"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:30:22 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Joe wrote:

Still, now the police won't get out of bed for less than £75 (Google
gordon wallis 75 if you don't know) it can't be too long before they
won't bother enforcing building regulations.

I expect we are there now. The scope of work that is expected of
building control has grown so fast that there seems little chance of
them keeping on top of it all, and more importantly, of even the
builders / tradesmen / diy folk even remaining aware of what is actually
required. How many "ordinary people" have heard about Part P or L for
example?

And the April they are adding Part G and F the precise details I am not
yet aware of.

It has been abundantly obvious to me and others (on a Part-P course this
week) that Part Prescot has nothing to do with safety but everything to do
with shutting down small businesses (making the environment uneconomic for
them to operate in).

********. Get your sycophantic mind right. It is to close down cowboy
operators. You have been listening to that clown Boris Johnson.

Ed Sirett wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:30:22 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

And the April they are adding Part G and F the precise details I am not
yet aware of.

All I could find was the broad scope of water conservation and ventilation
respectively.

The first has nothing to do with safety under any warped way of looking at
it. The second really is only safety related in the event of gas burning
appliances that source air from indoors. Unless you delight in a house so
airtight you could suffocate, in which case...

I think, that as stupid/evil as the government may be thought to be, most of
this crap is directly resulting from falling in with the EU. Thatcher (as
much as I didn't like her policies on the whole) would have at least told
them to stuff it up their derrierres.

TB, President of the UK and former rotating President of the Solar System
was too keen to be the man of Europe and caved in to all this pointless
crap.

Part P is, IIRRC, traceable to a specific EU directive. Part L and G almost
certainly. HiP too (they *want* that energy cert on every dwelling, the
rest is a smokescreen).


It has been abundantly obvious to me and others (on a Part-P course this
week) that Part Prescot has nothing to do with safety but everything to do
with shutting down small businesses (making the environment uneconomic for
them to operate in).

The icing on the cake. None of the sole traders I have any contact with will
ever employ anyone. The bloke over the road from me does a lot of small
business accounts in the village, and he openly advises many of the one-man
bands not to take on a mate as it's more trouble than it's worth in his
opinion, with regard to costs and paperwork.


If safety/quality was an issue.

1) Make all standards clear simple and available free of charge. Currently
the required 'how-to' docs are spread throughout a range of documents some
free and some prohibitively expensive.

2) Apply resources to track down bad practice rather than regulate those
doing best practice.

3) Punish bad practice with compulsory training and then apply sanctions
if they still don't "get the plot".

Absolutely agree. Too sensible though.

Tim

Ed Sirett wrote:

It has been abundantly obvious to me and others (on a Part-P course this
week) that Part Prescot has nothing to do with safety but everything to do
with shutting down small businesses (making the environment uneconomic for
them to operate in).

Certainly yes. It must also have been helped by large commercial
organisations that had other agendas to further by encouraging the
legislators to think in that direction. It probably plays straight into
the closed shop sentimentalities of the DPM himself no doubt.

If safety/quality was an issue.

1) Make all standards clear simple and available free of charge. Currently
the required 'how-to' docs are spread throughout a range of documents some
free and some prohibitively expensive.

This alone would save far more lives that anything they have so far
attempted to do, and cost a tiny fraction into the bargain.

One of the other dangers that arises from the creation of so much
nonsensical, pointless, and unenforceable "bad law" of this type, is the
danger of allowing the law to appear to be an ass in the eyes of the man
in the street. It devalues the whole weight of the legal infrastructure
as it becomes ever more difficult for normally law abiding people to go
about the basic functions of everyday life without legally transgressing
on a regular basis - either by ignorance, or by tiring of the futility
of caring any more.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:18:27 -0000, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:


"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:30:22 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Joe wrote:

Still, now the police won't get out of bed for less than £75 (Google
gordon wallis 75 if you don't know) it can't be too long before they
won't bother enforcing building regulations.

I expect we are there now. The scope of work that is expected of
building control has grown so fast that there seems little chance of
them keeping on top of it all, and more importantly, of even the
builders / tradesmen / diy folk even remaining aware of what is actually
required. How many "ordinary people" have heard about Part P or L for
example?

And the April they are adding Part G and F the precise details I am not
yet aware of.

