|
Sinster censorship caused by Part P
Just been reading a thread about the Which guide to DIY and it's
unavailability, possibly due to the electrical information contained wihtin and Part P. I have seen an online site stating that it had withdrawn some electrical projects (can't remember the name of the site) due to insurance reasons !? Surely this is wrong. As I understand it, ordinary people can still do any sort of electrical work so long as they submit plans, get them approved and get it inspected. We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions for ourseleves. Information should not be hidden away As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the authorities have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and de-regulated. Apparently, deaths and injuries fell. |
Rob Horton wrote:
We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions for ourseleves. One would think so, but it appears Labour does not. In fact Tony seems to think we can not, even when grown up, be trusted to walk down the street. This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some. Information should not be hidden away As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the authorities have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and de-regulated. Apparently, deaths and injuries fell. Yet more evidence maybe... do you have a reference for this? NT |
In article .com,
wrote: We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions for ourseleves. One would think so, but it appears Labour does not. In fact Tony seems to think we can not, even when grown up, be trusted to walk down the street. I'd like to think others wouldn't have introduced 'nanny state' legislation, but history says otherwise. This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some. I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. -- *Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
In message , Rob Horton
wrote Surely this is wrong. As I understand it, ordinary people can still do any sort of electrical work so long as they submit plans, get them approved and get it inspected. IMO it is wrong to suppress information on the correct fitting of electrical and gas items. Despite legislation, untrained and incompetent people are still going to attempt to fit gas and electrical appliances themselves. If no instructions are given then there is greater chance that the item is going to be fitted incorrectly and/or dangerously. -- Alan |
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some. I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all encompassing database that goes with it... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
In article ,
John Rumm wrote: This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some. I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all encompassing database that goes with it... All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the problem with centralising it. -- * I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:28:15 +0100, Rob Horton
wrote: Just been reading a thread about the Which guide to DIY and it's unavailability, possibly due to the electrical information contained wihtin and Part P. I have seen an online site stating that it had withdrawn some electrical projects (can't remember the name of the site) due to insurance reasons !? Surely this is wrong. As I understand it, ordinary people can still do any sort of electrical work so long as they submit plans, get them approved and get it inspected. We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions for ourseleves. Information should not be hidden away As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the authorities have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and de-regulated. Apparently, deaths and injuries fell. The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and counter-productive IMO. Andy |
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , John Rumm wrote: This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some. I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all encompassing database that goes with it... All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the problem with centralising it. It's not ID cards as such that I object to but the reasons given for the need, why can't they just have the guts to say "We want everyone to have ID cards that we can then, if we think a need, can be use in various ways to monitor people" rather than try and con us that if every UK adult citizen living here legally has an ID card it will cut down on illegal citizens and terrorism - the people who carried out 9/11 were in the USA legally and the authorities knew what they were 'studying', the people behind the Madrid bombings (IIRC) didn't have ID cards and were there illegally even though Spain has ID card.... |
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the problem with centralising it. That is exactly the problem. It puts all sorts of information together that before would have taken a reasonable amount of effort for someone to gather, and will by default, make it available to anyone who wants to see it. (Yes I do mean "anyone". You make a system all pervasive and available to a wide range of "people in authority", and even without any malicious intent it will be compromised and publicly visible - long before it is even finished. It only takes one badly configured router or wireless lan). Rather than preventing identity theft, it will simply make it easier to do and much harder to detect. If you integrate the system into all facets of daily life, then far from preventing terrorism, it will simply become a new target for it. It would be one of the largest and most complex IT projects the government has ever taken on. They do not have an impressive record it this arena. Remember there is a technology gap between organised crime and government. However, there are no indications that the government is going to catch up any time soon ;-) So in exchange for costing an obscene amount of our money, can you see any tangible benefits it would bring? -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
