stop doing electrical work

Discussion in 'Kitchen Fitters' Talk' started by 4957bob, Mar 11, 2006.

  1. yorkshireboy

    yorkshireboy Member

    I don,t want to do electrics either.The reason most of us did pre part p is because when the spark didn,t turn up when he was supposed to if we didn,t put the cables in the whole job is held up.This was all started by the first guys post telling us to do as we,re told.I think Tims first reply said it all Should have left it at that ;)
  2. Defcon

    Defcon New Member


    As I have posted before....If you choose to be in the business of fitting kitchens.....then the very nature of the skills required (the ability to pick up a hammer) you are doomed to be in a swimming pool full of horrible smelly stuff also known as sh I1T.

    All we can do as SENIOR Tradesman can try to get the aforementioned clots.... to the shallow end.

    If you are unlucky enough to be on a job at the same time as a junior tradesman (such as kitchen fitoids) insist they address you as "Oh great one" else beat them three times per day.

    Show no mercy Nottsspark....these kitchen fitoid type people will think they are competent to turn on a torch if you let them.

  3. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    You keep on saying that, despite the fact that I do not keep on denying it. What I have repeatedly said, (but this will be the last time in this thread, as you either will not, or cannot grasp it) is that there is no evidence that they needed to be made safer. There is no evidence of sufficient actual problems to warrant Part P on safety grounds. I'll try another analogy. You could argue that a hairpin road in the mountains without barriers at the edge would be made safer if barriers were erected. Nobody could produce evidence that they would not be safer (for the purposes of this we'll ignore the fact that in real life drivers might start to take less care once there are barriers, and accident rates might rise). But if nobody ever fell of the edges beforehand, then putting up barriers would have no safety justification - what would be the point of them if nobody needed them to stop them tumbling down the mountain?

    The world is full of situations where you could do things that would make them safer because that would stop XYZ from happening, but if XYZ wasn't happening then there would be no point.

    I'm not saying that a registration system for electricians, or people doing electrical work, is not a good thing, but I am saying that the arguments put forward to justify it on safety grounds are specious.
    They were analogies, chosen, as I said, because they are very familiar to people, and anybody who stops to think about it will recognise that they are examples of the idea that safety-at-any-cost is not a policy that makes any sense - there comes a point where the "cost", be it economic or social, becomes too high, and we have to settle for a reasonable balance between safety and cost.
    Because that would make as much sense as saying that because 8000 people die from flu each year we shouldn't have motoring laws. As an aside, I mentioned that as an example of why we should beware the side-effects of restrictive legislation. Just as in Australia, where tight rules on who can do electrical work have actually caused more problems, there is a case to be made that the closed-shop created by the gas regulations is responsible for the increase in carbon monoxide incidents. As they are most often related to poor maintenance (blocked chimneys and unswept flues) it may be that this is a measure of works not done as a consequence of the rising cost of skilled technician time to service equipment - the temptation is certainly there to save money by stretching the maintenance periods. It certainly contrasts sharply with the promises made when compulsory CORGI membership was introduced, that it would reduce accidents to near zero levels within a few years.
    And I'm still waiting for your proof that it needed to be.
  4. panlid

    panlid New Member

    sheds ive asked him. he evades like only a spark can (well maybe a polition).
    his proof apears to be what he has seen.
    thats ok then.
    so apparntly all sparks were **** before. all poor electrics in kitchens were obviously done by kitchen fitters not sparks. but its ok now as some have paid their membership so it is safer.
    i'll sleep now!
  5. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    ban all sheds, u are just a diyer who is as mutch full of pointless statistis as u r full of ****. u are not a qualified tradesmen and do not work day to day on electrical installations so are unfit to comment on their safety pre and post part p.

    the facts are bad workmanship has been going on for years and will continue to do so. you say u havent seen proof electrics need to made safer? that is just a load of absolute **** as any electrician will back me up on as we see the bad workmanship.

    lets just hope you have a dodgy junction box under your floor and no bonding to protect you.
  6. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    I am just as much entitled to state my point of view as you are yours.

    It seems that you only call them "pointless statistics" because they don't support your position.

    And there is no call for insulting language like that - if you can't remain civil during a debate then you should leave.
    It is not necessary to be a qualified tradesman to be able to read the official accident data.
    That is not proof that they need to be safer.

    They only need to be safer if they are actually causing problems. This is such a simple concept that I am beginning to wonder if you are being obtuse.
    I see. So someone disagrees with you, and tries to put their point across to the same extent that you do yours, and you respond with unpleasant language and hopes that they or their family will be injured or killed.

