Permanent vs. switched live

[saxondale]

yep O/P, dont get sidetracked with BAS going all Joe90 there (some people just want too much evidence when TBH life is too short and all there really asking is for the poor s** on the brunt of there pedantry to be proving a negative)

I'm sorry that you regard a concern for truth and accuracy as pedantry.

What's your approach? Misleading paternalism on the grounds that you know better than the recipients of your "advice" what they can be trusted to know?

And nowhere am I asking for anyone to prove a negative - quite the opposite, in fact - I was asking Barsteward to prove a positive, i.e. to prove that his claim that the Wiring Regulations are legally binding is true.

yep your doing it again there see - " prove to me ...." arguing for the sake of it,knowing full well that he would have to make a prosecution case - maybe he could spend all day trawling the net looking for court documents but there again he probably has some social skills, just accept that some people know what they are talking about, yes we could give more detail but TBH were not that bothered what you think. This is a DIY site - back to screwfix for you i think

 

[ban-all-sheds]

yep your doing it again there see - " prove to me ...." arguing for the sake of it,knowing full well that he would have to make a prosecution case

I'm not arguing for the sake of it.

And the "prove to me" should surely be utterly trivial?

He has said that the wiring regulations are legally binding.

Are you suggesting that he is making that claim without knowing if it is true? For surely, if he believes it to be true then he must have access to some facts which show it to be true?

Or are electrical regulations and laws now to be just articles of faith, where people's understanding of them is not rooted in any provable reality?

maybe he could spend all day trawling the net looking for court documents

Why should he have to trawl? He stated as fact that the wiring regulations are legally binding, so all he has to do is to tell us where that is defined as being the case.

just accept that some people know what they are talking about

Some do.

Some don't.

Barsteward may well know what he's talking about in some instances, but he doesn't in this one.

And no - I will not, ever, just "accept" that some people know what they are talking about if have good reason to believe that they are wrong and they cannot produce a shred of evidence to the contrary.

yes we could give more detail but TBH were not that bothered what you think.

I guess that going into denial is one way for you to deal with the realisation that you are wrong, and that your position is indefensible...

This is a DIY site

So don't DIYers deserve to be told the truth, and to be given accurate advice?

 

[Stoday]

this is the exact text from the statutory instrument ( ie the law itself )

Oh no it's not the law! You have quoted a statutory instrument that's out of date: it's been amended. See para 20 of SI 2006 No. 652.

baring work in special locations, replacing damaged cables is not notifiable..

The replacement of damaged cables in any location has never been notifiable.

there is no mention of replacing good cables though, so we must assume that it's notifiable since it is not expressly mentioned as being non-notifiable..

So you belt the undamaged cable with a hammer. Ergo, it's damaged and non-notifiable. Note that the law does not expressly mention that the damage must be accidental, so we must assume that deliberate damage is permissible.

 

[saxondale]

yep your doing it again there see - " prove to me ...." arguing for the sake of it,knowing full well that he would have to make a prosecution case

I'm not arguing for the sake of it.

And the "prove to me" should surely be utterly trivial?

He has said that the wiring regulations are legally binding.

Are you suggesting that he is making that claim without knowing if it is true? For surely, if he believes it to be true then he must have access to some facts which show it to be true?

Or are electrical regulations and laws now to be just articles of faith, where people's understanding of them is not rooted in any provable reality?

maybe he could spend all day trawling the net looking for court documents

Why should he have to trawl? He stated as fact that the wiring regulations are legally binding, so all he has to do is to tell us where that is defined as being the case.

just accept that some people know what they are talking about

Some do.

Some don't.

Barsteward may well know what he's talking about in some instances, but he doesn't in this one.

And no - I will not, ever, just "accept" that some people know what they are talking about if have good reason to believe that they are wrong and they cannot produce a shred of evidence to the contrary.

yes we could give more detail but TBH were not that bothered what you think.

That comes as no surprise, given that you don't give a fig for truth and accuracy.

