Bob Mannix wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
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

Well, it is.


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.

It's also possible for a trained person to do something wrong,
in which case for that job they were not competent, e.g. your
referenced CORGI, who can be prosecuted.


Yes, but, again you are confusing competent and "competent"

I'm not confusing anything.