UK and Europe · Public discussion

Re: [OT] DIY electrical work

Started by David Hansen · · Last activity · 6 posts · 488 views

← Back to UK and Europe

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postRe: [OT] DIY electrical workDavid Hansen · 9 Dec 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6David Hansen · 10 Dec 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
9 December 2004
Last activity
10 December 2004
Original author
David Hansen
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
488
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    David Hansen
    Archived post
    #1

    On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:36:09 +0000 someone who may be Trevor Barton
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    If you
    rewire your house, and it subsequently burns down taking out half of
    Olde London Town with it, you are at present not directly liable for
    faults you might have made in ignorance.

    Utterly incorrect.

    People are liable for their actions. One way of discharging this
    liability is to follow the Wiring Regs. However, note that they
    prohibit very few things and encourage alternative methods provided
    that they provide the same degree of safety.

    Quoted message said:

    Still, I'm an electronic engineer, so I don't approach electrical work
    from a viewpoint of general ignorance of the dangers.

    That depends on the individual electronic engineer. One once asked
    me how many milliamps an item of equipment would draw while working.
    The was most surprised to discover this was over 1000 amps, a
    current he had never come across before. Then I told him what
    current would flow if there was a fault. He stuck to electronics
    after that.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

    Report
  2. Trevor Barton
    Archived post
    #2
    David Hansen said:

    On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:36:09 +0000 someone who may be Trevor Barton
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    If you
    rewire your house, and it subsequently burns down taking out half of
    Olde London Town with it, you are at present not directly liable for
    faults you might have made in ignorance.

    Utterly incorrect.

    Your certainty is astonishing. But then, your certainty is often
    more astonishing than it is a true representation of reality.

    --
    Trevor Barton

    Report
  3. David Hansen
    Archived post
    #3

    On 09 Dec 2004 13:18:13 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you
    rewire your house, and it subsequently burns down taking out half of
    Olde London Town with it, you are at present not directly liable for
    faults you might have made in ignorance.

    Utterly incorrect.

    Your certainty is astonishing.

    Is it? I note that you have not responded to the explanation I gave,
    which is:

    "People are liable for their actions. One way of discharging this
    liability is to follow the Wiring Regs. However, note that they
    prohibit very few things and encourage alternative methods provided
    that they provide the same degree of safety."

    Do you disagree with anything that I wrote in that paragraph?

    Quoted message said:

    But then, your certainty is often
    more astonishing than it is a true representation of reality.

    Excellent, someone else who seems to prefer the tabloid journalism
    approach, rather than discussing the issues.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

    Report
  4. Trevor Barton
    Archived post
    #4
    David Hansen said:

    On 09 Dec 2004 13:18:13 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >If you
    >rewire your house, and it subsequently burns down taking out half of
    >Olde London Town with it, you are at present not directly liable for
    >faults you might have made in ignorance.

    Utterly incorrect.

    Your certainty is astonishing.

    Is it? I note that you have not responded to the explanation I gave,
    which is:

    "People are liable for their actions. One way of discharging this
    liability is to follow the Wiring Regs. However, note that they
    prohibit very few things and encourage alternative methods provided
    that they provide the same degree of safety."

    Do you disagree with anything that I wrote in that paragraph?

    Yes. The assertion that people are liable for their actions,
    in the sense that they will be held properly liable should their actions
    cause injury to anyone else, indicates that you are not living on
    the same planet as me. People are morally and ethically liable
    for their actions, but since when has that applied to the law?
    Are we not constantly in this group complaining about motorists
    who get off with derisory penalties after killing or injuring
    others by the completely foreseeable results of their own negligence?
    Which part of liability does that encompass?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But then, your certainty is often
    more astonishing than it is a true representation of reality.

    Excellent, someone else who seems to prefer the tabloid journalism
    approach, rather than discussing the issues.

    Which part of "Utterly incorrect." do you suppose indicates a desire
    to discuss anything, rather than your usual attempt to bludgeon any
    opposing viewpoint into abject submission? You might find people
    more willing to engage in discussing the issues with you if you
    were less belligerent in your approach to discussion.

    --
    Trevor Barton

    Report
  5. JLB
    Archived post
    #5
    Trevor Barton said:

    Yes. The assertion that people are liable for their actions,
    in the sense that they will be held properly liable should their actions
    cause injury to anyone else, indicates that you are not living on
    the same planet as me. People are morally and ethically liable
    for their actions, but since when has that applied to the law?
    Are we not constantly in this group complaining about motorists
    who get off with derisory penalties after killing or injuring
    others by the completely foreseeable results of their own negligence?
    Which part of liability does that encompass?

    Being liable for one's actions and successfully being held liable are
    obviously different. The easily demonstrable fact that people are not
    inevitably brought to account for any injury they might cause does not
    make it untrue that in law, with exceptions such as people who are
    mentally ill, an adult is responsible for his/her actions.

    There also seems to be no distinction in your argument between civil and
    criminal liability. Penalties presumably refer to criminal law, which
    does not in any way compensate the injured party except by any emotional
    satisfaction that might be felt concerning the sentence. While the
    criminal penalty in a particular instance might be generally seen as
    derisory, the compensation paid to the injured party for the relevant
    civil liability could still be substantial.

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

    Report
  6. David Hansen
    Archived post
    #6

    On 10 Dec 2004 08:48:24 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    Yes. The assertion that people are liable for their actions,
    in the sense that they will be held properly liable should their actions
    cause injury to anyone else, indicates that you are not living on
    the same planet as me.

    The defects of the courts are a matter for a long discussion at
    another time. However, that does not negate the fact that people are
    liable for their actions. Install electrical equipment without
    following the correct procedures and one may well find oneself in
    court answering for it.

    Quoted message said:

    Which part of "Utterly incorrect." do you suppose indicates a desire
    to discuss anything,

    How about the bit that followed?

    "People are liable for their actions. One way of discharging this
    liability is to follow the Wiring Regs. However, note that they
    prohibit very few things and encourage alternative methods provided
    that they provide the same degree of safety."

    I note that you failed to discuss that.

    Quoted message said:

    rather than your usual attempt to bludgeon any
    opposing viewpoint into abject submission?

    Nice try.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionUK and Europe Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.