Interesting war of words gong on re part P in another discussiongroup
 

There is a very long thread going on but towards the (current) end
someone has posted the following comment

"Since Part P simply isn't working, why not just rescind it altogether
and save everyone - including the LABCs a lot of needlessly wasted
time and money.
Fatalities have risen and the Public Sector has become overbloated.
Meanwhile, the likes of providers of 'Continuous Professional
Development' have become richer by producing more and more dumbed down
subjects.
Why? Despite more courses being taken, and so many so-called 'wiremen'
being enlightened as to the requirements of the Wiring Regulations and
Inspection & Testing, is this so?

To make things work in this country, should not have to involve
endless layers of bureaucracy.

As Churchill once said "Give me a committee of One and I'll get things
done."


Now if only everyone else had a similar take on the mess

Interesting war of words gong on re part P in another discussion group
 

Those with World-Wide Whatsit access can follow it here.
http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/m...VIEWTMP=Linear

or
http://snipurl.com/mtzjd



--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Interesting war of words gong on re part P in another discussion group
 

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:33:15 -0700 (PDT), cynic
had this to say:

There is a very long thread going on but towards the (current) end
someone has posted the following comment

"Since Part P simply isn't working, why not just rescind it altogether
and save everyone - including the LABCs a lot of needlessly wasted
time and money.
Fatalities have risen and the Public Sector has become overbloated.

Be careful. This government would be pleased if the Public Sector was
overbloated...

Fatalities aren't important. More work for the Public Sector MUST mean
that the economy's being helped along - mustn't it?

;-)

--
Frank Erskine

Interesting war of words gong on re part P in anotherdiscussion group
 

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:03:39 +0100, Graham. wrote:

Those with World-Wide Whatsit access can follow it here.
http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/m...VIEWTMP=Linear

or
http://snipurl.com/mtzjd

Do read the thread. It's a good read and not at all of the tendency the OP
would have us think.



--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

A: Because it messes up the order in which people read text.
Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing?

Interesting war of words gong on re part P in another discussiongroup
 

On 12 July, 04:09, YAPH wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:03:39 +0100, Graham. wrote:
Those with World-Wide Whatsit access can follow it here.
http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/m...d=205&threadid....

or
http://snipurl.com/mtzjd

Do read the thread. It's a good read and not at all of the tendency the OP
would have us think.

--
John Stumbles *-- *http://yaph.co.uk

Of course but do remember the majority of the contributors speak from
within the protectionist camp.
I will let those interested make up their own minds

Interesting war of words gong on re part P in another discussiongroup
 

Do read the thread. It's a good read and not at all of the tendency the OP
would have us think.

Having read all 9 pages, I'd summarise it as a near-irreconcilable
divide between electrical engineers and electricians.

One camp is strongly of the mindset that strongly supports a standards-
based and regulatory approach - the other that design from electrical
theory/principles is at least the equal of the former.

One side accuses the other of protectionism, the other of undervaluing
the skills and experience of the trade.

Both sides cite examples of very poor work by the other.

The only outcome - increased animosity.