It has been abundantly obvious to me and others (on a Part-P course this
week) that Part Prescot has nothing to do with safety but everything to do
with shutting down small businesses (making the environment uneconomic for
them to operate in).

********. Get your sycophantic mind right. It is to close down cowboy
operators. You have been listening to that clown Boris Johnson.

If that's the case it shows just how clueless the authorities are. How many cowboys take any notice
of regulations... all they are doing is pushing the real cowboys further underground, and
effectively making cowboys out of the smaller operators that do a perfectly good job.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:55:27 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

It devalues the whole weight of the legal infrastructure
as it becomes ever more difficult for normally law abiding people to go
about the basic functions of everyday life without legally transgressing
on a regular basis - either by ignorance, or by tiring of the futility
of caring any more.

This is very much the case for me. The only two reasons I DIY are that
(1)I quite enjoy it, and (2)It is often the only way of totally ensuring
that a given job is completed correctly and to the highest possible
standards. It certainly doesn't save me any significant amounts of money
once tools, test-equipment and my time have all been factored in.

I've always been fairly anal about checking which regulations and best
practices to apply to any job I'm doing, and making damn-sure I comply
with them. This Part P nonsense is the first time I've thought about
short-cutting what I consider to be pointless bureaucratic bull****, and
of course the problem with that is it undermines the whole Building
Control process: if I'm going to do the odd bit of electrical work
without approval, then it suddenly becomes not such a big step to, say,
alter a load-bearing structure like a chimney breast without approval
(who's to know?, I'll probably get away with it, blah blah blah).

That is the problem with bringing stupid laws and regulations into force
- you turn reasonable, sensible people of good morals, into
law-breakers.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:01:54 +0000, A Bloke wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:55:27 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

It devalues the whole weight of the legal infrastructure
as it becomes ever more difficult for normally law abiding people to go
about the basic functions of everyday life without legally transgressing
on a regular basis - either by ignorance, or by tiring of the futility
of caring any more.

This is very much the case for me. The only two reasons I DIY are that
(1)I quite enjoy it, and (2)It is often the only way of totally ensuring
that a given job is completed correctly and to the highest possible
standards. It certainly doesn't save me any significant amounts of money
once tools, test-equipment and my time have all been factored in.

I've always been fairly anal about checking which regulations and best
practices to apply to any job I'm doing, and making damn-sure I comply
with them. This Part P nonsense is the first time I've thought about
short-cutting what I consider to be pointless bureaucratic bull****, and
of course the problem with that is it undermines the whole Building
Control process: if I'm going to do the odd bit of electrical work
without approval, then it suddenly becomes not such a big step to, say,
alter a load-bearing structure like a chimney breast without approval
(who's to know?, I'll probably get away with it, blah blah blah).

That is the problem with bringing stupid laws and regulations into force
- you turn reasonable, sensible people of good morals, into
law-breakers.

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

River Tramp wrote:

The way LA Building Control works is residential extensions and
alterations
are done at a loss, and are cross subsidised by commercial work. However
AI's are taking larger and larger %'s of the market. Rumours are the fees
for domestic work could triple so we can break even. (no profit, just
break even).

I predict a sharp drop in BNAs when that happens.

You work in an LA? Are you getting annoyed with all the new pointless (IMO)
crap being passed down from the EU via the ODPM? Round my way the more
skilled DIYers I talk to and the more houses I look at inhabited by the
same, the more apparent it is that building regs are being viewed less as
"an entirely sensible thing", eg Part A and the bits on fire, to "sodding
beaurocracy". And we are not talking about Mick Pikey and Kev Chav types
here either.

Tim

Ed Sirett wrote:

If safety/quality was an issue.

1) Make all standards clear simple and available free of charge.

That reminds me of my trying to get hold of some British Standards for
ladders.

I have a part time job at a local primary school and the health and
safety rep asked me to check any ladders we hold, against the relevant
HSE documentation.

It turns out that I can read the documents at my local library, but I
can only print out 10 percent of its contents.

What use is that, for referencing in the future? If HSE is so vital, why
is it not available fro free?

Oh! It looks like another stealth tax. Why didn't I think about that
earlier :-(

Dave

Ed Sirett wrote:

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.

What can one expect of the dunce that started this?

When I see the 'ODPM' I quake, as he is so incompetent.

