On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:48:04 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

IMM wrote:

the economy is the best it has been since WW2 snip

Its easy to spot those not trying to run businesses..... at the current
rate of progress they will be outlawing all economic activity shortly.

most important and lots of simple social responsibility laws.

Social Responsibility - Is that what they call the gold plating of lots
of European control freakery that passes for legislation these days then?

They have to stay.

Stay unelectable for another 18 years would be handy.

(You don't happen to have Alistair the PM whispering straight into your
ear do you?)

It's Cherie that works the controls - Alastair just does the
voice...... ;-)

Think of the Judy Garland version of the Wizard of Oz.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:48:04 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

IMM wrote:

the economy is the best it has been since WW2 snip

Its easy to spot those not trying to run businesses..... at the current
rate of progress they will be outlawing all economic activity shortly.

most important and lots of simple social responsibility laws.

Social Responsibility - Is that what they call the gold plating of lots
of European control freakery that passes for legislation these days then?

They have to stay.

Stay unelectable for another 18 years would be handy.

(You don't happen to have Alistair the PM whispering straight into your
ear do you?)

It's Cherie that works the controls - Alastair just does the
voice...... ;-)

Think of the Judy Garland version of the Wizard of Oz.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

All the brainwashed Little Middle Englanders are coming out their shells.
Oh good!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In article ,
says...

All the brainwashed Little Middle Englanders are coming out their shells.
Oh good!


Huh? You believe everything Campbell tells you, yet we're the brainwashed
ones? How does that work exactly?

In message , IMM
writes

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote
| The only constitutional change Bliar is interested in is that which
| gives him more power. I agree that the banana republic has to go,
| but as it is inextricably linked with My Little Tony, he has to go
| with it.
| You are in Tecky land like the others here. Constitutional change: House
of
| Lords (a big one),

No *real* change, there are still hereditary peers

As a transitional measure.

and the lords spirirual
holding privileged positions.

| the Lord Chancellor,

Whom he had absolutely NO business removing without primary legislation
and
due consultation.

The position is silly it should go.

So are you, but you entertain us
--
geoff

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:10:09 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Not so. The House of Lods was an affont to the British people. Stopping
the hereditory land owning peers was paramount. The form after can, and is,
being worked out.

One advantage the hereditary peers had over the HoC was that their
justification or opposition to something wasn't based upon trying to
extend their own political career, as happens so often in the HoC.
There is merit in having reviewers of legislation who aren't dependent
upon the whims of the electorate every 5 years.

And let us not forget that the HoL is not a law-making society. It is
a law-shaping society. The HoC puts forward proposals for the statute
book which are passed thru the HoL (generally speaking - there are
exceptions such as the finance bill which the HoL can't touch by
virtue of precedent). The HoL can debate and revise the proposals,
which are then passed back to the HoC.

When you see some of the dickhead proposals which are spouted by
Blunkett and others you get to feel glad that there is a 2nd chamber.

I happen to wonder how this country ever managed to get thru the last
800 years or so with the HoL which is so obviously broken.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:12:12 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

The position is silly it should go.

After due consultation, maybe.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:07:31 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

However, I think the major problem with the new regulations is that
they will encourage far more use of extension leads and similar ad
hoc solutions rather than improvements to fixed installations. This
will decrease safety rather than increase it.

Exactly. The way I see it there will be more people refusing to carry
out work due to the restrictions imposed by the new regulations. That
will leave fewer practitioners in the industry. Those that are left
will most likely charge more. End result could be that the end user
decides to do the job himself, without any regard to the regs at all.

We could easily see more deaths and injury result from the stupid
application of these regulations.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:43:11 +0100, Andrew McKay
wrote:

I recently posted an article on this forum in respect of the
government introducing new regulations to require electrical work to
be carried out by a registered electrician. From next April it will
become law for electrical work to be undertaken only by said
electricians (a bit like corgi for gas fitters).

I did some further research on this yesterday, and from the NICEIC web
site it would appear that I can apply to become registered with them:

http://www.niceic.org.uk/nonapproved/requirements.html

I then looked into the costs. Basically to become registered with
NICEIC I shall see an extra cost to my business of nearly £2000.
Here's a breakdown of how I came to those costs......

1) I currently have £1M public liability insurance. That will have to
be increased to £2M. I haven't checked the figure but I assume for the
sake of argument that will be at least an additional £100 per year.

2) NICEIC annual enrolment fee = £376.

3) NICEIC first year enrolment = £58.75.

4) NICEIC application fee for address inspection = £411.25.

5) Purchase of Robin KTS1620 16th edition tester = £675.63.

6) Calibration certificate for KTS1620 = £88.12.

7) Training for C&G2391 = £140.

There will undoubtedly be other sundries which I haven't yet taken
into account.

Some of the above costs are one-off (for example the KTS1620 would
only be bought once). Others are recurring. I reckon on having to
spend at least £1000 per year in maintaining my registration with the
NICEIC.

It appears to be a quango.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:10:09 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Best thing Tony has done so far - hand over control of interest rates to
the BOE, That was the highlight - it's been all down hill ever since!

the economy is the best it has been since WW2, constitutional change, the
most important and lots of simple social responsibility laws. They have to
stay.


