On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:03:26 +0100, "Andy Wade"
strung together this:

[Lurch]
Although, I personally would seperate them as I have had occasions
where I have done something that is within the regs but extremely
uncommon and then spent more time and effort trying to convince
people that it's correct than it would've taken me to do it the
common method in the first place.

Although I agree with the general drift of that (don't adopt unusual circuit
arrangements in domestic installations) I don't agree that it applies here.

Cross-connection between the CPCs of different circuits can be expected to
occur in some situations - e.g. between 'upstairs' and 'downstairs' lighting
circuits where they meet at one or more 2-gang 2-way switches (one switch on
each circuit) for hall and landing. Another case where cross-connection is
actually _required_ by the regs is in a bathroom (within the zones) where
you have some combination of shower, fused conn. unit on ring (for heater or
towel rail etc.), and luminaire and/or shaver outlet. Here the CPCs of the
relevant circuits must be cross connected by supplementary bonding. Since
the 2001 edition of BS 7671 came into force this bonding is required whether
or not the equipment connected to the said circuits has any
exposed-conductive-parts - in fact the bonding is still required if all the
items are Class 2.

That's exactly what I mean, it would have taken 2 minutes to complete
the job in the conventional method.
A day and a half after the OP everyone's still trying to convince each
other why the uncommon method is accepetable.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, but you've proved my point, ta.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd