Reworded RCD Poll

[PBC_1966]

to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Again, will you cite anything which suggests that the members of the committee responsible for that standard believe that it is not "safe enough" to qualify as being "reasonable provision for safety," and that they don't make rules which go beyond what they consider to be merely reasonably safe in an attempt to strive for a higher standard?

And as you seem to have great difficulty understanding this, please note: Reposting the same statement yet again which sets out your opinion of why it is so is not the same thing as citing evidence in support of your opinion. We need to you to refer to something issued by the committee itself, or something contained within BS7671 which backs up your claim.

 

[JohnW2]

"not make reasonable provision" I didn't see that. Where was it?

Nor did I see it - I think it must have been in someone's imagination.

You should read PBC's posts. In many of them he has asserted that it is perfectly OK to not make reasonable provision for safety ....

I do not believe he has ever written that. I believe that your opinion is that what he suggests would not constitute "making reasonable provision for safety" - and that is very different from him writing/saying that himself. Nor do I believe that he would ever dream of writing that, because it is clear that he does not think that that "it is perfectly OK to not make reasonable provision for safety".

The difference between you and him in this incessant and repetitive debate relates to your differing respective opinions as regards what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety". I am quite sure that neither of you believes that "it is perfectly OK to not make reasonable provision for safety".

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Precisely.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There have been cases where forum members have gone on and on and on to other forum members though...

PBC keeps going on and on at me.

Several times I have offered to stop telling him that he is wrong shortly after he stops pretending that he isn't, but he won't let it go.

Several(ish) times he has said that he is not going to continue making his erroneous points, but each time this has too has been shown to be untrue.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And which, apparently, even under the current "holy grail" of BS7671 would still be compliant without RCD protection if he just stuck a Dymo label on it saying "For computer router only - Not RCD protected" or something similar.

Wrong.

Again.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Again, will you cite anything which suggests that the members of the committee responsible for that standard believe that it is not "safe enough" to qualify as being "reasonable provision for safety,"

The simple fact that they felt it necessary to change the requirement.

And as you seem to have great difficulty understanding this, please note: Reposting the same statement yet again which sets out your opinion of why it is so is not the same thing as citing evidence in support of your opinion. We need to you to refer to something issued by the committee itself, or something contained within BS7671 which backs up your claim.

And as you seem to have great difficulty understanding this, please note: Reposting the same statement yet again which sets out your opinion of why it is so is not the same thing as citing evidence in support of your opinion. We need to you to refer to something issued by the committee itself, or something contained within BS7671 which backs up your claim.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I do not believe he has ever written that.

Then your powers of comprehension are lacking.

I believe that your opinion is that what he suggests would not constitute "making reasonable provision for safety" - and that is very different from him writing/saying that himself.

He has clearly said, more than once, that deliberately choosing to ignore what the current standard which applies to electrical installations in this country says about something of vital safety constitutes making reasonable provision for safety etc.

Nor do I believe that he would ever dream of writing that, because it is clear that he does not think that that "it is perfectly OK to not make reasonable provision for safety".

Are you suggesting that every time he does say that it is OK to do something which does not qualify as making reasonable provision for safety that he doesn't believe it, i.e. that he is lying?

That would be a grave accusation.

The difference between you and him in this incessant and repetitive debate relates to your differing respective opinions as regards what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety". I am quite sure that neither of you believes that "it is perfectly OK to not make reasonable provision for safety".

I don't.

He keeps saying that it is, so I hope he does believe it, otherwise we are faced with someone deliberately saying things which he knows to be untrue.

 

[JohnD]

I hope he does believe it, otherwise we are faced with someone deliberately saying things which he knows to be untrue.

So I suppose you must really believe that only by installing an RCD can the installation of a new socket be "reasonably safe"

You have persuaded yourself that anyone who does not share your opinion is guilty of advocating unsafe practices.

You have chosen to interpret the word "reasonably" to suit your personal opinion. You seek to buttress yourself by repeating your opinion as if it were a fact. It is not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So I suppose you must really believe that only by installing an RCD can the installation of a new socket be "reasonably safe"

So I suppose that there are at least 3 people here who really believe that by not installing an RCD because they can't be rsed, or because there isn't one there already, or because it costs money, that that is "reasonably safe"

You have chosen to interpret the word "reasonably" to suit your personal opinion.

They (and you are one of them) have chosen to interpret the word "reasonably" to suit your own personal opinions.

You seek to buttress yourself by repeating your opinion as if it were a fact. it is not.

You, and they, seek to buttress yourselves by repeating your opinions as if they were facts. They are not.

 

[JohnD]

"So I suppose that there are at least 3 people here who really believe that by not installing an RCD because they can't be rsed, or because there isn't one there already, or because it costs money, that that is "reasonably safe""

That is very foolish. You have invented your own reasons.

Your "because" is false.

You assert that the millions of homes and businesses that have a socket that is unprotected by an RCD are not "reasonably safe." That is foolish.

You have yourself invented the assumption that the RCD for a socket is not "more safe" or "good practice" or "an improvement" or "additional safety". You have yourself decided, without evidence, that it only meets the criterion of "reasonably safe."

Can anyone seriously believe that a house which has forty existing sockets, none of them protected by an RCD, becomes in some way unsafe if a forty-first socket is added, also without an RCD?

