Should Part P get scrapped?

[EFLImpudence]

Are you housebound?

Did you think how obnoxious that question is?

I presume you do not think BAS is in that position (although you don't know) but what about people who are?
Perhaps an electrician who fell off a ladder and hasn't moved since.
His p.c. may be his only way of communicating with others.

If you are so infuriated with BAS then prove him wrong by proving him wrong not by proving how thoughtless, callous and ignorant you are.

 

[mattylad]

I wonder which will come first, scrap part P or close this thread?
I suspect the latter.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, before it does, can anybody put forward a good, reasoned explanation of why it is wrong to require people to make 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?

 

[JohnW2]

Well, before it does, can anybody put forward a good, reasoned explanation of why it is wrong to require people to make 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?

As you know as well as I do, no-one wants that (the text of part P) to be scrapped. The 'scrappers' have a problem not with that, but with the mechanisms for attempting to ensure that people comply the with law that you have quoted.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But that's not what they say.

This topic is called "Should Part P get scrapped?".

And opens with

The Govt are currently reviewing Part P apparently, as they want to know if it has been successful.

Considering it hasn't been publicised, is seen as a money making scheme, and drives people into the arms of Vaslav and his chums, maybe we are better off without it?

 

[JohnW2]

But that's not what they say. This topic is called "Should Part P get scrapped?".

True - but you are being pedantic because, again, you know as well as I do what they really mean, even if they express it poorly/incorrectly.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

But that's not what they say. This topic is called "Should Part P get scrapped?".

True - but you are being pedantic because, again, you know as well as I do what they really mean, even if they express it poorly/incorrectly.

Kind Regards, John.

John, why should BAS, or you, or anyone else, assume that posters meant something different from what they actually wrote?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And why should we take any notice of the bleating and whining of people who don't know what they are talking about?

 

[JohnW2]

John, why should BAS, or you, or anyone else, assume that posters meant something different from what they actually wrote?

By application of common sense? - I suppose because we assume that people who post here are not totally daft or irresponsible; maybe you don't make that assumption. I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person would have a problem, per se, with the law requiring electrical work to be undertaken with reasonable provisions for avoiding injury. Indeed, I suspect that electrical work which did present a risk of serious injury (and certainly work which actually resulted in serious injury) would probably be unlawful (and certainly open to civil litigation) even without Part P of the Building Regs.

As we 'all' (including you, I hope) know, those who have a problem with 'part P' (and I think that many of us have at least some reservations/concerns) actually have a problem with matters of notification/ certification/ enforcement/ fees - not with the requirement for the work to be reasonably safe.

...but you know all that.

Kind Regards, John.
Edit: typo corrected

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What I know is that anyone with so little understanding of the issues he purports to care about that he can't express them with any degree of correctness has clearly not got sufficient mental capacity to come up with any views worthy of consideration.

 

[stillp]

John, why should BAS, or you, or anyone else, assume that posters meant something different from what they actually wrote?

By application of common sense? - I suppose because we assume that people who post here are not totally daft or irresponsible; maybe you don't make that assumption. I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person would have a problem, per se, with the law requiring electrical work to be undertaken with reasonable provisions for avoiding injury. Indeed, I suspect that electrical work which did present a risk of serious injury (and certainly work which actually resulted in serious injury) would probably be unlawful (and certainly open to civil litigation) even without Part P of the Building Regs.

As we 'all' (including you, I hope) know, those who have a problem with 'part P' (and I think that many of us have at least some reservations/concerns) actually have a problem with matters of notification/ certification/ enforcement/ fees - not with the requirement for the work to be reasonably safe.

...but you know all that.

Kind Regards, John.
Edit: typo corrected

So, John, you've assumed that the posters are not totally daft or irresponsible, and you have assumed that they don't have a problem with a small but fundamental section of Part P of The Building Regulations. You've then gone on to criticise another poster for reacting to the original question.
this is not the rational behaviour I would have expected from you.

 

[JohnW2]

So, John, you've assumed that the posters are not totally daft or irresponsible, and you have assumed that they don't have a problem with a small but fundamental section of Part P of The Building Regulations. You've then gone on to criticise another poster for reacting to the original question. this is not the rational behaviour I would have expected from you.

This is, IMO, getting silly. I see nothing irrational. As I've said to both BAS and yourself, it is surely 'quite obvious' what some people don't like, or have problems with, about Part P of the Building Regs. You will, of course, always be able to argue that one shouldn't make assumptions, or try to read people's minds, but in the context of this discussion that really is (IMO) silly, and a case of arguing for the sake of arguing.

I will concede that there is a small (probably very small) minority of people who feel that they should be free to create whatever dangers to life and limb they wish, particularly in their own homes, without any interference from the law. However, such people would presumably want the entirity of the Building Regs (and many other regs/laws) 'scrapped', not just Part P of the Bulding Regs - and it is pretty clear from many discussions in this and other places that the vast majority of those who voice concerns/ complaints about Part P are not asking for dangerous work to cease to be illegal but, rather, are unhappy with the notification/ certification/ enforcement/ fees aspects of Part P.

In a nutshell, I'm asking/expecting you and others to exercise common sense in interpreting what people write.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And I'm asking/expecting you to to recognise that people whose mental capacity is so limited that they manage a simple thing like realising that there's a difference between "P" and "3" shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[JohnW2]

And I'm asking/expecting you to to recognise that people whose mental capacity is so limited that they manage a simple thing like realising that there's a difference between "P" and "3" shouldn't be taken seriously.

You are really very intolerant. I feel sure that most of the people concerned understand exactly what they mean, but are simply expressing themselves poorly/incorrectly.

To start questioning their 'mental capacity' and saying that they 'should not be taken seriously' is, I have to say, on a par with your recently having been asked whether you are bedbound - I personally find it pretty offensive. Even if someone was totally illiterate, let alone simply lacking in eloquence/clarity of writing, or even if they did have some limitations of mental capacity, I would still take them seriously if I could work out what they were getting at. This is a discussion forum for ordinary people, not the Oxford University Debating Chamber!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You're talking about giving credence to legislative and safety proposals from people who cannot tell the difference between this:

and this:

Or who don't think that such things are of any importance when they are demanding changes.




No.