Workshop electrics

[RF Lighting]

Ban, no one cares.

Just STFU and stop wrecking our forum.

 

[holmslaw]

Just thought I'd have the last word.

Everything BAS said was wrong.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ban, no one cares.

I care.

I care that Stoday is telling people that if they take the main switch out of a CU it becomes a DB and that installing it is non-notifiable.

I care that he is telling people that new cables run from an MCB in a distribution board are not new circuits and are therefore non-notifiable.

I care that he is telling people that a statement saying "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit..." does not apply if there's more than one consumer unit.

Just STFU and stop wrecking our forum.

It is not I who is wrecking it by telling people things which are wrong.

I'll stop trying to get Stoday to accept that he is wrong when he admits that he is or when he stops trying to claim that his "interpretations" of the law and the Approved Document are anything other than ludicrous.


And you should be ashamed that you think the person trying to put a stop to dangerous advice is the one who should be criticised rather than the one giving the dangerous advice in the first place.

 

[Stoday]

I’m not wrong. It’s BAS who incorrectly thinks I’m wrong because he rewrites what I say into something that is wrong. It’s tiresome to continue refuting what BAS says I said. Here are some examples:

...you should be ashamed that you think the person trying to put a stop to dangerous advice is the one who should be criticised What’s dangerous? I’ve always advocated that the work should comply with BS7671.

Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief the following are true: No. I didn’t say any of those statements.

As you now accept that courts do make rulings on what they think the intention of the legislators was.
I certainly do not accept any such thing.
A similar example is in yesterday’s Times Law Report on the recovery of award over-calculations heard in the Supreme Court. It includes the words “...his Lordship concluded that Parliament had from the first to last taken the view that...”. If you read the full report it’s clear that Parliament’s intentions were understood from the words in the Act, not from guessing what Parliament’s intentions may or may not have been. That’s why I want to see a disinterested report of the case you cite.

...posing questions relating to the property, which the seller has to answer. The seller does not have to answer. Building societies who repossess property never answer such questions as a matter of policy.

 

[holmslaw]

Just thought I'd have the last word.

Everything BAS said was wrong.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I’m not wrong. It’s BAS who incorrectly thinks I’m wrong because he rewrites what I say into something that is wrong. It’s tiresome to continue refuting what BAS says I said.

Then I guess we are doomed to suffer your tiresome and increasingly evasive posts until you have the decency to actually answer the straightforward questions I keep asking you instead of ignoring them.

...you should be ashamed that you think the person trying to put a stop to dangerous advice is the one who should be criticised What’s dangerous? I’ve always advocated that the work should comply with BS7671.

What's dangerous is advising people to modify type approved consumer units.

What's dangerous is telling people that they don't need to notify work which any reasonable person can see is notifiable because you have decided to "interpret" the legislation or the advice in an unreasonable way.

Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief the following are true: No. I didn’t say any of those statements.

When someone asks you "are you saying A B C" they are not stating that you wrote "A B C", they are asking if you mean "A B C".

It's an extremely common, and widely understood phrase. Are you saying that you've never encountered it, and don't know what it means?

Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief the following are true:

• The Building Regulations intend that modifying a CU by removing or bypassing the main switch makes the installation of it non-notifiable.

Render the switch in the garage consumer unit inoperable and it becomes a distribution board. Then it becomes non-notifiable according to notes e and f:...

(notes e and f) are part of the Approved Document that is supposed to explain how the law should work. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure what the words in a Statutory Instrument mean so I expect the AD to tell me what's meant by them.

Now this is a very simple question, Stoday.

Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief the Building Regulations intend that modifying a CU by removing or bypassing the main switch makes the installation of it non-notifiable?

Note that it is a question. I have not rewritten what you say into something wrong, I have asked you a question.

Will you please answer it.

Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief the following are true:

• That new cables connected to previously unused breakers in a distribution board do not count as new circuits and are therefore not notifiable.

The OP’s proposal then, is to extend an existing circuit into the garage where he will add lighting points and sockets, via a distribution board as is good practice and does not need to notify.

Now this is a very simple question, Stoday.

Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief that new cables connected to previously unused breakers in a distribution board do not count as new circuits and are therefore not notifiable?

Note that it is a question. I have not rewritten what you say into something wrong, I have asked you a question.

Will you please answer it.

Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief the following are true:

• That new cables connected to previously unused breakers in a CU do not count as new circuits if there's more than one CU and are therefore not notifiable.

The AD does not define what it means by a circuit, but does imply a definition by the issues pointed out by BAS.

So what is this implied definition? My interpretation is that circuits start (and end) at the one and only consumer unit in a household.

Now this is a very simple question, Stoday.

And it is a question I am asking because it is to do with new circuits. A new circuit is a circuit which is new.

The newness of cables etc can't be disputed, so what's at stake is whether they comprise a circuit or not so the definition of circuit becomes important, and you have said circuits start (and end) at the one and only consumer unit in a household, which immediately raises the issue of what you think defines a circuit if there is more than CU.

According to my definition it's notifiable if the new circuit is connected directly to the consumer unit.

So given how insistent you were about the significance of the use of the definite article here:

The AD only refers to “the consumer unit” and never “a consumer unit”, implying that there’s only one. The AD could have referred to “a consumer unit”, as is used in Schedule 2B, but did not do so.

I don't think it at all unreasonable to believe that when you wrote "According to my definition it's notifiable if the new circuit is connected directly to the consumer unit" you very much did not intend it to mean, or be read as, "According to my definition it's notifiable if a new circuit is connected directly to a consumer unit".

But you have developed a habit of branding comments about what it seems reasonable that you believe as rewriting into something wrong so I asked for confirmation.

Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief that new cables connected to previously unused breakers in a CU do not count as new circuits if there's more than one CU and are therefore not notifiable?

Note that it is a question. I have not rewritten what you say into something wrong, I have asked you a question.

Will you please answer it.





And while we're at it, I'll repeat some other questions which you seem determined to ignore. Please note that they are questions. I have not rewritten what you say into something wrong, I have asked you questions.

Will you please answer them.

In this other example of an extract from a legal document, are you able to understand it:

No.

That. BTW, is you saying that you cannot understand Schedule 2B.

1. Work consisting of—
(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—
(i) any new fixed cabling; or
(ii) a consumer unit;
(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;
(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit
protective measures are unaffected;
(d) providing mechanical protection to an existing fixed installation, where the circuit
protective measures and current carrying capacity of conductors are unaffected by the
increased thermal insulation.
(e) installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding;

Will you please tell me which of 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) you do not understand?


2. Work which—
(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,
(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and
(c) consists of—
(i) adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit; or
(ii) adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit;

Will you please tell me which of 2 (a), (b), (c) you do not understand?

3. Work on—
(a) telephone wiring or extra-low voltage wiring for the purposes of communications,
information technology, signalling, control and similar purposes, where the wiring is not
in a special location;
(b) equipment associated with the wiring referred to in sub-paragraph (a).
(c) pre-fabricated equipment sets and associated flexible leads with integral plug and socket
connections.

Will you please tell me which of 3 (a), (b), (c) you do not understand?


4. For the purposes of this Schedule—
“kitchen” means a room or part of a room which contains a sink and food preparation
facilities;
“self-contained” in relation to a fixed building service means consisting of a single appliance
and any associated controls which is neither connected to, nor forms part of, any other fixed
building service;
“special installation” means an electric floor or ceiling heating system, an outdoor lighting or
electric power installation, an electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system
which is not a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of
the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994; and
“special location” means a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath,
a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth
edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards
Institution as BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2.

Will you please tell me which of 4 you do not understand?

It does not mean what it appears to mean. If it were straightforward, Table 1 in the AD would have been a verbatim copy of Schedule 2B. It is not. I assume that where a non-legal reader would be misled by 2B, the words have been changed to clarify the meaning.

Perhaps it would be instructive to compare Schedule 2B with Tables 1 & 2 in the AD P and see how the wording has changed, and if we can point to confusion or lack of clarity in the former which was resolved by the change?

In the side-by-side comparison below I've removed the non-electrical parts of 2B, and where possible I've incorporated the lettered Notes from Table 1 into the actual provisions. I've also omitted most of the additional notes - if you believe that to be unfair in regard to the issues of circuits and consumer units please say.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/964/schedule2bvadp.jpg

I must admit I can't see any substantive differences, or clarifications which make your interpretation of what the Building Regulations actually mean by circuits and consumer units a reasonable one, so I'd be interested if you can show me where to look.