If he had half a brain, if only :-)

Dave

Dave wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.

What can one expect of the dunce that started this?

When I see the 'ODPM' I quake, as he is so incompetent.

If he had half a brain, if only :-)

Dave

To be fair, Fatman John is not actually dreaming up most of this crap - it's
more often than not in response to some directive from the EU.

I can find the directive behind Part P if you wish for some evidence.

Tim

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Dave wrote :
What use is that, for referencing in the future? If HSE is so
vital, why is it not available fro free?

Oh! It looks like another stealth tax. Why didn't I think about
that earlier :-(

In fairness to TPTB British Standards have always been expensive
even with members 50% discount. What has changed in the last ten or
so years is that all new government acts, circulars, Building
Regulation ADs etc have been made available as free downloads - a
stealth tax in reverse in fact. Prior to this a set of Building
Regs ADs was about £80 IIRC.

Arguably HMG should finance BSI but I suspect that BSI would prefer
not to be in receipt of government money and the control that would
go with it.

--
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
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

Tony Bryer wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Dave wrote :

If we live in what we used know as a democracy, how come TFB who
presides at the odpm (I can't possibly capitalise that, as I do not
think it should exist in the first place) can issue a decree that has
not been discussed in parliament and voted on, on a free basis, ie
the whips are strapped down and blindfolded?


Because the underlying Act - and there are probably thousands like it -
says that the Minister is empowered to do so.

At this point, I must add that I have driven from Preston to Portsmouth
and back today, to bring the g children here, so sorry for any mental
aberations.

Why should any office of an elected body have the ability to define a
new law, without a vote by our elected MPs?
In a democracy, this law should be decided by the elected body that we
call a government.

"The Building Act 1984 is the enabling Act under which the Building
Regulations are made and empowers the Secretary of State to make
regulations for the purpose of
* Securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or
about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or
matters connected with buildings;
* Furthering the conservation of fuel and power;
* Preventing waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of
water"

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/environm...onsandotherleg
is.html

IIRC such regulations have to be laid before Parliament before coming
into effect, thus giving MP's a theoretical right to object but if one
does the reply is probably that all interested parties have been
consulted and the responses to the consultation have been taken into
account.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:14:24 +0000 (UTC), Dave
wrote:

Tony Bryer wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Dave wrote :

If we live in what we used know as a democracy, how come TFB who
presides at the odpm (I can't possibly capitalise that, as I do not
think it should exist in the first place) can issue a decree that has
not been discussed in parliament and voted on, on a free basis, ie
the whips are strapped down and blindfolded?


Because the underlying Act - and there are probably thousands like it -
says that the Minister is empowered to do so.

At this point, I must add that I have driven from Preston to Portsmouth
and back today, to bring the g children here, so sorry for any mental
aberations.

Was this as a result of the driving or the impact of the kids? :-)




Why should any office of an elected body have the ability to define a
new law, without a vote by our elected MPs?
In a democracy, this law should be decided by the elected body that we
call a government.


In the extreme case, if every new measure had to be debated in
Parliament in detail, the legislative programme would never be
completed in the time available.

Of course if they didn't waste time on things that have no business
having the amount of time spent on them such as fox hunting, and
didn't seek to introduce so much new regulation in the first place it
would help.

Therefore they have enabling legislation which allows a certain level
of addition and change to go through with little or no parliamentary
time.

While this was going through the consultations and RIA and eventually
legislative stages, I like a number of people, wrote to the government
department concerned, and to my MP. It was very obvious early on
that this was being driven by the commercial interests of the trade
organisations, with the ODPM being a willing player in anything that
would increase regulation.

They didn't want to take heed of stats from RoSPA and others pointing
out that accidents and deaths from fixed wiring are negligible, that
it implemented the legislation was likely to have the opposite effect
or be ignored.

I have a letter, in response to one to him from my MP, from the junior
minister (Raynsford), restating almost verbatim, the party line from
the government department. It was pretty clear that he didn't
really know what the whole thing was about so I doubt had spect any
time on it.

So the reality is that this stuff goes through under pressure of
commercial and interest group lobbying and a bloated civil service.

Democracy doesn't enter into it.

The effect is that we move inexorably towards the modus operandi of
the latin language countries where there is plenty of legislation, but
which is mainly ignored unless something bad happens.

