Agreed - it's not very sensible, but you seemed to be using it as a justification for allowing a cable to be protected by an OPD with an In greater than the cable's Iz.Yes, but an unfused spur to a double socket can be loaded to 26A by anyone who doesn't know this. Therefore the regulation is not very sensible allowing the possibility of socket overload so easily.
When you say 'larger', you presumably again mean 2.5mm². If so, then this is indeed the same as the unfused spur - again you have a length of cable protected by a device whose In is greater than the cable's Iz - as you've just said (I think!) 'not very sensible'.However, we weren't discussing sockets but whether if appliance cables were larger would we need a fuse in the plug.
Totally agreed. The regs would be 'more sensible' if they required unfused spurs to be 4mm² and, by the same token, there would clearly be no argument (at least in terms of cable protection) in having no additional fuse in a 4mm² appliance cable (if the circuit had a 32A OPD).Yes he and I were talking about 2.5mm² because this is allowed for a spur even directly from the MCB. I don't know why, apart from what you say above. It would surely be better and cost pennies more to insist on 4mm².
Kind Regards, John.