Cabling up a kitchen advice sought

[RogerS]

Not even Scotland as far as I am aware

 

[Digit]

Well unless I'm misuderstanding some thing, (possible), read this gentlemen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... book21.xml

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

It wasn't the EU, that's a bendy banana myth. It was the result of a campaign by some MP whose daughter drilled through a diagonal run of cable installed by some cowboy kitchen fitter, and died. The campaign was also supported by lobbying on behalf of the likes of the NICIEC who saw a CORGI-like guild/monopoly opportunity.

It was Jenny Tong whose daughter was killed. I believe that it was the husband who drilled into the wall to fit a metal shelf. One of the screws was just touching the live wire because the cable was installed on the diagonal. The daughter was sadly electrocuted. It could also be argued that anyone drilling into a wall without first checking with a tester to see if there were any cables buried beneath is equally as culpable.

I did enquire of RoSPA as to the number of accidents related to faulty wiring and they had no record other than this one. So, as Jake said, a bandwagon was jumped on.

Mind you if anyone is doing their 'own thing' now it will be a dead giveaway when they come to sell as the wire colouring scheme changed (and that was to bring us into harmony with the rest of the EU, I believe). Anyone want to buy a drum of red and black T&E :wink:

Anyway, back to wiring kitchens

 

[Digit]

Agreed Roger, all my walls are stud type, but since the days of battery drills I have always turned the electricity off and checked with a detector as well. Also it's worth noting that Prescott's baby would not have prevented that event from occurring.
Safety is an attitude of mind, not government rules.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

The Telegraph in making up lies about Europe shock!

 

[Digit]

Any evidence to back that Jake?

Roy.

And here's your bent Banana myth as well.

http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/EU42.htm

 

[Jake]

The colour change doesn't actually tell anyone anything, as it wasn't simultaneous and the new colours were available for a good six months before Part P came in.

 

[Jake]

I can't prove a negative - you can prove the positive - if the Telegraph isn't lying then there will be a directive or a regulation. There isn't one, but have fun looking.

 

[Digit]

The directive, I'm informed, is 98/34. Or perhaps I should suggest that Part P might just be another case of Westminster 'gold plating' a directive?

Roy.

 

[Karl]

I heard about how the Part P regs came in to being - the death of an MP's daughter.

Wonder how many lowly peasents died at the hands of dodgy DIY electrics, and MP's ignored the problem. But when it's one of their own....

Cheers

Karl

 

[Jake]

The directive, I'm informed, is 98/34. Or perhaps I should suggest that Part P might just be another case of Westminster 'gold plating' a directive?

Roy.

Neither. 98/34 is a directive which requires governments to submit details of technical requirements they place on industry etc, so that they can be assessed to see if they are actually attempts to restrict intra-country competition. It has nothing to do with electrics, or even safety, as such. It is just that the UK will have had to report its intention to introduce part P, as it effectively restricts the ability to trade as an electrician to the members of the guilds, in case the Commission or other governments viewed that as anti-common-market. It is a shame no-one appeared to object - we might have been saved by the dreaded EU!

 

[Digit]

Perhaps the HSE should have looked into the father's incompetence instead of taking it out on the rest of us. Bit like Dunblane, the authorities screw up so we have to hand in our guns, the government prefers sitting ducks to aim at I'm afraid.

Roy.

 

[Digit]

The dreaded EU Jake. You mean that unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic group that we are now controlled by?

Roy.

 

[Digit]

(8) Whereas it is appropriate, in the interests of legal certainty, that Member States publicly announce that a national technical regulation has been adopted in accordance with the formalities laid down in this Directive;

From 98/34.
This is the part that has been 'gold plated' to far above that which was required.
Recently the president of the EU was forced into complaining about this tendency in Westminster, including of course weights and measures.
Also the HSE have complained about town halls 'gold plating' their directives.
Give some people a little bit of power and it goes straight to their heads.

Roy.

 

[StevieB]

Indeed, cable colour harmonisation and part P were not simultaneous.

If anyone does have drums of black and red T&E it is fetching a tidy profit on ebay at the moment, approx £80 for 100m compared to £39 for brown and blue from screwfix. Why you would pay £80 for it is beyond me given it signifies nothing to do with part P timescales but that is the only reason I can think of that people would want it.

Steve.

 

[Jake]

(8) Whereas it is appropriate, in the interests of legal certainty, that Member States publicly announce that a national technical regulation has been adopted in accordance with the formalities laid down in this Directive;

From 98/34.
This is the part that has been 'gold plated' to far above that which was required.

No, you've misunderstood it.

It is purely a procedural Directive, and has nothing to do with the substance of Part P or of any other technical requirements whatsoever.

If the government, say, decided that it wanted to make legislation which provided that plumbers had to work standing on their heads, they would have to report that intention to the EU under 98/34. That gives the governments of all the other countries (and the Commission) a chance to look at the proposals and object if they think it is restrictive of competition. Which they might, if the legislation suggested that no-one with a french accent could do plumbing, or something.

If the goverment wished to ban bendy bananas, or require all nuts and bolts to be made out of titanium, it would have to submit a report under 98/34. Etc, etc, it is purely about the reporting of technical measures, and nothing to do with their content.

There isn't any gold-plating in this instance, and Part P has precisely nothing to do with the EU.

 

[Digit]

I agree Jake, I've been doing some studying, it appears that the government took advantage of one directive and then ran with the ball.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Aargh. It has nothing to do with the Directive at all. Red herring.

 

[Digit]

You missed my point Jake. It seems possible that if the government hadn't to conform with 98/34 they might well have not introduced Part P. Though we may well never know for certain as they don't seem capable of telling us the truth about very much at all.

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

You missed my point Jake. It seems possible that if the government hadn't to conform with 98/34 they might well have not introduced Part P. Though we may well never know for certain as they don't seem capable of telling us the truth about very much at all.

Roy.

How? I don't follow your logic, Roy. 98/34 is a reporting mechanism. When the Govt decided to introduce Part P, the fact that they had to report their intentions under 98/34 is neither here nor there as far as Part P is concerned.