"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:44:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
"fairly unlikely" is not good enough. It is either black or white in
regs.
Installing a new cable on an existing breaker is not a new circuit.

I agree. The intent of the legislation is that you should be able
to replace *a* cable.

You have stretched it to the point that the entire ring would need to
be replaced. That would mean a new circuit and is therefore not
exempt. A damaged cable means just that - e.g. somebody banged a
nail through a section. It is unlikely that somebody would
systematically bang a nail through every section of cable in a ring.
That is what I meant by "fairly unlikely".

It is an obvious loophole.

I like to do a ring without actually breaking the conductors where
possible. Loop in/loop out, **carefully** removing the insulation. = Single
bit of cable. Do it that way, and you only have to "accidentally" nick one
section when it is time to replace the ring, and oh dear, the whole circuit
has to be changed. What a shame!

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:00:20 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote
| "special installation" means an electric floor or ceiling heating
| system, a garden lighting or electric power installation, an
| electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system which
| is *** NOT a pre-assembled lighting set *** bearing the CE marking
| referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety)
| Regulations 1994[8]

(my emphasis *** added)

This would appear to mean that if you buy a pre-assembled lighting set of
transformer and luminaires you can DIY, but if you buy a transformer and
luminaires separately it becomes a special installation and thus
certifiable?

Owain



Regulation 9 of the Regulation mentioned is simply setting out the
requirement for the CE mark to be placed on equipment offered on the
market.

It's largely meaningless in a lot of cases where components are used
to form a system.

For example, components in your PC carry a CE mark individually and
are related to that component in areas like safety and electromagnetic
compatibility. Of course, a disk drive can't do anything on its own,
so a disk drive vendor will normally put it into a typical system and
have it tested by a third party lab. If it passes certain standards
then the manufacturer can issue a Declaration of Conformity and apply
the CE mark. Then he can sell the product.
A major equipment vendor will have complete systems tested and go with
that. However, a small system integrator will not go for a lab test
and it's pot luck whether the system meets EMC requirements. Because
safety is largely a funtion of the PSU, it's unlikely that he would
get into trouble on the safety aspects.

For garden lights, vendors supply a transformer, LV wiring and the
lamps either as sets or with bits available separately. They should
be tested as a system for safety etc. - i.e. all of the relevant
standards for that type of product - that is the principle of CE
marking. (I didn't say it was any good).

So.... if you were to buy the items from one vendor and install them
then there should be no issue, expecially as most of these
transformers plug in as appliances anyway.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:32:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1 metre
lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".

You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So you
can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it was
"defective".

It says that you can replace a damaged cable.

Theoretically, all the cable segments
in a ring could be damaged, but
it's a bit unlikely, isn;t it?

If one is down then the lot gets replaced.

Perhaps you are the reason why this legislation has been introduced.
I would recommend that you follow the guidelines.

By the way... hacksaws aren't much good for stripping electrical cable
either.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:52:59 GMT, Mike Harrison
wrote:

Exempting equipotential bonding is curious as well. It's an imprtant
safety mechanism and should also be tested.

Isn't this so that plumbers don't need to jump through the hoops when doing pipework that needs
earthing ?

Possibly. There is a new mediaeval guild/income tax net for
plumbers.

My point was really that service and equipotential bonding is an
important safety feature so it is surprising that it is exempted.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:10:41 GMT, "coherers"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message

This is as I understand it, but do remember that the Approved
Documents do not have the force of law - they are simply a guideline.

Right - there is a tendency for the Approved documents to "extend" the law,
which really irritates me 'cos there are enough real regulations without
f***head's office inventing them

So the quote above can be nothing more than a recommendation, and is
in effect the status quo today.

There is one big change in the status quo. Currently, if we add a socket and
skimp on the inspection/testing, we may end on the wrong side of the civil
law. After 1st Jan, if we do anything which doesn't comply with regs, we
could end up with a criminal record ( s35, Building Act 1984).

Ditto for the professionals though, which might be the silver lining....


True. Although I suspect in reality that the whole thing will end up
being a white elephant anyway.

Our resident ex and current BCOs might like to comment here, but it
seems to me that the only time where violations of building control
are likely to be detected are

a) If they are visible from the exterior of the house - e.g. an
extension

b) The neighbours shop the householder

c) Something bad happens

d) The property is sold.