    What a nice person you are.
  7. oldnic

    oldnic New Member

    well said baxibob, i am a kitchen fitter,won't touch elecs, insurance company won't cover me and it's just not worth it
  8. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    so then ban, heres an examplle

    bare wires underfloor connected into 15amp connectors feeding all lights in house! no bonding at all. what i have seen today

    now because that hasnt killed anyone you so it has no need to be made safer?

    that mite kill someone 2mro or twent years from now, but by your reckoning, nothing should have been brought in to protect people from that because not enuiff people have been hurt in the last year

    absolute madness. as stated many times, u are not experienced enough to comment, u havent seen houses gutted by fire u simply rely on ludacrous comparisons to try and ssway a debate. not real life issues
  9. panlid

    panlid New Member

    notts what your point. we all know there is **** work out there. the spark who did that is probably part p now!
    how will part p stop that happening?
  10. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    because now they can be prosecuted and ive seen evidence of kitchen fitters now stopping doing electrical work, as said on this thread

    try to comprehend this statement:

    part p has made electrical work safer than it was before
  11. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    not just kitchen fitters before you jump in, i know sparks as well who have seriousley cleaned up their act now due to fear of prosecution
  12. limestone cowboy

    limestone cowboy New Member

    Nottsspark, the argument that Part P was introduced to improve safety is completely fatuous as BAS has repeatedly explained in his well reasoned posts. The number of people killed by fixed wiring was statistically insignificant before Part P, so it will not be possible to tell if it has improved safety. Drop the safety argument, and be honest; you want a closed shop situation like Corgi to bump prices up and control the market.

    And your 'curse' on BAS is childish and nasty.
  13. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    You cannot write laws, and decide on regulatory systems on the basis of individual incidents like that.
    Not just in the last year - for years and years - the long term accident data does not warrant it.
    No - it's the way decisions like these ought to be made.
    And as I have stated, I am not commenting on the basis of experience. I've made that very clear, and you are being obtuse in your refusal to accept that.

    Also, saying that because I am not experienced enough in electrical installation work I cannot read accident data is an ad hominem fallacy.
    And how many have you seen? And how many were really due to fixed wiring faults, and not either faulty appliances or flexes, or misuse of appliances, or simply described by the fire investigator as "electrical" because they don't like to put "unknown"?
    They are not comparisons they are analogies, and I've explained that often enough for you to understand it. You are being obtuse again.
    Try to understand this one:

    It was safe enough before.
  14. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    so ur saying fire investigators do not know what they are doing? im inclined to believe them before you

    i used to work for an insurance company where i seen many fires caused by electrical faults. granted none resulted in loss of life but i have seen consumer units catch fire, light fittings and sockets due to loose connections and poor installation so i am more qualified to judge than u. as i re-itterate over and over again but u choose not to grasp, part p will help make this type of thing less commonplace. iv been to dozens of fire damaged houses and no one in their right mind would try to argue just because no one died, it part p should not have been introduced

    as for being obtuse virtually every topic u enter discussion on results in you becoming obtuse as u seem to offend virtually every one on here with your views on things u arent qualified to have adequate views on
  15. panlid

    panlid New Member

    notts to be honest your a bit of a prat. atypical arrogant spark who cant believe he is wrong. you choose to see what you want to see but discount the rest.
    from your last post it is obvious that sparks needed regulating as they are not as good as they like to think they are. this started out as a go at kitchen fitters but you have admitted that qualified sparks work is and can be rubbish as well. these same sparks have just paid up to a body and suddenly they are self regulating. all these same sparks will carry on as much before if they are that way in clined.
    simple question... how many deaths and injuries before part p?
    how many after?
    regulation obviously as in your own words you lot needed it!
    thats me done, electricians have this draining effect on me!
  16. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    panlid, dont start asking about deaths and accidents coz u dont know the figures yourself

    u seem to be a bit of a prat urself coz u cant grasp my point

    these people who will still carry on doing shoddy work even if registred can now be punished whereas they cudnt before

    they can be punished in a court of law

    sit down and have a think about that coz i can see u r struggling with simple text.

    take ur time
  17. limestone cowboy

    limestone cowboy New Member

    been to dozens of fire damaged houses and no one in
    their right mind would try to argue just because no
    one died, it part p should not have been introduced

    This is where you are completely wrong. The only way to decide if a safely scheme is necessary is, unfortunately, based on deaths. Get somebody to explain the cost/benefit part of one of the previous posts by BAS.

    Wasn't it an average of 2.5 deaths a year as a result of faulty fixed wiring before part P? About sixty people die each year putting their socks on (I can find a reference for this).

    as for being obtuse virtually every topic u enter
    discussion on results in you becoming obtuse as u
    seem to offend virtually every one on here with your
    views on things u arent qualified to have adequate
    views on

    Only you, it seems. If you are too stupid to follow the discussion drop out and rejoin the sparks forum instead of getting rude.
  18. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    According to Government statistics, each year on average 10 people die and about 750 are seriously injured in accidents involving unsafe electrical installations in the home. To help address this issue, the Construction Industry Deregulation Task Force recommended in 1995 that electrical safety requirements should be included in the Building Regulations.

    read that statement if you are too stupid to comprehend how dangerous electric can be if installed wrong

    10 deaths, 750 serious injuries is in mine, and most peoples opinions, enough to warrant legislation
  19. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    as for these stupid analogies like comparing electrical accidents with putting socks on or getting hit by cars????

    get real u muppets, they are usually freak accidents that cannot be prevented

    ensuring poor workmanship takes place can be prevented
  20. limestone cowboy

    limestone cowboy New Member

    10 deaths, 750 serious injuries is in mine, and most
    peoples opinions, enough to warrant legislation

    Yes, when you make it sound like a sensationalist tabloid headline. If you follow your reasoning, we would need legislation for every activity that resulted in 10 or more deaths a year.

    The need for the introduction of Part P can't be justified on safety grounds alone.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice