


These call for :

1) Specified no of sockets and lights per circuit
2) Specified wire diameter
3) Required number of sockets per 10 m2 living space
4) Individual circuits for boiler/cooker etc
5) Min no of RCD ( and type ) per 30 m2 living space
6) Communications socket in every livable room ( not WC/hall )
7) Position of CU above floor and near principal method of entry
8.) External lights next to methods of entry
9) No hidden cable-joins.

There may be a few others but am doing this from memory.

There is no requirement for so many of the tests I see here as mentioned repeated and hammered home by BAS 20 times per week.

The principle here is that you take responsibility for your actions, so death by incompetence = manslaughter and destroyed house by incompetence = insurance won't pay out.

I know nothing about z's, about resistance and all the other things the Uebermeister of the forum bangs on about when anyone asks about re-wiring.

How relevant are these when one is re-wiring a domestic property ? My checks only consisted of continuity, ensuring tight connections and everything in conduit to keep the bloody mice at bay.

In light of the earlier uncontested statistics on injuries/death etc, this doesn't seem an unreasonable course to take.

This being the case, can anyone tell me , in their opinion, to what extent Part P was a succesful lobbying exercise and work-creation scheme for electricians ?

I feel that the following are examples of industries propogating "standards" that have no relevance except to deter DIY'ers from undertaking work. Obviously just a couple of examples I have come across.

Wet-underfloor heating: test pipes for min 24 hrs @ six bar. Domestic water-pressure is hugely unlikely to exceed three bar and is more often between one and two bar. Why the above ? I assume that since it cannot be reached with domestic pressure , it is to push people towards specialist installers.

Another French example. Here all copper plumbing is brazed. Why? I believe it is a good marketing method to force people to use plumbers as very few people apart from plumbers have the equipment.

A British plumber who has set up locally was challenged by a French plumber who said that the soldering he was using was sub-standard. When told that it was lead-free and guaranteed to 10 bar he went off muttering.
I am not looking to start an argument but hope there may be some debate about my post.

Thanks

 

[JohnW2]

I was disagreeing with "actually (statutes) still 'exist' because no government has ever repealed them."
I went on to say "However, many outdated statutes were repealed about 10 years ago." I should perhaps have added "in the UK" for clarity.

Oh, I see - thanks for clarifying. I'm sure some must still exist and, in fact, what I was saying to BAS would have been very true of all those which were repealed 10 years ago (just before they were repealed)!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The principle here is that you take responsibility for your actions, so death by incompetence = manslaughter and destroyed house by incompetence = insurance won't pay out.

A very french attitude and I do not disagree with it but could lead to you killing your family if, as you later state, you don't really KNOW what you are doing.

I know nothing about z's, about resistance and all the other things the Uebermeister of the forum bangs on about when anyone asks about re-wiring.

Then you cannot be sure that the protective devices will work when a fault occurs.

How relevant are these when one is re-wiring a domestic property ? My checks only consisted of continuity, ensuring tight connections and everything in conduit to keep the bloody mice at bay.

Very relevant.

In light of the earlier uncontested statistics on injuries/death etc, this doesn't seem an unreasonable course to take.

One of the few statistics may be your children.

his being the case, can anyone tell me , in their opinion, to what extent Part P was a succesful lobbying exercise and work-creation scheme for electricians ?

Au contraire. It is a work creation scheme for bureaucracy.

I feel that the following are examples of industries propogating "standards" that have no relevance except to deter DIY'ers from undertaking work. Obviously just a couple of examples I have come across.

That just shows how little you KNOW. You don't know what you don't know.

Wet-underfloor heating: test pipes for min 24 hrs @ six bar. Domestic water-pressure is hugely unlikely to exceed three bar and is more often between one and two bar. Why the above ? I assume that since it cannot be reached with domestic pressure , it is to push people towards specialist installers.

Or to ensure it doesn't leak.

Another French example. Here all copper plumbing is brazed. Why? I believe it is a good marketing method to force people to use plumbers as very few people apart from plumbers have the equipment.

I don't know. Perhaps they think it better or could just be tradition.

A British plumber who has set up locally was challenged by a French plumber who said that the soldering he was using was sub-standard. When told that it was lead-free and guaranteed to 10 bar he went off muttering.

I presume you have to abide by french laws when in France. It's probably good that you don't live in Afghanistan.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, you're amazing. I didn't think I'd see the day when you were so keen on arguing for argument's sake that you would reverse your argument and effectively agree with holmslaw

I'm not.

