I think I am getting really pissed off with this country.
This one certainly demands I write to my MP, using roughly the same
arguments as someone here posted regarding the Part P bollocks.
Ironically they have just made Part P LESS onerous - so I really don't
know who's arse this latest crapfest has dropped out of.
Og - they are trying to drop our local firestation at Battle to retained
status (it's the nearest one to me by a long way - that's another thing
that needs fighting.
And I'm still in the middle of causing some head slapping over East
Sussex CC's lack of ability to fix roads (that cost me 2 broken springs
and now a dead tyre).
Christ - one piece of uselessness/stupidity at a time!
I'm going to write to my MP about this latest nonsense.
May I regurgitate some points from your excellent letter of 2002?
I'm going for a simple 1 page rebuttal that could be summarised as "what
problem are you trying to solve" and reminding him a general election is
due next year (his seat suffered a 2.6% loss last time)
Does anyone still have a link to the question asked in the House (of
Commons IIRC) that was documented in Hansard regarding the effect Part P
had had on deaths in the UK/England&Wales ?
I've been through Hansard's search but I cannot get the search term
Yes, please do.
I thought they'd realised Part P was pointless with the last
changes being primarily a backdown, but with a little face saving.
Last time, I put quite a lot of effort into digging out the stats
for the document above, and lots of people reviewed it (including
my local BCO, who completely agreed but weren't allowed to add their
names to it). I also talked with one of the supply distribution
companies, and with MK. One interesting thing at the time was that,
excluding initial home wiring, the majority of home wiring is DIY,
and wiring accessories over the years have been designed to be more
and more safe particularly for non-professional use, and we have
the safest in the world.
We were thanked for our detailed work and the list of backers was
particularly important. However, it was completely ignored by ODM,
and after Part P was brought in, it was recognised that the figures
used in the justification were incorrect in the way we said they
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Thank you Andrew. I suspect this one will drop dead on its face, but if
it doesn't and I didn't at least write a letter, then I would feel bad...
I "only" have to get a couple of doors on, upstairs re-plasterboarded
(thermal elements), the back loo fixed in and some more wiring and I can
get my completion certificate for this house. After that, I will quite
possibly never talk to them again if this nonsense goes ahead!
I don't recall an Answer which gave figures (other than the infamous one
which forecast a saving of 8+ deaths a year). In any event I expect the
Committee and/or DCLG would just point your MP to the latest Answer. I
think that was a WA last year which referred to the figures in the (new)
Part P impact assessment. The Answer was crafted to look back to the mid
1990s and to pray in aid all sorts of other things because, as has been
mentioned before, recently the trend turned up. That Answer is OR 8 Nov
2013 : Column 361W
It points to the impact assessment at
which has the figures for deaths on page 14. Para. 60 then has an
heroic assessment of the effects of Part P (without showing the
workings!) of 2.5 deaths avoided per year. The technique of farming
out such work to estimable sounding researchers and then citing their
result is of course now traditional. The civil servant's skill is in
choosing the researcher and drafting the contract ;)
It'll be no comfort that ODPM also rarely paid any attention to evidence
from elsewhere within government if it didn't fit the DPM's agenda.
Good luck. Like most MPs the Committee comes across as risk-averse (ie
they don't want anyone to blame them if X gets electrocuted) and
careless of compliance costs. It'll not be easy to shift them from that
without a counter-factual - ideally someone who dies because of the
costs imposed by Part P. But on a point of detail I choked over their
"We found little or no evidence-back in 2011-12 or in 2013-that
homeowners either carrying out their own DIY or using a small builder
were facing, as the Government claimed, "building control fees of
upwards of 240 to have simple electrical work, such as an additional
plug socket in a kitchen, approved by a local authority"."
They bloody well didn't look very hard then. I'll be writing to them on
that point alone.
Like many of these things, legislation is introduced by vested interests
paying to bring it about. MPs ain't interested in such legislation so
simply vote as told.
In other words, the rights and wrongs of it don't matter. Not helped by
the meja who are notorious for not wanting to understand anything vaguely
this technical. They just want banner headlines.
*Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
Dave Plowman firstname.lastname@example.org London SW
Why does it matter?
Our local ambulance service doesn't keep its ambulances in ambulance
stations.. it moves them around so they are near to where they think
they may be needed and to where they can avoid traffic problems.
The local fire service appears to have joined suit now as you frequently
see an engine waiting on a supermarket car park or elsewhere.
The idea that fire stations are in the best place to deliver a good
service is just plain wrong. The only people it benefits is the night
shift who want to sleep.
Which is a bodge to ensure that they can meet targets now they've closed
down so many ambulance stations. It's hardly ideal to have a paramedic
sitting in a car on a garage forecourt, but only during the rush hour.
So move them to where they are needed, but for goodness' sake, don't
remove them altogether.
London Fire Brigade spokesmen were on Radio London the other day
claiming that since they closed some stations early this year, at least
one life has already been lost due to their increased response time.
No, I just want enough to give acceptable cover at all times. The system
of parking a paramedic close to major road junctions started when they
started closing ambulance stations to save money. Before they closed so
many stations, ambulance crews could reach any location quickly enough,
even in the rush hour.
I believe that when they close a station, the appliances are either put
into long term storage or scrapped. Certainly, at some stations which
have not been closed entirely, the number of appliances has been
reduced. In London, it's purely a money saving scheme, with a suspicion
that the savings are being used to fund yet more cycle lanes.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.