Reworded RCD Poll

[JohnW2]

Since I remain surprised by voting in the current RCD poll, I wonder if this is a consequence of the wording of the poll question - so I would be interested to see if this slightly reworded/clarified version gets different results.

My surprise relates to the fact that I would not have thought that many people would see merit in "going on and on" (about anything) to the same OP.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

can you add "and going on and on at anyone who disagrees?"

 

[JohnW2]

can you add "and going on and on at anyone who disagrees?"

Unfortunately not. I wanted to be far more explicit in the question, but the number of characters available for a poll question is limited to a very small number (I used virtually all available characters). I did, however, attempt to clarify that issue in the text associated with the 'Yes' response (again, seriously character-limited).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My surprise relates to the fact that I would not have thought that many people would see merit in "going on and on" (about anything) to the same OP.

Maybe not many people have sufficiently high moral standards.

 

[JohnW2]

My surprise relates to the fact that I would not have thought that many people would see merit in "going on and on" (about anything) to the same OP.

Maybe not many people have sufficiently high moral standards.

I'm not sure that 'moral standards' come into it. It's more a question of how many people believe that constant repetition of the same point will achieve anything, other than irritating a good few people and, at least in some cases, counter-productively strengthening the resolve of the person to whom the repetitive comments are directed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Maybe not many people have sufficiently high moral standards.

Some people seem to have very variable moral standards.

 

[PBC_1966]

No from me, obviously, but with the caveat that when somebody is made aware of the RCD "requirement," it should not be stated, nor implied by omission, that it is mandatory. I believe that when the average person asks "Am I required to do X?" he anticipates an answer which indicates whether he is compelled, legally, to do X.

 

[JohnD]

I have not seen evidence that repeatedly asking somebody to change their ways works, when they are under the mistaken impression that what they are doing is in some way advantageous.

 

[JohnW2]

No from me, obviously, but with the caveat that when somebody is made aware of the RCD "requirement," it should not be stated, nor implied by omission, that it is mandatory. I believe that when the average person asks "Am I required to do X?" he anticipates an answer which indicates whether he is compelled, legally, to do X.

I realise that's your view, and I agree that people should not be misled. However, the problem here is that anyone who needs to ask the question is almost certainly going to be incapable of arguing that work they've done is compliant with the law if it is not compliant with BS7671 (even when that is the case). Hence, I think that such a person really needs to be told that, for them, compliance with BS7671 is, to-all-intents-and purposes, the only way in which they are going to be able demonstrate compliance with the law.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I have not seen evidence that repeatedly asking somebody to change their ways works, when they are under the mistaken impression that what they are doing is in some way advantageous.

Indeed, but I have not infrequently seen evidence that such repetition achieves nothing positive, and sometimes even has a detrimental effect.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Hence, I think that such a person really needs to be told that, for them, compliance with BS7671 is, to-all-intents-and purposes, the only way in which they are going to be able demonstrate compliance with the law.

But to whom does somebody adding a socket in his living room or bedroom need to demonstrate compliance with the law? Notwithstanding our present ongoing debate about what constitutes a "new circuit," I think we're both agreed that this wouldn't count as one, so it's not notifiable.

 

[JohnW2]

Notwithstanding our present ongoing debate about what constitutes a "new circuit," I think we're both agreed that this wouldn't count as one, so it's not notifiable.

Sure, but compliance with the law (Part P of the Building Regs) is obviously required whether the work is notifiable or not.

But to whom does somebody adding a socket in his living room or bedroom need to demonstrate compliance with the law?

As we both know, in practice it wouldn't happen. However, the fact that "almost certainly won't get caught" is obviously not an acceptable reason for ignoring the requirements of the law. The problem for the individual is that, despite the alleged "innocent until proved guilty" principle, in practice a court would very probably accept non-compliance with BS7671 as indicating 'guilt' unless an informed and convincing defence was presented - so, in effect, the person who has not complied with BS7671 is going to be "guilty unless (s)he can prove him/herself innocent" - something that a person who needs to ask questions in this forum would usually not be able to do!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

However, the fact that "almost certainly won't get caught" is obviously not an acceptable reason for ignoring the requirements of the law.

So far though, I think only one person has indicated that in his opinion it would not comply with the law. How many others reading this actually believe that in the scenario we're talking about the result would not be reasonably safe, and thus perfectly legal?

The problem for the individual is that, despite the alleged "innocent until proved guilty" principle, in practice a court would very probably accept non-compliance with BS7671 as indicating 'guilt' unless an informed and convincing defence was presented

I'm not so naive to believe that the court might not indeed try that - It's been going on for quite a while in other areas now where they seem to have forgotten the whole principle that guilt must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

But in this case, we're talking about such a miniscule chance that it ever might happen, that I'd say there's just as much chance (such as it is) that even if the person did provide the BS7671-specified RCD protection he could just as easily end up in court defending the standard of his workmanship overall and trying to argue that it did, in fact, meet the standard expected by BS7671.

 

[JohnW2]

As I expected, it's amazing the difference in voting that can result from a small change/clarification in the wording of a question! Designers of referenda please note

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

As I expected, it's amazing the difference in voting that can result from a small change/clarification in the wording of a question!

So it appears, although unfortunately thus far by far the majority of the people who voted "Yes" in the original poll haven't responded to this one, which is a pity as that might be more indicative.

As it stands on my analysis of the voting at this moment (7:10 p.m. your time), of the 18 people who voted "Yes" originally, two have voted "Yes" this time around and the remaining 16 have either abstained, not yet noticed the new poll, or become fed up with the debate and decided to stay out of it. But two who did not vote originally have voted "Yes" this time.

Of the 7 "No" votes originally, 5 have also voted "No" this time (including you John, and yours truly). But we also picked up 2 more "No" votes from people who didn't vote originally.

There are 6 votes for "Only if feeding equipment ouside" in the original poll, and of those people 3 have now voted "No" in this poll, with the other 3 not having voted.