[Jerry Stuckle]

On 8/2/2014 9:38 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 2/08/2014 11:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/2/2014 2:47 AM, atec77 wrote:
On 2/08/2014 12:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/1/2014 9:42 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 1/08/2014 10:37 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:49:54 -0400

I would argue that logic is exactly what the law needs, as in "Why is




Too bad the same can't be done with politicians. But then we wouldn't
have any - which may be a good thing!

might be an idea to stay with relevance to radio occasionaly sticky
foreign to you but do try


Might be a good idea to stop trolling. But I know that is foreign to
you. You can't even try.

oh get a life sticky , I am no troll as you have the major variation on
that stupid ploy , now get a clue as I will bring you task often
because that's a requirement and indeed a necessity with you
introspective southern red necks


Just another stoopid troll - but even more stoopid than most trolls.
And like all stoopid trolls, you don't like being called to task. But I
will, every time.

And you don't even know what a southern red neck is. You must be a
Democrat.

Now you can have the last word. Trolls always need to have the last word.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

[Wymsey[_2_]]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:17:58 +0100, Lordgnome wrote:

to have fifty lashes each?

Only 50, string 'em up if they don't share my world view!

Show no mercy :-)

--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

[gareth]

"Wymsey" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:17:58 +0100, Lordgnome wrote:
to have fifty lashes each?
Only 50, string 'em up if they don't share my world view!
Show no mercy :-)

Has m3osnitis rubbed off on you? :-)

[John Davis[_3_]]

On 7/24/2014 12:40 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:44:15 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 7/24/2014 10:40 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:23:23 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The thing I regret is that OFCOM doesn't have a character
requirement.

I think any such requirement would be struck down under UK and/or
European law. I am surprised that it still stands in the US,
perhaps it only applies to observed character traits related to use
of radio?


Nope, it can apply to non-radio related convictions, also.

A radio license is a privilege, not a right.


Does the US apply that requirement to a driving licence?

There have been cases where a license was denied due to other (non
radio) issues,,, Sexual perversion convictions, Homicide, Failure to
pay taxes.. All sorts of things.

I can not give you a specific case cite, but I can give you my source,
ARRL weekly newsletter. (on at least 2 of those)

however in teh case of the dude doing 20-life.. (Homicide) What need had
he of a license, since he was not in control of a radio.
--
Home, is where I park it.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[John Davis[_3_]]

On 7/31/2014 2:49 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/31/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:18:49 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The fact is - it is the law in the United States, and the FCC
enforces it.

I was simply interested in why that is the case for one sort of
licence that is granted as a privilege and not for another (i.e. driving
licence) which is also not an inalienable right.


The law does not need logic!

But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is
that both are privileges.

When I was a police dispatcher......

There were many "Clients" who, basically, felt "I don't need no
steenking license to drive no car"

Good for them cause I got to see their driving records and "Stinking" ..
Well,, kind of a mild description (To high heaven).

Some of the posts in this thread, remind me of those folks....

One of the reasons for licensing drivers is that when you get untrained
people out there or people who engage in dangerous activities or
irresponsible activities like drunk/drugged driving. They can KILL
folks, this makes a major mess and back about 1984 as i recall I made a
post titled "A cool million" which was roughly the estimated cost of
each and every highway fatality to the state I lived in at the time.

Well.. We have all read "Amateur Radio Saves Life" stories,, Imagine one
of these irresponsible types is blockading your emergency transmissions
with his... Stuff.... and as a result someone dies.

This is why we need licensing regulation.

--
Home, is where I park it.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 8/3/2014 2:22 PM, John Davis wrote:
On 7/24/2014 12:40 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:44:15 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 7/24/2014 10:40 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:23:23 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The thing I regret is that OFCOM doesn't have a character
requirement.

I think any such requirement would be struck down under UK and/or
European law. I am surprised that it still stands in the US,
perhaps it only applies to observed character traits related to use
of radio?


Nope, it can apply to non-radio related convictions, also.

A radio license is a privilege, not a right.


Does the US apply that requirement to a driving licence?

There have been cases where a license was denied due to other (non
radio) issues,,, Sexual perversion convictions, Homicide, Failure to
pay taxes.. All sorts of things.


A driver's license?

I can not give you a specific case cite, but I can give you my source,
ARRL weekly newsletter. (on at least 2 of those)

however in teh case of the dude doing 20-life.. (Homicide) What need had
he of a license, since he was not in control of a radio.

Just to clarify - he wasn't asking about a radio license. He was asking
about a driver's license being withheld.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================