It`s an interesting argument.....
As the reason given by EDF for not continuing discussion about this issue was "lack of interest" I believe, maybe we should endeavor to change their minds.
Reading further into this, we find that the "lack of interest" is NOT from us; rather the DNOs. THEY are the ones who can`t be bothered to get involved, not us.
There was a good post on this previously from, I think, Sparkss, who is a DNO operative. We`ve had guys coming out with lead apron, shoulder length gauntlets and a full face visor, just to energise a supply (AFTER having tested the tails!!!).
The latest we`ve been getting from some of the metering companies, is that we can replace customers tails into the meter, but cannot remove main fuse. I`ve heard some guys saying "well, you`re STILL live working". Yes, but on a (generally) more stable and standardised connection. Is that any different from removing an un-needed set of "extra tails" from a Henley block, after consolidating (word of the day) two fuse boxes; or even removing tails from Henley to change CU?
I occasionally come across the henleys with the star heads on the terminals. I do not have an insulated, KV-rated dielectric kitemarked star driver - just a stubby. Does that stop me removing tails from that unit? No; I just exercise a great deal of care when doing it.
TBH, I don`t think there is much difference in the assessment of Part P "defined scope", or "full scope" (though I`m sure someone will correct me if I`m wrong?????) - so saying that only the full scope guys would be considered doesn`t seem like a good plan from where I`m sitting.
Probably more points, but I can`t think straight anymore - Guinness is going down rather well at the mo..........
KME