 

[PBC_1966]

And which, apparently, even under the current "holy grail" of BS7671 would still be compliant without RCD protection if he just stuck a Dymo label on it saying "For computer router only - Not RCD protected" or something similar.

Wrong.
Again.

Is there, or is there not, still a specific RCD exemption in BS7671 for a socket installed for supplying a particular piece of equipment and which is so labeled?

Again, will you cite anything which suggests that the members of the committee responsible for that standard believe that it is not "safe enough" to qualify as being "reasonable provision for safety,"

The simple fact that they felt it necessary to change the requirement.

That could also mean that they felt the existing requirement was perfectly adequate to make reasonable provision for safety, but they wanted to encourage provision of an increased level of safety.

He has clearly said, more than once, that deliberately choosing to ignore what the current standard which applies to electrical installations in this country says about something of vital safety constitutes making reasonable provision for safety etc.

And now you're introducing another opinion that it is about vital safety, and not merely increased safety. Not to mention, as you well know, that the "current standard which applies to electrical installations in this country" is not mandatory.

You seek to buttress yourself by repeating your opinion as if it were a fact. it is not.

You, and they, seek to buttress yourselves by repeating your opinions as if they were facts. They are not.

But you are the only one who is trying to claim illegality without anything to support that claim. As John has pointed out already, anything which is not expressly forbidden by law is, by default, legal. For something to be illegal, there needs to be a law which says it is. In some cases that's by way of a very clear, precise piece of legislation which says so.

There is also a grey area open to interpretation when the law uses somewhat vague terms such as "reasonable provision" without defining the term further. To come to a conclusion that without doubt not providing the specified RCD protection in BS7671 is, in fact, considered illegal, you would need some sort of precedent set in case law which has deemed that lack of RCD protection, in all cases, is to be "not reasonable provision for safety."

As you are so absolutely certain about this, we'll await, yet again, your citation of the appropriate legal precedent...... If you cannot provide one, then your claims remain nothing more than your opinion.

 

[PBC_1966]

Can anyone seriously believe that a house which has forty existing sockets, none of them protected by an RCD, becomes in some way unsafe if a forty-first socket is added, also without an RCD?

According to B-A-S, merely omitting that little piece of green/yellow sleeving on the earth connection of the new socket means that it's not reasonably safe, and therefore illegal. I don't think he really understands the concept of "reasonably safe."

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So I suppose you must really believe that only by installing an RCD can the installation of a new socket be "reasonably safe"

I believe that that is necessary but not sufficient for sockets newly installed.

You have persuaded yourself that anyone who does not share your opinion is guilty of advocating unsafe practices.

I don't need to "persuade" myself of anything.

Is there any point asking you to grasp the difference between "unsafe" and "not reasonably safe" and what it is reasonable to do?

You have chosen to interpret the word "reasonably" to suit your personal opinion.

You have chosen to interpret the word "reasonably" to suit your personal opinion.

You seek to buttress yourself by repeating your opinion as if it were a fact. It is not.

You seek to buttress yourself by repeating your opinion as if it were a fact. It is not.

 

[PBC_1966]

Is there any point asking you to grasp the difference between "unsafe" and "not reasonably safe" and what it is reasonable to do?

Is there any point in asking you to grasp the idea that just because it might be reasonable to do something, that does not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable not to do it?

Or any point in asking you to explain why you think you're correct to say your logic of "Y is safer than X, it's reasonable to do Y, therefore to do X is not reasonable" applies, but that "Z is safer than Y, it's reasonable to do Z, therefore to do Y is not reasonable" doesn't, simply because BS7671 says you only need to go as far as Y, not Z?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"So I suppose that there are at least 3 people here who really believe that by not installing an RCD because they can't be rsed, or because there isn't one there already, or because it costs money, that that is "reasonably safe""

That is very foolish. You have invented your own reasons.

Those are the reasons given. Including by you*.

Your "because" is false.

No.

You assert that the millions of homes and businesses that have a socket that is unprotected by an RCD are not "reasonably safe." That is foolish.

No - I am asserting that it is no longer considered safe enough for newly installed sockets to continue to be done that way.

Are you unfamiliar with the well established, widely encountered principle that when things change, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today, what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is not required to be updated or removed and replaced today. It just has to be no longer newly done? That would be foolish.

You have yourself invented the assumption that the RCD for a socket is not "more safe" or "good practice" or "an improvement" or "additional safety". You have yourself decided, without evidence, that it only meets the criterion of "reasonably safe."

BS 7671 is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Can anyone seriously believe that a house which has forty existing sockets, none of them protected by an RCD, becomes in some way unsafe if a forty-first socket is added, also without an RCD?

Can anyone seriously believe your assertion that that is my position?

The existing 40, (or 4, or 4,000,000) sockets are of no relevance whatsoever. It is the one new one where the law applies to you when you install it, and the requirement applies to that one socket alone, not to {that-one-plus-the-existing-40}. It is that one socket for which you are required to make reasonable provision for safety etc, not the aggregation of {that-one-plus-the-existing-40}. And the relevant British Standard does not consider that it is still OK to install new ones without it, and to deliberately choose to ignore that is not reasonable.

* And there you are - you are a person here who really believes that by not installing an RCD because there isn't one there already is "reasonably safe".