That's fine as long as we all understand that that's the rules of the
game - sort of like traffic lights in Milan being an indication of
policy more than anything else.




"The Building Act 1984 is the enabling Act under which the Building
Regulations are made and empowers the Secretary of State to make
regulations for the purpose of
* Securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or
about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or
matters connected with buildings;
* Furthering the conservation of fuel and power;
* Preventing waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of
water"

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/environm...onsandotherleg
is.html

IIRC such regulations have to be laid before Parliament before coming
into effect, thus giving MP's a theoretical right to object but if one
does the reply is probably that all interested parties have been
consulted and the responses to the consultation have been taken into
account.


--

..andy

"Tim S" wrote in message
...

To be fair, Fatman John is not actually dreaming up most of this crap -
it's
more often than not in response to some directive from the EU.

I can find the directive behind Part P if you wish for some evidence.

Tim

But Scotland is part of the EU - and seems to have a much more relaxed
attitude to such matters.

James

Andy Hall wrote:

In the extreme case, if every new measure had to be debated in
Parliament in detail, the legislative programme would never be
completed in the time available.

Of course if they didn't waste time on things that have no business
having the amount of time spent on them such as fox hunting, and
didn't seek to introduce so much new regulation in the first place it
would help.

Therefore they have enabling legislation which allows a certain level
of addition and change to go through with little or no parliamentary
time.

They seem very fond of the so called "statutory instrument" these days.
IIUC it was intended to be used only in a select few cases where there
was a need to constantly revise legislation (or parts of it) - the
finance act being a good example since it allowed the budget to become
law automatically each year without need of extra parliamentary time. I
suppose you could argue that building regs fall into this category.
However these days it seems to be used all over the shop as a way to
reduce the scrutiny of new law, or to enable the use of very poorly
drafted legislation on the understanding that the courts can sort out
the mess later at jo public's time and expense.

It is almost they are trying to create work for lawyers... oh hang on a mo

So the reality is that this stuff goes through under pressure of
commercial and interest group lobbying and a bloated civil service.

Democracy doesn't enter into it.

The effect is that we move inexorably towards the modus operandi of
the latin language countries where there is plenty of legislation, but
which is mainly ignored unless something bad happens.

and then it is only used to apportion blame....

That's fine as long as we all understand that that's the rules of the
game - sort of like traffic lights in Milan being an indication of
policy more than anything else.

;-)




--
Cheers,

John.

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

James wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...

To be fair, Fatman John is not actually dreaming up most of this crap -
it's
more often than not in response to some directive from the EU.

I can find the directive behind Part P if you wish for some evidence.

Tim

But Scotland is part of the EU - and seems to have a much more relaxed
attitude to such matters.

James

But they have their own assembly so I assume they are not rolling over and
dying to every directive in the way that Tony "The eurocrats love me, I'm
their man, ps when I retire can I get something cushty in Brussels" Blair.

Whereas, for some reason, in the last few years, England has been ratifying
like mad.

Tim

Huge wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:47:29 +0000, Tim S wrote:

Dave wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.

What can one expect of the dunce that started this?

When I see the 'ODPM' I quake, as he is so incompetent.

If he had half a brain, if only :-)

Dave

To be fair, Fatman John is not actually dreaming up most of this crap -
it's more often than not in response to some directive from the EU.

I can find the directive behind Part P if you wish for some evidence.

Except that the UK is notorious for "gold plating" EU legislation. I'd be
prepared to bet that the existing law already met EU directives, and then
some, but whenever a new EU directive lands on some beaurocrats desk in
Whitehall, he rubs his hand with glee and makes up another 200 page law.


I can believe that, though I cannot understand WHY. It's like being asked to
shoot your own legs off and then using an RPG just to be sure of a good
job.

Tim

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...

It has been abundantly obvious to
me and others (on a Part-P course this
week) that Part Prescot has nothing to
do with safety but everything to do
with shutting down small businesses
(making the environment uneconomic for
them to operate in).

********. Get your sycophantic mind right.
It is to close down cowboy
operators. You have been listening to that
clown Boris Johnson.

If that's the case it shows just how clueless
the authorities are. How many cowboys take
any notice of regulations.

