A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio 4's
Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an alternative approach
would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I have duly done. I am aware
that there is already one about abolishing Building Regs in general - but
that one doesn't have a prayer, and mine is far more specific.

You can find it at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Part-P-Review/

The petition says:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to carry out an urgent
review into the way in which Part P of the Building Regulations operates in
practice, and to make changes designed to re-establish high levels of
electrical safety without imposing unnecessary practical and financial
constraints on professional electricians or competent DIY enthusiasts."

The 'More details' section says:
"Part P isn't working! The number of relevant fatalities has more than
doubled since its introduction [Hansard 98144] probably due to the use of
dangerous temporary 'lash-ups' rather than safe fixed wiring – thus avoiding
the hassle and expense of complying with Part P. There is no evidence to
indicate that there has ever been a problem with non-professionally
installed fixed wiring. Self certification imposes a substantial overhead on
small electrical firms. Complying with Part P is very difficult and
expensive for amateur electricians – encouraging the use of less safe,
exempt options. Even when part of a larger project, many Building Control
departments are illegally refusing to perform Part P testing within the
scope of the Building Regs fee. In summary, Part P is counter-productive and
should be scrapped. At very least, its scope should be substantially reduced
by, for example, exempting all installation work in domestic premises on the
householder's side of the Consumer Unit."

I wanted to say rather more than that - but the 'more details' part has a
strictly enforced 1000 character limit, so I had to condense it
dramatically.

I hope that you will all be able to support it.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored..
Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO
NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio 4's
Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an alternative
approach would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I have duly done.

waste of time, there is a petition to get the pm to juggle whilst eating ice
cream - that will be more effective.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Brian wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio
4's Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an
alternative approach would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I
have duly done.

waste of time, there is a petition to get the pm to juggle whilst
eating ice cream - that will be more effective.

Are you saying that *all* petitions are a waste of time, just because there
are a few frivolous ones?

The one on road pricing now has nearly half a million signatures - and is
still going at a rate - so the powers that be would wise to take notice!

I'm not expecting mine to be *quite* that popular - but it may have an
effect - who knows?!

If you support the principle, it doesn't cost much to sign!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In article , Roger Mills
writes
The one on road pricing now has nearly half a million signatures - and is
still going at a rate - so the powers that be would wise to take notice!


That is as may be, however there is substantial evidence to suggest that
the powers that be aren't wise. There is evidence to suggest that
number 10 don't bother to track the support the petitions get. Pity
really because they are a good idea.


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "news" with "adrian" and "nospam" with "ffoil"
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:25:04 -0000, "Roger Mills"
wrote:

I'm not expecting mine to be *quite* that popular - but it may have an
effect - who knows?!

If you support the principle, it doesn't cost much to sign!

It's definitely better than doing b****r all !

Andy

Roger Mills wrote:

The one on road pricing now has nearly half a million signatures - and is
still going at a rate - so the powers that be would wise to take notice!

I'm not expecting mine to be *quite* that popular - but it may have an
effect - who knows?!

If you support the principle, it doesn't cost much to sign!

Done! Good luck.

Steve.

Roger Mills laid this down on his screen :
You can find it at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Part-P-Review/

The petition says:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to carry out an urgent review
into the way in which Part P of the Building Regulations operates in
practice, and to make changes designed to re-establish high levels of
electrical safety without imposing unnecessary practical and financial
constraints on professional electricians or competent DIY enthusiasts."

Done and good luck with it.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Are you saying that *all* petitions are a waste of time, just because there
are a few frivolous ones?

Pretty much so, its a way of pretending the poor minority not in power
have *some* say in what happens.

Personally, I did this one...

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/HonestyInOffice/

-----
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Enforce honesty and
impartiality in Government.

Prevent politicians from receiving an income from any source other than
a company they own or personal investments / family trust funds.

Open their bank accounts to public scrutiny - allow only UK bank
accounts to be held.

After their term is complete, pay them for a further six months but only
allow them to work for charities / non-profit (not lobbyist)
organisations.
-----

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Brian" saying
something like:

there is a petition to get the pm to juggle whilst eating ice
cream

Where do I sign?
--

Dave

Roger Mills wrote:


I hope that you will all be able to support it.


