Forum Attitude to Non-Notification

[JohnW2]

It is morally bankrupt and grossly irresponsible to encourage or assist in any way someone who you know to be out of their depth, ignorant and incompetent to continue blundering on instead of getting an electrician.

It sounds as if it is so clear-cut when asserted like that - but, as I keep saying such a view totally fails to take account of 'the alternatives'.

As per the analogy I've just presented, do you feel that it is "morally bankrupt and grossly irresponsible" for a doctor to offer advice/treatment in relation to the consequences of continuing smoking/drinking to a patient who refuses to take the ('only correct') advice to stop smoking/drinking - and would you regard the offering of that advice/treatment as representing "encouraging or assisting" them to continue smoking or drinking?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Would you guys apply this general consensus to other BR controlled trades other than electrical? My point is if you do dodgy electrical work, someone can die as a result. So it is important to get it right and properly approved/certified.

I would have said that most, if not all, of the Building Regs ultimately exist in an attempt to minimise risks of injury or illness (including death).

Deaths due to 'dodgy electrical work' must be incredibly rare (deaths due to any electrical cause are extremely rare, barely into two figures per year in the UK) - but I couldn't tell you about deaths due to causes coivered by other aspects of the Building Regs.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

How does refraining from assisting me to avoid breaking the second law help? ... Certainly advising me of the existence of the laws and possible consequences of breach is beneficial. ... Certainly recognising that understanding of underlying fundamentals and theory is a more comprehensive way of learning is beneficial, but some peoples preferred (or only) means of learning safe working is correct following of simple direction. Perhaps the enquirer should be asked for their preference! Therefore giving the required information is beneficial to all parties.

I agree with all that. The difficulty which BAS has, and with which I can sympathise, is that it will sometimes become clear that an individual is never going to acquire the knowledge/competence to do a job satisfactorily/safely, and therefore must be advised not to attempt it. BAS seems to like think that if he says "don't do it - get an electrician" often enough, his advice will eventually be heeded. I'm more realistic, and accept that this won't necessarily work. That presents a dilema - does one just leave those 'incompetent' people to their own devices, or does one make at least some attempt to help them to to reduce the danger of what they are planning to do. BAS and I differ on the answer to that question.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think this is a bit tangential to the primary discussion.

No, it is highly germane.

As a general principle, I cannot disagree with what you say but, in practice, that degree of idealism may sometimes represent a luxury that one can reasonably forego.

There is no need to do that - in fact forgoing it is unreasonable.

It is neither unreasonably hard for people to be able to work out cable sizing nor unreasonable to expect them to put the effort into becoming able to do it if they have decided to take it on themselves to act as an electrician..

They don't have to make that decision, they can delegate being an electrician to an electrician. But if they choose to DIY then an inseparable choice is the one to learn to do it properly.

So long as a meaningful 'choice' (for you) exists, I agree totally. However, once it's clear that no further 'urging' is going to alter someone's decision to proceed with work without any assistance, supervision or oversight, then that choice (for you) effectively ceases to exist and the goalposts (and hence risk assessment) move.

No.

The choice for me does not cease to exist. It may well become pointless to persist giving the advice I believe should be given, in which case I will stop.

I will not, as an alternative, start giving advice which I do not believe should be given just because the the person asking is only interested in hearing advice which supports their wrong decisions.

Of course, but we are talking about people who, despite that, have decided not to get an electrician.

That is their mistaken and dangerous choice. It is morally bankrupt and grossly irresponsible to collude with that decision in any way.

Are you one of those people who feel that a doctor should refuse to give advice or treatment (relating to the consequences of their behaviour) to a patient who has failed to heed the 'only correct advice' to stop smoking or drinking?

I am one of those people who believes that a doctor should not help a patient to get hold of tobacco and alcohol just because they won't heed the advice to give up.

I am one of those people who believes that the IAM should not give people assistance with driving and concentration techniques so that they can be safer when they have made the decision to drink and drive, and simply will not heed the advice not to do that.

