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I have seen an online site stating that it had withdrawn some electrical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 )) 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

On 23 Apr 2005 14:28:13 -0700, (Biff)
wrote:

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


Indirectly it does, because it discourages people who may be competent
to do so from doing what would other be fixed wiring and which is
intrinsically safer.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:28:13 UTC, (Biff)
wrote:

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.

Exactly. Part P does not control extension leads. It does control extra
sockets. Thus people will just use lots of extension leads (probably
partly coiled/rolled).

Cringe.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

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

In message .com,
wrote

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.

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.
--
Alan

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