Re: [OT] DIY electrical work

[David Hansen]

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

>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.

>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.

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:31:17 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:36:09 +0000 someone who may be Trevor Barton
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>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

 

[David Hansen]

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

>>>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?

>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.

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:35:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
> On 09 Dec 2004 13:18:13 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>>>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?

>>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

 

[JLB]

Trevor Barton wrote:

> 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

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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.

>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.

>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.