For wiring, a) and b) are unlikely if it is the only work - of course
if it's part of something else then that's a bigger issue and the
person is already in violation of other parts anyway.

c) is possible, but we know that the number of bad things like fires
and shocks attributable to fixed wiring are small. Since this
regulation allows spurs to be fitted uncontrolled, it does not protect
the MP's electrocuted daughter if the cooker hood wiring was to a
spur, except in so far that it was in a kitchen and therefore
controlled. I see no logical reason why the same thing with a
different appliance couldn't have happened in another room.

In case d) what would happen? The purchaser has a survey and the
surveyor picks up that wiring was done and no certificate because it
was DIY and the person didn't bother. So he gets an electrician in
and the installation is tested. If it passes then fine, if not then
it gets fixed. I don't imagine that anybody is going to call up
Building Control and ask them to come round with handcuffs.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:10:41 GMT, "coherers"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message

This is as I understand it, but do remember that the Approved
Documents do not have the force of law - they are simply a guideline.

Right - there is a tendency for the Approved documents to "extend" the
law,
which really irritates me 'cos there are enough real regulations without
f***head's office inventing them

So the quote above can be nothing more than a recommendation, and is
in effect the status quo today.

There is one big change in the status quo. Currently, if we add a socket
and
skimp on the inspection/testing, we may end on the wrong side of the
civil
law. After 1st Jan, if we do anything which doesn't comply with regs, we
could end up with a criminal record ( s35, Building Act 1984).

Ditto for the professionals though, which might be the silver lining....


True. Although I suspect in reality that the whole thing will end up
being a white elephant anyway.

Our resident ex and current BCOs might like to comment here, but it
seems to me that the only time where violations of building control
are likely to be detected are

a) If they are visible from the exterior of the house - e.g. an
extension

b) The neighbours shop the householder

c) Something bad happens

d) The property is sold.


For wiring, a) and b) are unlikely if it is the only work - of course
if it's part of something else then that's a bigger issue and the
person is already in violation of other parts anyway.

c) is possible, but we know that the number of bad things like fires
and shocks attributable to fixed wiring are small. Since this
regulation allows spurs to be fitted uncontrolled, it does not protect
the MP's electrocuted daughter if the cooker hood wiring was to a
spur, except in so far that it was in a kitchen and therefore
controlled. I see no logical reason why the same thing with a
different appliance couldn't have happened in another room.

In case d) what would happen? The purchaser has a survey and the
surveyor picks up that wiring was done and no certificate because it
was DIY and the person didn't bother. So he gets an electrician in
and the installation is tested. If it passes then fine, if not then
it gets fixed. I don't imagine that anybody is going to call up
Building Control and ask them to come round with handcuffs.



And of course dont forget that the idea of paying money for the sharpest,
slipperiest, most aggressive solicitor that you can find is to protect you
from answering any nasty questions untruthfully or to your detriment....



--
Richard Sampson

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:44:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;". To do this may
entail
working on the ring main. Simple. Obvious.

I didn't say that you can't "touch the ring main"

First of all it is a "ring final circuit".

I don't see the term "ring final circuit".

That is the term in BS7671. In the SI it is referred to as a ring
circuit.

Secondly one is allowed to change fittings.

Other works are controlled.

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

[so you can replace the ring main or a radial circuit]

No.

Yes! You are exempted if the cable is
damaged and needs replacing. That may
mean the whole ring main. Simple. Obvious.

Of course. However, it is fairly
unlikely, and the intent is that
installing a new circuit is a
controlled activity.

"fairly unlikely" is not good enough.
It is either black or white in regs.
Installing a new cable on an existing
breaker is not a new circuit.

I agree. The intent of the legislation is
that you should be able
to replace *a* cable.

I'm interested in the intention, I am interested in the black and white
facts.

You have stretched it to the point
that the entire ring would need to
be replaced. That would mean a
new circuit and is therefore not
exempt.

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

A ring main is a single circuit. FACT If any or all of the cables are
damaged that can be replaced right back to the breaker.

