Reworded RCD Poll

[ban-all-sheds]

Establishing what your personal opinions are on the matter would, I feel, probably go a long way in helping many of us understand why you seek to put the interpretations that you do on what starts out as a very vague legal requirement to "make reasonable provision for safety."

The "interpretations" I put on it are quite simple. A highly apposite British Standard requires a particular measure. That measure is very safety-oriented. To deliberately refuse to implement it, and instead to deliberately choose to do something which the standard no longer allows is unreasonable.

Unreasonable means not reasonable. You have not made reasonable provision for safety. Therefore you have not complied with the law.

But I am unclear as to why you think my personal opinion of the status of an existing installation is relevant to my opinion of the status of new design. The two are not related.

Are you ever going to take me up on my offer to stop telling you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new shortly after you stop pretending that there isn't? It really would put an end to a lot of tedious and utterly pointless stuff from you.

As such, that's certainly very relevant to your clearly established pattern of "going on and on" about RCD protection to anyone who wants to add a socket or two.

OK. If that is a clearly established pattern, it won't be any trouble for you to find evidence of that behaviour, will it.

In order that you can find it, and get back here with it as soon as possible I suggest that you devote 100% of your time to that task, and post not one more word here until you have found it.

Goodbye.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

More stuff demonstrating yet again that he has problems with reading and comprehension.

What I said was "According to PBC...", not "PBC wrote...".

He cannot have it both ways. If according to him what the law is concerned with is the end result, then according to him leaving off the sleeving counts as making reasonable provision etc, and therefore according to him it is a reasonable thing to do. And the context of his assertions included things like what's it for, why is it there, how long has it been needed, and so on. I agreed that there might be emergency situations where someone had no choice, but he clearly wanted to omit it for no good reason.

According to PBC, omitting that little piece of green/yellow sleeving on the earth connection of the new socket when it there is no good reason to do so is reasonable.

Not deceitful at all.

As for the rest - what you term abuse is actually unpleasant truths about people which they do not appreciate being articulated. As I have observed before, I'm sure that if you called King Salman of Saudi Arabia an odious tyrant he probably would feel insulted or abused, but it would actually be the truth.

 

[PBC_1966]

But I am unclear as to why you think my personal opinion of the status of an existing installation is relevant to my opinion of the status of new design. The two are not related.

I was asking your opinion about a hypothetical installation with no RCD protection on the sockets. It doesn't matter if it was done 25 years ago or if it is going to be done tomorrow. I was asking if you, personally, believe that it is/would be reasonably safe. I thought I'd already gotten a straight answer, but now I'm not so sure it was.

By "reasonably safe" I don't mean whether it was/will be reasonable or unreasonable to have provided or have not provided RCD protection, and how that relates to BS7671 and the law. Pretend that Part P was never introduced and that BS7671 never existed. Just apply that "man on the Clapham omnibus" interpretation of what "reasonable" means in the phrase "reasonably safe."

 

[JohnD]

are you in a country where, by law, all new sockets must be RCD protected? Where is this country, and when was the law enacted?

Well that was surprisingly useful. Cutting through his voluminous verbiage and barrage of insults and abuse, we have now established that BAS does not have any legal backing to support his opinion, although he pretends that he does.

This reminds me of a poster who used to say "if someone tells you that a law demands something, ask him to show you the law"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

By "reasonably safe" I don't mean whether it was/will be reasonable or unreasonable to have provided or have not provided RCD protection,

Then as I said earlier it has no relevance to whether RCD protection should be installed today to comply with the law today.

 

[PBC_1966]

Then as I said earlier it has no relevance to whether RCD protection should be installed today to comply with the law today.

I wasn't suggesting that it does. It was an attempt to have you express your opinion (electrically, not legally speaking) about about whether you think it reasonably safe or not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Then it has no relevance to this topic, and should be elsewhere.

If you post it elsewhere I will address it, after you have dealt with this:

As such, that's certainly very relevant to your clearly established pattern of "going on and on" about RCD protection to anyone who wants to add a socket or two.

OK. If that is a clearly established pattern, it won't be any trouble for you to find evidence of that behaviour, will it.

In order that you can find it, and get back here with it as soon as possible I suggest that you devote 100% of your time to that task, and post not one more word here until you have found it.

Goodbye.

Either find evidence to support that allegation, or apologise for it. Nothing else will do, for I am utterly sick of you, and your fellow travellers, (who of course are not stupid, pathetic, idiotic little children, they are just people who keep on writing stupid, pathetic, idiotic and childish things) thinking that it's perfectly OK to criticise me for things which they have invented and I have not done.

Until you have the decency to either show that you were right or to apologise for making a false allegation I don't see why I should give you so much as the time of day.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well that was surprisingly useful. Cutting through his voluminous verbiage and barrage of insults and abuse, we have now established that BAS does not have any legal backing to support his opinion, although he pretends that he does.

This reminds me of a poster who used to say "if someone tells you that a law demands something, ask him to show you the law"

I have shown you the law.

And I have shown you what counts as "reasonable provision" wrt RCD protection of newly installed sockets.

But....

(You have also ascribed beliefs to a document. Documents do not have beliefs.)

And that because I wrote "something which the standard no longer regards..."?

You've surpassed even your dismal record of writing pathetically stupid and pointless things in lieu of proper discussions.

Until you start to behave like a person with intelligence I'm not going to give you the time of day either.

But feel free to interpret that as me giving up because I've realised you are right and I am wrong - there's always space here for more foolishness from you, and scope to make yourself look like an even bigger fool.

 

[JohnD]

Luckily for me, BAS is no longer speaking to me.

It is very noticeable, though, that when I asked "are you in a country where, by law, all new sockets must be RCD protected? Where is this country, and when was the law enacted?"

His reply said:

1. The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc.
   
   
2. ...compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required...

And now he claims he has "shown (me) the law"

Compare this:

John: A person working in a pub, bar or club in England or Wales is not allowed to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk

BAS: Prove it

John: I refer you to section 141 of the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, which you can read here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/section/141

 

[JohnW2]

Luckily for me, BAS is no longer speaking to me.

Anyone taking bets?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Then it has no relevance to this topic, and should be elsewhere.

I don't know what others might think, but I feel that one's personal opinion about whether or not it is reasonably safe is really quite relevant to whether that person "goes on and on" about it to somebody.

In order that you can find it, and get back here with it as soon as possible I suggest that you devote 100% of your time to that task, and post not one more word here until you have found it.

Why bother? I think everybody else reading this is aware of your history of "going on and on" about it, and you'll probably just dismiss it as "That was then, things change" anyway.

Luckily for me, BAS is no longer speaking to me.

Apparently he won't even give me the time of day. As my time of day is 8 hours different from his, I don't think I'll worry about that too much.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why bother?

Because if you cannot prove it you are a lair.

I think everybody else reading this is aware of your history of "going on and on" about it, and you'll probably just dismiss it as "That was then, things change" anyway.

No - nobody else is "aware" of that history because there is none.

They may claim to be aware of it, but they would be mistaken - either unknowingly, because of mental deficiencies, or knowingly because they too are liars.

 

[PBC_1966]

Tell you what, I'll take the time to find such if you'll first take the time to provide a legal citation that not providing 30mA RCD protection on a new socket is illegal.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Inappropriate post removed for the fifth time, and blocked.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++