Making laws is clueless? How odd. If someone ignores the laws and then is
caught they are prosecuted. That is the ways all the laws work. Corgi has
successful driven out the VAST majority of the cowboys for gas. Some are
still there, but if they are caught they face the music. The same in Part
P. It will drive the cowboys from the market, which is what is wanted.

.. all they are doing is pushing the real
cowboys further underground,

And nearly out of business.

and effectively making cowboys out
of the smaller operators that do a perfectly good job.

A small operator has to do it right and get the quals, that's all. How
many small jack-of-all-trades can do proper tests? Er, er, er, none.

Part P in principle and most of the practice, is a good thing.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:36:41 -0000, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:


"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
.. .

It has been abundantly obvious to
me and others (on a Part-P course this
week) that Part Prescot has nothing to
do with safety but everything to do
with shutting down small businesses
(making the environment uneconomic for
them to operate in).

********. Get your sycophantic mind right.
It is to close down cowboy
operators. You have been listening to that
clown Boris Johnson.

If that's the case it shows just how clueless
the authorities are. How many cowboys take
any notice of regulations.

Making laws is clueless?

The cluelessness is in making laws in such a way that they don't achieve anything useful, discourage
people doing things properly and will be widely ignored, bringing the more useful and sensible
building regs into disrepute.
I'm not disputing that there may be some need for regulation in this area, but the way it has been
done shows a mixture of incompetence and collusion with vested financial interests that we've come
to expect from this Govt.

and effectively making cowboys out
of the smaller operators that do a perfectly good job.

A small operator has to do it right and get the quals, that's all.
...and pay the fees to the 'competent person cartel'. For many 'jack-of-all-trades' types it;s simply
not worth it, evgen if they were doing an entirely good job previously.

How many small jack-of-all-trades can do proper tests? Er, er, er, none.

How necessary are tests in the majority of competently installed typical domestic installations
anyway..?
How many incendents have occurred in the past as a result of hidden faults in otherwise correctly
installed wiring that would heve been identified by tests ?

On 12 Feb 2006 15:03:58 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:10:37 UTC, Huge wrote:

It's what beaurocrats *do*. Their "product" is beaurocracy.

beaurocracy is good!


Is it something done by beautiful people?


--

..andy

Doctor Drivel wrote:

How many small jack-of-all-trades can do proper tests? Er, er, er, none.

You have some figures to back this assertion?

Electrical testing may be rocket science to you, but for most of us it
is pretty stright forward. Perhaps you ought to get yourself a copy of
the on-site guide, it tells you how to do it and even has pictures.

Part P in principle and most of the practice, is a good thing.

That fact that *you* think so kind of helps reinforce *our* point.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

How many small jack-of-all-trades can do proper tests? Er, er, er, none.

You have some figures to back this assertion?

Yep. I have met none.

Electrical testing may be rocket science to you,

Not to me sunshine. Been there and done it.

but for most of us it is pretty stright forward.

Tell that to the Jack-of-all-trades.

Perhaps you ought to get yourself a copy of the on-site guide, it tells
you how to do it and even has pictures.

Show it to the Jack-of-all-trades, who you think can do the lot.

Part P in principle and most of the practice, is a good thing.

That fact that *you* think so kind of helps reinforce *our* point.

The fact you aere from Essex says a lot.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.

What can one expect of the dunce that started this?

When I see the 'ODPM' I quake, as he is so incompetent.

If he had half a brain, if only :-)

Dave

To be fair, Fatman John is not actually
dreaming up most of this crap - it's
more often than not in response to
some directive from the EU.

I can find the directive behind Part P
if you wish for some evidence.

Firstly, Part P is sound. Its aim is sound too. Secondly. many EU
directive have to be followed, and most are sound too. Thirdly, gov
ministers don't dream anything in depth. The detail is in ministries and
they at times hire the services of outside experts and go by that/them.

It is clear most people here have no idea of how the government works.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Dave wrote :
What use is that, for referencing in the future? If HSE is so
vital, why is it not available fro free?

Oh! It looks like another stealth tax. Why didn't I think about
that earlier :-(

In fairness to TPTB British Standards have always been expensive
even with members 50% discount. What has changed in the last ten or
so years is that all new government acts, circulars, Building
Regulation ADs etc have been made available as free downloads - a
stealth tax in reverse in fact. Prior to this a set of Building
Regs ADs was about £80 IIRC.