For what it is worth... Done.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:00:40 UTC, Mike Dodd
wrote:

Roger Mills wrote:

I hope that you will all be able to support it.

For what it is worth... Done.

Likewise and ditto.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

there is a petition to get the pm to juggle whilst eating ice
cream

Where do I sign?


http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/juggle/



--
djc

Roger Mills wrote:

A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio 4's
Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an alternative approach
would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I have duly done. I am aware
that there is already one about abolishing Building Regs in general - but
that one doesn't have a prayer, and mine is far more specific.

You can find it at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Part-P-Review/

The petition says:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to carry out an urgent
review into the way in which Part P of the Building Regulations operates in
practice, and to make changes designed to re-establish high levels of
electrical safety without imposing unnecessary practical and financial
constraints on professional electricians or competent DIY enthusiasts."

the govt thinks its done that already, except the financial constraints
on diyers bit, which is exactly what it wants to achieve.


The 'More details' section says:
"Part P isn't working! The number of relevant fatalities has more than
doubled since its introduction [Hansard 98144] probably due to the use of
dangerous temporary 'lash-ups' rather than safe fixed wiring - thus avoiding
the hassle and expense of complying with Part P.

I dont think theyre gonig to care. Its only if it becomes a widespread
perceived issue that they'll want to be seen to be doing something.

There is no evidence to
indicate that there has ever been a problem with non-professionally
installed fixed wiring.

this was only an excuse to get it passed, theyre not interested either
way.


Self certification imposes a substantial overhead on
small electrical firms. Complying with Part P is very difficult and
expensive for amateur electricians

thats one of the points of it

- encouraging the use of less safe,
exempt options.

and in many cases pro jobs, resulting in more of our money being taken.
Its an old game.

In summary, Part P is counter-productive and
should be scrapped.

You can tell the govt that all you want, they see it as getting just
what they want, so are going to read it and smile.


At very least, its scope should be substantially reduced
by, for example, exempting all installation work in domestic premises on the
householder's side of the Consumer Unit."

runs counter to what they want and have already got.


I hope that you will all be able to support it.

If these polls are going to have any chance you need to start by
understanding the games being played. The first thing to do with part p
is educate the public about its hypocrisy and lethal aspect. And thats
what a petition does - and the only thing a petition does. HM Gov
doesnt even bother to read them.

So keep up the good work, but for quite different reasons.


NT

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
wrote:


If these polls are going to have any chance you need to start by
understanding the games being played. The first thing to do with part
p is educate the public about its hypocrisy and lethal aspect. And
thats what a petition does - and the only thing a petition does. HM
Gov doesnt even bother to read them.

So keep up the good work, but for quite different reasons.


NT

So are you going to sign it (on the basis that it at least helps to educate
the public)?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:

So are you going to sign it (on the basis that it at least helps to educate
the public)?

yes, already have. But it refused to accept it with no email addy.


NT

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
wrote:

Roger Mills wrote:

So are you going to sign it (on the basis that it at least helps to
educate the public)?

yes, already have. But it refused to accept it with no email addy.


NT


Yes, it will! They have to send you an email containing a unique URL for you
to click on to prove that you are 'genuine'.

If you're worried about your email address being abused, can't you make one
up for this pupose? I use - which comes to
my email account, but I shall know who to blame if any spam arrives at it!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:
Yes, it will! They have to send you an email containing a unique URL for you
to click on to prove that you are 'genuine'.

If you're worried about your email address being abused, can't you make one
up for this pupose? I use - which comes to
my email account, but I shall know who to blame if any spam arrives at it!


try using www.mailinator.com


--
djc

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:25:04 +0000, Roger Mills wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Brian wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio
4's Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an
alternative approach would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I
have duly done.

waste of time, there is a petition to get the pm to juggle whilst
eating ice cream - that will be more effective.

Are you saying that *all* petitions are a waste of time, just because there
are a few frivolous ones?

The one on road pricing now has nearly half a million signatures - and is
still going at a rate - so the powers that be would wise to take notice!

I'm not expecting mine to be *quite* that popular - but it may have an
effect - who knows?!

