On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:18:27 -0000, Tx2
mused:

In article , Lurch
of , felt we'd be interested in the
following...


By competent, do you mean competent as in 'are trained to operate the
test equipment and have certificates to show this' or competent as in
'they look like they know what they're doing to me'?

What do I consider competent? Or are you asking me to define competent?

The former I would suggest is anyone who can demonstrate they have the
skill to carry out the task, i.e. previous experience, training and so
on.

The latter is down to personal interpretation I feel.

Competent by what measure? I get that you think he's competent, but
say someone was killed by a faulty appliance tested by this person,
would your opinion on his level of competence carry any weight in a
court of law?

If you can offer legislation which states someone must be specifically
trained, certified or whatever is required, i'd be interested to read
it.

I never said they had to be specifically trained

I never said you did. But you suggested paying someone was the preferred
way to go. I disagree.

I didn't say paying someone was the best way to do it, just that if
the person being paid is competent (competent as in
qualified\experienced, not qualified as in 'I reckon he knows what
he's doing even though I have received no formal training) then that
would be the preferred route if the other option is to use someone
untrained.

but to just buy a PAT tester and have anyone test
appliances is not what is meant by competent.

I never said it was.

Out site manager has the competence, experience and training to carry
out the task, or train others to do it.

And his competence is gauged by what, your opinion as an untrained (by
any recognised standard relating to PAT testing) employee of the same
company as him?
--
Regards,
Stuart.