RCD requirements poll

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people changing their minds. However, if they are now strongly asserting a viewpoint which is very different from one they previously expressed, it would be nice, and helpful, to know what changed their mind.

Maybe it would, but I can't help you there. I can't even say if there was an identifiable "what".

If they cannot give a plausible explanation for a major change in expressed views/opinions, some people are likely to regard their opinions as fickle, and hence not to be taken seriously.

I can do nothing about any inclination you may have to consider me a liar when I tell you things.

I do not know how/when/why my position changed. I do not recall espousing what I clearly did decades ago, nor why I did.

If you will not accept that then I suggest a bit of introspection on why your instinct is to disbelieve what I tell you would be in order.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why do you feel the need to resort to insults when asked a simple question about why you've changed your opinion?

Because is is crystal clear that the only reason you went looking for, and then posted and asked about those old posts of mind is intrically linked to your agenda of disparaging what I have said about the legality of newly-provided 100mA RCD protection for newly-provided sockets.

But if you really don't know why, I (and no doubt others) find it quite incredible that at some point, for some reason which obviously wasn't enough of an epiphany to you for you to even remember it,

Well, that's the way it is.

You can either accept that it is really the case, or decide to call me a liar.

 

[JohnW2]

If you will not accept that then I suggest a bit of introspection on why your instinct is to disbelieve what I tell you would be in order.

I never suggested that I don't believe you. I merely expressed my considerable surprise that anyone could be strongly asserting a position which is apparently very different from a position they previously held yet not be able to remember why their view/position (about such fundamental issues as 'morality' and 'decency') changed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Because is is crystal clear that the only reason you went looking for, and then posted and asked about those old posts of mind is intrically linked to your agenda of disparaging what I have said about the legality of newly-provided 100mA RCD protection for newly-provided sockets.

The question over your opinion which has changed was nothing to do with 30mA vs. 100mA vs. no RCD protection, but over breaking the law by not notifying notifiable jobs.

I merely expressed my considerable surprise that anyone could be strongly asserting a position which is apparently very different from a position they previously held yet not be able to remember why their view/position (about such fundamental issues as 'morality' and 'decency') changed.

Indeed, it's that very strong assertion (throwing around terms like decency, morality etc.) when somebody even hints at not notifying (or just tries to ignore the issue by not responding to the umpteenth question of "How did you say you would comply with Part P when you notified building control?") which sits very awkwardly with somebody who has changed his mind about something but can't even remember why. If B-A-S just said "In my opinion I believe that you should notify when it is required by law," and left it at that, I think it would go down a lot better.

But now he's been reminded that he, himself, once suggested that people should not notify, perhaps he'll be a little less ready to throw the insults around and suggest that anyone who dares to even think about doing a job without notification is dishonest, not a decent person, immoral, etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you will not accept that then I suggest a bit of introspection on why your instinct is to disbelieve what I tell you would be in order.

I never suggested that I don't believe you. I merely expressed my considerable surprise that anyone could be strongly asserting a position which is apparently very different from a position they previously held yet not be able to remember why their view/position (about such fundamental issues as 'morality' and 'decency') changed.

I used to think that girlie calendars in offices were OK.

Now I don't.

I don't remember when/how/why my opinion changed, or even if a significant event brought about the change.


I'm sure I could come up with other examples, but I really do not see what good that would do. Can you claim that every opinion you have has remained the same for all of your life, or if it has changed you can positively identify a discrete event which brought about the change?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The question over your opinion which has changed was nothing to do with 30mA vs. 100mA vs. no RCD protection, but over breaking the law by not notifying notifiable jobs.

So what was your motive in bringing it up in a topic which had nothing to do with notifying notifiable jobs?

As it has zero relevance to the question "When a diyer want to add a socket should we go on and on about RCD Protection"it looks awfully like an ad-hominem fallacy.

Indeed, it's that very strong assertion (throwing around terms like decency, morality etc.) when somebody even hints at not notifying (or just tries to ignore the issue by not responding to the umpeenth question of "How did you say you would comply with Part P when you notified building control?")

When I ask that question it is because I want to know because it is relevant to how someone should be advised to proceed.

which sits very awkwardly with somebody who has changed his mind about something but can't even remember why.

Why does it?

