On 31/12/2011 11:58, Judith wrote:
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg


(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point above the
cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have something like
this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any regulations?

I am not even sure that what you see actually does amount to something
"potentially unsafe and stupidity" (sic) - one would need more
information first.

The location of the socket close to the cooker is not ideal - but not
too much of a problem since its not in a location where it is likely to
get direct heat from the hob. In reality its not substantially different
from the location of many cooker points to their respective hobs.

The flex connected to the rear of the socket may be of concern since if
the socket is fed from a circuit protected by a 32A MCB, it may not
provide fault protection for that flex. We also don't know what the flex
feeds, and whether it needs additional overload protection. Its possible
that is just feeds the ignition circuit on a gas cooker.

The use of the plug in adaptor is somewhat unsightly, and an additional
socket would be better - but from a safety point of view it only appears
to be powering a radio and one other appliance, and so seems unlikely to
represent an overload hazard.

I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring, then it
would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric shock - or would

There does not appear to be any particular elevated shock risk here. My
main concern would be fire risk as a result of a flex with inadequate
fault protection. Again we don't know what level of RCD protection the
socket has, or the quality of any equipotential bonding in the kitchen
etc so can't make any realistic assessment of other shock risks.

the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?

A person making an unsafe connection would also be responsible.

Say it turns out that it is actually an electric cooker, and the flex we
can see is feeding it, and its normal 1.5mm^2 PVC flex that has been
hardwired into the back of a normal power circuit socket - then yes
there are serious concerns, it is unsafe, and the person responsible was
not competent to do the work.





--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/12/2011 14:19, Ophelia wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/2011 8:32 AM, Ophelia wrote:
"Bill" wrote
writes
"Judith" wrote
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.
http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg
(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point
above the cooker)
Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have
something like this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken
any regulations?
I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring,
then it would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an
electric shock -
or would the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?
Then whoever has a kitchen with that amount of stuff on worktop, and
a bike in front of cooker could hardly complain about untidy wiring.
Scares the heck out of me when people store things on top of the
cooker, if the bike slips and knocks a control knob on it could be
interesting.......
Seems to be the end of a multi block on the floor hiding behind the
fridge as well.

Bike or no bike, I couldn't even boil a kettle in all that mess and
clutter!

The mains-powered radio sitting on the window ledge above the sink is
a nice touch...

yers ...

Its above and to the left of the draining board, not the sink.

Personally I would be more worried about the crap audio quality of the
DAB radio than anything else!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/12/2011 15:47, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:10:57 -0500, S Viemeister wrote:
The mains-powered radio sitting on the window ledge above the sink is a
nice touch...

Not too sure about the switch on the wall almost immediately below it,
TBH. I've no idea of the legality or otherwise of it, but it just seems a
bit *too* close to the counter-top for my liking.

Aesthetically unpleasing perhaps, but not a problem from an electrical
point of view (it looks more like it is close to an upstand on the back
of the worktop rather than the worktop itself).



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:15:51 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

It's a bloody disgrace.

There is no HP sauce.

There's sea kelp, ffs.
I like the bike, though.

I don't know but there have been many accidents due to faulty wiring
installations, some fatal, and I guess it depends on whether it could be
shown to have been the fault of a particular person. You don't normally sue
yourself, and in most cases if it was a friend or relative the cost of the
action would not really bring back the person and the culprit is unlikely to
be worth enough to make it worthwhile. More likely that a criminal
prosecution might occur. I know this almost occurred in a kitchen near me
where tickles were felt on items in a cupboard, on investigation a bodged
electrical connection behind the cupboard to fit lights was not done very
well, and the metal boxes in a hole in the wall held in by one nail, had
become live and touched some conductive part of the cupboard mountings. That
was done by a company as I recall.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Judith" wrote in message
...
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg


(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point above the
cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have something
like
this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any regulations?

I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring, then it
would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric shock - or
would
the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?

On 31/12/2011 15:42, Trigger wrote:

"Judith" wrote in message...



I know of someone who keeps his bikes in one of the bedrooms !!


You need to change your social circle, Judith ;-)


I am still not convinced that the bike is really in the kitchen.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:22:52 +0000, Bill
wrote:

Scares the heck out of me when people store things on top of the cooker,
if the bike slips and knocks a control knob on it could be
interesting.......
Seems to be the end of a multi block on the floor hiding behind the
fridge as well.