A damaged cable means just
that - e.g. somebody banged a
nail through a section. It is unlikely
that somebody would systematically
bang a nail through every section of
cable in a ring. That is what I meant
by "fairly unlikely".

I'm not interested in assumptions and opinions.

It is an obvious loophole.

They have simply listed the exemptions
because they thought that they
are fewer in number than listing what
is controlled in detail.

Not interested in opinions.. It is either black or white.

That is the problem. Twojags and
his cronies

NO! the permanent gov department.

By the way,,,, I am not seeking to defend this nonsense legislation.
I've repeatedly said that it's bull**** and achieves nothing because
it is unenforcable.

I would remind you that it was enacted by your friend Twojags and his
cronies.

No.by the relevant deptarbntments. I'm 2Jags doesn't know what a ring
mains
is.

I don't think he knows
which day of the week it is.

He does and he has a great left hook. My hero.

I have a letter in my file from Raynsford in answer to a letter
written to him by my MP, where it is clear that his hand had been in
this.

They do not write it up. Techie people from the department do. Then they
give it lawyers who convert it to gobbledy gook with hereuntos in it. BOY,
you really are naive.

snip babble

I am sure that if this ever does become a big issue (which
is unlikely), that he will seek to distance himself from it in exactly
the same shameful way that he has from hunting legislation.

He voted against hunting I believe. Fox hunters?
I would burn the lot 'em.

.. and DIY electricians no doubt.

No just fox hunters. Burn 'em.

Work which -

(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,

(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and

[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or
a
"special installation"]

No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.

No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).

There doesn't need to be because there is a comma.

I know that your English abilities are not strong, so when something
is expressed as (a), (b) and (c); it means (a) *and* (b) *and* (c).

No and after (a) when there is after others, so (a) is excluded. Simple.

I suspect that you probably are.

You are not used to legal docs that is clear. The "and" joins those beneath
it,. not above. Duh!

You can fit luminaires anyway.
12v is less than 50v by the way.

But you can't take away the rose
and fit a j box and transformer with wires
to the downlighters. Something to do
with cowboys and kitchens again.

Who knows? There are transformers
that fit in place of ceiling roses
and power pairs of wires onto which
are clipped lamps.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

snip ignorant babble

This is sad, he is getting worse. Must be all that **** he has kicked all
his life.
Sad but true.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:32:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1
metre
lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".

You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So
you
can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it
was
"defective".

It says that you can replace a damaged cable.

Theoretically, all the cable segments
in a ring could be damaged, but
it's a bit unlikely, isn;t it?

If one is down then the lot gets replaced.

Perhaps you are the reason why
this legislation has been introduced.
I would recommend that you follow
the guidelines.

What guidelines are these? Those by Andy the brainwashed Tory.

By the way... hacksaws aren't much good for stripping electrical cable
either.

I told him that. I cut "very" large cables with a hacksaw.

"RichardS" noone@invalid wrote in message
. ..
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:10:41 GMT, "coherers"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message

This is as I understand it, but do remember that the Approved
Documents do not have the force of law - they are simply a guideline.

Right - there is a tendency for the Approved documents to "extend" the
law,
which really irritates me 'cos there are enough real regulations
without
f***head's office inventing them

So the quote above can be nothing more than a recommendation, and is
in effect the status quo today.

There is one big change in the status quo. Currently, if we add a
socket
and
skimp on the inspection/testing, we may end on the wrong side of the
civil
law. After 1st Jan, if we do anything which doesn't comply with regs,
we
could end up with a criminal record ( s35, Building Act 1984).

Ditto for the professionals though, which might be the silver
lining....


True. Although I suspect in reality that the whole thing will end up
being a white elephant anyway.

Our resident ex and current BCOs might like to comment here, but it
seems to me that the only time where violations of building control
are likely to be detected are

a) If they are visible from the exterior of the house - e.g. an
extension

b) The neighbours shop the householder

c) Something bad happens

d) The property is sold.


For wiring, a) and b) are unlikely if it is the only work - of course
if it's part of something else then that's a bigger issue and the
person is already in violation of other parts anyway.

c) is possible, but we know that the number of bad things like fires
and shocks attributable to fixed wiring are small. Since this
regulation allows spurs to be fitted uncontrolled, it does not protect
the MP's electrocuted daughter if the cooker hood wiring was to a
spur, except in so far that it was in a kitchen and therefore
controlled. I see no logical reason why the same thing with a
different appliance couldn't have happened in another room.

