I don't think that's your best example. Part P has been very well publicised. You knew of its existence, even if you got it wrong,, and that gives you the wherewithal to find out more about it should the need arise.

You're overstating slightly. There is a code of conduct associated with the approval for an employer to ask for a CRO disclosure; each case must be looked at on an individual basis, and you can't reject someone on the basis of a minor conviction that has nothing to do with the type of risk that the CRO disclosure is guarding against.

For non-CRO disclousre jobs (the vast majority) convictions become 'spent' after a length of time depending on the seriousness, and you no longer have to tell anyone about them.

Remember, one third of adult males (as based on a cohort study of those born in 1953) had a conviction for a non-trivial offence by the age of 30. You may feel this proves that we convict too easily, but it also suggests that the effects on one's life are not as devastating as you suggest.

Again, I'm not persuaded by this example. We have an increasing problem with knife crime amongst young people, and given that parliament on our behalf has decided that the best way is to restrict the supply of knives to young people, what exactly are you supposed to do when you have a clear case of a garden centre which has shown willingness to sell a knife to an underage person?

"Ian B" wrote in message
...

"kay" wrote in message
...

snip


I made a slight error. It's still legal to replace a switch, but not to
install one.

I think you will find that unless the new switch is in a kitchen or special
location (or requires a special installation) and if it is an addition to an
existing circuit, it is not notifiable to the planning authority.
Non-notifiable work is not required to be done by a qualified person, you
are permitted to do it yourself, if you consider yourself competent.

It just goes to show though, how these regulations are hardly
understood in general. Even I made a mistake, and I already knew about it.
The general point still applies; how are householders to be expected to
even know about Part P?


They almost certainly don't know.

In article ,
BAC wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
.. .

I made a slight error. It's still legal to replace a switch, but not to
install one.

I think you will find that unless the new switch is in a kitchen or special
location (or requires a special installation) and if it is an addition to an
existing circuit, it is not notifiable to the planning authority.
Non-notifiable work is not required to be done by a qualified person, you
are permitted to do it yourself, if you consider yourself competent.

Notifiable work is not required to be done by a qualified person,
either - it's only required to be done by an authorised one. As I
read the Act, the relevant authority is required to keep a list of
people allowed to self-assess, but is not required to assess their
competence or to demand any particular qualifications.

It should have been called the Jobs For The Boys Act.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Ian B" wrote in message
...

"kay" wrote in message
...

snip


I made a slight error. It's still legal to replace a switch, but not to
install one.

I think you will find that unless the new switch is in a kitchen or
special location (or requires a special installation) and if it is an
addition to an existing circuit, it is not notifiable to the planning
authority.

I specified a kitchen in the original post, as a special location.

Non-notifiable work is not required to be done by a qualified person, you
are permitted to do it yourself, if you consider yourself competent.

The point in general is about the recent imposition of a system of
notification for works done by anyone not a member of the government's new
Electricians Guild. Besides all else, the certification system is nothing to
do with being qualified in a normal sense; it is about being a member of the
Guild.

I'm a fully qualified city and guilds electrician, though I left the trade
some time ago (hence not up to snuff on this legal matter); but I am not
considered competent to do even minor electrical works on my own property.
Unless I pay the Guild a considerable fee to gain a Part P licence. As with
squirrel and goldfish regulations, breaking this law which most people do
not even know about has potentially very serious consequences. My neighbour
for instance recently installed an outside wall socket for his garden. He
broke the law by doing so.

Nobody can claim that this law was "the will of the people", as with the
squirrel law. They were made without consultation with the people, without
most people even knowing they were made, to serve the selfish interests of
small groups with access to the political system which the rest of us do not
have.


Ian

"Ian B" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Ian B" wrote in message
...

"kay" wrote in message
...

snip


I made a slight error. It's still legal to replace a switch, but not to
install one.

I think you will find that unless the new switch is in a kitchen or
special location (or requires a special installation) and if it is an
addition to an existing circuit, it is not notifiable to the planning
authority.

I specified a kitchen in the original post, as a special location.

Apologies, I'd missed that point.


Non-notifiable work is not required to be done by a qualified person, you
are permitted to do it yourself, if you consider yourself competent.

The point in general is about the recent imposition of a system of
notification for works done by anyone not a member of the government's new
Electricians Guild. Besides all else, the certification system is nothing
to do with being qualified in a normal sense; it is about being a member
of the Guild.

I'm a fully qualified city and guilds electrician, though I left the trade
some time ago (hence not up to snuff on this legal matter); but I am not
considered competent to do even minor electrical works on my own property.
Unless I pay the Guild a considerable fee to gain a Part P licence. As
with squirrel and goldfish regulations, breaking this law which most
people do not even know about has potentially very serious consequences.
My neighbour for instance recently installed an outside wall socket for
his garden. He broke the law by doing so.

Nobody can claim that this law was "the will of the people", as with the
squirrel law. They were made without consultation with the people, without
most people even knowing they were made, to serve the selfish interests of
small groups with access to the political system which the rest of us do
not have.



I entirely agree there are far too many pettifogging laws and regulations
for anyone to be expected to know the ins and outs of all of them.

Please be careful with your attributions. I didn't write any of what you quoted.

"kay" wrote in message
...

BAC;895181 Wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...-

"BAC" wrote in message
...-

"Ian B" wrote in message
...-

"kay" wrote in message
...
-
snip
-

I made a slight error. It's still legal to replace a switch, but not to

install one.-

I think you will find that unless the new switch is in a kitchen or
special location (or requires a special installation) and if it is an
addition to an existing circuit, it is not notifiable to the planning
authority.-

I specified a kitchen in the original post, as a special location.-

Apologies, I'd missed that point.
-
-
Non-notifiable work is not required to be done by a qualified person,
you
are permitted to do it yourself, if you consider yourself competent.-

The point in general is about the recent imposition of a system of
notification for works done by anyone not a member of the government's
new
Electricians Guild. Besides all else, the certification system is
nothing
to do with being qualified in a normal sense; it is about being a
member
of the Guild.

I'm a fully qualified city and guilds electrician, though I left the
trade
some time ago (hence not up to snuff on this legal matter); but I am
not
considered competent to do even minor electrical works on my own
property.
Unless I pay the Guild a considerable fee to gain a Part P licence. As

with squirrel and goldfish regulations, breaking this law which most
people do not even know about has potentially very serious
consequences.
My neighbour for instance recently installed an outside wall socket for

his garden. He broke the law by doing so.

Nobody can claim that this law was "the will of the people", as with
the
squirrel law. They were made without consultation with the people,
without
most people even knowing they were made, to serve the selfish interests
of
small groups with access to the political system which the rest of us
do
not have.

-

I entirely agree there are far too many pettifogging laws and
regulations
for anyone to be expected to know the ins and outs of all of them.

Please be careful with your attributions. I didn't write any of what you
quoted.




Sorry, I thought I had deleted you.

grin It's not often that I positively *want* to be deleted!

Danny Colyer wrote:
On 21/07/2010 19:45, Mike Lyle wrote:
/All/ ordinary citizens should know by now that drowning isn't
humane. They've been telling us for over fifty years, after all.

Really? Who has? When? How? "They" seem to me to have been very
quiet about it. I have always understood (and indeed was taught at
school, in the 80s), that drowning was considered humane. As such it
would have been my preferred method of despatching a squirrel.

I think I first read it in a pets column or Pears Cyclopedia or some
such non-specialist source in about 1955, or possibly even earlier.
"They", of course, are vets, who should know. It seems your 1980s
teacher was under the same misapprehension as the squirrel man some 25
or 30 years later: this is sad, but unsurprising, as you can see from
the following vet blog from the Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100047861/killing-squirrels-by-drowning-is-cruel/

--
Mike.

"rbel" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:39 +0200, Ian B
wrote:

Mike Lyle wrote:
BAC wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
[...]

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is
not a humane method of dispatch and could result in
prosecution.'.

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?


Probably not! How many of us know the ins and outs of every law on
the statute-books? None, I'd guess.

/All/ ordinary citizens should know by now that drowning isn't humane.
They've been telling us for over fifty years, after all.

And there's the problem, you see. There isn't actually a law that states
"ye
may not drown a squirrel". There is a law that says ye may not be
"inhumane", and then the definition of what is inhumane is arbitrarily
made
by others beyond the realm of democratic debate or control. And, it's
certainly not reasonable to expect every person to know even a
significant
fraction of the vast amount of these official opinions.

But the gardeners in Buckingham Palace used to drown the things frequently
for many years, until the Screws of the World got wind of it and made a
fuss, and they die in a VERY short time being drowned, the vermin that is!

