Spur off Double Socket.

[securespark]

I knew I would get knocked for writing that.

But I did some assignments on my City and Guilds courses in the 80s and I was told in no uncertain terms that circuit planning must be done in line with this guidance.

 

[JohnW2]

I knew I would get knocked for writing that. .... But I did some assignments on my City and Guilds courses in the 80s and I was told in no uncertain terms that circuit planning must be done in line with this guidance.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, even today, people were being taught that they "had to" comply with various "guidelines", even when, in reality, no-one is compelled to comply with them. ... and, of course, per examples like the one I gave, that is even more unfortunate when the 'guideline' can sometimes be incorrect/inappropriate (possibly even 'dangerous') in certain circumstances.

Courses should be teaching people to think for themselves, and to have an understanding of the underlying principles (and regulations) adequate to enable them to do that thinking for themselves, rather than being told to blindly follow some 'rules'.

It's sad, but unfortunately true!

 

[ebee]

Agreed but you need to factor in an unfortunate number of people regard/disregard guidance ( and rules/laws) very inappropriately at times too!

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed but you need to factor in an unfortunate number of people regard/disregard guidance ( and rules/laws) very inappropriately at times too!

That's inevitably true. However, if someone ignores (or simply does not 'comply with') guidance "inappropriately", that probably means that they are either 'charlatans' who are deliberately working unsatisfactorily or, more likely, that they do not have enough knowledge to be doing the work they are trying to do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That's inevitably true. However, if someone ignores (or simply does not 'comply with') guidance "inappropriately", that probably means that they are either 'charlatans' who are deliberately working unsatisfactorily or, more likely, that they do not have enough knowledge to be doing the work they are trying to do.

In the distant past, wasn't there some attempt made to bring in a system, where any deviation from regulations had to be noted, and justified in writing, by the system designer?

 

[JohnW2]

In the distant past, wasn't there some attempt made to bring in a system, where any deviation from regulations had to be noted, and justified in writing, by the system designer?

"had to be" can't (and cannot ever have been) really been true of the regulations in BS7671, since those regulations are not 'mandatory'.

However, even today, the BS7671's EIC form template contains this section ....

However, even that section would not have to be completed in relation to deviation from 'guidance' that did not relate to things required by regs in BS7671. Much of the sort of 'guidance' we are talking about (in informative Appendices of BS7671, in the OSG etc.) does not relate to things actually 'required' by regs in BS7671, anyway!