John Rumm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the problem with centralising it. That is exactly the problem. It puts all sorts of information together that before would have taken a reasonable amount of effort for someone to gather, and will by default, make it available to anyone who wants to see it. (Yes I do mean "anyone". You make a system all pervasive and available to a wide range of "people in authority", and even without any malicious intent it will be compromised and publicly visible - long before it is even finished. It only takes one badly configured router or wireless lan). Rather than preventing identity theft, it will simply make it easier to do and much harder to detect. If you integrate the system into all facets of daily life, then far from preventing terrorism, it will simply become a new target for it. It would be one of the largest and most complex IT projects the government has ever taken on. They do not have an impressive record it this arena. Remember there is a technology gap between organised crime and government. However, there are no indications that the government is going to catch up any time soon ;-) So in exchange for costing an obscene amount of our money, can you see any tangible benefits it would bring? I have been trying to think of ways to disrupt the distribution of ID cards once Tony forces them through (lets face it the battle was lost before it even started). The best idea I can come up with is to pretend you have a medical condition that stops you from being able to sit still long enough for them to get good bioinformatic data. For instance if they have retina scans just keep looking the other way when they tell you to look into the camera. If it's finger prints just move your finger as it scans. We might not be able to stop it but if enough people look the other way (sorry for the pun :o)) we might be able to make it cost so much that they give up. After all they can hardly arrest you for looking in the wrong direction can they. I'm fairly confident that the government will screw up the implementation to the point where it won't work anyway. After, of course, wasting billions. Time to vote Liberal I think. What I would like to know is this - why do they have to know someone's name to know if they are doing something wrong. Surely whether what you are doing is wrong, be it speeding or blowing things up, it is irrelevant what your name is? Therefore why do we need an ID card to stop criminals? -- .¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`· Shallow Sea Aquatics .¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`· .¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯ http://www.shallowsea.com ¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯` |
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com, wrote: We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions for ourseleves. One would think so, but it appears Labour does not. In fact Tony seems to think we can not, even when grown up, be trusted to walk down the street. I'd like to think others wouldn't have introduced 'nanny state' legislation, but history says otherwise. This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some. I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. A specious argument. If I have not got my works ID on me I will not be prosecuted. If I turn up at work without it there is just a little hassle to get in, no more no less. |
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , John Rumm wrote: This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some. I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all encompassing database that goes with it... All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the problem with centralising it. Many years ago I read a Science Fiction story set in the far future where; #1 everybody carried a computer-readable ID card and ... ; #2 At the age of nn? years folks were compulsorily euthanised. The story centred on a person who wakes up one morning to find that his ID card has been rescinded - no cash, no capability to obtain food, re-enter his housing unit, purchase a transport ticket, etc. etc. ... As I see it, the 'problem with centralising it (ID cards cum database)' is more the cock-up than conspiracy power that the government (of any political colour) would have. How do you feel about the Dept of Pensions, NHS, bus-company, Bank, Tesco/Sainsburys; local Take-Away; suddenly being told you'd become a non-person because (fr'instance) David Blunkett had decided that he fancied your wife? At this point, readers are invited to shout out the name and provenance of _every_ government IT project that has run to budget, and met the full spec within the original time-frame ... [Opens window, listens ... deafening silence ] ... and that's before we introduce the concept of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' let alone Murphy's Law. -- Brian |
In article ,
doozer writes: John Rumm wrote: Rather than preventing identity theft, it will simply make it easier to do and much harder to detect. If you integrate the system into all facets of daily life, then far from preventing terrorism, it will simply become a new target for it. It would be one of the largest and most complex IT projects the government has ever taken on. They do not have an impressive record it this arena. Actually, they have a very impressive record -- of completely screwing up every IT project they've attempted, together with going massively over budget. ID cards has already failed, because they haven't started by trying to identify the problem they want to solve -- they've started with a solution and are trying to make up a problem which it fits. Now where have we seen that before? I have been trying to think of ways to disrupt the distribution of ID cards once Tony forces them through (lets face it the battle was lost before it even started). The best idea I can come up with is to pretend you have a medical condition that stops you from being able to sit still long enough for them to get good bioinformatic data. For instance if they have retina scans just keep looking the other way when they tell you to look into the camera. If it's finger prints just move your finger as it scans. A day's plastering with no barrier cream, and you'll have no finger prints for a couple of weeks. Bricklaying is probably equally effective. -- Andrew Gabriel |
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... I'd like to think others wouldn't have introduced 'nanny state' legislation, but history says otherwise. This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some. I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. You don't have to carry a works ID card. Not enforceable in law except in military works. But of course as most also open the doors, etc, one is a little buggered without. As for ID cards, even if they are introduced, as far as I see the 1954 ruling still applies and any judge can demand their withdrawal. |
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
A day's plastering with no barrier cream, and you'll have no finger prints for a couple of weeks. Bricklaying is probably equally effective. In fact there is a multitude of areas in which the current biometrics fail. Many fingerprint scanners will not cope with many Asian races (ridges are two fine) as well as the aforementioned bricklayers etc. Many afro caribian eyes are not sufficiently distinct for iris scanners to work. There are a wide range of others with similar problems before you get onto medical conditions. Blunket himself could not be iris scanned for example. There has been loads of coverage on the whole fiasco he http://forms.theregister.co.uk/searc...+cards&x=0&y=0 -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