I would agree that having the Bank of England in control of interest
rates was a good move, but only places it in line with most other
countries. Brown is largely ineffectual, so fortunately has not done
significantly damaged the economy.

Constitutional change is sufficiently important that changes should be
by referendum, not by cabinet reshuffle and hoping that nobody would
notice. Whether or not constitutional change is desirable, I very
much doubt whether the majority of the electorate who voted for the
government has in mind giving it the carte blanche that it imagines it
has.

Returning to the topic, have you read the report on the ODPM web site?

While this proposed legislation is not quite on the scale of tinkering
around with the constitution, it is of importance to a lot of home
owners and certainly to anybody in this NG.
Does it fall under your category of "simple social responsibility
laws"? In other words, do you think it's a good thing?

From the report:

- They received 490 replies of which 206 were from electrical
contractors.

However they did not take into account that this group represents a
vested interest in restricting who can carry out electrical work.


- 143 were forwarded to the Minister by MPs acting on behalf of their
constituents, including many that were from electrical contractors
(142).

If this were in the House of Commons, I would be suggesting that "they
are misleading the House" - We know the meaning of that coded
language. I wrote to them via my MP (and received a reply from the
minister). I know of at least two other people who also did who are
not electrical contractors and who were not in support of the
proposals either.
This means that either somebody can't add up, or something rather more
serious.

- The public respondents rejected the need for independent inspectors
and expressed concerns that the added costs of an independent
inspector on one or more occasions would deter the DIY worker and
those working in the grey/black economy from notifying work at any
time.

This was ignored as were a number of other comments submitted by the
public.

The report mentions that 63% of respondents were in favour of the
proposed legislation, but of course they omit the correlation between
that and the "main players" and "industry" groups.

One can deduce fairly easily that that correlation is quite clear.

So essentially, we have a situation where the government proposes to
go with the line of following the interests of trade associations, who
will gain financially and whose members will gain financially from it.
They actively campaigned to their members and through the trade press.

The general public was not made aware of it, as witnessed by the small
number of responses. Were there signs up in B&Q making people aware
of the effective demise of DIY electrical work? No.

I think that it's going to be quite interesting when the public at
large finds out about this and realises that once again they have been
ignored in favour of dogma.

... and you consider this to be socially responsible legislation?







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andrew McKay" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:10:09 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Not so. The House of Lods was an affont to the British people. Stopping
the hereditory land owning peers was paramount. The form after can, and
is,
being worked out.

One advantage the hereditary
peers had over the HoC was that their
justification or opposition to something
wasn't based upon trying to
extend their own political career,

BALLS!!! They were attempting to keep their wealth and the history of UK
politic clearly indicates this. Read some history, especially the Irish
famine and the enclosures in England and the Clearing of the crofts in
Scotland. They were a self interest group, nothing more and collectively
have successfully hung onto their wealth over the centuries. No other major
western nation had such a ridiculous system. You obviously sucked in the
propaganda.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote
| The only constitutional change Bliar is interested in is that which
| gives him more power. I agree that the banana republic has to go,
| but as it is inextricably linked with My Little Tony, he has to go
| with it.
| You are in Tecky land like the others here. Constitutional change:
House
of
| Lords (a big one),

No *real* change, there are still hereditary peers

As a transitional measure.

and the lords spirirual
holding privileged positions.

| the Lord Chancellor,

Whom he had absolutely NO business removing without primary legislation
and
due consultation.

The position is silly it should go.

So are you, but you entertain us

Maxie, I aim to please.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 17 Aug 2003 09:23:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

Brown is largely ineffectual, so fortunately has not done
significantly damaged the economy.

Jesus. How wrong can you be?

I meant relative to what he could have done. I'm aware of the IR35
damage...

You are in cloud cuckoo land, Little Middle England as most would say. The
closet Tory surfaces.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:31 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Aug 2003 09:23:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

Brown is largely ineffectual, so fortunately has not done
significantly damaged the economy.

Jesus. How wrong can you be?

I meant relative to what he could have done. I'm aware of the IR35
damage...

You are in cloud cuckoo land, Little Middle England as most would say. The
closet Tory surfaces.

What on earth are you talking about?

My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:31 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Aug 2003 09:23:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

Brown is largely ineffectual, so fortunately has not done
significantly damaged the economy.

Jesus. How wrong can you be?

I meant relative to what he could have done. I'm aware of the IR35
damage...

You are in cloud cuckoo land, Little Middle England as most would say.
The
closet Tory surfaces.

What on earth are you talking about?

My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.

You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest of the
world admire what he is doing.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"IMM" wrote in message ...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:31 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Aug 2003 09:23:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

Brown is largely ineffectual, so fortunately has not done
significantly damaged the economy.

Jesus. How wrong can you be?

I meant relative to what he could have done. I'm aware of the IR35
damage...

You are in cloud cuckoo land, Little Middle England as most would say.
The
closet Tory surfaces.

What on earth are you talking about?

My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.

You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest of the
world admire what he is doing.

That's because the rest of the world haven't noticed that he is naked.