Arguably HMG should finance BSI but I suspect that BSI would prefer
not to be in receipt of government money and the control that would
go with it.

In other countries the regs are free.

"A Bloke" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:55:27 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

It devalues the whole weight of the legal infrastructure
as it becomes ever more difficult for normally law abiding people to go
about the basic functions of everyday life without legally transgressing
on a regular basis - either by ignorance, or by tiring of the futility
of caring any more.

This is very much the case for me. The only two reasons I DIY are that
(1)I quite enjoy it, and (2)It is often the only way of totally ensuring
that a given job is completed correctly and to the highest possible
standards. It certainly doesn't save me any significant amounts of money
once tools, test-equipment and my time have all been factored in.

Your time is free, unless you divert from money making time to DIY.

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:01:54 +0000, A Bloke wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:55:27 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

It devalues the whole weight of the legal infrastructure
as it becomes ever more difficult for normally law abiding people to go
about the basic functions of everyday life without legally transgressing
on a regular basis - either by ignorance, or by tiring of the futility
of caring any more.

This is very much the case for me. The only two reasons I DIY are that
(1)I quite enjoy it, and (2)It is often the only way of totally ensuring
that a given job is completed correctly and to the highest possible
standards. It certainly doesn't save me any significant amounts of money
once tools, test-equipment and my time have all been factored in.

I've always been fairly anal about checking which regulations and best
practices to apply to any job I'm doing, and making damn-sure I comply
with them. This Part P nonsense is the first time I've thought about
short-cutting what I consider to be pointless bureaucratic bull****, and
of course the problem with that is it undermines the whole Building
Control process: if I'm going to do the odd bit of electrical work
without approval, then it suddenly becomes not such a big step to, say,
alter a load-bearing structure like a chimney breast without approval
(who's to know?, I'll probably get away with it, blah blah blah).

That is the problem with bringing stupid laws and regulations into force
- you turn reasonable, sensible people of good morals, into
law-breakers.

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.

Are you serious? Anarchy in the streets?

Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is clear most people here have no idea of how the government works.


Put your name on that list.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:56:14 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :

It does. Don't vote for anybody with
a regulating as opposed to a
deregulating agenda.

Are you in the anarchist party?

I guess that means giving up voting then. Look at planning: when JP
says that he is going to allow more housing the Conservatives are
outraged.

The Tory party are total dickheads, full stop. The country is desperately
short of homes, but the plebs should be up chimneys as far as they are
concerned.

A true deregulating party would
want to know why he had such
powers in the first place.

Yep. The Tory party are full of hot air. Deregulating from a central point
is allowing dissemination of power amongst the people. I don't see them
advocating redistribution of land to be spread amongst the people. Quite
the opposite.

The LibDems are going to wipe them out.

"Steve Firth" fresh from kicking ****, our regular
**** kicker wrote in message ...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is clear most people here have no idea of how the government works.

Put your name on that list.

**** kicking wisdom. no doubt.

"Steve Firth" fresh from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
Huge wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:05:16 +0000, Tim S wrote:

Huge wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:47:29 +0000, Tim S wrote:

Dave wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.
What can one expect of the dunce that started this?

When I see the 'ODPM' I quake, as he is so incompetent.

If he had half a brain, if only :-)

Dave
To be fair, Fatman John is not actually dreaming up most of this
crap -
it's more often than not in response to some directive from the EU.

I can find the directive behind Part P if you wish for some evidence.
Except that the UK is notorious for "gold plating" EU legislation. I'd
be prepared to bet that the existing law already met EU directives, and
then some, but whenever a new EU directive lands on some beaurocrats
desk in Whitehall, he rubs his hand with glee and makes up another 200
page law.


I can believe that, though I cannot understand WHY.

It's what beaurocrats *do*. Their "product" is beaurocracy.

Also Whitehall is *very* good at dreaming up ****ingStupidLegislation(tm)
that they do not wish to enact themselves. So they prime their
ToadyPoodles (Mandelswine etc) in the EU commission to promote the
legislation as a directive. Then they stand back and sigh and say "well we
didn't want this, but those damn Europeans, you know?"

And I'm speaking from personal experience here,

Wow! Were you the PM at one time?