I think what we see here is a direct result of Prat P legislation,
where folks just carry on plugging extensions in and don't bother
doing a proper job, same as ever. There's no excuse for the shoddy bit
of wire hanging out of the side of the surface box, though - that's
just gerry-built.
Difference is, now they're not allowed to do a proper job in
circumstances like this, which is why anyone with any sense and a
degree of nous ignores the foolish legislation.

Tony Dragon wrote:
On 31/12/2011 15:42, Trigger wrote:

"Judith" wrote in message...



I know of someone who keeps his bikes in one of the bedrooms !!


You need to change your social circle, Judith ;-)


I am still not convinced that the bike is really in the kitchen.

Why?

--
Adam

On 12/31/2011 1:51 PM, John Rumm wrote:

Say it turns out that it is actually an electric cooker, and the flex we
can see is feeding it, and its normal 1.5mm^2 PVC flex that has been
hardwired into the back of a normal power circuit socket - then yes
there are serious concerns, it is unsafe, and the person responsible was
not competent to do the work.


It looks like a smooth-top electric cooker.

S Viemeister wrote:
On 12/31/2011 1:51 PM, John Rumm wrote:

Say it turns out that it is actually an electric cooker, and the
flex we can see is feeding it, and its normal 1.5mm^2 PVC flex that
has been hardwired into the back of a normal power circuit socket -
then yes there are serious concerns, it is unsafe, and the person
responsible was not competent to do the work.


It looks like a smooth-top electric cooker.

It looks like a gas cooker with a hinged glass lid.

--
Adam

On 12/31/2011 2:14 PM, ARWadsworth wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:
On 12/31/2011 1:51 PM, John Rumm wrote:

Say it turns out that it is actually an electric cooker, and the
flex we can see is feeding it, and its normal 1.5mm^2 PVC flex that
has been hardwired into the back of a normal power circuit socket -
then yes there are serious concerns, it is unsafe, and the person
responsible was not competent to do the work.


It looks like a smooth-top electric cooker.

It looks like a gas cooker with a hinged glass lid.

Hmm.
I suppose it could be.

Judith wrote:
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg

Let me guess, uk.rec.cycling?

Given that it's not your house, what's you motive in posting this here?

Tim

Robin wrote:
What a **** hole.

That seems to me rather harsh - especially as there's a bar of Lindt
with sea salt on offer. And the floor doesn't look bad to me for a
kitchen which has been used rather than prepared for a show home. But
then perhaps my standards are as low as my expectations.


My kitchen worktop usually has a cat asleep on it!

--
Adam

On 31/12/2011 11:58, Judith wrote:
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg


(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point above the
cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have something like
this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any regulations?

I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring, then it
would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric shock - or would
the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?

As others have said more information is required to be absolutely
certain as to the safety/legality of the wiring. However, the picture
shows a 13A double socket mounted in a surface mount box with an
apparent connection from the rear of the socket that may, or may not, be
supplying the cooker. The cable from the rear of the socket appears to
be no thicker than the two heavy flexes presumably supplying the kettle
and microwave, i.e.13A flex. If on a ring main the cabling behind the
socket should be 30A with 30A fuse. If an isolated socket, or spur off
the ring main, the cabling behind it should be at least 20A. Either way
a 13A flex connected behind the socket is not adequately protected and
is therefore unsafe. It also is not adequate to supply the cooker,
which should be on its own separate 30A circuit.

The only interpretation that I can see which might meet the IEE wiring
regulations is if the socket is on a ring main and that cable is at
least 20A cable (not flex) supplying a single or double 13A socket
permanently fixed to the wall (a spur). Even then that cable should be
fixed to the wall at the specified intervals between the two sockets to
comply with the regulations.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On 31/12/2011 19:02 Tony Dragon wrote:

I am still not convinced that the bike is really in the kitchen.

I'm convinced it's not and it's been photoshopped into the picture.
There's glare from the camera flash on various areas of the bike but no
shadow behind it. The edges look 'wrong' too.

--
F

On 31/12/2011 19:12, S Viemeister wrote:
On 12/31/2011 1:51 PM, John Rumm wrote:

Say it turns out that it is actually an electric cooker, and the flex we
can see is feeding it, and its normal 1.5mm^2 PVC flex that has been
hardwired into the back of a normal power circuit socket - then yes
there are serious concerns, it is unsafe, and the person responsible was
not competent to do the work.