"Broadback" wrote in message ... Dave Plowman (News) wrote: snip I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. A specious argument. If I have not got my works ID on me I will not be prosecuted. If I turn up at work without it there is just a little hassle to get in, no more no less. Do you drive (legally) ?..... |
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least. Well, let's see: - you choose where to work, you don't have anything like the same choice about being a citizen/resident of the UK. - your workID card typically doesn't carry a log of everywhere it's been used; even if it does, that log's only about when you've carded in and out of work (modulo tailgating ;-) and isn't on a country-wide database. - the 'works ID' registration process is in the context of (typically) one establishment - a few thousand people tops; and gives authorisation to enter one premissseses with lower likelihood of challenge than without. The 'national identity register' enrollment is s'posed to cover the 40 million over-16s of the country, to *flawlessly* link enrolments to authentic 'foundation documents' (replacement birth certs cost between 7 and 12 quid, delivered to any address you care to ask for). The huge range of uses which the National Register's meant to cover makes the motivation for criminal abuse huge - both of the registration process, and of suborning the ****ed-off, privatised, temporary-contract staff who end up with access priviliges. Current costs for getting DVLC information are about 50 notes, AIUI. That's without considering more serious, targetted attacks, to delete, change, or simply louse up entries in the National Identity Register, and the multitude of other flawlessly-implemented, flawlessly-administered, flawlessly-designed (don Kevlar anti-trotter helmets at this point) Government IT systems connected to it. - your works-ID card isn't tied to a national database which makes the card irrelevant: at least for iris scans, the efficiency of recognition means it's pretty reliable (prob-of-misidentifying down in the one-in-a-million-million range) to go straight from 'look into this tube, please, Sir' to 'ah, Mr D Blunkett, Upper Floor Sh*gpad, Admiralty House' - whether or not the geezer asking for your biometrix is acting lawfully or otherwise. Maybe we'll see an honest, well-informed debate, seriously examining the risks and benefits on all sides. Me, I'd keep those anti-trotter helmets firmly on the bonce... Stefek |
John Rumm wrote:
Blunket himself could not be iris scanned for example. Are you sure about that? His blindness might be caused by a problem involving the optic nerve which passes from the eyeball thru to the brain. I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be tested. Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front. Andrew -- Please note that the email address used for posting usenet messages is configured such that my antispam filter will automatically update itself so that the senders email address is flagged as spam. If you do need to contact me please visit my web site and submit an enquiry - http://www.kazmax.co.uk |
Andy Pandy wrote in message . ..
The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and counter-productive IMO. Andy Part P has not a lot to do with extension leads etc. Biff |
"Andrew McKay" wrote in message ... John Rumm wrote: Blunket himself could not be iris scanned for example. Are you sure about that? His blindness might be caused by a problem involving the optic nerve which passes from the eyeball thru to the brain. I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be tested. Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front. Rumour has it next year's passports will require fingerprints anyway so nobody is going to bother with iris scans or suchlike for ID cards. |
Stefek Zaba wrote about ID cards:
Maybe we'll see an honest, well-informed debate, seriously examining the risks and benefits on all sides. Benefits: there is none. The arguments for are simply specious. Cost: large, money that could be spent doing some very useful things instead. Risks: anyone undertaking even basic history or political study will begin to see there are significant risks in giving government / one group of people complete legal power over another. Anyone with a clue as to whats going on in the world will realise that IRL no system or group of people is beyond abuse, ie it will be used abusively. It is inevitable given the wide variety of human nature, the non existence of any perfect human-nature filter, and the many limits of the technologies involved. Law and order: the day it becomes a criminal offence to walk down the street is the day the law will have lost all credibility and all respect. This is what happens when ID cards are introduced. Their mission creeps until it is a criminal offence to walk down the street without the card. Our lowish crime rate has a lot to do with respect. When that is lost, crime goes right up. Seriously if anyone thinks its a non issue they must have no education about fundamental concepts of law, government and society. There seems to be much more awareness about this stuff in the US, where their struggles are so much more recent than ours, and in some cases ongoing. In the UK are people so remarkably unaware that they might actually vote it in. NT |
In article ,
Andrew McKay writes: I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be tested. Iris scanning includes a check that the pupil responds to changes in light level, so it isn't fooled by holding up a photograph of someone's iris. That reflex doesn't always work in blind people (actually I know an otherwise normally sighted person for whom it doesn't work either). Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front. Anyone trying to leave their fingerprint on the back of my eye will find themselves coughing up their testicles... -- Andrew Gabriel |
In message , Biff
writes Andy Pandy wrote in message ... The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and counter-productive IMO. Andy Part P has not a lot to do with extension leads etc. Biff I think that's what he was getting at -- geoff |
|
|
In message , raden
writes In message , Biff writes Andy Pandy wrote in message ... The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and counter-productive IMO. Andy Part P has not a lot to do with extension leads etc. Biff I think that's what he was getting at I worded that badly, didn't I given the choice between expensive "proper" part P approved wiring and a couple of quid for an extension, what are most people going to do ? -- geoff |
|
Andrew McKay wrote:
