RCD requirements poll

[JohnW2]

John - as PBC hasn't been able to, can you help him out by citing something which backs up his assertion that ignoring what the relevant British Standard has to say about vital safety provisions counts as reasonable?

I don't think he's actually said that. I think he has said that, in some situations, it is quite possible to "make reasonable provisions for safety" (hence satisfying the law) without the work in question being compliant with "the relevant British Standard' - something which I thought that even you agreed would sometimes be the case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

I find it useful to identify if an argument is based on an opinion rather than a legal requirement.

You are silly to call that "juvenile."

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think he's actually said that. I think he has said that, in some situations, it is quite possible to "make reasonable provisions for safety" (hence satisfying the law) without the work in question being compliant with "the relevant British Standard' - something which I thought that even you agreed would sometimes be the case?

Sometimes.

But not in the case of RCD protection of sockets and concealed cables.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I find it useful to identify if an argument is based on an opinion rather than a legal requirement.

You are silly to call that "juvenile."

So is it maturity which causes you to not ask PBC to provide citations to support his argument and to validate his opinions?

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think he's actually said that. I think he has said that, in some situations, it is quite possible to "make reasonable provisions for safety" (hence satisfying the law) without the work in question being compliant with "the relevant British Standard' - something which I thought that even you agreed would sometimes be the case?

Sometimes.

So you don't need Paul or myself to 'cite' anything, since you already agree that it is sometimes possible.

But not in the case of RCD protection of sockets and concealed cables.

What do you have to cite in support of that opinion?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you don't need Paul or myself to 'cite' anything, since you already agree that it is sometimes possible.

But not always. And nowhere have I said otherwise.

You and he are asserting that it is possible in scenarios where it is not, are as unable as I to cite anything which supports your assertions, and yet quite happy to say that because I can't cite anything I must be wrong.

What do you have to cite in support of that opinion?

What do you have to cite in support of your opinion?

 

[JohnW2]

What do you have to cite in support of that opinion?

What do you have to cite in support of your opinion?

We're not talking about my opinion - it is your statement that I asked about. If it's just a personal view/opinion, and you have nothing to support it, that's fair enough.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

To get back to the original topic, we are still waiting for you to cite something which backs up your assertion that adding a few feet of cable and a new socket without RCD protection (or with 100mA etc.) is illegal.

That seems to be a "no"

So it would seem!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We are still waiting for you to cite something which backs up your assertion that adding a few feet of cable and a new socket without RCD protection (or with 100mA etc.) is legal.

 

[JohnD]

I live in the UK.

You are allowed to do things unless they are expressly forbidden. There is not a list of "things you are allowed to do."

Where do you live?

 

[PBC_1966]

We are still waiting for you to cite something which backs up your assertion that adding a few feet of cable and a new socket without RCD protection (or with 100mA etc.) is legal.

I refer the "honorable member" to the post I made some days ago.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You are allowed to do things unless they are expressly forbidden. There is not a list of "things you are allowed to do."

There are many.

Where do you live?

In the real world.

 

[JohnD]

When I eat boiled eggs I sometimes break them at the pointed end. Can you cite a law which specifies this is legal?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I refer the "honorable member" to the post I made some days ago.

Sorry - I don't know which of your irresponsible encouragements to lawbreaking contains what you think is a citation which proves that deliberately disregarding relevant safety provisions in BS 7671 counts as making reasonable provision for safety.

 

[JohnW2]

We are still waiting for you to cite something which backs up your assertion that adding a few feet of cable and a new socket without RCD protection (or with 100mA etc.) is legal.

Quite apart from the specific arguments, is it not a basic principle of English law that one is innocent unless/until proved guilty? As such, if there is a suggestion that some act is illegal, is it not for the accuser to produce evidence to prove that such is the case, rather than for the accused to have to produce evidence that the act is not illegal?

Whatever, I really don't understand how you can possibly believe that the situation is as clear-cut as you are implying. The law merely requires that one had "made reasonable provision for safety...", and that word "reasonable" could keep lawyers and expert witnesses earning their fees for 'weeks'. I don't know what conclusion a court would come to any more than you do, but the outcome is certainly by no means a foregone conclusion.

Kind Regards, John