It looks like a smooth-top electric cooker.

Perhaps... but then again, the last gas one we had, had a lift up top
that looked very similar.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:34:58 -0000, ARWadsworth wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker writes:

The adapter wouldn't worry me at all. The worry always used to be
overloading and that was why people were advised not to use them.
However, all adapters sold for decades have had to be fitted with
their own fuse, so overloading isn't an issue. I've not seen an
unfused adapter for a very long time.

2-way adapters and double socket outlets don't need fuses.
More than 2-way does.

I'll have to have a dig around in my old emails, but I remember
sending John Rumm a link to a 2 to 3 gang convertor plate that did
not have a 13A fuse in it.

I wonder if it was a 2-way from one socket outlet, and 1-way from
the other socket outlet?

It was

http://www.greenbrook.co.uk/proddeta...?prod=GB223W-C

also on here

http://www.greenbrook.co.uk/docs/Wir...es_Section.pdf

near the bottom.

the 4-way appears from the picture to take its power from only one of te
sockets ...
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

F wrote:
On 31/12/2011 19:02 Tony Dragon wrote:

I am still not convinced that the bike is really in the kitchen.

I'm convinced it's not and it's been photoshopped into the picture.
There's glare from the camera flash on various areas of the bike but
no shadow behind it. The edges look 'wrong' too.

I have take plenty of photos with a digital camera that give that effect.

If it is fake then there are some bloody good shadowing effects between the
handle bars and the frame being made onto the fridge and the tiles at the
back of the fridge.

The reflections of the bike seat showing on the cooker are also good.



--
Adam

Old Codger wrote:
Even then that cable should be
fixed to the wall at the specified intervals between the two sockets to
comply with the regulations.

and requires strain relief. What's stopping the cable coming out of
the
socket other than the terminal screws?

JGH

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:31:49 +0000, F wrote:

On 31/12/2011 19:02 Tony Dragon wrote:

I am still not convinced that the bike is really in the kitchen.

I'm convinced it's not and it's been photoshopped into the picture.
There's glare from the camera flash on various areas of the bike but no
shadow behind it. The edges look 'wrong' too.

Load it into an image editor, drop the brightness a bit and raise the
contrast considerably, and the shadow is easy to see (most of it falling
on the floor; it's actually quite noticable in the original image just
behind the front wheel)

Are you sure the edges don't look 'wrong' because your browser is quickly
(and crudely) scaling a massive image to fit into the browser window?

cheers

Jules

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:31:35 +0000, Old Codger wrote:
However, the picture
shows a 13A double socket mounted in a surface mount box with an
apparent connection from the rear of the socket that may, or may not, be
supplying the cooker.

I'm with Tim S on that one; I think it loops round the end of the counter-
top behind the cooker and is then visible on the floor to the cooker's
right.

Also to the right of the cooker on the floor in the photo is what seems
to be heavy-duty cable, so probably the cooker supply - and also a hint
(just above the front bike wheel) of what might be a multi-way socket
adapter.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the cable coming out of the socket box
above the counter-top is actually more of a cable going *into* it - i.e.
that dual socket box is supplied via the cable which loops around the
edge of the counter, and is possibly fed from the multi-way adapter on
the floor. I suppose that's less iffy than having multi-way adapters just
sitting on the counter-top :-)

Note there there's also something to the left side of the cooker in the
photo - I think it's a single socket with a black plug in it, but I can't
be sure.

cheers

Jules

"Judith" wrote in message
...
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg


(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point above the
cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have something
like
this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any regulations?

Depends when it was done - the situation is more complex than it first
appears, because there is another pile of spaggetti under the worktop
including a partially visible extension block.

There is a recessed accessory box next to the cooker, but I can't see what
is in it.

The switch above the sink is probably momentary for a waste disposal unit.

The wire to the surface mount double socket could be an input or an output
(e.g. to the cooker (if gas)). It is more serious if it is an output
because it will be unfused and a short could melt the [thin] wire. It is
not clever as an input because a double socket in a kitchen can draw up to
30A (see below) and the cable would get very warm, although it would blow
the fuse in the plug if plugged in elsewhere.

I can't tell what fuel the cooker is, if electric it should have a [45A]
supply point, but I can't see one.