In case d) what would happen? The purchaser has a survey and the
surveyor picks up that wiring was done and no certificate because it
was DIY and the person didn't bother. So he gets an electrician in
and the installation is tested. If it passes then fine, if not then
it gets fixed. I don't imagine that anybody is going to call up
Building Control and ask them to come round with handcuffs.

And of course dont forget that the idea of paying money for the sharpest,
slipperiest, most aggressive solicitor that you can find is to protect you
from answering any nasty questions untruthfully or to your detriment....

A detective relative of mine said, "never say anything", "never answer
questions". A good lawyer or copper may have the knack of ribbing you to
get your emotions up. He said "it is a game, ignore them" and he said " I
always admired a pro under provocation from us, who just said nothing at
all. He won, we lost, he walked away".

"IMM" wrote in message
...

Work which -

(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location,

(b) does not involve work on a special installation, and

[So the above two say any work as long as it is not in a kitchen or a
"special installation"]

No. You haven't read it correctly. The *and* at the end of (b)
means that conditions (a) (b) *and* (c) have to apply.

No "and" at the end of (a), so (a) not joined with (b) and (c).

It **is** (a) and (b) and (c). That is the way legislation reads.

Part P translates this as

"Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve a
special installation and consists of:....
Adding lighting points (light fittings and switches) to an existing circuit
Adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit
Installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding"

i.e. (a) and (b) and (c)

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:18:11 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




I'm interested in the intention, I am interested in the black and white
facts.

You're going to look for a long time in any legislation enacted by
this government.,



You have stretched it to the point
that the entire ring would need to
be replaced. That would mean a
new circuit and is therefore not
exempt.

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

A ring main is a single circuit. FACT If any or all of the cables are
damaged that can be replaced right back to the breaker.

A ring main is not used for interior house wiring. A ring circuit
(correctly ring final circuit) is.

It may or may not be necessary to replace more than one section of
cable if it is damaged.

However, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I already
said that I thought the legislation was a nonsense, so I see no reason
to try to justify its idiocies.



That is the problem. Twojags and
his cronies

NO! the permanent gov department.

Would you like me to send you a copy of the letter from Raynsford?



By the way,,,, I am not seeking to defend this nonsense legislation.
I've repeatedly said that it's bull**** and achieves nothing because
it is unenforcable.

I would remind you that it was enacted by your friend Twojags and his
cronies.

No.by the relevant deptarbntments. I'm 2Jags doesn't know what a ring
mains
is.

I don't think he knows
which day of the week it is.

He does and he has a great left hook. My hero.

Obviously. He seems to be as confused as you are.



I have a letter in my file from Raynsford in answer to a letter
written to him by my MP, where it is clear that his hand had been in
this.

They do not write it up. Techie people from the department do. Then they
give it lawyers who convert it to gobbledy gook with hereuntos in it. BOY,
you really are naive.

As I said, would you like me to send you a copy of the letter from
Raynsford?



I know that your English abilities are not strong, so when something
is expressed as (a), (b) and (c); it means (a) *and* (b) *and* (c).

No and after (a) when there is after others, so (a) is excluded. Simple.

I suspect that you probably are.

You are not used to legal docs that is clear. The "and" joins those beneath
it,. not above. Duh!

Don't be stupid. It's perfectly obvious both from the text and the
context that it is all three.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:24:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Perhaps you are the reason why
this legislation has been introduced.
I would recommend that you follow
the guidelines.

What guidelines are these? Those by Andy the brainwashed Tory.

For you I would recommend the Ladybird Book of Electrical Wiring.


By the way... hacksaws aren't much good for stripping electrical cable
either.

I told him that. I cut "very" large cables with a hacksaw.

Can I recommend that you try those festooned between tall towers -
ideally the tallest.......?

..

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:32:04 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




A detective relative of mine said, "never say anything", "never answer
questions". A good lawyer or copper may have the knack of ribbing you to
get your emotions up. He said "it is a game, ignore them" and he said " I
always admired a pro under provocation from us, who just said nothing at
all. He won, we lost, he walked away".

