Tradesmen Fined for............

It is a good point, but I'm afraid it is an example of advertising slight of hand, rather like water resistant watches, that don't work in the wet, but equally do not actually dissolve, versus truly waterproof ones that may actually keep working as well. (Or chicken flavoured pies, that are not made with very much chicken.)


This sort of masquerade  has the highest pedigree. I remember being shown the prospectus for a prestigious private school, costing many £k per year, and it assured the reader that every year in excess of 100 pupils in the 6th form would apply to Oxford or Cambridge, which sounded very impressive, and no doubt a consequence of the small class sizes and intense cramming that such an expensive  system allows . What it omitted to mention however was that every year 90 or so of those applicants would fail to get in, and really all they were doing was cluttering up the university admissions procedure. Oddly, my old comprehensive, working with a far less elite intake, and a much less intense regime,  (a few years of past papers for the top set to practice on ) used to get half a dozen a year into Oxbridge, but made very little fanfare of it.


Actually I find it it is interesting that it should be trading standards and not building control legislation that is being enforced, and no mention of part P at all in this case. I suppose it shows which legislation has clearer 'teeth' as it sounds like the job in question  was actually quite badly done, and therefore a clear cut case, had it been done well, but the process not followed I suspect no-one would have blinked..

It is a good point, but I'm afraid it is an example of advertising slight of hand, rather like water resistant watches, that don't work in the wet, but equally do not actually dissolve, versus truly waterproof ones that may actually keep working as well. (Or chicken flavoured pies, that are not made with very much chicken.)


This sort of masquerade  has the highest pedigree. I remember being shown the prospectus for a prestigious private school, costing many £k per year, and it assured the reader that every year in excess of 100 pupils in the 6th form would apply to Oxford or Cambridge, which sounded very impressive, and no doubt a consequence of the small class sizes and intense cramming that such an expensive  system allows . What it omitted to mention however was that every year 90 or so of those applicants would fail to get in, and really all they were doing was cluttering up the university admissions procedure. Oddly, my old comprehensive, working with a far less elite intake, and a much less intense regime,  (a few years of past papers for the top set to practice on ) used to get half a dozen a year into Oxbridge, but made very little fanfare of it.


Actually I find it it is interesting that it should be trading standards and not building control legislation that is being enforced, and no mention of part P at all in this case. I suppose it shows which legislation has clearer 'teeth' as it sounds like the job in question  was actually quite badly done, and therefore a clear cut case, had it been done well, but the process not followed I suspect no-one would have blinked..