Trying not to be political here, there was a recent report by a very
influential group suggesting that GB had not done particularly well.
The only reason that the world hasn't noticed is that he has been
lucky that there hasn't (yet) been an obvious signs.

Tim




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In article ,
tim wrote:
You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest
of the world admire what he is doing.

That's because the rest of the world haven't noticed that he is naked.

Trying not to be political here, there was a recent report by a very
influential group suggesting that GB had not done particularly well.

And of what political persuasion would that group be?

The only reason that the world hasn't noticed is that he has been
lucky that there hasn't (yet) been an obvious signs.

Err, the standard signs of a failing economy are rather difficult to
conceal. Let's face it, the Tories tried and failed.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:16:30 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.

You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest of the
world admire what he is doing.


The Americans seem to admire his boss as well, but they don't have to
live with the consequences.

The topic is the proposed part P of the Building Regulations. Are you
going to comment on that or are you embarrassed by its lack of
democracy?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message ,
"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote:



I could show you a specific position on an open road with clear vision where
the lives of two motorcyclists were lost needlessly, due to the first one
breaking to avoid being caught by a speed camera. (A316, Twickenham
westbound, just past the rugby stadium, dual carriageway. Daylight.)



It's not the speed camera which caused this accident, it is the idiots
who were ignoring the speed limit and so desperate to avoid a fine that
they hadn't taken account of other road users.

I'm doing a lot of motorway driving at the moment - M1, A42, M42, M5,
M50... you can guess the rest - and this is one of the things which
causes a *lot* of problems IME. There I am, quite happily tootling along
at as near 70mph as my speedo and prevailing conditions will allow,
occasionally moving to the middle or third lane to overtake something
slower, and all the while people are rushing past at 80 or 90mph, often
impatiently sitting so close to my boot that I can't see their
headlights, when all of a sudden the whole motorway grinds to a halt.

What is it? An accident? A closed lane? A speed restriction?

No; there's a jam sandwich or a battenburg cake sitting in the left lane
doing 60 or 65mph and no-one dares pass it. The resulting "slinky
effect" can cause stop-start traffic for miles.

When they introduced timed speed restrictions on parts of the M25 it
wasn't because of safety concerns, it was simply that it proved possible
to increase traffic flow by forcing everyone to travel at a slower, but
*steady* speed.

Oh crumbs, *very* OT. Sorry, but people who complain about speed cameras
are one of my pet hates at the moment. I'll try to restrain myself in
future :-)

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk/
.... Life shouldn't be an endless repetition of stale successes.

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim wrote:
You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest
of the world admire what he is doing.

That's because the rest of the world haven't noticed that he is naked.

Trying not to be political here, there was a recent report by a very
influential group suggesting that GB had not done particularly well.

And of what political persuasion would that group be?

no idea?

The only reason that the world hasn't noticed is that he has been
lucky that there hasn't (yet) been an obvious signs.

Err, the standard signs of a failing economy are rather difficult to
conceal. Let's face it, the Tories tried and failed.

But the 'excuse' is 'world events' and as the UK isn't suffering
a diaster, everyone believes that. The faults with what GB has
done would all seem to be stored up for later. They may never
come to fruition, but I doubt that.

Tim


--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Andrew McKay" wrote
| I then looked into the costs. Basically to become registered with
| NICEIC I shall see an extra cost to my business of nearly £2000...
| There will undoubtedly be other sundries which I haven't yet taken
| into account.

Especially the billable hours lost in dealing with all that admin and doing
the training, exams etc.

| Some of the above costs are one-off (for example the KTS1620 would
| only be bought once). Others are recurring. I reckon on having to
| spend at least £1000 per year in maintaining my registration with the
| NICEIC.

If your hourly contribution to fixed costs is £30, that's about an extra
weeks work you'd have to do a year.

Owain

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote:



I could show you a specific position on an open road with clear vision
where
the lives of two motorcyclists were lost needlessly, due to the first
one
breaking to avoid being caught by a speed camera. (A316, Twickenham
westbound, just past the rugby stadium, dual carriageway. Daylight.)



It's not the speed camera which caused this accident, it is the idiots
who were ignoring the speed limit and so desperate to avoid a fine that
they hadn't taken account of other road users.

I'm doing a lot of motorway driving at the moment - M1, A42, M42, M5,
M50... you can guess the rest - and this is one of the things which
causes a *lot* of problems IME. There I am, quite happily tootling along
at as near 70mph as my speedo and prevailing conditions will allow,
occasionally moving to the middle or third lane to overtake something
slower, and all the while people are rushing past at 80 or 90mph, often
impatiently sitting so close to my boot that I can't see their
headlights, when all of a sudden the whole motorway grinds to a halt.

What is it? An accident? A closed lane? A speed restriction?

No; there's a jam sandwich or a battenburg cake sitting in the left lane
doing 60 or 65mph and no-one dares pass it. The resulting "slinky
effect" can cause stop-start traffic for miles.

When they introduced timed speed restrictions on parts of the M25 it
wasn't because of safety concerns, it was simply that it proved possible
to increase traffic flow by forcing everyone to travel at a slower, but
*steady* speed.

