Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:21 am
by Tony McC
Can I remind everyone that the deadline for comments on this thrown-together compilation of the paving standards is this coming Friday?
I spent a full day going through it yesterday, such is the level of error, and my list of comments now stands at 12 pages. It's really, *really* worrying when the committee responsible for telling everyone how to lay paving can't even get the correct definition of a flagstone, but that's why it's been put out for comment.
On a positive note, however, there is a very definite and unambiguous no-no to spot bedding, which has only taken 17 years to achieve.
If you do have an hour or two, please have a look at it and see what you think. This is going to affect the futures of all of us.
PDF download
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:26 pm
by Tony McC
For those interested, the amendments I've proposed can be read in this PDF
The complete omission of any mention of non-cementitious materials for bedding and jointing (such as, say, resin mortars and pitch) is highly suspect!
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:07 pm
by lutonlagerlout
i read your bit tony
it looks like they are suffering from solicitor/policeman/engineer/surveyor disease
where 1 clear sentence should always be replaced by a paragraph of poor English with the odd 9 letter word chucked in
why it cannot be wrote in a way that makes sense and operatives can understand it amazes me?
the shite about laying setts to the centre of the unit is total bollox
cheers LLL
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:30 pm
by rab1
Its not meant too be read by the lads doing the actual work...its for the big boys regarding specs and designers for code only and then they price the job, to suit the current regs etc.
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:32 am
by lutonlagerlout
yes but it is still is grammatically wrong rab.
the people that write these like to make it sound like a charles dickens novel,in the hope that long words will somehow bestow some authenticity to the bollox they are writing
LLL
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:24 am
by Tony McC
Rab, it *is* meant to be read by contractors because this is going to form the basis of NHSS30, the sector scheme to which we will all be expected to work under in the next few years.
I've spoken to quite a few people in the trade; manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, contractors, designers, specifiers and trade organisations. The overall opinion is that it is not fit for purpose. I know that some on the oversight committee didn't want it sent out in its current state as they feel it leaves them open to ridicule but some more powerful figures on the cttee have their own agendas and sent it out with minimal concern.
A number of parties are simply responding by adding the comment "Unreadable" or "Completely Unsuitable" to the webpage on which comments are to be entered. Or, as Mark H so eloquently put it last night; "Bollocks" 
You are free to do this. In fact, if you can't follow it, then make that your comment because the cttee need to be made aware that those of us whose livelihoods will be directly affected by this nonsense cannot make head nor tail of it. No need to comment on every paragraph or make a long list of comments as I did, just use the very first comment box to give your 'summary opinion'.
You have to register via http://drafts.bsigroup.com and then you will be sent an activation email. Follow the link in there and use the search box to look for 'pavement'. This will locate the right document for you, and then it's simply a matter of adding your comments to the first dialogue box, add a suggestion if you wish, click on 'Submit Comment' and that's it.
Why you can't just send in emails is beyond me, but this form-filling nonsense is how it is supposed to be done, so we'll have to play by their rules for now.
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:07 pm
by msh paving
thanks for the quote tony.... MSH
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:47 pm
by lutonlagerlout
i registered and left a comment but cannot see any others?
LLL
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:42 pm
by rab1
My point was Boss, 90% percent of the lads doing the actual install will never have heard of this and will always use the best practice in their work. The BS mark is purely designed as the standard that all work should be completed too.
Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:40 am
by Tony McC
I'm not sure if we are supposed to be able to see other folks' comments.
I haven't explored it fully, but I suspect they want to keep everything top secret so that....
1 -commercial interests don't submit comments/suggestions to undermine proposals from rival suppliers/manufacturers
2 - they maintain the mushroom syndrome that is endemic in British life (in the dark, fed on bullshit)
3 - the Russians/Chinese/Iranians/Koreans don't get it
....but I would like to know who else has commented.
A committee overseeing paving installation techniques where half the members are completely unknown to me gives me the jitters. One committee member that I do trust and who has worked in the administration/management/manufacturing side of the industry for 20-odd years asked me if I had any idea who a certain other member might be because no-one other than the chairman seemed to have heard of him!
Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:04 pm
by lemoncurd1702
Maybe some of the committee are from the continent (Holland, Germany), and some things are lost, er I mean mucked up -with a capital F- by some translator who don't know 'is arse from elbow.
That is a maybe mind.
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:09 pm
by Tony McC
As far as I know, the committee are all British/Irish with a very minor dash of almost Aussie.
My very public discussion about the re-write is generating some interesting calls and emails. Most seem to agree with my general thrust (that it's pretty bloody poor and not fit for purpose) but a couple are quite upset that I'm actually doing this so openly. 'Undermining the industry' was one remark!
This isn't nuclear technology or the password to GCHQs front door: it's paving and there is *nothing* about it that should not be discussed freely and openly. Why do we need secrecy? Confidentiality: yes, and I would always respect that, if it was requested, but without free, open and wide-ranging discussion, we will not get the standard we deserve.
As usual, there are behind-the-scenes politics being played and I'm not sure it's helping.
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:32 pm
by lemoncurd1702
It's good that you have made it public. The committee should listen and respect the comments made by those who work in the industry. Those who have the practical knowledge and experience, not just the theoretical.
There's probably a game of oneupmanship going on, and nobody wants to concede ground. Seen it many times in various scenarios and they only have their own interests at heart, not that of the common good (Stage left Thatcher Vs Scargill)-ha ha what an act.
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:38 pm
by Exsparky
It's not just paving that gets this kind of bullshit. The sparkies have had it as well.
The one that annoyed me the most was Part P. I was working for the local council, writing specs and overseeing jobs in public buildings up to about £35,000. All of a sudden I'm not allowed to put a socket in my own kitchen, though it's never been a problem before. Oh, oh, but I can take a course that will only cost me about £550 then I will be able to do it again legally.
I know it was about nine years ago, but I'm still annoyed! 
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:00 pm
by Bob_A
Part of my job interview was to see if I could wire a mains plug.
If I done it now at work I'd be sacked :p
