I whole-heartedly support the majority of the points made by Nick Bell in his article 'A watchful eye'. However, I do have slight concerns over the varying use of the terms 'inspect', 'monitor' and 'supervise' -all of which have very different meanings. The regulations specifically use the term 'monitor' for good reason. Nick refers to two legal cases in which client responsibility is implied. However, in R v Swan Hunter, I understand they were using their own direct labour staff so, in this role, they are contractor and principal contractor. It is therefore dear that the PC was at fault - not the client-for not sharing information (even though they are one and the same organisation).
展开▼
机译：我全心全意地支持尼克·贝尔在他的文章“警惕的眼睛”中提出的大多数观点。但是，对于“检查”，“监视”和“监督”这两个术语的用法有所不同，我确实有些担心。该法规有充分的理由专门使用“监控”一词。尼克提到了两个隐含客户责任的法律案件。但是，在R v Swan Hunter案中，我了解他们使用的是自己的直接劳工人员，因此，他们是承包商和主要承包商。因此，亲爱的PC错了-不是客户端-不共享信息（即使它们是同一组织）。
展开▼
