Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Gardner
Ian (F),
"Still not heard a convincing argument from this thread."
and I doubt one will be forthcoming, either.
I suggest letting others carry on living in their CE-stamped, not-in-legislation wonderland of safety, and just getting on with the job.
t'other Ian (with the invisible G).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Ian G...sorry but I've missed your point again...not sure why you feel the need to copy and paste my comments everytime you need to express an opinion...hey ho...
And there was me thinking this thread was exhausted....it seems its only just begun.
Ian F i'm not going to insult your intelligence but lets say there is more than one way to skin a cat.....hence why in the regulations you will only see reference to maintainance rather than PAT test....I guess its down to the employer and how best to maintain their eqpt to safe standard - granted most will PAT test because its usually the easiest and most cost effective way but that said you will never see any company being prosecuted for not PAT testing equipment - not maintaining it to a safe standard well thats a different story...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By WilliamTell
Thanks again Ian G...very constructive...looks like i've infected you with my rudeness....
I'm at a loss as to what people want to hear on this thread....as far as I can see its been spelt out....maybe its that phenomenon that if people don't hear what they want to they get angry and disappointed....
ta rar
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter MacDonald
Group Hug.......
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IOSH Moderator
...And thread closed there I think, as we seem to have exhausted this one (well the Mods are pretty exhausted by it anyway).
Seasons Greetings and goodwill to all men.
Jon
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.