The radio and two other things appear plugged into the sockets, however we
have a kettle (possibly 2), toaster, micro-wave and some sort of percolator
on the top, plus a fridge down below.

Quite a lash up and potentially 6kW, so quite close to the maximum load on a
ring main.


I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring, then it
would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric shock - or
would
the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?


Since 17th Reg's only competent professionals are supposed to do wiring. It
is not as prescriptive as gas (so a good DIY'er could fit a socket or
lights, but not a consumer unit). If the tenants did this probably nothing
would happen, but if the landlord then the local council might prosecute if
there was provable overloading or similar.


PS Were they selling the bike?

"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
Judith wrote:
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg

Let me guess, uk.rec.cycling?

Given that it's not your house, what's you motive in posting this here?

Tim

Hate.
And I'm disappointed with her.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

If the tenants did this probably nothing
would happen, but if the landlord then the local council might prosecute if
there was provable overloading or similar.
[1]

You need to be aware that this is part of a long running hate campaign
by 'Judith' against the person who owns the kitchen.
'She' has already written to his Employers comlaining about his use of
the works computer to post usenet messages during working time, and this
seems to be the latest ruse to cause him trouble.
Apparently he has extended his kitchen, and 'she' is trying to get any
excuse to report him to the local council building regs
non-conformities.

(I'm not taking sides, they are as bad as each other, but taking usenet
grievances beyond usenet is going way too far)

Alan.

[1] The local Council are completely uninterested in electrical
installations if not part of a new build or extension, or other such
improvement via Building Control. They are only forced into action if
there is a injury, and the householder complains to them.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

The flex connected to the rear of the socket may be of concern since if
the socket is fed from a circuit protected by a 32A MCB, it may not
provide fault protection for that flex. We also don't know what the flex
feeds, and whether it needs additional overload protection. Its possible
that is just feeds the ignition circuit on a gas cooker.

Given the use of multiway adapters I would expect to find the flex feeds the
two way socket and is plugged into somewhere else.
I see no reason to think it goes to an appliance.

On 31/12/2011 19:31, Old Codger wrote:


As others have said more information is required to be absolutely
certain as to the safety/legality of the wiring. However, the picture
shows a 13A double socket mounted in a surface mount box with an
apparent connection from the rear of the socket that may, or may not, be
supplying the cooker. The cable from the rear of the socket appears to
be no thicker than the two heavy flexes presumably supplying the kettle
and microwave, i.e.13A flex. If on a ring main the cabling behind the
socket should be 30A with 30A fuse. If an isolated socket, or spur off
the ring main, the cabling behind it should be at least 20A. Either way
a 13A flex connected behind the socket is not adequately protected and
is therefore unsafe. It also is not adequate to supply the cooker, which
should be on its own separate 30A circuit.

The only interpretation that I can see which might meet the IEE wiring
regulations is if the socket is on a ring main and that cable is at
least 20A cable (not flex) supplying a single or double 13A socket
permanently fixed to the wall (a spur). Even then that cable should be
fixed to the wall at the specified intervals between the two sockets to
comply with the regulations.


Ah diversity! When I took C+G 236 I was told that the wall could be used
as a heat sink for the cable in such circumstances.

A.Lee wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:

If the tenants did this probably nothing
would happen, but if the landlord then the local council might
prosecute if there was provable overloading or similar.
[1]

You need to be aware that this is part of a long running hate campaign
by 'Judith' against the person who owns the kitchen.
'She' has already written to his Employers comlaining about his use of
the works computer to post usenet messages during working time, and
this seems to be the latest ruse to cause him trouble.
Apparently he has extended his kitchen, and 'she' is trying to get any
excuse to report him to the local council building regs
non-conformities.

(I'm not taking sides, they are as bad as each other, but taking
usenet grievances beyond usenet is going way too far)

Alan.

[1] The local Council are completely uninterested in electrical
installations if not part of a new build or extension, or other such
improvement via Building Control. They are only forced into action if
there is a injury, and the householder complains to them.

****ing Hell.

I know which BCO is in charge of electrical inspections in the area the guy
who owns the kitchen lives.

The BCO in question is a steaming great **** with bells on who really does
deserve 230V shoving up his arsehole. (Let's just call him Mr B).

--
Adam

On 31/12/2011 19:51 ARWadsworth wrote:

If it is fake then there are some bloody good shadowing effects between the
handle bars and the frame being made onto the fridge and the tiles at the
back of the fridge.

Ah! Now I've looked at it full-size, I can see them!

--
F

On 31/12/2011 19:08, ARWadsworth wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
On 31/12/2011 15:42, Trigger wrote:

wrote in message...



I know of someone who keeps his bikes in one of the bedrooms !!


You need to change your social circle, Judith ;-)


I am still not convinced that the bike is really in the kitchen.

Why?


It looks like it might be photoshopped.

Judith wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:37:52 -0000, "Rick Hughes"
wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
...
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg


(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point
above the cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have
something like
this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any
regulations?

I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring,
then it would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric
shock - or would
the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?



Then whoever has a kitchen with that amount of stuff on worktop, and
a bike in front of cooker could hardly complain about untidy wiring.



People do not seem to realise that if you have been out on a push
bike - there is more than a fair chance that there is dog **** on the
wheels; not something to bring in to the kitchen as far as I am
concerned.

I know of someone who keeps his bikes in one of the bedrooms !!

Judith,

Without wishing to get into any sort of scrap here, surely what the owner
does within the bounds of his or her property really has sod-all to do with
you?

Also, I would be very sure that the likely hood of you picking up some "dog
****" on your shoes when walking and carrying into your kitchen would be
just as high - and "not something to bring into the kitchen" either. But
there we are, the world would be a dull place if we were all perfect!

Happy new year - and think about the next new years resolution you make...
;-)

Cash - who's now just about mad enough at such nosiness, to go and a make a
dent in the old Jack Daniel's just to cool down.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:58:15 +0000, Judith
wrote:

Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg


(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point above the
cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have something like
this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any regulations?

I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring, then it
would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric shock - or would
the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?

It depends on a few things.

If it was done recently (I can't remember for sure, but I *think* the
new rules came in in 2006), then it is automatically illegal unless
done by or inspected and certified by a qualified electrician.

DIY electrical work in kitchens and bathrooms is now illegal unless
certified (and since most certified electricians would charge as much
to certify your work as to do it themselves, there isn't much point in
DIY followed by certification).

Even if it was done longer ago, if that white cable is powering the
cooker, rather than being the input for the socket, then it would be
illegal because cookers like that *must* be powered from a proper
cooker socket with 6mm wiring, and *must* have a single switch on the
wall which can turn off the whole cooker.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:22:52 +0000, Bill
wrote:

In message , Rick Hughes
writes

"Judith" wrote in message
. ..
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg


(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point above the
cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have
something like
this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any regulations?

I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring, then it
would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric shock -
or would
the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?



Then whoever has a kitchen with that amount of stuff on worktop, and a
bike in front of cooker could hardly complain about untidy wiring.

Scares the heck out of me when people store things on top of the cooker,
if the bike slips and knocks a control knob on it could be
interesting.......

I don't think any of that lot is stored there. It appears to have been
collected together just for the photo.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You can name your salary here. I call mine Fred.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:17:09 -0000, "Mr. Benn" wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message ...

On 12/31/2011 8:32 AM, Ophelia wrote:
"Bill" wrote
writes
"Judith" wrote
Someone posted the following picture on another newsgroup.
http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg
(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point
above the cooker)
Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have
something like this in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any
regulations?
I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring,
then it would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric
shock -
or would the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?
Then whoever has a kitchen with that amount of stuff on worktop, and
a bike in front of cooker could hardly complain about untidy wiring.
Scares the heck out of me when people store things on top of the
cooker, if the bike slips and knocks a control knob on it could be
interesting.......
Seems to be the end of a multi block on the floor hiding behind the
fridge as well.

Bike or no bike, I couldn't even boil a kettle in all that mess and
clutter!

The mains-powered radio sitting on the window ledge above the sink is a
nice touch...
==============================================

Amusingly, the person who owns the kitchen claims that he produces
award-winning safety videos! Can you believe that?

Perhaps that is intended to be a "how not to" for one of those then
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"No good deed goes unpunished" - Clare Booth Luce
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 31/12/2011 13:53, Judith wrote:

I know of someone who keeps his bikes in one of the bedrooms !!