 

[JohnW2]

The choice for me does not cease to exist. It may well become pointless to persist giving the advice I believe should be given, in which case I will stop. ... I will not, as an alternative, start giving advice which I do not believe should be given just because the the person asking is only interested in hearing advice which supports their wrong decisions.

Fair enough - it's obviously for you to decide what you feel is best.

I am one of those people who believes that a doctor should not help a patient to get hold of tobacco and alcohol just because they won't heed the advice to give up.

That's not really the issue! The question is whether the doctor should offer advice or treatment designed to hopefully reduce to some extent the risks resulting from the patient's failure to heed the primary advice to give up.

Kind Regards, John

 

[TonyW2]

ban-all-sheds----- I do appreciate your thoughtful, reasoned and conscientious inputs.
Please consider the following; (once upon a time) a national retailer sold electrical items with leads but without attached plugs; they taught their sales staff how to fit them safely as a customer benefit. The staff were assessed in a test demonstration to show that their work was competent and safe.
Why would those staff need to learn the related cable and plug design decisions or the purpose of the fuse? Were they improving safety for the final user?
PS--they soon stopped when they realised the responsibility they were assuming.
Some staff became interested & asked "why"; eventually retail electrical items acquired pre fitted plugs.

 

[mbga9pgf]

ban-all-sheds----- I do appreciate your thoughtful, reasoned and conscientious inputs.
Please consider the following; (once upon a time) a national retailer sold electrical items with leads but without attached plugs; they taught their sales staff how to fit them safely as a customer benefit. The staff were assessed in a test demonstration to show that their work was competent and safe.
Why would those staff need to learn the related cable and plug design decisions or the purpose of the fuse? Were they improving safety for the final user?
PS--they soon stopped when they realised the responsibility they were assuming.
Some staff became interested & asked "why"; eventually retail electrical items acquired pre fitted plugs.

Just recommend them to get an on site guide.

If they can't figure out what they need to do from that, they shouldn't be doing wiring, it's as simple as that. As for testing, there are plenty of books on 17th edition testing on eBay or second hand on amazon you can reccommend.

It's how I taught myself and its how I am happy for family and friends to use the vastly safer electrical installation to the one I found.

Why not get a spark in? I couldnot afford to. As simple as that. If I ever find the money to get labc round, then I will. Until then, I will rest in the knowledge I did a full pretest, rewire and post test with full compliance of the 17th that as I say, is much safer than the one I found. (No earth connection, no rcd on TT earth, t+e wrapped round hot pipes and not to forget non rcd protected circuits that were run diagonAlly across skimmed walls and the 2.5mm submain supplying a consumer unit supplying a 40kw power shower).

 

[TonyW2]

If I am to cross the road, I would prefer the approaching vehicle to be driven by a drunk who was IAM trained than one who was not, although I would hope it was driven by neither.

 

[JohnW2]

If I am to cross the road, I would prefer the approaching vehicle to be driven by a drunk who was IAM trained than one who was not, although I would hope it was driven by neither.

Exactly - it's a highly undesirable, but 'lesser of evils', situation. In the real, non-ideal, world that's often the best we can manage. Utopia would be different - but perhaps a little boring

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe the police could run courses to help people who won't stop drinking and driving to be able to drive better when drunk.

Validating someones decision to do the wrong thing by advising them on how to do things you believe they should not do is not the lesser of two evils, it is the greater.

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe the police could run courses to help people who won't stop drinking and driving to be able to drive better when drunk.

Well, despite the spirit in which you intended that statement ... if it really were the case that they were "people who [definitely] won't stop drinking and driving" (and, presumably "can't be stopped" from doing it"), then would the amount of damage, injuries and deaths tend to increase or decrease if they were taught "how to drive better when drunk" (if such is possible - which I suspect is only the case for low levels of 'drunkeness')?

Validating someones decision to do the wrong thing by advising them on how to do things you believe they should not do is not the lesser of two evils, it is the greater.

