It's not a good analogy.
Not so.
I agree. Our views, which have both been clearly stated, differ - and presumably always will. That's fine, and the ability to have differing views is one of the most precious 'rights' we thankfully enjoy.
Needless to say, so do I ... so I take it that you do not regard such an approach as being 'moral bankcruptcy and irresponsibility'"?
I suppose it comes down to how an individual's mind works. I personally might find it hard to sleep at night if I 'walked away', knowing that there were things I could have said or done which might possibly have reduced the risk of damage, injury or death resulting. Your mind presumably works the opposite way around.
That seems a sensible approach to me - and I don't recommend ever being in a position to wonder "what if I'd ..., would that bloke still be alive ?"
Quite so. In a 'previous life', and in a totally unrelated field, I spent a good few years necessarily having to think things like that nearly every night - and, as you say, it's certainly not to be recommended, if it can be avoided.
Exactly. As I said, most of the Building Regs have always recognised this, by having countless tables of 'deemed-to-satisfy' figures for those unable or uninclined to do the calculations for themselves.
In fact, BAS and I only differ on one major issue. As I wrote:
... which I presume BAS (and the rest of us) would agree with. Our only difference relates to what one should do if, despite being advised as strongly as we can against it, someone is clearly going to go ahead with the work despite their deficiencies. In that situation, BAS wants to 'walk away', whilst I would be more inclined to do anything I could by way of 'damage limitation', given the inevitability of the situation - i.e. a risk-assessed 'lesser of evils'.
We had that discussion recently and, as you probably surmise, we saw answers at both of those extremes - with, I think it would probably be fair to say, a tendency towards the latter - hence the comment in my last post (since, despite what BAS might like to think, no DIYer is going to acquire knowledge and kit to test just so that they can replace a socket).
I would/do, at a minimum, do a continuity test of conductors while the socket is disconnected to verify comparative readings, polarity and the integrity of the ring (doesn't take a minute) and a loop test when the new socket is connected plus the RCD could also be tested.
It is not feasible to do the full range of testing but the above ensures it is not actually dangerous.
That 'minimum' doesn't really leave all that much which would be done as a "full range of testing" of the circuit concerned. If you regard that as a minimum, do you therefore subscribe to the view that a person should not replace a cracked socket if (like, I imagine, 99%+ of DIYers), they don't have the ability to do a loop test, and maybe some of the other tests you mention?
True, but the customer may not want the disruption (switching off and on five times) of an RCD test.
I suppose, strictly speaking, I do.
For the householder, that is up to them, (whether they should receive help is the point of the thread) but an electrician does have the ability and, as I asked, why would he not?
This is where the discussion gets difficult, since Part P requires the same reqardless of who undertakes the work, so it would be iffy to suggest that there should be different 'standards' (in context, requirements for testing) for electricians and DIYers. However, that leaves (at least for DIYers, and this forum) a bit of a problem. As you imply, either those tests are 'unnecessary' (probably hard to argue), in which case even electricians should not undertake (or be required to undertake) them OR they are necessary (easy to argue), in which case virtually all DIY electrical work becomes illegal (since virtually no 'ordinary DIyers' have the adequate testing facilities/ability) and, if you take BAS's position, people should not be 'encouraged' (by having their questions answered) to undertatake work if they can't do the tests properly.
As you say, I'm no fan of the Nanny State at all, but I don't quite understand your comment. I don't approve of the State going too far in "protecting sane adults from themselves (or their 'ignorance')" - by regulations, laws, 'prohibitions' etc. Rather, I think people should take more responsibility for themselves. That includes efforts to educate themselves out of that ignorance. One part of that is by asking questions of people more knowledgable - and I'm personally inclined to help them with answers if I feel this that might help them to avoid injury etc. (even if I think they are, in general,acting illegally). I suppose one of my reasons for starting this thread was to discover whether 'the forum' had that same view (whether you call it 'helpfulness', 'compassion', 'moral responsibility' or whatever). That's almost the antithesis of 'Nanny State' - and such 'helping one another' actually becomes increasingly important when there is less 'State Nannying'!
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
