"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
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.

I would qaulify and say not necessarily true (with knobs on ) ) - what
about the next job?


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, true but, in the eyes of the law, when they did the job they were doing
it as a "competent person" and the person who hired them (if they did) did
the correct thing and hired a "competent person".


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

I'm not confusing anything.

Of all right, refusing to accept my distinction - fair enough.

(see other post replying to Christian)

Don't get me wrong, I deplore the whole CORGI/Part P fiasco but that
shouldn't blind one to how things are (or are likely to be), just because we
don't like them.

Bob Mannix