This is a DIY site

So don't DIYers deserve to be told the truth, and to be given accurate advice?

Hmm, blah,blah,blah and blah - BAS why dont you spend some of your time actually trying to help posters rather than getting off by been an argumentative tit?

just answer the O/P`s question instead of inviting yourself into an argument

 

[ebee]

All ban was doing was pointing out an error in a post.
we are all capable of making errors and all capable of having errors corrected.
It helps the greater understanding of all.
So Merry Xmas everyone

 

[saxondale]

All ban was doing was pointing out an error in a post.
we are all capable of making errors and all capable of having errors corrected.
It helps the greater understanding of all.
So Merry Xmas everyone

not quite - the error was who ever posted it would need Part p certifying, nothing to do with BAS, and no, some of us never make errors

 

[ColJack]

Oh no it's not the law! You have quoted a statutory instrument that's out of date: it's been amended. See para 20 of SI 2006 No. 652.

sorry, my link must have not been updated.. what's the new number for the updated SI?

The replacement of damaged cables in any location has never been notifiable.

tought all work in special locations was notifiable..

So you belt the undamaged cable with a hammer. Ergo, it's damaged and non-notifiable. Note that the law does not expressly mention that the damage must be accidental, so we must assume that deliberate damage is permissible.

which was the whole point of my orignal post about assuming that he damaged the cables while decorating.. nudge nudge, wink wink...

 

[Stoday]

Oh no it's not the law! You have quoted a statutory instrument that's out of date: it's been amended. See para 20 of SI 2006 No. 652.

sorry, my link must have not been updated.. what's the new number for the updated SI?

Errm - 652.

Hope you enjoyed the skinful CJ. Have a nice Xmas.

 

[ColJack]

652 is a list of amendments to various parts of the regs, i was hoping there was an updated Part P with all of the amendments included..

and I havent touched a drop..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

i was hoping there was an updated Part P with all of the amendments included..

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BC_Consolidated_Bldg_Regs.pdf

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hmm, blah,blah,blah and blah

So that's your intelligent and logical counter-argument to mine, is it?

- BAS why dont you spend some of your time actually trying to help posters

I do.

One way in which I do it is to correct people when they are wrong, and are giving erroneous advice.

rather than getting off by been an argumentative tit?

Interesting.

As well as I, ebee and ColJack have told Barsteward that he's wrong, and yet you choose to just call me an argumentative tit. Do you have any rational reason for that?

Barsteward said to ColJack "Stop talking **** for the sake of it", but I didn't see you calling him an argumentative tit. Do you have any rational reason for that?

And even though you were not involved in the discussion of the legal status of the wiring regulations, you decided that your first contribution to this topic would be to call me a pedant, and then to keep criticising me for daring to contradict Barsteward, even though he's wrong.

And yet I'm the one who invited myself into an argument, and I'm the argumentative tit?

just answer the O/P`s question

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=777725#777725

 

[saxondale]

yep - just like I said

 

[Atilla]

As i see it, the original error was in stating the work came under Part P.
The issue regarding the Regs and Law is something of a side issue.

posting excerpts of building regs proves nothing. It is almost as if some are suggesting you don't have to comply with the relevant electrical regs.

 

[ColJack]

I'm still not convinced that I was in error.. however since I don't do domestic, I'll deffer to those that do..

in the updated link provided above to the consolidated building regs, non notifiable work is listed as..

1. Work consisting of—
(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—
(i) any new fixed cabling; or
(ii) a consumer unit;
(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

1.(a)(i) above seemed to fit the situation.. and so I sugested that the cable might have been damaged ( ahem... ) when decorating making it's replacement conformant with part (b) above..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

yep - just like I said

Saxondale - it's really incredibly simple.

I have no desire to pick an argument with you for no reason at all.

If you want to discuss the issue of whether the Wiring Regulations are legally binding that's one thing, but other than that don't you dare come on here and try to tell me that I may not disagree with someone who I believe to be wrong.