If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Al

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Al


Of course. The Electrical Contractors Association, NICEIC and ODPM
will be sponsoring full page ads in the national newspapers :-)




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:


If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Ah well, most of these will now be government approved deaths/accidents,
and hence in real terms they will actually count as a reduction. Those
that don't count as a reduction, will also not count toward the
"official" accident stats because they will be deemed to be attempted
suicides, since that could be the only possible explanation for an
accident occurring in light of the quality nanny legislation that would
without question prevent said accidents (or at any rate make them due to
tax at the higher rate)!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:50:54 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Ah well, most of these will now be government approved deaths/accidents,
and hence in real terms they will actually count as a reduction. Those
that don't count as a reduction, will also not count toward the
"official" accident stats because they will be deemed to be attempted
suicides, since that could be the only possible explanation for an
accident occurring in light of the quality nanny legislation that would
without question prevent said accidents (or at any rate make them due to
tax at the higher rate)!

Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants
anything but to protect us from ourselves?

Surely they know best - after all we are mortal.

Those 'suicides' from dodgy electrical work will not be hard to
explain away:

A interesting statistic is that more people kill themselves every year
than are killed in road traffic accidents.

With all that money being poured into speed cameras and the like to
stop us from being killed on the road, one might think nanny would
want to stop us killing ourselves through suicide. Total government
aid to The Samaritans is, I understand, about £0.00.

Some things just don't add up. Good job for nanny that way I guess.
Another of those stats is that more people in the UK are on
prescription anti-depressants than voted for the TV programme Pop
Idol, itself laying claim to the biggest ever UK vote. Maybe the two
are linked? hehe!

In article , wrote:
Total government
aid to The Samaritans is, I understand, about £0.00.

That may or may not be of their choosing: those who make grants
often then want to have an input for better or worse.

I suspect that they do get a lot of money through Gift Aid and one
of Gordon Brown's best decisions was to relax the Gift Aid rules so
that charities can easily reclaim an additional 28% on most
donations.

--
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

aceSPAMwithORG wrote:


With all that money being poured into speed cameras and the like to
stop us from being killed on the road, one might think nanny would
want to stop us killing ourselves through suicide. Total government

They are on that one.... they are trialling computer vision CCTV systems
in some of the London underground stations that claim to be able to
identify typical "jumpers" in advance by studying their apparently tell
tale behaviour patterns and movements.

(Minority report is getting closer!)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , John
Rumm writes
wrote:


With all that money being poured into speed cameras and the like to
stop us from being killed on the road, one might think nanny would
want to stop us killing ourselves through suicide. Total government

They are on that one.... they are trialling computer vision CCTV systems
in some of the London underground stations that claim to be able to
identify typical "jumpers" in advance by studying their apparently tell
tale behaviour patterns and movements.


Whatever loony thought that one up.

Got to have been, no sane sensible person would have ever put that
forward as even a remotely workable idea;(

--
Tony Sayer

acespamwithorg wrote:
Ah well, most of these will now be government approved deaths/accidents,
and hence in real terms they will actually count as a reduction. Those
that don't count as a reduction, will also not count toward the
"official" accident stats because they will be deemed to be attempted
suicides, since that could be the only possible explanation for an
accident occurring in light of the quality nanny legislation that would
without question prevent said accidents (or at any rate make them due to
tax at the higher rate)!

Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants
anything but to protect us from ourselves?

While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part 'P'
might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.
It's not some totally independent being out there trying to beat us
into submission, it's a load of under (or over) worked individuals
probably trying to do the best they can in the circumstances.

--
Chris Green

wrote:
While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part 'P'
might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.

Not me. And as such I retain my right to
moan about them ;-)

It's not some totally independent being out there trying to beat us
into submission, it's a load of under (or over) worked individuals
probably trying to do the best they can in the circumstances.

Yes, ironically this was probably the best
way they could think of to deal with the
problem. I do however object to the way
they seem to think they're doing us a favour.

Al

On 29 Nov 2004 13:44:00 GMT, wrote:

wrote:
Ah well, most of these will now be government approved deaths/accidents,
and hence in real terms they will actually count as a reduction. Those
that don't count as a reduction, will also not count toward the
"official" accident stats because they will be deemed to be attempted
suicides, since that could be the only possible explanation for an
accident occurring in light of the quality nanny legislation that would
without question prevent said accidents (or at any rate make them due to
tax at the higher rate)!

Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants
anything but to protect us from ourselves?

While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part 'P'
might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.

However, I wonder how many of *us* would have voted for *them* if they
thought that *they* would be involving themselves in trivial
legislation like this.


It's not some totally independent being out there trying to beat us
into submission, it's a load of under (or over) worked individuals
probably trying to do the best they can in the circumstances.

The reality seems to be that trade organisations like the ECA (by
their own admission) and others pushed for this for a long time and
managed to hoodwink the bureaucrats concerned that this would be a
Good Thing and would save lives. It's an easy political headline
that allows justification of virtually anything.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Al


Of course. The Electrical Contractors Association, NICEIC and ODPM
will be sponsoring full page ads in the national newspapers :-)

The conspiracy theory at my local wholesalers is

The number of deaths will rise, but official statistics will show that it is
due to people still DIYing. (They stats have already been prepared). Along
will come another piece of legislation to stop people who do not belong to a
certified group from buying CUs and cable etc. And what better way of
proving who you are at the wholesalers than by using your new ID card issued
by Mr Blunkett? When the tax man looks at your books and they show you have
fitted only 80 of the 120 CUs you bought using your ID card then get ready
for a full investigation.

Adam

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:43:03 GMT, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Al


Of course. The Electrical Contractors Association, NICEIC and ODPM
will be sponsoring full page ads in the national newspapers :-)

The conspiracy theory at my local wholesalers is

The number of deaths will rise, but official statistics will show that it is
due to people still DIYing. (They stats have already been prepared). Along
will come another piece of legislation to stop people who do not belong to a
certified group from buying CUs and cable etc. And what better way of
proving who you are at the wholesalers than by using your new ID card issued
by Mr Blunkett? When the tax man looks at your books and they show you have
fitted only 80 of the 120 CUs you bought using your ID card then get ready
for a full investigation.

Adam


Emigration anyone?


Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

In message , Kalico
writes
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:43:03 GMT, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Al


Of course. The Electrical Contractors Association, NICEIC and ODPM
will be sponsoring full page ads in the national newspapers :-)

The conspiracy theory at my local wholesalers is

The number of deaths will rise, but official statistics will show that it is
due to people still DIYing. (They stats have already been prepared). Along
will come another piece of legislation to stop people who do not belong to a
certified group from buying CUs and cable etc. And what better way of
proving who you are at the wholesalers than by using your new ID card issued
by Mr Blunkett? When the tax man looks at your books and they show you have
fitted only 80 of the 120 CUs you bought using your ID card then get ready
for a full investigation.

Adam


Emigration anyone?

I assume you mean for the politicians? Non-voluntary?
--
Joe

"Al Reynolds" wrote in message
...
If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?

Al



This is a question asked recently on another group:

"I have recently taken a 5A switched spur off of a single outlet in the back
bedroom of my house to serve an outside light. I have used 2.5mm T&E for
this. The light works, and the socket still works, however, if I plug a
"protector" plug in with a 4-way extension lead into the socket, the
protector trips immediately. This was not happening before. The existing
socket was either part of a ring, or radial circuit as it had 2 cables going
into it. The fuse at the CU end is a 15A and as far as I can tell, the only
sockets on this circuit are 2 x doubles + said single outlet."

"All advice appreciated."

And you wonder why Part P is being implemented. :-))

In article ,
"BigWallop" writes:

This is a question asked recently on another group:

"I have recently taken a 5A switched spur off of a single outlet in the back
bedroom of my house to serve an outside light. I have used 2.5mm T&E for
this. The light works, and the socket still works, however, if I plug a
"protector" plug in with a 4-way extension lead into the socket, the
protector trips immediately. This was not happening before. The existing
socket was either part of a ring, or radial circuit as it had 2 cables going
into it. The fuse at the CU end is a 15A and as far as I can tell, the only
sockets on this circuit are 2 x doubles + said single outlet."

"All advice appreciated."

And you wonder why Part P is being implemented. :-))

And what difference would it make in this case?
The bloke will very likely have never heard of
it, and is very unlikely to care even supposing
he had.