You said "one can't have a restricted system which knows which doctor will want to access whose medical records and when!"

I'm saying one can.

One can have a restricted system which knows who will need to access the records, and which parts of the records, and when, and from where. e.g. the system can be designed so that someone with access from an A&E dept, or ICU/HDU can have access from there but from nowhere else. GPs can have access from their surgery during surgery hours, but not from anywhere else and not at any other time. And so on.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But to say that it doesn't exist because of their disapproval is at odds with reality.

No-one is suggesting that.

4) I am perfectly competent to do anything from adding a socket to a complete rewire, it's my house and my electrical apparatus, I am perfectly ready to accept responsibility for the work I do, and therefore I don't see any reason why I should pay an extortionate amount of money to the local authority, so as far as I'm concerned all electrical work I do in my own house is not notifiable.

 

[JohnW2]

One can have a restricted system which knows who will need to access the records, and which parts of the records, and when, and from where. e.g. the system can be designed so that someone with access from an A&E dept, or ICU/HDU can have access from there but from nowhere else. GPs can have access from their surgery during surgery hours, but not from anywhere else and not at any other time. And so on.

Of course. Do you really believe that the attempted NHS clinical database does not have access restrictions? As I said, it's the complexities of access control which has seemingly become one of the main problems/ 'downfalls'.

Whatever, we are sliding off on somewhat of a tangent. The point remains that, if it is to serve its intended purpose, and regardless of what access restrictions exits, the underlying database has to be as complete as possible. Holmslaw appeared to be objecting to the existance of the database, per se, and you rightly chgallenged his assertion that there was 'no medical need'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[mointainwalker]

but could lead to you killing your family if, as you later state, you don't really KNOW what you are doing.

At a theoretical level I accept it .Later is too late but as Asterix said " alea jacta est "

Then you cannot be sure that the protective devices will work when a fault occurs

Do you repeat the full sequence of checks carried out by Schneider/Legrand when you install their devices ?

Please elaborate upon your "very relevant " vis checks. I would like to know how when French authorities do not see them as necessary and particularly relevant to previously quoted deaths and injuries.

One of the few statistics may be your children.

Rather pathetic EFLI. Ever thought of becoming an MP or a Daily Mail journslist ?

contraire. It is a work creation scheme for bureaucracy

Really ? And no extra work for electricians

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:11 pm Post Subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

checks only consisted of continuity, ensuring tight connections and everything in conduit to keep the bloody mice at bay.
Very relevant. Quote:
In light of the earlier uncontested statistics on injuries/death etc, this doesn't seem an unreasonable course to take.
One of the few statistics may be your children.Quote:
his being the case, can anyone tell me , in their opinion, to what extent Part P was a succesful lobbying exercise and work-creation scheme for electricians ?
Au contraire. It is a work creation scheme for bureaucracy. Quote:

That just shows how little you KNOW. You don't know what you don't know

damn, I didn't expect to encounter Donald Rumsfeld on this forum !

EFLI
You may feel that your epithets are really super, but I ws looking for real answers and points rather than some... ah, fifth-form jokes.

Or to ensure it doesn't leak

.

OK , so why not 10 or 20 bar to be really sure . Same logic, why not have min 2 mm insulation around all conductors ?

I don't know. Perhaps they think it better or could just be tradition.

Well EfLI , could it possibly be an out-dated tradition that they use to minimise competition ? If you reply to this mail, then a reply to this point would be preciated .

I presume you have to abide by french laws when in France. It's probably good that you

There are no laws on soldering pipes AFAIK. Only legislation is about lead etc .

 

[JohnW2]

But to say that it doesn't exist because of their disapproval is at odds with reality.

No-one is suggesting that.

4) I am perfectly competent to do anything from adding a socket to a complete rewire, it's my house and my electrical apparatus, I am perfectly ready to accept responsibility for the work I do, and therefore I don't see any reason why I should pay an extortionate amount of money to the local authority, so as far as I'm concerned all electrical work I do in my own house is not notifiable.

Perhaps I need a trip to Specsavers, since I cannot see where Paul is suaying that the law doesn't exist. As we both know, he is very well conversant with the existance of the law, and it's content - even if he disapproves of the law, and 'doesn't see any reason why he should comply with it'. Essentially, he's just more honest than many people who write here!

Kind Regards, John.