So were you a policeman as well then, or just the helmet?




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

So, when you slip with your hacksaw

You don't use hacksaws on cables sunny boy. Best you get pro in.

Ever tried cutting 16mm armoured or 25mm meter tails with sidecutters....?

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:51:54 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:52:59 GMT, Mike Harrison
wrote:

Exempting equipotential bonding is curious as well. It's an imprtant
safety mechanism and should also be tested.

Isn't this so that plumbers don't need to jump through the hoops when doing pipework that needs
earthing ?

Possibly. There is a new mediaeval guild/income tax net for
plumbers.

My point was really that service and equipotential bonding is an
important safety feature so it is surprising that it is exempted.

Since when did Part P have anything to do with safety ?

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:51:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

I didn't say that you can't "touch the ring main"

First of all it is a "ring final circuit".

I don't see the term "ring final circuit".


Well, it certainly isn't a ring main, otherwise you would be working out
in
the road !..

I'm not interested in assumptions or opinions.


It's neither, it's fact !

(Electrical) Ring Main = the 'company' distribution cables.

(Electrical) Ring Circuit = building power distribution cables laid out in a
'ring'.

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



You could fill all the spare breaker slots on the CU and have two 1 metre
lengths going onto one socket near the CU. then that is a "circuit".

You can totally replace an existing ring main if it is defective. So you
can redirect an existing ring main right back to the CU breaker as it was
"defective".

It says that you can replace a damaged cable.

Theoretically, all the cable segments in a ring could be damaged, but
it's a bit unlikely, isn;t it?


Does it say '*accidentally* damaged'?
--
Joe

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:51:54 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:52:59 GMT, Mike Harrison
wrote:

Exempting equipotential bonding is curious as well. It's an imprtant
safety mechanism and should also be tested.

Isn't this so that plumbers don't need to jump through the hoops when
doing pipework that needs
earthing ?

Possibly. There is a new mediaeval guild/income tax net for
plumbers.

My point was really that service and equipotential bonding is an
important safety feature so it is surprising that it is exempted.

Since when did Part P have anything to do with safety ?

In reality, never. As a weak justification for the formalisation of an
exclusive guild structure for electrical businesses with a vested interest,
since day one.

Cheers
Clive

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
IMM wrote:

snip pustular whinings

He is really affected. Fascinating.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:24:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Perhaps you are the reason why
this legislation has been introduced.
I would recommend that you follow
the guidelines.

What guidelines are these? Those by Andy the brainwashed Tory.

For you I would recommend the Ladybird Book of Electrical Wiring.

Is that the one under your pillow?

By the way... hacksaws aren't much good for stripping electrical cable
either.

I told him that. I cut "very" large cables with a hacksaw.

Can I recommend that you try those festooned between tall towers -
ideally the tallest.......?

Wow!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:32:04 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




A detective relative of mine said, "never say anything", "never answer
questions". A good lawyer or copper may have the knack of ribbing you to
get your emotions up. He said "it is a game, ignore them" and he said "
I
always admired a pro under provocation from us, who just said nothing at
all. He won, we lost, he walked away".

So were you a policeman as well then, or just the helmet?

The funnies are coming by the load.

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...

So, when you slip with your hacksaw

You don't use hacksaws on cables sunny boy. Best you get pro in.

Ever tried cutting 16mm armoured or 25mm meter tails with
sidecutters....?

Yes, big ones.

"Andy Hall" wrote
| It's clear enough in this case. It is common to create long
| sentences in legalese precisely so that the punctuation
| controls the meaning.

Other way about. Legal documents are usually written so that punctuation has
little or no effect on meaning, because it is easily omitted or inserted in
error or can drop out during a copying process. Have just checked the
working copy of my Will and it has not a single punctuation mark in the
whole document.

Owain

":::Jerry::::" wrote
| I didn't say that you can't "touch the ring main"
| First of all it is a "ring final circuit".
| I don't see the term "ring final circuit".
| Well, it certainly isn't a ring main, otherwise you would be
| working out in the road !..

I suspect that Buck House and similar sized properties have their own
substation and internal distribution may well be on a ring main.

In fact, I think I suggested a ring main for someone with a lot of
outbuildings on here a short while back.