If you support the principle, it doesn't cost much to sign!

If over 1 million people turn up _in person_ to say something and Phony
Bliar (and the others) take no notice. What chance has an mere petition got?

Old style politics is dead and irrelevant. Except that the Westminster
people are still making laws (and that the more trivial the matter the
better it is enforced).

Writing a letter addressed personally to a minister or via your MP costs
them a lot of work directly and indirectly and they will take notice, but
they still won't change their policies.


--
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
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:25:04 +0000, Roger Mills wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Brian wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio
4's Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an
alternative approach would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I
have duly done.

waste of time, there is a petition to get the pm to juggle whilst
eating ice cream - that will be more effective.

Are you saying that *all* petitions are a waste of time, just because
there
are a few frivolous ones?

The one on road pricing now has nearly half a million signatures - and is
still going at a rate - so the powers that be would wise to take notice!

I'm not expecting mine to be *quite* that popular - but it may have an
effect - who knows?!

If you support the principle, it doesn't cost much to sign!

If over 1 million people turn up _in person_ to say something and Phony
Bliar (and the others) take no notice. What chance has an mere petition
got?

Old style politics is dead and irrelevant. Except that the Westminster
people are still making laws (and that the more trivial the matter the
better it is enforced).

Writing a letter addressed personally to a minister or via your MP costs
them a lot of work directly and indirectly and they will take notice, but
they still won't change their policies.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.

AIUI; a letter addressed to a Minister will be answered by a
under-under-under-clerk
with a formulaic 'The Minister has noted your letter .... '
A letter from your MP will (should) be answered by somebody who actually
knows the minister ... (even if they don't actually talk to each other) .
A letter sent to one Minister _and_ another Minister (preferably reporting
to a different Secretary of State) _and_ your MP _and_ copied to an outside
organisation (RAC, Which, BBC, Newspaper, fr'instance) causes a considerable
amount of internal correspondence as they attempt to co-ordinate Reponses.
In the Civil Service, the Registry rules!
As Ed says ; " ... costs them a lot of work directly and indirectly and they
will take notice, but they still won't change their policies. "



--

Brian

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio 4's
Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an alternative
approach would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I have duly done. I am
aware that there is already one about abolishing Building Regs in general -
but that one doesn't have a prayer, and mine is far more specific.

You can find it at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Part-P-Review/

The petition says:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to carry out an urgent

Peel back mandatory safety checks? The equivalent of removing the MOT.
Forget it, you will be laughed at.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio 4's
Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an alternative
approach would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I have duly done. I am
aware that there is already one about abolishing Building Regs in general -
but that one doesn't have a prayer, and mine is far more specific.

You can find it at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Part-P-Review/

You would be better trying to get the planning laws rolled back so we can
build on open subsidised fields. This lowers land values and hence house
prices too, and stop this over-priced housing tread mill of a crisis we are
permanently in; that produces tiny pokey homes,

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio
4's Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an
alternative approach would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I
have duly done. I am aware that there is already one about
abolishing Building Regs in general - but that one doesn't have a
prayer, and mine is far more specific. You can find it at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Part-P-Review/

You would be better trying to get the planning laws rolled back so we
can build on open subsidised fields. This lowers land values and
hence house prices too, and stop this over-priced housing tread mill
of a crisis we are permanently in; that produces tiny pokey homes,

Feel free to raise a petition for that, if you feel strongly about it.

I'm glad you don't support my petition - I'd *know* I'd got it wrong if you
did!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, in the discussion about nominating Part P for Radio
4's Christmas Repeal award, the suggestion was made that an
alternative approach would be to raise a No. 10 petition - which I
have duly done. I am aware that there is already one about
abolishing Building Regs in general - but that one doesn't have a
prayer, and mine is far more specific. You can find it at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Part-P-Review/

You would be better trying to get the planning laws rolled back so we
can build on open subsidised fields. This lowers land values and
hence house prices too, and stop this over-priced housing tread mill
of a crisis we are permanently in; that produces tiny pokey homes,

Feel free to raise a petition for that, if you feel strongly about it.

I'm glad you don't support my petition - I'd *know* I'd got it wrong if
you did!

You are naive.