--
Andrew Gabriel

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

This is a question asked recently on another group:

"I have recently taken a 5A switched spur off of a single outlet in the
back
bedroom of my house to serve an outside light. I have used 2.5mm T&E
for
this. The light works, and the socket still works, however, if I plug a
"protector" plug in with a 4-way extension lead into the socket, the
protector trips immediately. This was not happening before. The
existing
socket was either part of a ring, or radial circuit as it had 2 cables
going
into it. The fuse at the CU end is a 15A and as far as I can tell, the
only
sockets on this circuit are 2 x doubles + said single outlet."

"All advice appreciated."

And you wonder why Part P is being implemented. :-))

And what difference would it make in this case?
The bloke will very likely have never heard of
it, and is very unlikely to care even supposing
he had.

Andrew Gabriel


But people are now telling me that electrical fires aren't an issue but,
with all I see and hear around me, I think they most definitely are now.
And they're on the increase.

In article ,
"BigWallop" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

And what difference would it make in this case?
The bloke will very likely have never heard of
it, and is very unlikely to care even supposing
he had.

But people are now telling me that electrical fires aren't an issue but,
with all I see and hear around me, I think they most definitely are now.
And they're on the increase.

You didn't answer the point.

All the government figures I can see show a steady drop,
except for a small momentary increase around 1995.

--
Andrew Gabriel

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

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

And what difference would it make in this case?
The bloke will very likely have never heard of
it, and is very unlikely to care even supposing
he had.

But people are now telling me that electrical fires aren't an issue but,
with all I see and hear around me, I think they most definitely are now.
And they're on the increase.

You didn't answer the point.

All the government figures I can see show a steady drop,
except for a small momentary increase around 1995.

Andrew Gabriel


Looking at some of the postings just in this group, I can see some
electrical questions and proposals that frighten me. These are normally
about wiring problems and/or schemes which people are doing or have actually
done. So I think the momentary increase in 1995 is about to happen again.
That maybe why the government and institutions are doing something now to
cover their own butts.

The new requirements will go a long way to covering the asses of the
insurance companies when and if policy pay outs should be due, and also the
electrical suppliers when and if things go wrong in the DIY electrical
installations they attend with the fire brigade.

The postings here are from people who are actually trying to find out the
best and safest ways to do the job. But just how many more aren't even
bothering to find out how and why it should be done, and are burning their
houses down?

And the word is that the Councils are saying get stuffed to Part P
because they can't enforce it.

"EricP" wrote in message
...
And the word is that the Councils are saying get stuffed to Part P
because they can't enforce it.


Not just now, but you wait and see what is actually happening due to these
small changes.

BigWallop wrote:

Not just now, but you wait and see what is actually happening due to these
small changes.

What is happening is that it is getting ever more complex and less
rewarding to run a small business these days. Ultimatly in a country
where the majority of its GDP is generated by this business sector, it
is tantamount to cooking the goose that used to lay the golden eggs.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , John
Rumm writes
BigWallop wrote:

Not just now, but you wait and see what is actually happening due to these
small changes.

What is happening is that it is getting ever more complex and less
rewarding to run a small business these days.

That.. Is precisely what the government wants. It hates small bizz and
the self employed with a vengeance.....


Ultimatly in a country
where the majority of its GDP is generated by this business sector, it
is tantamount to cooking the goose that used to lay the golden eggs.


Obvious really, those who can do, those who can't govern;(

--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../ixportal.html

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:11:33 +0000, Andy Minter
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../ixportal.html




He's right on the money of course......



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Minter" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:11:55 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote:

If the number of deaths/accidents increases after
Part P comes in, will we hear about it?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../ixportal.html


Typical Telegraph misrepresentation.

Columnist talks about regulations being invoked for a broken window when
Document L does not apply in the case of "like for like", even where it
involves the whole unit.
http://www.windowstoday.co.uk/document_l.htm

I say 'typical', because they ran a story earlier in the year about some
nuns who were 'threatened with bankruptcy ' to make disabled access to
their crypt under the DDA; which is complete tosh of course - the DDA
only requires 'reasonable alterations' to be made.

There may be problems with Document L and Part P, but the Telegraph does
nobody any favours by putting such a stupidly framed argument against
them.