Oh crumbs, *very* OT. Sorry, but people who complain about speed cameras
are one of my pet hates at the moment. I'll try to restrain myself in
future :-)

They have them in sneaky places where there are no accident backspots. Then
the public do not cooperate with them on other crime matters. A top traffic
consultant in Northamptonshire dismissed speed as the major cause of
accidents. I think it was poor junction design, poor signs (the UKs are
appalling with ting little signs with lots of little writing), and general
poor driving which he put above speeding. The government ignored him to make
money on cameras.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:16:30 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.

You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest of
the
world admire what he is doing.


The Americans seem to admire his boss as well, but they don't have to
live with the consequences.

What bloody consequences? We have probably the most stable high performing
economy in the world.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:16:30 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest of the
world admire what he is doing.

You mean like the OECD:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2972713.stm

Or the Office of National Statistics:

http://www.ananova.com/business/stor...atestheadlines

Or the Office of National Statistics again:

http://www.ananova.com/business/stor...786.html?menu=

Or perhaps the Institute of Directors combined with European Finance
Ministers:

http://www.accountancyage.com/News/1132582

And even the Pensions Policy Institute:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2760121.stm

Anyone left to admire Brown?

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

In message ,
"IMM" wrote:


"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote:



I could show you a specific position on an open road with clear vision
where
the lives of two motorcyclists were lost needlessly, due to the first
one
breaking to avoid being caught by a speed camera. (A316, Twickenham
westbound, just past the rugby stadium, dual carriageway. Daylight.)



It's not the speed camera which caused this accident, it is the idiots
who were ignoring the speed limit and so desperate to avoid a fine that
they hadn't taken account of other road users.

I'm doing a lot of motorway driving at the moment - M1, A42, M42, M5,
M50... you can guess the rest - and this is one of the things which
causes a *lot* of problems IME. There I am, quite happily tootling along
at as near 70mph as my speedo and prevailing conditions will allow,
occasionally moving to the middle or third lane to overtake something
slower, and all the while people are rushing past at 80 or 90mph, often
impatiently sitting so close to my boot that I can't see their
headlights, when all of a sudden the whole motorway grinds to a halt.

What is it? An accident? A closed lane? A speed restriction?

No; there's a jam sandwich or a battenburg cake sitting in the left lane
doing 60 or 65mph and no-one dares pass it. The resulting "slinky
effect" can cause stop-start traffic for miles.

When they introduced timed speed restrictions on parts of the M25 it
wasn't because of safety concerns, it was simply that it proved possible
to increase traffic flow by forcing everyone to travel at a slower, but
*steady* speed.

Oh crumbs, *very* OT. Sorry, but people who complain about speed cameras
are one of my pet hates at the moment. I'll try to restrain myself in
future :-)

They have them in sneaky places where there are no accident backspots. Then
the public do not cooperate with them on other crime matters. A top traffic
consultant in Northamptonshire dismissed speed as the major cause of
accidents. I think it was poor junction design, poor signs (the UKs are
appalling with ting little signs with lots of little writing), and general
poor driving which he put above speeding. The government ignored him to make
money on cameras.


Speed may not be a major cause of accidents, but it sure as heck makes
what might be a close shave or a minor bump into something much much
worse. Poor junctions, poor signage, poor lighting and so on all
contribute, but breaking the speed limit is a pretty reliable sign of a
selfish attitude to sharing the road which can cause a lot of problems.
"Speeding is a victimless crime so why are the police hounding people
for it?" Grow up.

An example. There is a road near here which is absolutely straight for
nearly a mile. On a good day you can see from one end to the other.
People who don't know the road like to race down it.

People who do know the road know that not only is there a hidden dip,
quite big enough to conceal a small car, but that there is a golf course
on both sides of the road and three or four places where golfers
regularly cross, there are also houses. To be honest, even 60mph can be
dangerous on this road. As it happens, there is no camera on the road,
though there are signs.

As this road nears our house the speed limit reduces to 40mph. Very few
people take note of this limit and most of the time they will not have
any problems - but you try crossing it with a toddler or a pram as we
have to (no underpass, no bridge, no crossing, and the lights just up
the road are designed to maximise traffic flow and make crossing the
road at the lights *more* dangerous than crossing nearer our house) and
you will see what I mean by speeding being selfish.

Given the fact that most speeders blithely ignore the limit, if the
possibility of cameras makes them think, then they can only be a good
thing. As I said before, it is emphatically *not* the cameras which
cause the accidents, it is those stupid drivers who see them and,
suddenly realising that they could get another three points on the
licence, slam out the anchors without thinking.

If, however, you remember the speed limits and stick to them then speed
cameras can safely be completely ignored in the same way that if you
don't try to take a kilo of pot with you through customs you can safely
ignore the officers scanning your baggage.

The problem with preaching (as I seem to be doing) is that no-one is
perfect and so I hereby confess that there have been occasions in my
16-year driving career when I have broken the speed limit. Mostly
completely inadvertantly and immediately corrected, twice or three times
completely deliberately - but the deliberate cases were all on empty
stretches of motorway and I wouldn't have complained, though I would
have felt very stupid, if I'd been clocked.