Owain

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...

So, when you slip with your hacksaw

You don't use hacksaws on cables sunny boy. Best you get pro in.

Ever tried cutting 16mm armoured or 25mm meter tails with
sidecutters....?

Yes, big ones.



I've seen it done with scissors. Great big ones like tree trunk sheers they
were. Nice neat job too.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:13:51 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote
| It's clear enough in this case. It is common to create long
| sentences in legalese precisely so that the punctuation
| controls the meaning.

Other way about. Legal documents are usually written so that punctuation has
little or no effect on meaning, because it is easily omitted or inserted in
error or can drop out during a copying process. Have just checked the
working copy of my Will and it has not a single punctuation mark in the
whole document.

Owain


Sorry, you're right, I meant to say doesn't - comes of doing two
things at once.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Owain" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote
| I didn't say that you can't "touch the ring main"
| First of all it is a "ring final circuit".
| I don't see the term "ring final circuit".
| Well, it certainly isn't a ring main, otherwise you would be
| working out in the road !..

I suspect that Buck House and similar sized properties have their own
substation and internal distribution may well be on a ring main.

[ re Buck House ]
I'm dammed certain it does, and it's own generator set(s) too !


In fact, I think I suggested a ring main for someone with a lot of
outbuildings on here a short while back.


Err, in the context, would that not be just a very large (both in area and
power rating) ring circuit as it's after the company fuse(s) - unless they
also had the own substation ?...

Andy Hall wrote:

Don't be stupid. It's perfectly obvious both from the text and the
context that it is all three.

Perhaps an example would help...

It would appear that IMM has a poor grasp of basic English, lacks
comprehension, and has a limited ability to type.

Clearly all three apply.

To make the first part of a sentence of similar construction exclusive
we would need an "or". Thus: it would appear that IMM has a poor grasp
of basic English, or, he has made a basic error, and is too intransigent
to admit it.

Simple, obvious.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , Andy Hall
writes


For you I would recommend the Ladybird Book of Electrical Wiring.

Let's not run before we can walk. I'd suggest dIMM gets the Ladybird
Book of Reading Comprehension, then the Ladybird Book of Spelling and
Grammar before proceeding to anything as complicated as wiring.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

In article , Mike Harrison
writes

Since when did Part P have anything to do with safety ?

Quite.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
IMM wrote:

snip childish mewling


No you didn't, you replied...

[ FU's set ]

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
In case d) what would happen? The purchaser has a survey and the
surveyor picks up that wiring was done and no certificate because
it was DIY and the person didn't bother. So he gets an
electrician in and the installation is tested. If it passes then
fine, if not then it gets fixed. I don't imagine that anybody is
going to call up Building Control and ask them to come round with
handcuffs.

You're right: for a standard rewire no one will notice and no one
will care. But when you sell you have to complete a seller's
questionnaire which currently has a question as to whether you have
replaced any windows since the magic date and if so where is the
paperwork. No doubt there will be a similar question about electrics:
it's just that 90% of people will know whether they've replaced a
window or not, whilst 90% will have no clue as to whether they have
done work to which Part P applies. But if unsatisfactory or
non-committal answers lead to more installations being tested (at a
guess only a tiny percentage are at present) then it could be argued
that safety will be improved. How much more sensible though to have
just required anyone selling to produce a Gas Safety Certificate and
Electric report.

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

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
In case d) what would happen? The purchaser has a survey and the
surveyor picks up that wiring was done and no certificate because
it was DIY and the person didn't bother. So he gets an
electrician in and the installation is tested. If it passes then
fine, if not then it gets fixed. I don't imagine that anybody is
going to call up Building Control and ask them to come round with
handcuffs.

You're right: for a standard rewire no one will notice and no one
will care. But when you sell you have to complete a seller's
questionnaire which currently has a question as to whether you have
replaced any windows since the magic date and if so where is the
paperwork. No doubt there will be a similar question about electrics:
it's just that 90% of people will know whether they've replaced a
window or not, whilst 90% will have no clue as to whether they have
done work to which Part P applies. But if unsatisfactory or
non-committal answers lead to more installations being tested (at a
guess only a tiny percentage are at present) then it could be argued
that safety will be improved.

