The dreaded Part P. Replacing 'like for like' in kitchen?

[JohnW2]

Now, the only things which are notifiable (in any room) are 'replacing a CU', 'installing a new circuit' or work within the prescribed 'zones' of a bathroom.

It would seem work in a room containing a swimming pool or sauna heater is also notifiable.

True. I always forget that one, since it's not a situation I come across! There are, in fact, only three types of notifiable woek mentioned. The third is 'work in special locations' - but, as you say, that is subdivided into 'bathroom zones' and the case you mention.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

depending where the mounting holes are

Surely you have a drill?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Actually, there might be observant Jews who don't turn the lights on on the Sabbath. I know some who won't answer the telephone.

I once had a secretary who was a very observant Jew (hence I had no secretary on Friday afternoons in Winter!) who would not touch any electrical switch, answer phones, or do much else on the Sabbath. However, her house was teeming with time switches which turned lights etc. on an off for her at the appropriate times, and even turned on the oven to cook her meal. It always seemed like 'cheating' to me, but she clearly had received 'approval' for the practice!

Of course the other thing which observant Jews can do with wires is to string them up on poles to mark out a boundary, within which they can still do things on the Sabbath like use baby buggies in public, take their house keys with them when they leave the house, have their reading glasses with them, all of which would otherwise be forbidden.

 

[plugwash]

Actually, there might be observant Jews who don't turn the lights on on the Sabbath. I know some who won't answer the telephone.

I once had a secretary who was a very observant Jew (hence I had no secretary on Friday afternoons in Winter!) who would not touch any electrical switch, answer phones, or do much else on the Sabbath. However, her house was teeming with time switches which turned lights etc. on an off for her at the appropriate times, and even turned on the oven to cook her meal. It always seemed like 'cheating' to me, but she clearly had received 'approval' for the practice!

AIUI the prohibition is against doing "work"* on the sabeth. So setting up things in advance so that stuff you want happens on the sabeth is considered ok.

* For a fairly broad definition of work.

 

[JohnW2]

AIUI the prohibition is against doing "work"* on the sabeth. So setting up things in advance so that stuff you want happens on the sabeth is considered ok. * For a fairly broad definition of work.

Yes, I guess that's probably the explanation. However, although I'm neither a Jew nor an 'obsservant' anything else, it always seemed to me a little odd that someone as 'observant' as we are discussing would not regard it as 'cheating' to employ technology to do for them what they were not allowed to do themselves.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It always strikes me as odd that anybody with an IQ bigger than their shoe size would regard rules like that as anything other than utterly barmy.

 

[JohnW2]

It always strikes me as odd that anybody with an IQ bigger than their shoe size would regard rules like that as anything other than utterly barmy.

It's very easy to take that view, but I fully respect people's rights to hold whatever beliefs they wish, and whatever 'comes with' those beliefs (provided they don't impact adversely on others).

I had some interesting discussions about all this with the secretary concerned. In terms of the Jewish food laws, she was mortally offended if anyone suggested that many of them had a good basis in terms of food hygeine/health etc. She wanted to regard them simply as the 'unquestioned laws of God', and I think would have been happier if the laws were all totally irrational in terms of science/health etc.

I seriously upset her once. It was a very long time ago, during which period there was one of the armed conflicts going on in the Middle East. I asked her whether it was logical that observant Jews were not allowed to operate light switches on the Sabbath, but seeming were allowed to shoot people dead. It took a long time for her to 'forgive' me for asking that question (to which, of course, she had no rational answer)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It always strikes me as odd that anybody with an IQ bigger than their shoe size would regard rules like that as anything other than utterly barmy.

Quite, could anyone argue with that?

There is also another requirement for Jews which, since the birth of Prince George it appears the aristocracy also follow, is even more utterly barmy.


Also, perhaps cheating isn't specifically disallowed.
John, you are far too tolerant.

 

[JohnW2]

Also, perhaps cheating isn't specifically disallowed. John, you are far too tolerant.

Why not? The majority of Jews are also tolerant to those whose beliefs are different from theirs.

This thread has not only drifted off-topic, but onto one of the most dangerous topics that is ever discussed on-line!! I suspect we would be well advised to 'stop'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's very easy to take that view, but I fully respect people's rights to hold whatever beliefs they wish, and whatever 'comes with' those beliefs (provided they don't impact adversely on others).

As an aside they usually do impact adversely on others.

But I wasn't challenging people's rights, nor questioning a belief in god(s) in the first place, although that's also irrational (except from a psychological POV).

Just the rules about what you may or may not do. Standards of morality are one thing, but not being allowed to filter unclean water, or remove the bones from a fish between sunset on Friday and Saturday, or take your house keys with you unless there's some wire strung between poles are, literally, ridiculous.

I had some interesting discussions about all this with the secretary concerned. In terms of the Jewish food laws, she was mortally offended if anyone suggested that many of them had a good basis in terms of food hygeine/health etc.

They may or may not be - it's tempting to ascribe the prohibition of pork, shared by Islam, to sensible food hygiene in a Middle Eastern climate with no refrigeration, but the origins are unclear.

She wanted to regard them simply as the 'unquestioned laws of God', and I think would have been happier if the laws were all totally irrational in terms of science/health etc.

Of course, for she had already decided that irrationality was important to her.

I seriously upset her once. It was a very long time ago, during which period there was one of the armed conflicts going on in the Middle East. I asked her whether it was logical that observant Jews were not allowed to operate light switches on the Sabbath, but seeming were allowed to shoot people dead. It took a long time for her to 'forgive' me for asking that question (to which, of course, she had no rational answer)!

You should have asked her what she would do if a fire broke out in her house on the Sabbath and there was no risk to human life.

 

[JohnW2]

You should have asked her what she would do if a fire broke out in her house on the Sabbath and there was no risk to human life.

I did ask her what she would do if she had a close relative seriously ill in hospital and the phone rang - and she said she wouldn't answer it! However, as I said:

This thread has not only drifted off-topic, but onto one of the most dangerous topics that is ever discussed on-line!! I suspect we would be well advised to 'stop'!

Kind Regards, John