I have never tried to take anything so much as a grain of tobacco
through customs :-)

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk/
.... I am Popeye of Borg. Prepare to be askimilgrated.

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...

Oh crumbs, *very* OT. Sorry, but people who complain about speed
cameras
are one of my pet hates at the moment. I'll try to restrain myself in
future :-)

They have them in sneaky places where there are no accident backspots.
Then
the public do not cooperate with them on other crime matters. A top
traffic
consultant in Northamptonshire dismissed speed as the major cause of
accidents. I think it was poor junction design, poor signs (the UKs are
appalling with ting little signs with lots of little writing), and
general
poor driving which he put above speeding. The government ignored him to
make
money on cameras.

Speed may not be a major cause of accidents, but it sure as heck makes
what might be a close shave or a minor bump into something much much
worse. Poor junctions, poor signage, poor lighting and so on all
contribute, but breaking the speed limit is a pretty reliable sign of a
selfish attitude to sharing the road which can cause a lot of problems.
"Speeding is a victimless crime so why are the police hounding people
for it?" Grow up.

Speed traps are economic measure. If they really wanted to save lives they
would attack the prime causes, but this cost money and speed is down the
list in the pecking order, but speed is the only measure which they can make
money from, so propaganda about speed being the prime cause of accidents is
issued.

An example. There is a road near here which is absolutely straight for
nearly a mile. On a good day you can see from one end to the other.
People who don't know the road like to race down it.

People who do know the road know that not only is there a hidden dip,
quite big enough to conceal a small car, but that there is a golf course
on both sides of the road and three or four places where golfers
regularly cross, there are also houses. To be honest, even 60mph can be
dangerous on this road. As it happens, there is no camera on the road,
though there are signs.

As this road nears our house the speed limit reduces to 40mph. Very few
people take note of this limit and most of the time they will not have
any problems - but you try crossing it with a toddler or a pram as we
have to (no underpass, no bridge, no crossing, and the lights just up
the road are designed to maximise traffic flow and make crossing the
road at the lights *more* dangerous than crossing nearer our house) and
you will see what I mean by speeding being selfish.

Given the fact that most speeders blithely ignore the limit, if the
possibility of cameras makes them think, then they can only be a good
thing. As I said before, it is emphatically *not* the cameras which
cause the accidents, it is those stupid drivers who see them and,
suddenly realising that they could get another three points on the
licence, slam out the anchors without thinking.

There are reckless drivers who speed. And there are quick assertive
drivers. One is very different to the other with the latter being safe. In
your road, some re-design is required to slow down the traffic.

If, however, you remember the speed limits
and stick to them then speed
cameras can safely be completely ignored

Unlike say France and Germany, where there are set designs for types of
roads, in the UK you can be on a 3 lane road with a barrier in the centre
and it is 30 mph. There is no visual indication except some tiny obscure
sign probably hidden behind some overhanging tree 1 mile up the road to say
it is 30mph when the road itself says I am a fast road. Drivers naturally
drive to the safe limits of the road construction. This is major problem and
the police put traps on these roads and rake it in. There is no danger
involved mind you, no blackspot or the likes. This is what ****es people
off.

It is common to be on a 60mph road and suddenly it goes right down to 30mph
when entering a village, just outside the village. No large 40 mph section
before to prepare drivers for the sudden spped drop and the village. And
just after the 30mph limit a camera of course. This also ****es people off
as they go through at 40mph decelerating all the way to 30mph.

Speed cameras are to get the non-locals. The locals drive just as badly in
no camera stretches.

Saying remember limits and observe signs is ludicrous when our signs are
crap, high speed roads are reduced to 30mph and traffic levels are so high
drivers are concentrating on other vehicles and driving to the safe limits
of the road construction. A school should not have a duel carriageway in
front of it, the road should be single laned as people naturally slow down
on these roads.

The problem with preaching (as I seem to be doing) is that no-one is
perfect and so I hereby confess that there have been occasions in my
16-year driving career when I have broken the speed limit. Mostly
completely inadvertantly and immediately corrected, twice or three times
completely deliberately - but the deliberate cases were all on empty
stretches of motorway and I wouldn't have complained, though I would
have felt very stupid, if I'd been clocked.

Are you a priest? The police want an 80mph limit on motorways. They said if
a driver is doing 80mph and not a danger they would leave him. I drive at
aprox 80mph, or to what the prevailing traffic does. I don't keep looking
at the speedo as this distracts from watching the cars in front which can
suddenly all slam on. I have overtaken police cars doing 80 and they have
left me alone.

I have never tried to take anything so much as a grain of tobacco
through customs :-)

I don't smoke.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:53:49 +0100, Martin Angove
wrote:



Speed may not be a major cause of accidents, but it sure as heck makes
what might be a close shave or a minor bump into something much much
worse. Poor junctions, poor signage, poor lighting and so on all
contribute, but breaking the speed limit is a pretty reliable sign of a
selfish attitude to sharing the road which can cause a lot of problems.

And your evidence is...

"Speeding is a victimless crime so why are the police hounding people
for it?" Grow up.

An example. There is a road near here which is absolutely straight for
nearly a mile. On a good day you can see from one end to the other.
People who don't know the road like to race down it.