Alan




We are all these days lawbreakers; under such an immense burden of this
kind
of law it is impossible not to be. So you end up with a lottery where
some
few unlucky souls get trapped, either by fishing expeditions (undercover
RSPCA types) or because they have arseholes for neighbours.

Take a completely different example; how many people are aware that a few
years ago it became illegal to change a broken light switch in their
kitchen? Not many people know that. Every now and again, somebody will
get
caught for doing an electrical repair in their own home, but most people
won't. Same thing.

It never would have occurred to me to consider the law when bashing a
rat's
brains out with a shoe. Apparently, I must ask the state's permission, or
the RSPCA's permission, before doing so, while keeping up to date on the
endless stream of documentation spewing from quangos I'd never even heard
of- (the Rural Development Agency is now "Natural England" apparently).
Nobody can be expected to know all this stuff. It is absurd.


I don't think that much has changed since the Wildlife & Countryside Act
1981 and I don't remember anything in the list of proscribed methods of
disposal mentioning drowning. It used to be enforced by the Rural
Development Service until 2006 when Natural England was formed and
swallowed the RDS and English Nature.

PS You will be pleased to learn that it is not illegal to change a broken
light switch in a kitchen - the Part P constraints apply to new wiring and
fittings but not to simple replacement which is classed as non-notifiable
work, even in a kitchen.

--
rbel

"kay" wrote in message
...

'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894877']BAC wrote:-

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is not a humane method of dispatch and could result in prosecution.'.-

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?



Whether it's reasonable or not, ignorance of the law does not constitute
a defence. And if you're planning to kill an animal, it is reasonable to
expect you a) to find out what you're allowed to do and b) to find out
how to do it in the least cruel way.

And how do you define the 'least cruel way'?

Is 8 seconds to kill the vermin cruel?

Alan






--
kay

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"kay" wrote in message
...

'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894877']BAC wrote:-

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is not a humane method of dispatch and could result in prosecution.'.-

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?



Whether it's reasonable or not, ignorance of the law does not constitute
a defence. And if you're planning to kill an animal, it is reasonable to
expect you a) to find out what you're allowed to do and b) to find out
how to do it in the least cruel way.


Those are fair points. Perhaps it would be useful if those selling live
capture squirrel traps were required to include a brief guide with each
item.

They do/did and the recomended method was to drown them as it is very quick.

"David Rance" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 BAC wrote:

Next thing they'll be prosecutions for
killing rats.

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they might
well face prosecution, following the Rural Development Service's 2006
advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning is not a humane
method of dispatch and could result in prosecution.'.

But drowning is the time-honoured way of despatching unwanted kittens.

Which was frequently done by my uncle as female cats were not neutered in
those days, so every few months there was anothe brood to dispose of!

I wonder if the RSPCA would take you to court today for doing that?




David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK
http://rance.org.uk

"Noone" wrote in message
news:Nyl1o.223409$vB5.143275@hurricane...
On 20/07/10 10:09, BAC wrote:
According to the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-squirrel.html


a person who trapped and drowned a grey squirrel because it was raiding
bird feeders in his garden pleaded guilty to a charge under the Animal
Welfare Act 2006.

The RSPCA was apparently tipped off by a neighbour who observed the act.
Bang to rights. why the @@@@ didn't he just put out peanuts in a
bird-proof squirrel feeder? They are quite fun and do very little damage
in yer average garden

But they do destroy birds nests and kill small birds.




noone

"alan.holmes" wrote in message
news:5Nj6o.20937$7Z3.16926@hurricane...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"kay" wrote in message
...

'Ian B[_2_ Wrote:
;894877']BAC wrote:-

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is not a humane method of dispatch and could result in prosecution.'.-

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?



Whether it's reasonable or not, ignorance of the law does not constitute
a defence. And if you're planning to kill an animal, it is reasonable to
expect you a) to find out what you're allowed to do and b) to find out
how to do it in the least cruel way.


Those are fair points. Perhaps it would be useful if those selling live
capture squirrel traps were required to include a brief guide with each
item.

They do/did and the recomended method was to drown them as it is very
quick.


Perhaps they'll amend that advice to reflect current thinking. Your opinion
that drowning is 'very quick' is not shared by vets who investigated the
matter to advise whether drowning was a 'humane' method of despatch of small
mammals.