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:56:14 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :

It does. Don't vote for anybody with
a regulating as opposed to a
deregulating agenda.

Are you in the anarchist party?

I guess that means giving up voting then. Look at planning: when JP
says that he is going to allow more housing the Conservatives are
outraged.

The Tory party are total dickheads, full stop. The country is desperately
short of homes, but the plebs should be up chimneys as far as they are
concerned.

Which Tory party do you mean?. The one in power, or the one that was?...

A true deregulating party would
want to know why he had such
powers in the first place.

Yep. The Tory party are full of hot air. Deregulating from a central point
is allowing dissemination of power amongst the people. I don't see them
advocating redistribution of land to be spread amongst the people. Quite
the opposite.

The LibDems are going to wipe them out.

Any idea when?....


--
Tony Sayer

discourage people doing things
properly

Where does it say don't do things right? I specifies proper testing.

Due to increased costs of following Part P, perople don't bother - they just use dodgy ectension
leads etc.

and will be widely ignored,

Then they face prison

Insignificant risk in practice.

bringing the more useful and sensible
building regs into disrepute.

Proof please?

Bleeding obvious. See previous posts in this NG.

I'm not disputing that there may be some
need for regulation in this area, but the
way it has been done shows a mixture
of incompetence and collusion with vested
financial interests that we've come
to expect from this Govt.

Now we have it. It is not about Part P and its benefits, which are many, it
as about ridiculing the government. **** off Tory idiot!!! I wouldn't mind
if you had anything to gain from the Tory party.

Yawn.

and effectively making cowboys out
of the smaller operators that do a perfectly good job.

A small operator has to do it right and get the quals, that's all.
..and pay the fees to the 'competent person cartel'. For many
'jack-of-all-trades' types it;s simply
not worth it, evgen if they were doing an entirely good job previously.

How many small jack-of-all-trades can do proper tests? Er, er, er, none.

How necessary are tests in the majority
of competently installed typical domestic installations
anyway..?

In every one!!!!! Every gas installation has to tested, even of something
minor has been done.

We are talking about electricity, not gas, ****wit.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:56:14 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :

It does. Don't vote for anybody with
a regulating as opposed to a
deregulating agenda.

Are you in the anarchist party?

I guess that means giving up voting then. Look at planning: when JP
says that he is going to allow more housing the Conservatives are
outraged.

The Tory party are total dickheads, full stop. The country is desperately
short of homes, but the plebs should be up chimneys as far as they are
concerned.

Which Tory party do you mean?.
The one in power, or the one that was?...

Boy are you in the past.

A true deregulating party would
want to know why he had such
powers in the first place.

Yep. The Tory party are full of hot air. Deregulating from a central
point
is allowing dissemination of power amongst the people. I don't see them
advocating redistribution of land to be spread amongst the people. Quite
the opposite.

The LibDems are going to wipe them out.

Any idea when?....

Next election? Can't wait.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:46:21 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:



The effect is that we move inexorably towards the modus operandi of
the latin language countries where there is plenty of legislation, but
which is mainly ignored unless something bad happens.

That's fine as long as we all understand that that's the rules of the
game - sort of like traffic lights in Milan being an indication of
policy more than anything else.



Ah I think I get it, at last.

For instance (electrics):
The stated policy is such that there is no way that you can
make a business out of doing minor electrical work.
1) You are responsible for the entire installation after any modification.
2) You are required to perform tests.
A) Now these test require expensive, calibrated test gear.
B) Annual recalibration expenditure.
3) The original paperwork is meant to be around for you to make reference
to.
4) Failing (3) You have to test the whole lot.
5) The full inspect, test and certify is likely to take up to a day in a
typical house.
6) There will be many items which will need to be fixed immediately. etc.

Or...
Just do the job and leave as little paperwork as possible,
make sure there is nothing glaringly wrong.
Hope nothing goes wrong, if it does, hopefully, it won't come back on you,
but if so start wriggling and get the best help you can afford.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Secondly. many EU directive have to be followed,

******** they do.

and most are sound too.

Ack! Excuse me, I seem to have coughed up my lungs.

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...

discourage people doing things
properly

Where does it say don't do things right?
It specifies proper testing.

Due to increased costs of following
Part P, perople don't bother

They do? You made that up.

- they just use dodgy ectension
leads etc.