Only whilst you retain some hope that you could convince/persuade them not to do the work. Only the naive retain that hope indefinitely.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mbga9pgf]

Sorry,

In no way is wiring unqualified akin to drunk driving.

In fact, show me a law that says that it is illegal to wire without qualification. Competence on the other hand is something completely different. Competence can be demonstrated by passing the required exams, it doesn't mean that an individual isn't competent of competing an install in accordance with the regs without those tests, just that it is more of a unknown. In fact, I have seen wiring from qualified sparks that demonstrates incompetence for the job they a supposedly qualified to complete.


It's pretty obvious by carrying out a very basic visual inspection of competence, there are pictures of incompetence on another thread. You can't ignore the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of properties in the uk with wiring installed before the regulations regarding qualification were brought in.

If it wasn't for an mp's daughter dying, part p wouldn't even exist.

 

[JohnW2]

I see that I overlooked responding to this ...

This is where the practical/pragmatic issues arise. As we know, there are plenty of members of this forum (and probably a high proportion of electricians in general) who believe (for reasons that are difficult to argue with) that virtually any work on an electrical installation, from replacing a damaged switch or socket upwards, requires testing which will be beyond the capabilities of the vast majority (I'm tempted to say 'almost all') of non-electricians, both in terms of equipment and knowledge. If you agree with that view, then, coupled with what you say above, you're effectively expressing a belief that almost no electrical work should be undertaken by non-electricians.

The cost of acquiring the means to test their electrical work is not beyond many people, they just choose not to incur it. That choice is incompatible with choosing to do significant electrical work.

Do you subscribe to the view that virtually any electrical work (apart from the simplest, like replacing lamps, for which a functional test is probably adequate) requires 'formal' testing (measurements) of the circuit concerned? Do you also accept the fact that (although, as you say, most people probably could acquire the means/skill to do it, if they so chose) the vast majority of those who ask questions here will not have the equipment and/or knowledge required to undertake the tests?

If your answer to both of the above is 'yes', then do you feel that there are very few questions posted on this forum (and all other similar forums) which should be answered (beyond the advice to "get an electrician, or acquire the knowledge and equipment")?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry, In no way is wiring unqualified akin to drunk driving.

No-one is saying that it is but, ironically, by introducing it BAS has actually underlined my argument that, in the real non-ideal world in which we live, it is often necessary to 'settle' for pragmatism and compromises, rather than dreaming that one is in Utopia and accepting nothing short of (the unattainable) ideal.

In terms of the hypothetical comments about drink-driving, one would have to decide which is the 'better' (although far from ideal) course in relation to someone who "can't be stopped drinking and driving" (other than by imprisoning them for life) - to just leave them to carry on 'as is', periodically getting caught (but maybe kiling a few people along the line) or at least trying to do something to reduce the danger they create when they do drink and drive?

Same with electrical work. If someone "cannot be stopped" from trying to do work which they clearly are not capable of doing competently or safely, which is the 'better' (although far from ideal) course - to just leave them to get on with it dangerously, or to at least try to advise them in a manner which might make their work a little safer?

In both cases, the (pragmatic, although very non-ideal) answer seems to be a non-brainer to me - but others seem to disagree.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Validating someones decision to do the wrong thing by advising them on how to do things you believe they should not do is not the lesser of two evils, it is the greater.

Only whilst you retain some hope that you could convince/persuade them not to do the work. Only the naive retain that hope indefinitely.

It's not naïvety. It's nothing to with retaining any hope of getting them to do the right thing.

It is simply that I will not help them do the wrong thing. I will not, even grudgingly, validate their decision to do the wrong thing. Even though I know that they will carry on and do the wrong thing, that is entirely their choice and they become entirely responsible for the outcome of it.

They are on their own, and I feel about them, and your suggestion that what actually is the greater of two evils is the one that should be done, in the same way, I am sure, that the police or the IAM would regard the suggestion that they should get involved in training people to drive when drunk so that they might be less dangerous when driving drunk.

But this is pointless. Where you see pragmatism and realism I see moral bankruptcy and irresponsibility, and that is never going to change.