An opportunity the ditch the cursed Part P?

[Roger Mills]

You may recall that, a couple of years ago, the BBC Radio 4 Today programme invited listeners to suggest a new law which they would like to see enacted.

This year, the BBC is inviting nominations for *existing* laws to be

*repealed* See have already nominated Part P as my contribution - and invite all like-minded D-I-Y-ers to do the same. It probably won't win but, if enough people nominate it, it should at least get on the short list and provoke a public debate about this totally unnecessary and counter-productive piece of 'nanny state' legislation.

[Mary Fisher]

Good idea. I'll do it. Thanks,

Mary

[Peter Crosland]

Whatever the merits this has no chance whatsover of happening. Simply a BBC excuse for filling the program during a quiet time of the year.

Peter Crosland

[Roger Mills]

Don't be so defeatist - give it a whirl! All publicity is good publicity - even if the results are not immediate.

[HLAH]

I fear pointless, but done.

H

[Andy Hall]

Agreed. Short of legalising dismissal of jobsworths without compensation, it would be worth a vote.

[Peter Crosland]

I am never defeatist just a realist! You can't win them all.

Peter Crosland

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:06:50 -0000 someone who may be "Peter Crosland" wrote this:-

That is not a reason for not trying though.

[Peter Crosland]

Of course not. But you need to be able to spot losers as well as winners. This one will not get out of the starting gate.

Peter Crosland

[Andy Dingley]

Yes, but the Tories are even more desperate for stocking fillers than the Beeb.

[Staffbull]

Done !

[Steve]

Thanks for the tip!

I have duly voted for Part P and hope that many others will be motivated by your post and their annoyance over this very poor piece of legislation to do the same.

As you say, it probably won't win but if enough people vote at least it will keep it in the limelight and I'm sure that the media would then be interested in investigating further.

"DOWN WITH PART P"

Steve

[Steve]

Yes but, you are not trying to be a winner only to voice your opinion on whether a law is needed or not.

Your attitude is typical of why this country has ended up this way. Roll over and give up.

Bad law needs to be changed.

Steve.

[Paul D.Smith]

As my daughter' school says, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. The only reason for not trying would be if there were a downside (for example possibly knocking out a more needy entry). Since we don't know what the entries will be, we can't judge that one.

Paul DS.

[Doctor Drivel]

What is this "nanny" you are on about?

[Doctor Drivel]

In principle Part P is good thing. No joined up thinking in implementation. What it needs is little rethink. There must be professional testing of new installations and major works. The idea is keep away the cowboys, not DIYers. In that it is making an impact.

[Steve]

It is encouraging the cowboys to do a bad job and then disappear without trace... leaving the hapless householder to pick up the pieces.

Steve

[HLAH]

Or lie on the floor twitching.

H

[Peter Crosland]

I expressed no opinion either way!

Not at all. But you have to be realistic and say that whilst many on this NG may well feel it is bad law the largew majority of the public probably don't even know the law even exists!

Of course it does but I suspect that there are plenty more bad laws that need changing before Part P.

Peter Crosland

[dennis]

It was already illegal to do a shoddy job. How does making it very expensive get people to have a proper job done? All Part P does is get more people to employ the illegal bodgers as less people can afford the increased costs. The *legal* alternatives of four way trailing leads in the wet areas is not going to save lives is it?