You made that up too.

and will be widely ignored,

Then they face prison

Insignificant risk in practice.

They face prison

bringing the more useful and sensible
building regs into disrepute.

Proof please?

Bleeding obvious. See previous posts in this NG.

All I have read is total drivel on this thread.

I'm not disputing that there may be some
need for regulation in this area, but the
way it has been done shows a mixture
of incompetence and collusion with vested
financial interests that we've come
to expect from this Govt.

Now we have it. It is not about Part P and its benefits, which are many,
it
as about ridiculing the government. **** off Tory idiot!!! I wouldn't
mind
if you had anything to gain from the Tory party.

Yawn.

Yes, they are a yawn.

and effectively making cowboys out
of the smaller operators that do a perfectly good job.

A small operator has to do it right and get the quals, that's all.
..and pay the fees to the 'competent person cartel'. For many
'jack-of-all-trades' types it;s simply
not worth it, evgen if they were doing an entirely good job previously.

How many small jack-of-all-trades can do proper tests? Er, er, er,
none.

How necessary are tests in the majority
of competently installed typical domestic installations
anyway..?

In every one!!!!! Every gas installation has to tested, even if something
minor has been done.

We are talking about electricity, not gas, ****wit.

Wow! You don't say. You are a total fool.

The Tory party are total dickheads, full stop. The country is desperately
short of homes, but the plebs should be up chimneys as far as they are
concerned.

Which Tory party do you mean?.
The one in power, or the one that was?...

Boy are you in the past.

No silly.. Nu Laber= a Tory party....in all but name....

A true deregulating party would
want to know why he had such
powers in the first place.

Yep. The Tory party are full of hot air. Deregulating from a central
point
is allowing dissemination of power amongst the people. I don't see them
advocating redistribution of land to be spread amongst the people. Quite
the opposite.

The LibDems are going to wipe them out.

Any idea when?....

Next election? Can't wait.

O boy!, they can't even elect a decent leader...


--
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:35:03 +0000, Ed Sirett
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:46:21 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:



The effect is that we move inexorably towards the modus operandi of
the latin language countries where there is plenty of legislation, but
which is mainly ignored unless something bad happens.

That's fine as long as we all understand that that's the rules of the
game - sort of like traffic lights in Milan being an indication of
policy more than anything else.



Ah I think I get it, at last.

For instance (electrics):
The stated policy is such that there is no way that you can
make a business out of doing minor electrical work.
1) You are responsible for the entire installation after any modification.
2) You are required to perform tests.
A) Now these test require expensive, calibrated test gear.
B) Annual recalibration expenditure.
3) The original paperwork is meant to be around for you to make reference
to.
4) Failing (3) You have to test the whole lot.
5) The full inspect, test and certify is likely to take up to a day in a
typical house.
6) There will be many items which will need to be fixed immediately. etc.

Or...
Just do the job and leave as little paperwork as possible,
make sure there is nothing glaringly wrong.
Hope nothing goes wrong, if it does, hopefully, it won't come back on you,
but if so start wriggling and get the best help you can afford.


Of course.

Take the customer for a coffee and a grappa and there will be no
problem




--

..andy

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:28:09 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
.. .
Dave wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.

What can one expect of the dunce that started this?

When I see the 'ODPM' I quake, as he is so incompetent.

If he had half a brain, if only :-)

Dave

To be fair, Fatman John is not actually
dreaming up most of this crap - it's
more often than not in response to
some directive from the EU.

I can find the directive behind Part P
if you wish for some evidence.

Firstly, Part P is sound. Its aim is sound too. Secondly. many EU
directive have to be followed, and most are sound too. Thirdly, gov
ministers don't dream anything in depth. The detail is in ministries and
they at times hire the services of outside experts and go by that/them.

It is clear most people here have no idea of how the government works.


ROTFL.

You really are speaking ou of both sides of your mouth, just like the
proponents of this legislation.

On the one hand you tear into CORGI and what it does, while on the
other you say that Part P, which is nothing like as well organised is
OK.

This is complete nonsense.


--

..andy

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:13:53 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
I suppose you could argue that building regs fall into this category.

For Building Regs this has been the case since 1875 when the Public
Health Act gave local authorities the power to make byelaws concerning
buildings. Most followed the model byelaws but there were local
variations.

--
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
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]