"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:44:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
"fairly unlikely" is not good enough. It is either black or white in
regs.
Installing a new cable on an existing breaker is not a new circuit.

I agree. The intent of the legislation is that you should be able
to replace *a* cable.

You have stretched it to the point that the entire ring would need to
be replaced. That would mean a new circuit and is therefore not
exempt. A damaged cable means just that - e.g. somebody banged a
nail through a section. It is unlikely that somebody would
systematically bang a nail through every section of cable in a ring.
That is what I meant by "fairly unlikely".

It is an obvious loophole.

I like to do a ring without actually breaking the conductors where
possible. Loop in/loop out, **carefully** removing the insulation. = Single
bit of cable. Do it that way, and you only have to "accidentally" nick one
section when it is time to replace the ring, and oh dear, the whole circuit
has to be changed. What a shame!