Always nice to hear about a pimp that looks after his girls.
8¬)

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:16:36 -0500, S Viemeister
wrote:

On 12/31/2011 2:14 PM, ARWadsworth wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:
On 12/31/2011 1:51 PM, John Rumm wrote:

Say it turns out that it is actually an electric cooker, and the
flex we can see is feeding it, and its normal 1.5mm^2 PVC flex that
has been hardwired into the back of a normal power circuit socket -
then yes there are serious concerns, it is unsafe, and the person
responsible was not competent to do the work.


It looks like a smooth-top electric cooker.

It looks like a gas cooker with a hinged glass lid.

Hmm.
I suppose it could be.

Not likely.

Those usually have a fairly obvious handle at the front, while the lip
in that one curves the wrong way, so there is no obvious and easy way
to grip it to lift.

It looks much more like a ceramic hob to me.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Murphy is out there... waiting...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:29:53 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

Say it turns out that it is actually an electric cooker, and the flex we
can see is feeding it, and its normal 1.5mm^2 PVC flex that has been
hardwired into the back of a normal power circuit socket - then yes
there are serious concerns, it is unsafe, and the person responsible was
not competent to do the work.

I'm thinking that the flex that comes out at the left of the double
socket disappears behind the cooker and then reappears near the floor
just to the right of the cooker - it's the same white colour. Then it
goes off to join the mess of cabling to the left of the Beko fridge.


While it could be, it seems more likely that is the cable from the
white plug in the right hand socket.


Could be that cable just ends in a plug that's in an adapter plugged
into the one socket behind the Beko.

While there is no accounting for stupidity, it would take a serious
quantity of it to hard wire in a cable that ended in a plug.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
DOS never says "EXCELLENT command or filename, Dude!"
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Dec 31, 9:14*pm, "Cash"
wrote:
Judith wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:37:52 -0000, "Rick Hughes"
wrote:

"Judith" wrote in message
. ..
Someone posted the following picture on another *newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg

(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point
above the cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have
something like
this *in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any
regulations?

I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring,
then it would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric
shock - or would
the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?

Then whoever has a kitchen with that amount of stuff on worktop, and
a bike in front of cooker could hardly complain about untidy wiring.

People do not seem to realise that if you have been out on a push
bike - there is more than a fair chance that there is dog **** on the
wheels; not something to bring in to the kitchen as far as I am
concerned.

I know of someone who keeps his bikes in one of the bedrooms !!

Judith,

Without wishing to get into any sort of scrap here, surely what the owner
does within the bounds of his or her property really has sod-all to do with
you?

This is between Judith and another uk.rec.cycling poster. Anything
goes really, they are both as barking as each other.

Also, I would be very sure that the likely hood of you picking up some "dog
****" on your shoes when walking and carrying into your kitchen would be
just as high - and "not something to *bring into the kitchen" either.

I certainly wouldn't allow Judith in my kitchen.

MBQ

On Dec 31, 6:39*pm, "Mr Pounder"
wrote:
"Judith" wrote in message

...









Someone posted the following picture on another *newsgroup.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/kitchen.jpg

(Note the white cable coming out of the LHS of the supply point above the
cooker)

Whilst it is obviously potentially unsafe and stupidity to have something
like
this *in a kitchen; has the person who did it broken any regulations?

I suppose if it was the owner of the property who did the wiring, *then it
would be their own stupid fault if someone gets an electric shock - or
would
the person who made the connection be liable in anyway?

Judith.
This is silly.
Why do you hate him so much?

She can't help herself and I doubt anyone else can at this stage.

MBQ

On 31/12/2011 19:51, jgharston wrote:
Old Codger wrote:
Even then that cable should be
fixed to the wall at the specified intervals between the two sockets to
comply with the regulations.

and requires strain relief. What's stopping the cable coming out of
the
socket other than the terminal screws?

Proper fixing to the wall. This should include a fixing close to the
output from the socket (backbox) which would stop any possibility of the
cable being caught and yanked out of the connections.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:43:55 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

snip


Is there no specification of a minimum distance from a sink or
draining board, and a minimum gap above the work surface?

There is no minimum distance given in the regs regarding the distance from
the sink/drainer. There are good practice guides that recommend that there
should be a 30cm distance between sockets and the sink/drainer.

There are rules regarding the height of a socket above a worktop. But that
is to prevent the cable on a plug from being strained because the socket is
too close to the worktop. So not relevant to a switch.



Many thanks - always nice to get an informative answer from someone who knows
rather than a straight "no" from a ****wit - which may or may not even be
correct - as some would respond.