But now he's been reminded that he, himself, once suggested that people should not notify, perhaps he'll be a little less ready to throw the insults around and suggest that anyone who dares to even think about doing a job without notification is dishonest, not a decent person, immoral, etc.

Well let's all bow down and worship in the Church of Saint Paul, a man who never did/said/thought/espoused anything in his life which he now regards as wrong.

 

[PBC_1966]

I don't think anyone would ever try to claim that his opinions about something have never changed. What I (and I'm sure most others) find both annoying and inexplicable is the venomous way in which you weigh in on this topic, acting self-righteous and throwing insults around. You also seem to have no sense of perspective on the subject either: We're not talking about murder, kidnapping, or robbery; we're talking about failure to comply with a trivial piece of legislation which didn't even exist a few years ago, which a good many people probably still don't even know exists, and for which even you, at the time it was introduced, were questioning the need.

 

[JohnW2]

If B-A-S just said "In my opinion I believe that you should notify when it is required by law," and left it at that, I think it would go down a lot better.

Indeed - or even, perhaps, just indicating that there is a legal requirement to notify, and not even expressing an opinion as to whether or not one feels that the person should do that.

But now he's been reminded that he, himself, once suggested that people should not notify, perhaps he'll be a little less ready to throw the insults around and suggest that anyone who dares to even think about doing a job without notification is dishonest, not a decent person, immoral, etc.

Conceivably - but I'm certainly not going to be holding my breath. I think he has probably convinced himself that history is irrelevent because "Things Change".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think anyone would ever try to claim that his opinions about something have never changed. What I (and I'm sure most others) find both annoying and inexplicable is the venomous way in which you weigh in on this topic, acting self-righteous and throwing insults around.

I didn't weigh in on it.

YOU were the one who introduced the subject of advising people not to notify into a topic about advising people to install RCD protection.

What, for example, do you think of suggesting that somebody breaks the law by not notifying a notifiable electrical job to his local authority, assuming that the work itself is perfectly safe by any of our standards and thus compliant with the basic requirement of Part P?

Shouldn't be done.

"Venomous"?

Really?

You also seem to have no sense of perspective on the subject either: We're not talking about murder, kidnapping, or robbery;

Nor are we talking about oppressive legislation which infringes on people's freedom, civil rights or continued existence etc, i.e. we are not talking about legislation where there can possibly be any moral imperative to disobey it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But now he's been reminded that he, himself, once suggested that people should not notify, perhaps he'll be a little less ready to throw the insults around and suggest that anyone who dares to even think about doing a job without notification is dishonest, not a decent person, immoral, etc.

And you can find evidence of that sort of thing wrt to private individual DIYers, can you?

Please note - any attempt to cite things I have said about people who advise others to break the law, or about soi-disant professionals who make illegal acts part of their business processes, will clearly be another example of your inability to pay attention.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed - or even, perhaps, just indicating that there is a legal requirement to notify, and not even expressing an opinion as to whether or not one feels that the person should do that.

Are you too unable to grasp the difference between a private individual DIYer and someone who advises others to break the law, or whi is supposedly a professional who decides to abrogate his duty of care and make lawbreaking an integral part of the way he does business?

Conceivably - but I'm certainly not going to be holding my breath. I think he has probably convinced himself that history is irrelevent because "Things Change".

OK - feel free to put forward a reasoned and intelligent explanation of why what I said 10+ years ago about notification is relevant to what I say now about making reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

 

[PBC_1966]

There's really no point in trying to put forward any further reasoned arguments about any of this to you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is that why you haven't once tried?

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed - or even, perhaps, just indicating that there is a legal requirement to notify, and not even expressing an opinion as to whether or not one feels that the person should do that.

Are you too unable to grasp the difference between a private individual DIYer and someone who advises others to break the law, or ...

Where on earth did that come from? That 'difference' does not seem to be anything to do with this part of the discussion and, in particular, nothing to do with my words that you have quoted above.

In any event, I'm not sure why you are suggesting that there is necessarily a difference between "a private individual DIYer" and "someone who advises (or has in the past advised) others to break the law" - in context, you are one of the former and, AIUI, Paul is suggesting that you have also (in the past) been one of the latter. So what would be the 'difference' I was failing to grasp?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

"Venomous"?

Really?

Yes. Venomous, abusive and insulting.

Have you forgotten already?