Hmmm Tony said that he knows that you had seen my response.
Fishy, I note your apology for disseminating incorrect information regarding the sponsorship of this PAS. The PAS process can speed up the delivery of a much needed code of practice and did so in this case, thanks to the commendable sponsorship of BSI. With regard to rules for drafting, you do not acknowledge that a PAS is subject to stringent rules for drafting that are simply contained in PAS 0, as opposed to BS 0.
I note that you also ignored the point that, while a BS is simply made available to the public, who may not even be aware of the existence of the draft, a PAS undergoes an extra layer of scrutiny by the existence of a huge review group of many dozens of bodies, who are specifically requested to review the draft at public comment stage and comment as appropriate. I have known draft for public comment versions of British Standards or draft amendments to them to attract only a handful of comments. The 2 parts of PAS 79 attracted over 1,200 specific comments, requiring 4 days of steering group meetings to give careful consideration to each and every one and many amendments to the draft.
To suggest that this PAS received less scrutiny than it would have had as a BS is quite simply absurd.
I assume that you will , on Twitter, correct at least the errors for which you now apologise in the same incorrect information you disseminated on Twitter.