Blunket himself could not be iris scanned for example. Are you sure about that? His blindness might be caused by a problem involving the optic nerve which passes from the eyeball thru to the brain. It is nothing to do with him being blind (although that may impact the mechanisms that try to verify the eye is "live") - it it to do with uncontrollable eye movements. There are a number of medical conditions that cause this even in fully sighted people. I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be tested. In itself blindness does not rule out iris scans... but much depends on the cause of the blindness. Not having eyes for example would be a pretty good non starter. Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front. Iris scans and retinal scans are two very different things. The latter is far harder to do quickly however without sophisticated medical scanning kit - not at all well suited to a quik ID check. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Mike wrote:
Rumour has it next year's passports will require fingerprints anyway so nobody is going to bother with iris scans or suchlike for ID cards. The ICAO (is that the right ETLA?) will require a biometric on passports - however all they *require* is a digitised facial biomtric - i.e. a photograph. It is the UK gov that is attempting to add FUD to justify their case by saying that fingerprint or iris scans etc will also be required - they won't, and there is currently no international treaty setup to use them should it be there. (Although the US are toying with the idea of RFID enabling passports to facilitate quicker checks on them at immigration desks. This add the reassuring prospect that someone will be able to skim all the usefull informatiion from your passport just by walking close by you!) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Iris scanning includes a check that the pupil responds to changes in light level, so it isn't fooled by holding up a photograph of someone's iris. That reflex doesn't always Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the photo and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Alan wrote:
Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax collection points on our major roads. There have already been studies that show a correlation between a rise in general crime in an area, and saturation with said yellow boxes. It seems they encourage people to be less cooperative with the police in general. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Do you drive (legally) ?..... Nothing wrong with a license to drive, the annual slaughter justifies some basic checks on competence. Drivers license is not an ID card that must be carried to avoid prosecution. However there is no comparable justification for a compulsory ID card. NT |
In message , Alan
writes In message .com, wrote Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax collection points on our major roads. If they are law abiding what is the problem? This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant law. -- Chris French, Leeds |
In message , chris French
writes In message , Alan writes In message .com, wrote Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax collection points on our major roads. If they are law abiding what is the problem? The problem appears to me to be that the laws are becoming increasingly claustrophobic e.g. the right to peaceful protest is currently on the line This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant law. So what are you going to do when what you consider unjust laws actually begin to affect you ? or someone makes a mistake, and you're suddenly a criminal -- geoff |
"raden" wrote in message ... The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and counter-productive IMO. Andy Part P has not a lot to do with extension leads etc. Biff I think that's what he was getting at I worded that badly, didn't I given the choice between expensive "proper" part P approved wiring and a couple of quid for an extension, what are most people going to do ? Get in quick before Part P Section 2 stops it !! :-() |
John Rumm wrote:
Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the photo and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-) Shhh! There might be terrorists reading this newsgroup.... Andrew -- Please note that the email address used for posting usenet messages is configured such that my antispam filter will automatically update itself so that the senders email address is flagged as spam. If you do need to contact me please visit my web site and submit an enquiry - http://www.kazmax.co.uk |
Andrew McKay wrote:
Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front. Definitely iris, not retinal scanning (which is what you sketched). www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/ is the authoritative source. Stefek |
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 00:32:36 +0100, John Rumm
wrote: Andrew Gabriel wrote: Iris scanning includes a check that the pupil responds to changes in light level, so it isn't fooled by holding up a photograph of someone's iris. That reflex doesn't always Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the photo and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-) I think the bees might suspect....... -- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
John Rumm wrote:
Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the photo and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-) Just so. One of the absolutely crucial distinctions that's very rarely mentioned in general discussions is between 'supervised' and 'unsupervised' measurement of the sample biometric. 'Supervised' means there's a trained, motivated person watching you present the biometric - e.g. at border control points. 'Unsupervised' sampling, at ATMs say, allows the whole range of photos, gummi-bears, and all the rest of the equipment-fooling stuff to be deployed by the attacker. Oh, and then there's 'stupid', which is doing it over the Net an trusting the attacker's computing equipment. Doesn't stop some people saying 'and ID cards will work for electronic commerce, too!'... Stefek |
On 23 Apr 2005, Rob Horton wrote
-snip- As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the authorities have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and de-regulated. Apparently, deaths and injuries fell. If they've deregulated, it's from a position which was way, way more more draconian than Part P. I've just spent a fortnight in New Zealand, much of which was doing small jobs for my mother-in-law -- one of these was to install a PIR light in the garage. I established early on that to do any work -- anything at all -- which breaks into the main circuit is prohibited unless done or certified by a registered electrician. It was thus illegal for me to wire the light into the lighting circuit via a junction box (which is what I'd planned to do.) The retail industry there accommodates this by selling PIR units with a plug -- one version plugs into a mains point, while another has a bayonet plug to fit into a light socket. The mains or light socket, though, must be an existing one: it would be illegal to install a new point or a new light socket unless qualified/certified, as that job would require breaking into the main circuit (which isn't allowed). -- Cheers, Harvey |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter