"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Christian McArdle wrote:
The fact that the law only defines "competent" to mean "CORGI" for paid
work
means that you can infer that the intent was not to define "competent" to
mean "CORGI" for own house DIY work. Otherwise, they would have simply
defined "competent" to mean "CORGI" for all work.

But being a CORGI does *not* mean you are immune from
prosecution! You have to take tests to be a CORGI -
which lets you in to that organisation. If you at
ant time make a mistake, you were not competent by
definition, and can be prosecuted, not just be
expelled from CORGI. People are making a mountain
out of a molehill here.

Well I agree with that. I don't think there's much to be gained from arguing
about CORGI's who have a well defined place in the scheme of things (and are
not immune to prosecution as you say). The argument is over the meaning of
"competent person" (in the not-a-CORGI sense to do with gas work), who would
define this term, and when, and what the definition will be. It's not an
exact science but the definition will come eventually.

Bob Mannix