Perhaps, but how would you demonstrate that it is safe, without reference to a Standard?
ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone
- Thread starter bernardgreen
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Yes, I agree.
If you believed that the work you had done was 'reasonably safe', why not?
I don't understand your point. If one uses an EIC and some of the work is non-compliant with BS7671, one obviously has to 'note the departures' on the form (or lie).
It's probably the only form available to them - but if they were crazy enough to ignore BS7671 completely and therefore have to be prepared to justify everything they had done 'from first principles', they would presumably cross out the references to BS7671 before signing the Declaration.
Kind Regards, John
As far as the law is concerned, in any way that a court found acceptable. As I've said, ultimately it could theoretically be entirely and argument 'from first (physics) principles'.
In practice, although you don't accept the approach, it would seem far more sensible and practical to largely refer compliance with regulations within BS7671 (not 'compliance with BS7671') and to present 'from first principle' (or whatever) arguments in relation to one or two 'departure' issues.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Of course, but how far would you go with your "first principles"? Perhaps you'd use cables that comply with relevant standards, screws that comply with relevant standards to fasten accessories to a wall, etc. In practice you'd probably find it easier to refer to other standards than to provide adequate proof with no reference to standards, and you'd take up a lot less of the Court's time.
It's not that I don't accept the approach of mixed standards; my point is that if you choose to use a standard to demonstrate your compliance with the law, then the law requires that you comply with every normative provision of that standard. How that legal principle stands with respect to 'departures' from BS7671 I do not know, but as I've said I should be in a position to ask a QC fairly soon.
O.K., having every reason to believe that one could prove that then. And in the cases we're generally considering here, it would still be for the prosecution to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the work is not reasonably safe.
Indeed, although one could design one's own form if there was a reason to. But in the case where one is saying "This complies with BS7671 except for regulations X, Y and Z" it seems to make sense to use the IET form.
Precisely!
Exactly. So much of this is pretty much hypothetical as far as what would ever be likely to happen in practice is concerned
It's a departure. One which you have said is perfectly OK, despite what 120.3 says.
Feel free to argue that the protection provided by a 100mA device is materially the same as that of a 30mA one.
People do all sorts of things which are unlawful and/or immoral and/or shameful, either out of ignorance, or because they DGAS, or after a cynical calculation of the risks:reward calculations.
Your point is?
Yes, because you're not responsible for the provision of what is already provided.
It's not.
Let me paraphrase my answer to that to say that if you think I will be drawn into that sort of debate with someone so ill provided with morality that they fight against the very concept of regulatory standards then you can add "deranged" to the other "d....." word which describes you.
Everyone seems to be misinterpreting that comment I made, so I must have worded it badly. What I meant was that I imagined that at least some electricians would believe that the work was at least "reasonably safe enough" to satisfy Part P - not anything to do with unlawful, shameful, ignorant, 'DGAS' etc. activities.
I was talking/thinking simply about, for example, adding one plastic/Class II light fitting to a lighting circuit without a CPC which was already feeding several lights. Given the absence of any electrical need for a CPC for the new light, I see no safety issue at all - the only departure from BS7671 would seem to be failure to 'run a CPC to every point on the circuit' and I really cannot see what safety concerns that raises. The only argument I've seen for why the regs require a CPC in that situation is in case the light is subsequently changed to something that requires a CPC - and that would only become a safety issue if, at some hypothetical point in the future, someone deviated from the regs in a safety-detrimental way by failing to provide an earth connection for something they installed which required it.
Kind Regards, John
Exactly - which is why, as I've said, it makes total sense to refer to relevant standards is relation to the vast majority of issues. In terms of electrical work, that would certainly include things like cables, protective devices, accessories, enclosures etc. etc. - much of which would probably involve reference to regulations within BS7671, leaving only a tiny minority of issues to be justified, partially or completely, by arguments 'from first principles'. That seems (to me) to not only be common sense, but also a way of minimising the use of Court time.
Yes, IF one is using compliance with the standard as the totality of one's demonstration of compliance with the law, then that's obviously got to be the case.
Your statement above seems to imply that you do know - since you've just written that failure to comply with every normative provision of a standard (i.e. if there are any 'departures') means that it cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with the law!!
As I've said, if there are 'departures' then compliance with the rest of BS7671 cannot, alone, be used as the totality of demonstration of compliance with the law - but I believe that, in practice, it can be used as the bulk of that demonstration.
As I've also said, it would be very different if the law required 'compliance with BS7671', but it doesn't.
I'll be very interested to hear what (s)he says. If his/her view is different from mine, you might ask him/her about the matter of approval of medicines under the Medicines Act which I mentioned - since, as I said, it is common for approval to be on the basis that "this medicine complies fully with the approved specification for XYZ, other than for the fact that the (colourant/ preservative/ packaging/ whatever) is different, and the demonstration that this deviation from the specification does not affect the safety or efficacy of the product is as follows ..... ". You presumably will regard that as an 'oxymoron' but I've seen it employed, in one form or another, successfully on countless occasions.
Kind Regards, John
***********
Looks like about time this thread was closed. On-topic replies only, please.
No insults.
Or we'll close it.
MOD
*****************
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that the actual wording used and/or is colourant/ preservative/ packaging/ whatever part of specifications for XYZ?
If yes to both then it is oxymoronic and more correct wording could be used - i.e. remove 'fully'.
I comply fully with the ten commandments other than for the fact that I kill people.
Definitely yes for the second (that's my point) but, no, not necessarily the first. Apart from anything else I've obviously tried to convey in a paraphrased sentence an approach/ concept/ argument that would probably more commonly take a page or ten!
Stillp never responded to my question, but it seems that this has become purely an 'English' ('semantic issue'). Is it your view that any statement which starts with Fully/All/Completely/whatever and then goes on to mention an exception is an oxymoron. If so, you might be right linguistically, but there is absolutely no doubt of the intended meaning ...
"All of the wiring in my house uses harmonised colours cables, apart from (or 'except for' or 'other than') in the cooker circuit, which uses red/black cable."
or
"My house is fully (or 'completely') wired with harmonised colours cables, apart from (or 'except for' or 'other than') in the cooker circuit, which uses red/black cable."
Again, you can quibble about that linguistically if you wish, but there is absolutely no doubt what the statement means, is there?
Kind Regards, John
Yes, if that is the correct use of oxymoron.
Agreed.
You don't need "All of" in the first or "fully (or 'completely')" in the second.
The meaning would be unaltered and correct.
"My house is half wired with harmonised colours cables, apart from (or 'except for' or 'other than') in the cooker circuit, which uses red/black cable." is the same but makes even less sense.
No, but that is because it can't mean anything else.
It is just not correct.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