Why? How? Who does the starters flag bit? Who does the timekeeping?


People who do know the road know that not only is there a hidden dip,
quite big enough to conceal a small car, but that there is a golf course
on both sides of the road and three or four places where golfers
regularly cross, there are also houses. To be honest, even 60mph can be
dangerous on this road. As it happens, there is no camera on the road,
though there are signs.

So there should be. That's it then.


As this road nears our house the speed limit reduces to 40mph.

Are we still in the hidden dip territory or not?

Very few
people take note of this limit and most of the time they will not have
any problems - but you try crossing it with a toddler or a pram as we
have to (no underpass, no bridge, no crossing, and the lights just up
the road are designed to maximise traffic flow and make crossing the
road at the lights *more* dangerous than crossing nearer our house) and
you will see what I mean by speeding being selfish.


Well then picket your local council for speed cameras, or your local
police, we did and we've got them. Meanwhile don't keep crossing the
road at the most dangerous point, have some sense, use the lights, do
as they told us at primary school 55 years ago cross the road where
it's safe to do so.

Cretin.


Given the fact that most speeders blithely ignore the limit,

It's not a given fact. How do you know this?

if the
possibility of cameras makes them think, then they can only be a good
thing. As I said before, it is emphatically *not* the cameras which
cause the accidents, it is those stupid drivers who see them and,
suddenly realising that they could get another three points on the
licence, slam out the anchors without thinking.

That's solely an issue for the driver of the car driving too close
behind. He is responsible for the consequences of any accidents. It is
not a concern for pedestrians with/without infants crossing the road
where it dips/doesn't dip, especially where there is a light
controlled crossing nearby.

If, however, you remember the speed limits and stick to them then speed
cameras can safely be completely ignored in the same way that if you
don't try to take a kilo of pot with you through customs you can safely
ignore the officers scanning your baggage.

There are people who have challenged statements such as that.
See: http://www.day-tripper.net/ztravelferrydaytrippers.html


The problem with preaching (as I seem to be doing) is that no-one is
perfect

You speak for yourself.

and so I hereby confess that there have been occasions in my
16-year driving career when I have broken the speed limit. Mostly
completely inadvertantly and immediately corrected, twice or three times
completely deliberately - but the deliberate cases were all on empty
stretches of motorway

As the song said "No, not ****ing much".

and I wouldn't have complained, though I would
have felt very stupid, if I'd been clocked.

I have never tried to take anything so much as a grain of tobacco
through customs :-)


But then you're a pratt.

Hwyl!

Latvian? This is an English language newsgroup.

SAES! ai blesi.

DG.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:55:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:16:30 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.

You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest of
the
world admire what he is doing.


The Americans seem to admire his boss as well, but they don't have to
live with the consequences.

What bloody consequences? We have probably the most stable high performing
economy in the world.

Yeah, right.....
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:55:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:16:30 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.

You were on about Gordon Brown being useless. When in fact the rest of
the
world admire what he is doing.


The Americans seem to admire his boss as well, but they don't have to
live with the consequences.

What bloody consequences? We have probably the most stable high performing
economy in the world.


I assume that we are not going to hear your comments on Part P of the
Building Regulations, then??


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:

My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.

Like with many things this government, the legislative process seems to be:-

1) Find some industry that is ticking along nicely without too much
heavy handed regulation. Next come up with some half baked idea that
will "correct" a perceived* problem in said industry, but in reality
will achieve the exact opposite of the intention.

(* Where perception of the problem seems to emanate from either The Home
secretary / Orifice of the deputy prime minister / Inland revenue /
QUANGO of your choice (delete as appropriate) - but no one else in the
real world is aware of the "problem")

2) Have some form of "consultation" which you start by not announcing to
anyone, fail to include interested organisations (especially those
likely to be most negatively affected by the legislation), and where
where you ignore the responses you don't like and only concentrate on
those from large interested groups who stand to benefit from said daft
legislation. (ID cards anyone?)

3) Force said legislation through parliament - preferably using a
"statutory instrument" so that further meddling can be done to "embrace
and extend" (TM Microsoft) said legislation later, without need for
"troublesome" scrutiny by the HoC. (EUCD, or RIP act ?)

4) Realise in a few years that said legislation is not achieving the
desired result. Employ more public servants to help enforce compliance
with the legislation.

5) Just in time for said industry to wither and die / get exported to
third world body shop of choice / become dominated by large
multinational corporations who achieve less for five times the money etc.

6) The upside is there may be some nice directorships / backhanders for
the MPs responsible, when they finally get booted out of office.


So if that all plays out with regard to part P of the building regs we
should be getting to 3 any time now. 4 will be a large recruitment drive
for little Hitler's to work in local gov. building control offices. 5
will be growth in large trade bodies, big electrical firms, and
diversification in to electrical contracting by the big US owned
consulting operations (probably bringing immigrant labour in on the fast
track visa scheme since there is a "skills shortage" of local indigenous
electricians - prepared to work for 4.50/hour that is).

Joe public will have never heard of part P of the building regs and will
carry on DIYing. They may find out when they have trouble selling their
house, but a nice cottage industry in post certification will spring up
(the more Internet savvy will just download a suitable certification
form from the web and print it out).

