We have network contact daily with many electrical, electronic, IT and power professional engineers and managers, as many as a large company would have, so try us for your specialist needs and answers. Someone will know the answer to your question and how to resolve it.
Completed projects include: New quality systems for defence company, quality system for company relocating to new site, for a car industry company and a service company, training internal auditors, University teaching for quality management degree, EMC for a power station, EMC testing on a military aircraft, RTTE Directive approval for a satellite telephone, training courses
on photonics technology and EMC PCB design course, safety files for railway
signal and control system, expert witness testing for miltary project, Technical Construction File writing for an electronic development tool and
telecoms network equipment, and pre assessment of EMC files prior to Competent
Body submission.
Visit the UK government
site from number 10 Downing Street, Westminster, London, you may find it interesting
by clicking here at http://www.number10.gov.uk
Find out more about the
U.K by visiting at http://www.bbc.co.uk
with live web cameras in London. Legal
Comment 1. Higher
Fines on Regulatory Offences in the U.K The Court of Appeal in
London dealing with regulatory offences in 1998 decided a fresh view was needed
for sentencing companies. Historical average fines may no longer be treated
as the the main factor. Individual cases will consider gravity of the offence,
extent of danger, a continuing unsafe state of affairs and seriousness of
the injury. Fines are likely to be high enough to make a difference to companies
so that more notice is taken. The defendant's ability to pay (how much money
they have) could become the dominant criteria in the level of sentencing companies. 2. Product
Liability In an English case in
2000, a supplier was unable to rely on a defence based on 'risk during development'
because the supplier could not prove that the defect was undiscoverable at
that time. Companies should note that for the safety of products placed on
the market, the company being sued has to prove that there was not a method
available by which the defect could have been discovered. In other words,
if you could have checked it, then you should have checked it.