The AD assumes there is only one CU.

That's an unambiguous claim.

It is not rewriting what you say into something that is wrong to ask you a question which is directly related to that.

The following are questions:

What should someone who has 2 CUs do when reading Approved Document P?

• Should they ignore it completely, as it does not recognise their installation, and therefore rely entirely on the wording of the Building Regulations?
  
  Or
  
• should they proceed on the basis that the intention of AD P was not to not recognise the installation they have, that it was not to use the term "the CU" in a way which excluded "a CU", and that they should read "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit..." as "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to
  the consumer unit they go back to even if it is not the only one"?

Which do you genuinely think is the more logical?

Which do you genuinely think is the best advice you could give someone here?

As you now accept that courts do make rulings on what they think the intention of the legislators was.
I certainly do not accept any such thing.

Please note I wrote "courts do make rulings on what they think the intention of the legislators was".

I did not say that all courts do.

I did not say that courts always do.


Can I clarify - you certainly do not accept that sometimes some courts do?

In the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_system when you read "court decisions that decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies, such as judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations" you don't accept that any such thing happens?

In this page on a university website it says

In fulfilling their task of applying the law to the facts before them, the courts frequently have to interpret (i.e. decide the meaning of) statutes....
.
.
Whilst Parliament may make laws, judges interpret them.
.
.
There are also a number of presumptions that the court will take into account in ascertaining the intentions of Parliament...


And yet when I say that courts do make rulings on what they think the intention of the legislators was you say that you accept no such thing?

A similar example is in yesterday’s Times Law Report on the recovery of award over-calculations heard in the Supreme Court. It includes the words “...his Lordship concluded that Parliament had from the first to last taken the view that...”. If you read the full report it’s clear that Parliament’s intentions were understood from the words in the Act, not from guessing what Parliament’s intentions may or may not have been.

Not every piece of legislation is unclear.

Not every piece of legislation requires careful analysis to try and determine what Parliament's intentions were.

Some legislation is clearly and unambiguously written and contains no gaps.

Are you saying that all of it is, and that none of it is unclear and none of it ever needs to be carefully analysed?

Please note that that is a question. I have not rewritten what you say into something wrong, I have asked you a question.

You said that you did not accept that courts do make rulings on what they think the intention of the legislators was. As I never said they always do or that's all they do I'd like to clarify whether "I accept nothing of the sort" means that you think they never do.

That’s why I want to see a disinterested report of the case you cite.

]
As I have already observed, not being disinterested doesn't equate to not being truthful or accurate.

Even if the summary published by that non-disinterested was flawed, or even completely wrong, that would still not mean that courts do not make rulings on what they think the intention of the legislators was.

This page is a transcript of the hearing, not a summary. Even though is is on the website of an organisation which is not disinterested I can't think of any reason why you should not accept that it is true apart from a firm belief on your part that the organisation has fabricated it.

Do you believe that, or will you accept that

"Mr Lawson-Cruttenden has several times referred to the 1997 Act as a "victims' charter". The legislators who passed that Act would no doubt be surprised to see how widely its terms are perceived to extend by some people. It was clearly not intended by Parliament to be used to clamp down on the discussion of matters of public interest or upon the rights of political protest and public demonstration which are so much part of our democratic tradition. I have little doubt that the courts will resist any such wide interpretation as and when the occasion arises, but it is unfortunate that the terms in which the provisions are couched should be thought to sanction any such restrictions. "

shows that courts do make decisions on what they believe Parliament intended, and that in this case the judge also said that he thought other courts would do the same?

...posing questions relating to the property, which the seller has to answer. The seller does not have to answer. Building societies who repossess property never answer such questions as a matter of policy.

Building societies cannot, as they have no way of knowing.

If a private seller refuses to answer, what do you reasonably think that would do to the sale? Do you think it more likely to smooth the way, or more likely to make it falter?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just thought I'd have the last word.

Everything BAS said was wrong.

Holmslaw, it it not necessary for you to keep on demonstrating that you cannot treat this issue with any seriousness, that you have no sense of responsibility and that you're not prepared to stop making immature and unintelligent interjections - that message has been received loud and clear.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Just thought I'd have the last word.

Everything BAS said was wrong.

