How so? I was pointing out that you seem to be applying a double standard, saying that one regulation should be taken to mean exactly what it says without room for interpretation as to what you or I might think it was intended to mean, while at the same time claiming that it's acceptable to "interpret" another rather than just taking it exactly as written.
But you think that interpretating is acceptable. Are you saying that, in general, it is OK for people to "interpret" regulations in a way which supports your position, but not when it undermines it?
Because, presumably, if there had been no intent to change the meaning, or at least to clarify what meaning was intended, then it wouldn't have been changed?
Oh, I see.
You take the change to mean that they wanted to change the meaning, or to clarify what they intended it to say.
But when it comes to a regulation which they have not materially changed for at least 15 years you refuse to accept that that means they are happy with the meaning as written, and consider that it quite clearly expresses their intentions.
What's going on here, with you and JohnW2, is very similar to what happened regarding high integrity earthing.
It's not a case of a regulation being impossible to comply with because it requires something undefined, like "power circuit". It's not one that can't be complied with because it's physically impossible, like "non-combustible".
There is no reason whatsoever why you
cannot comply with only having BS 1363 accessories supplied through a ring final, but you just don't
want to.
Again, you have seen a regulation which you do not like, and therefore you seek to find ways to rationalise your refusal to comply with it, and to justify your contravention of it, by wittering on about "
what they really intended", about "
common sense" (funny how in your eyes that always equates to "
let's find a way to not do what they say", rather than "
let's try and comply").
It matters not that you think that JPEL/64 intended something other than what they wrote - they wrote what they did and a CU supplied by a ring final, either on the ring or on a spur, does not comply. It really does not.
It matters not that you think it is safe, a CU supplied by a ring final, either on the ring or on a spur, does not comply. It really does not.
It matters not if you are correct in your assumption that JPEL/64 intended something other than what they wrote - they wrote what they did and a CU supplied by a ring final, either on the ring or on a spur, does not comply. It really does not.
It matters not if you are correct about the safety, a CU supplied by a ring final, either on the ring or on a spur, does not comply. It really does not.
Your refusal to comply with the regulation because you simply don't want to is unacceptable. It really is.