You may find it harder to buy electrical "bits" from the sheds, so more
of jo public's relations will croak as a result of that dodgy socket
that they would have fixed if only they could have got the replacement
part, but weren't prepared to pay 75 quid for Mr. Accredited wiring
monkey to come and do if for them.

Still look at the bright side - we will be so much safer now the gov.
has spent millions of our money looking after us like this.... thanks Nanny.

Maybe this is just a figment of my warped mind! Someone reassure me!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , IMM
writes

There are reckless drivers who speed. And there are quick assertive
drivers.

I have to agree there


Speed cameras are to get the non-locals. The locals drive just as badly in
no camera stretches.

Yes


The problem with preaching (as I seem to be doing) is that no-one is
perfect and so I hereby confess that there have been occasions in my
16-year driving career when I have broken the speed limit. Mostly
completely inadvertantly and immediately corrected, twice or three times
completely deliberately - but the deliberate cases were all on empty
stretches of motorway and I wouldn't have complained, though I would
have felt very stupid, if I'd been clocked.

Sanctimonious ****


Are you a priest? The police want an 80mph limit on motorways. They said if
a driver is doing 80mph and not a danger they would leave him. I drive at
aprox 80mph, or to what the prevailing traffic does. I don't keep looking
at the speedo as this distracts from watching the cars in front which can
suddenly all slam on.

And you were doing so well there


I have never tried to take anything so much as a grain of tobacco
through customs :-)

You prefer pure weed then ?


Someone get me a thermometer - I must be ill

--
geoff

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:49:36 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

My post was about the proposed part P to the Building Regulations.

Perhaps you would like to return to the topic and comment on that.


snip undemocratic legislative process


Joe public will have never heard of part P of the building regs and will
carry on DIYing. They may find out when they have trouble selling their
house, but a nice cottage industry in post certification will spring up
(the more Internet savvy will just download a suitable certification
form from the web and print it out).

You may find it harder to buy electrical "bits" from the sheds, so more
of jo public's relations will croak as a result of that dodgy socket
that they would have fixed if only they could have got the replacement
part, but weren't prepared to pay 75 quid for Mr. Accredited wiring
monkey to come and do if for them.

Still look at the bright side - we will be so much safer now the gov.
has spent millions of our money looking after us like this.... thanks Nanny.

Maybe this is just a figment of my warped mind! Someone reassure me!


I think you have it to a tee.

I wonder which one will be next. My money is on plumbing not being
too far behind in the Politburo agenda.

I was recently looking at the Institute of Plumbing web site, since
this would presumably become the closed shop for "qualified plumbers"
able to self certify work for part Q of the Building Regulations.

Regarding qualifications for membership they have a FAQ:

***
I'm a working plumber - will my work be inspected?

If you don’t have formal qualifications, we can accept practical
experience instead, together with suitable references from others in
the profession. In some cases we may ask one of our Professional
Standards Inspectors to assess your work.
***

What kind of a scam is that?

It's good to read that they hold the DIYer in high esteem, though:

****

Putting up a couple of shelves is one thing, but trying a bit of DIY
on your plumbing system can not only be dangerous and expensive, but
could also drop you in hot water with the law! Many people are happy
to do minor jobs like changing a tap washer but for anything else you
are best to leave it in the hands of the professionals. If you do not
know 100% what you are doing, DIY interference with plumbing systems
can result in serious damage, expensive repair bills and potential
health hazards.

The DIY householder is subject to the same regulations and controls as
the professional plumber and everything connected to water supply has
to comply with statutory requirements. Minimum standards for sanitary
plumbing and drainage installations are laid down by law in the
interest of public health and safety. Contravention can lead to
prosecution and the possible imposition of substantial fines.

Don't take the risk of endangering your property, your own or your
families health or risk breaking the law. For your plumbing problems
always call the expert services of your local Registered Plumber.

***




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

There are reckless drivers who speed. And there are quick assertive
drivers.

I have to agree there

And there are just downright crap drivers, whatever their speed. However,
after driving quite a lot in Belgium and the Netherlands I will never moan
about the overall standards of driving on UK roads again! Those guys will
be gold medal contenders if tailgating ever becomes an Olympic sport...



Speed cameras are to get the non-locals. The locals drive just as badly
in
no camera stretches.

Yes


The problem with preaching (as I seem to be doing) is that no-one is
perfect and so I hereby confess that there have been occasions in my
16-year driving career when I have broken the speed limit. Mostly
completely inadvertantly and immediately corrected, twice or three
times
completely deliberately - but the deliberate cases were all on empty
stretches of motorway and I wouldn't have complained, though I would
have felt very stupid, if I'd been clocked.

Sanctimonious ****


Are you a priest? The police want an 80mph limit on motorways. They said
if
a driver is doing 80mph and not a danger they would leave him. I drive
at
aprox 80mph, or to what the prevailing traffic does. I don't keep
looking
at the speedo as this distracts from watching the cars in front which can
suddenly all slam on.

And you were doing so well there


I have never tried to take anything so much as a grain of tobacco
through customs :-)

You prefer pure weed then ?