Holmslaw, it it not necessary for you to keep on demonstrating that you cannot treat this issue with any seriousness, that you have no sense of responsibility and that you're not prepared to stop making immature and unintelligent interjections - that message has been received loud and clear.

sheddy, it is not necessary for you to keep on demonstrating that you cannot treat this issue with any dignity, that you have no sense of understanding people and that you're not prepared to stop making utterely tedious and long-winded posts which serve no purpose (as no-one cares anymore) - your messages are loud, but not clear.

 

[holmslaw]

"Long ago, England was ruled by a king named Canute. Like many leaders and men of power, Canute was surrounded by people who were always praising him. Every time he walked into a room, the flattery began.

"You are the greatest man that ever lived," one would say.

"O king, there can never be another as mighty as you," another would insist.

"Your highness, there is nothing you cannot do," someone would smile.

"Great Canute, you are the monarch of all," another would sing. "Nothing in this world dares to disobey you."

The king was a man of sense, and he grew tired of hearing such foolish speeches.

One day he was walking by the seashore, and his officers and courtiers were with him, praising him as usual. Canute decided to teach them a lesson.

"So you say I am the greatest man in the world?" he asked them.

"O king," they cried, "there never has been anyone as mighty as you, and there never be anyone so great, ever again!"

"And you say all things obey me?" Canute asked.

"Absolutely!" they said. "The world bows before you, and gives you honor."

"I see," the king answered. "In that case, bring me my chair, and we will go down to the water."

"At once, your majesty!" They scrambled to carry his royal chair over the sands.

"Bring it closer to the sea," Canute called. "Put it right here, right at the water's edge." He sat down and surveyed the ocean before him. "I notice the tide is coming in. Do you think it will stop if I give the command?"

His officers were puzzled, but they did not dare say no. "Give the order, O great king, and it will obey," one of then assured him.

"Very well. Sea," cried Canute, "I command you to come no further! Waves, stop your rolling!. Surf, stop your pounding! Do not dare touch my feet!"

He waited a moment, quietly, and a tiny wave rushed up the sand and lapped at his feet.

"How dare you!" Canute shouted. "Ocean, turn back now! I have ordered you to retreat before me, and now you must obey! Go back!"

And in answer another wave swept forward and curled around the king's feet. The tide came in, just as it always did. The water rose higher and higher. It came up around the king's chair, and wet not only his feet, but also his robe. His officers stood before him, alarmed, and wondering whether he was not mad.

"Well, my friends," Canute said, "it seems I do not have quite so much power as you would have me believe. Perhaps you have learned something today. Perhaps now you will remember there is only one King who is all-powerful, and it is he who rules the sea, and holds the ocean in the hollow of his hand. I suggest you reserve your praises for him."

The royal officers and courtiers hung their heads and looked foolish. And some say Canute took off his crown soon afterward, and never wore it again."

 

[bernardgreen]

Canute had a wiser cousin Tinute who did the same.

Only being wiser he put his throne on the high water line of the beach.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

I go back to what I said before.

No matter who argues it.

Advising weird solution to everyday situations in order to play some kind of technical one upmanship is wrong if it involves advising a novice on how to wire their electrics.

People should not be removing main switches in order to avoid part p.

"Experts" ought not to be condoning this advice.

Martin

 

[Stoday]

Canute still lives.

In the form of Climate Change politicians.

 

[tonyelectric]

But surely a consumer unit and a DB are one and the same thing, in commercial premises we call them distribution boards but they generally still have the same incoming switch / RCD that they would have if installed as a consumer unit in a domestic setting, for example a Merlin Gerin Isobar board fitted in a factory is a DB or subDB etc. in a home same product is a CU - can't see removing the incomer does much except removing a useful point of isolation.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Hi


What is a climate change politician?


Martin

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But surely a consumer unit and a DB are one and the same thing, in commercial premises we call them distribution boards but they generally still have the same incoming switch / RCD that they would have if installed as a consumer unit in a domestic setting, for example a Merlin Gerin Isobar board fitted in a factory is a DB or subDB etc. in a home same product is a CU - can't see removing the incomer does much except removing a useful point of isolation.

Well, apparently:

Render the switch in the garage consumer unit inoperable and it becomes a distribution board. Then it becomes non-notifiable according to notes e and f:...

but every time I asked Stoday if to the best of his knowledge and belief that was the intention of the Building Regulations I either got ignored or accused of changing his words to something wrong....