"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:
So while you are correct that we know what it mens to be competant in a
technical sense, I am not convinced that *anyone* actually knows what
that means in a legal sense.

It was mentioned earlier. If you do the work, and it's fine,
you're competent.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else (eg the
intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a matter of opinion)
and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent BEFORE the event) )it's
quite possible for someone who is not competent to get it right
occasionally. This would not mean they should do such work again.

If it is not OK, you are by definition
not competent

Yes, but, again you are confusing competent and "competent" One thing that
is NOT in doubt is that the law regards CORGI's as "competent persons" (it
says so). If they turn out to be incompetent, then their CORGI registration
might be revoked, at which point they cease to be a "competent person" (but
only then) .

It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense meaning
of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a particular
purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

Bob Mannix