Permanent vs. switched live Part 2

[ebee]

FREEDOM OF SPEECH appears to be under attack and the topic "Permanent vs. switched live " has been locked by Moderator 7.

This is an attack on our civil liberties.

All legal combatents are invited to continue on this "new thread" and justice prevail.

I hereby protest against this CENSORSHIP

 

[ColJack]

protest all you want..

it was turning into grudge match between several repliants..

the whole point of the OP had been answered on the first page..

while I too don't agree with the locking of the thread, they could have split it off at the point where it went off track and left it as a "part P and the Regs" debate..


they have recently created a secret and hidden "Corgi only" forum for registered gas fitters to discuss profesional things that are best not seen by DIY eyes...

I think we need our own such forum where debates on the interpretation of regs and such could be continued..

 

[ebee]

"it was turning into grudge match between several repliants..

the whole point of the OP had been answered on the first page.. "

I`m not saying you`re wrong on this.

However there is no way the moderator should have locked it. That is absurd.

`twas a lively debate and as such had some valid points

 

[saxondale]

"it was turning into grudge match between several repliants..

the whole point of the OP had been answered on the first page.. "

I`m not saying you`re wrong on this.

However there is no way the moderator should have locked it. That is absurd.

`twas a lively debate and as such had some valid points

t`was 5 pages of BAS showboating because he thought someone had said - but if you read it again NO ONE actually had " the O/P`s doing something illegal...."

its going the way of several other forums latley where the arguing is more important than the question - bad move IMO

 

[Spark123]

Part P showed its ugly head on page 1, tho I think as most people that as the work was not in a kitchen/special location or part of a special installation and involved adding a switch to an existing lighting circuit the work would be non notifiable.
The debate kicked off when someone said that although the work was not notifiable the OP still has to comply with the IEE regs. The IEE regs are non-statutory, they can however be used in a court of law to claim compliance with a statutory document.
Although the work (I think we all agree is non-notifaible?), it must still be compliant with part 1 of part P as in "P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.". How someone goes about it is up to them, compliance with BS7671 is looked upon as one method.

 

[ColJack]

Part P showed its ugly head on page 1,

my bad... I'll stop telling people to do it safely and legally and just tell them how to do it the fastest and cheapest way without inolving the council....


due to the number of people that are telling me that I was wrong to make a "nudge nudge, say no more" comment regarding the cables needing to the damaged to be replaced without notification, I'll deffer to those who use the part P rules on a more daily basis than I..

I was just going down the safe road of "it's better to notify when you aren't sure you have to than to not notify and have to take it out again later"

 

[saxondale]

I was just going down the safe road of "it's better to notify when you aren't sure you have to than to not notify and have to take it out again later"

totaly agree - BAS seems to be advocating no minimum standard

 

[ebee]

All BAS was doing was telling the truth.
However unpalatable that might be to some

 

[saxondale]

All BAS was doing was telling the truth.
However unpalatable that might be to some

what - no standards need to be applied to anything?

 

[ebee]

who says no standards need to be applied to anything?

 

[saxondale]

who says no standards need to be applied to anything?

BAS did, from a DIY`er point of view if not doing it to standard is not illegal then why bother with the standard

which was were I came in - yeah argue it till the cows come home in a trade enviroment but in a DIY forum all he did was create confusion.

I understand where he gets off ( I too have family suffer from OCD ) but this obsesstion (sic) with "show me the page number it`s written on .." when most of what we do is based on interpretation and " PD advisory notes.." doesnt really help the O/P now - does it ?

 

[ebee]

As I Remember it all he did was to state that the work is not notifiable and that BS 7671 (IEE Wiring regs 16th Edition) is not a statutory document and Part P of the building regs (which is a statutory document) does not require anyone to work to BS 7671.
The statements are correct

 

[securespark]

Maybe it was my mention of my anus that did it...

Seriously, it would seem to me to be the least a Mod could do when locking a thread is to post a full explanation as to why.

Would you do that for us here, please? Thank you.

 

[saxondale]

As I Remember it all he did was to state that the work is not notifiable and that BS 7671 (IEE Wiring regs 16th Edition) is not a statutory document and Part P of the building regs (which is a statutory document) does not require anyone to work to BS 7671.
The statements are correct

never said his statements were wrong ( theres not enough hours in the day to read his reply, and I`d rather poke myself in the eyes if I had...) what I`m saying is the collateral damage caused by his (or Joe90`s and anyone else of that ilk) insistance on asking for people to prove absolutely something which is not an absolute but the coming together of published documents, best practise and guidance notes is too much for a DIY forum especially when he/they are splitting hairs and at total odds to what the jobbing electrictions are saying and doing - it made the screwfix forum boring and its doing the same here.

even he agreed that if it hit the fan and it did go to court you`d be stuffed following his advice

 

[Softus]

never said his statements were wrong ( theres not enough hours in the day to read his reply...)

And that's anyone needs to know on that subject.