How much more sensible though to have
just required anyone selling to produce a Gas Safety Certificate and
Electric report.



In a sense thats true, but the difference between gas and electric is what
to do if it fails to meet current standards?

AIUI gas regs are strictly enforceable and if your installation fails a test
such that it is at risk or immediate danger, then you have an obligation to
fix it (in the spirit of uk.d-i-y I expect someone will be along forthwith
to correct me with the exact letter of the law if this is at all
incorrect!) - and didn't I read in a thread previously that one of the few
things you cannot do with a house sale is to sell a property with gas
installation in a dangerous situation?

Lectrics don't tend to have the same effect - I reckon that a sizeable
proportion of existing housing stock would fail to meet 16 edition
standards, and many houses sold would have very out of date installations
(esp if it's come onto the market as part of sale of a deceased's estate).
What do you do? Force the current owner to update the supply (they could be
selling due to a dire financial position), probably pushing up the sale
price? If the house was to be renovated then this new work could simply be
ripped out anyway.

Lets face it - if buyers actually cared about the state of the electrics in
a place over and above what they could see from cursory examination (and
other things like structure, area, what colour the seller's sofa is, school
catchment, etc) then there would surely be an active push from estate agents
and surveyors to offer a full electrical report (for a charge) on the house
rather than things like the homebuyer's survey's "we recommend that an
electrical inspection is carried out".

Hmm - a potential market for one of our enterprising resident sparks...?

--
Richard Sampson

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

In article , RichardS
wrote:
In a sense thats true, but the difference between gas and electric
is what to do if it fails to meet current standards?

That's why I said Gas Safety Certificate and electric report. You
can't get the former unless the installation is OK thus the seller
has no choice but to do what is necessary (which may mean capping off
the pipework at the meter). The electric report just puts the buyer
on notice as to any shortcomings which may not actually any real
danger at present (i.e. no earth to lighting points but no metal
fittings or switches installed).

It is nonsensical that the gas installation in a rented property has
to be professionally checked every year whilst in the private sector
their may have been no test since the conversion to natural gas.

--
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

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
writes


For you I would recommend the Ladybird Book of Electrical Wiring.

Let's not run before we can walk.
I'd suggest dIMM gets the Ladybird
Book of Reading Comprehension,

Maxie will decide if Dim Lin, the Oriental enchantress, will have a
Ladybird. What is it like? You have in depth knowledge of this
publication. Tell Maxie.

In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:

It is nonsensical that the gas installation in a rented property has
to be professionally checked every year whilst in the private sector
their may have been no test since the conversion to natural gas.

It came about because gas installations in rented properties
were killing far more people than those in owner-occupier
properties.

And what makes you think anyone tested anything when the
conversions to natural gas were done? I remember them giving up
trying to convert my father's Ideal Standard boiler, and they
just left it in bits on the kitchen floor. My father did the
conversion when he got home in the evening, but we never saw or
heard from the the gas board contractors again, so as far as
they know, it's still in bits on the kitchen floor.

I wonder how long before we convert back to town gas?

--
Andrew Gabriel

IMM wrote:

NO! To stop people cheating.

I find your naive faith amusing.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

NO! To stop people cheating.

I find your naive faith amusing.

Unlike yourself, I do not have third world logic.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:

It is nonsensical that the gas installation in a rented property has
to be professionally checked every year whilst in the private sector
their may have been no test since the conversion to natural gas.

It came about because gas installations in rented properties
were killing far more people than those in owner-occupier
properties.

And what makes you think anyone tested anything when the
conversions to natural gas were done? I remember them giving up
trying to convert my father's Ideal Standard boiler, and they
just left it in bits on the kitchen floor. My father did the
conversion when he got home in the evening, but we never saw or
heard from the the gas board contractors again, so as far as
they know, it's still in bits on the kitchen floor.

The gas conversion companies took anyone off the street and gave them a
quick course. Most could not understand simple instructions. The local gas
board depots had to clear up all the crap after six weeks or so after the
conversion date, when the cowboys moved on to terrorise another district.

Each time they converted an area the police were inundated with complaints
as people had no one else to turn to in desperation.

I wonder how long before we convert back to town gas?

Never. The cv is too low.