Someone get me a thermometer - I must be ill




Must have been all that dodgy Belgian beer!

how was the break?

cheers
Richard
--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

In article ,
Peter Parry writes:

Well I have just seen a qualified certified NICEIC electrician chimp

NICEIC electrician does not mean 'qualified'.

However, I think the major problem with the new regulations is that
they will encourage far more use of extension leads and similar ad
hoc solutions rather than improvements to fixed installations. This
will decrease safety rather than increase it.

Deaths due to electrical installation faults in the home runs at
around 5 per year, and falling. Deaths due to other accidental
incidents in the home runs at around 2350 per year, most of which
are from slips trips and falls, and although I have no figures,
I'll but many more than 5 of these are already caused by tripping
over extension leads.

Fortunately, I doubt anyone will take any notice of the new regs,
and people will continue to improve the safety of their homes.
This, combined with the Window regs and some other upcoming
Building regs increasingly discredit the building regs as a whole,
which is regrettable. I spoke with my Building Control department
when I did my response to the proposals, and they had this view.
Unfortunately, they were not able to go on record, but they did
privately support me, completely agreed with my response, and
wished me the best of luck.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On 17 Aug 2003 15:18:49 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Although the large number of stealth tax rises and the £5bn/year raped
from the pension funds is a bit much.

Gotta pay the MPs 1/40ths scheme(*) with something though, haven't they ?

(*) As voted for by themselves.

--
John

What do you think that the 10% increase in NICs was _really_ for? :-)



--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

RichardS wrote:

What do you think that the 10% increase in NICs was _really_ for? :-)

Well it certainly wasn't going to do much for the NHS was it - they
(being the largest public sector employers) have been hit by the NICs
rise harder than anyone!

GBs Logic: Hey Nursey - have a 3.5% pay rise - that should leave you 1%
in real terms after inflation.... on second thoughts give us that back!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , Simon
Gardner wrote:
I do. I think humanity should and I certainly do have a
fundamental objection to policing by robot - which is what
this amounts to.

As was pointed out in a newspaper last week, if you are caught
shoplifting and have no record then you'll almost certainly be
let off with a caution. Why no similar allowance for motorists -
because making money is the aim IMO

IMO there would be a lot less resentment of speed cameras if (a)
technology was employed to adjust the tolerance depending on
weather, time and traffic flow - remember that the speed limit
will be up to 9mph less than what is judged to be safe by
traffic engineers; (b) the penalty was 1, 2 or 3 points
depending on the amount by which you exceeded the limit; and (c)
your record was taken into account: e.g. first offence [within x
years]: no fine, one point.

Beyond this we ultimately need to have variable speed limits
that are set according to what is safe at any particular time.
The more we go for fixed penalties that take no account of
conditions, the more we remove from drivers any conception that
they should adjust their speed to what is appropriate. We used
to get this when I was a BCO: "how little can I do to comply"
was more often asked than "what would be the right thing to do
here"

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Tony Bryer wrote:

IMO there would be a lot less resentment of speed cameras if (a)
technology was employed to adjust the tolerance depending on
weather, time and traffic flow - remember that the speed limit

I also quite like the idea proposed by the institute of advanced drivers:

If you must have cameras at all, then they should be sited at an
accident black spot (and not on a totally different road within some
arbitrary radius!).

There should be a "camera ahead" sign a few hundred yards before it that
shows the speed limit, and importantly, includes the reason the camera
is there. So for example you get things like "30, Concealed Junction",
or "20, School Crossing".

It that way there is less argument that you are targeting safety and not
implementing another stealth tax. Also you would be carrying out a
subconscious process of education - alerting drivers to the sorts of
situations and road conditions that should require close attention to
speed.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

harrogate wrote:
those placed to do nothing but earn
money are a disgrace. There are two each way on the A1 near Grantham.
Both are on clear open and straight stretches of dual carriageway.
What purpose are they there for but to collect revenue?

Cars leaving, entering and crossing from two small side roads on each
carriageway.
If you've ever tried it there you'll agree that cars doing 70+ on the 'clear
open and straight stretches' are a hazzard. Without the camera an F1 start
is required, and would be immpossible to join the A1 in a 7.5 tonner which
has just come from the industrial estate up the eastern side road.

Toby.

Simon Gardner [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message ...
I have no objection to being "caught shoplifting" or indeed speeding as
long as it's human beings doing it. Policing by robot is horrific and
dystopian. I still do not understand why people are so short-sighted as to
tolerate it. I never will understand. It is a profound evil and
fundamentally wrong.
I have no objection to being caught by robots (who are at least likely to be
impartial). I also have no objection to ID cards, CCTV or any other sort of
infringement of my personal liberty (i.e. my right to do as I wish and take
a calculated risk of getting caught). It seems to me to be a fairer system
altogether.
And, yes, I did get caught at 1am doing 50 in a 30. Well ****ed off I was
too.
I doubt whether speed cameras make money after the first week or so when all
the locals get caught.

"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Simon
Gardner wrote:
I do. I think humanity should and I certainly do have a
fundamental objection to policing by robot - which is what
this amounts to.

Then we should get rid of traffic light then. before they came along a
copper stood in the middle of the junction.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003