AngeTheHippy wrote:Tigger wrote:Your replies don't surprise me at all. Especially yours, Tigger - yep - sounds about right ::didn't trust originals so had tests done again:: Ho hum, just remind me - we ARE living in the year 2007 not 1907 aren't we.....??
Well yes it does sound weird, but don't assume that living in 2007 is necessarily a good thing. In 1907 the consultant (Had he been able to look at originals from USA) would not have,
even for one microsecond, considered the possibility of facing negligence charges. But, now in 2007, every tiny decision that consultant takes has to be
traceable, back uppable, and as solid as rock. If something went wrong the lawyers would have a field day in court and he (the consultant) would
not be able to go back to the source in USA and get them involved.
I'm
not saying he (the consultant)was right, I am saying
it's annoying, and I'm also saying that
[i]we live in an age of instant (and IMHO spurious)
litigation of all and sundry when things go wrong.
So the fact that the results were identical is irrelevant here. If I were the consultant I would no doubt have done the same thing and moaned to all and sundry about having to repeat the tests.