Percy Picacity wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person
can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.


Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"

Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"

Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate
to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."


Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old
pass
certificate.


Not only old, but also obsolete.

IIRC, the RAE pass certificate was valid for life. However, the morse
pass was only valid for 6 months, so if you didn't apply for a licence
within 6 months after passing the morse, you had to retake (and pass)
the test.

Obsolete insofar as it was a pass for a long defunct qualification. That
there existed some bizarre loophole that Charlie was able to exploit in
order to dodge sitting the Full exam is, frankly, outrageous.

Apart from having to go through the motions of obtaining Foundation and
Intermediate passes, an 'Advanced' pass isn't a higher qualification than
the RAE (or a HAREC) pass.

No, they're the same, that I accept. What I don't accept is that Chaz has
been tested to any competency with regards to current licence conditions
and regulatory matters, as he dodged sitting the correct exam for his
callsign by cashing in a decades old bit of paper. Whilst the RAE may be a
perfectly thorough qualification, what relevance does a pass certificate
from a 40 year old RAE have on the current licence conditions that
competence must be demonstrated in?

Although OFCOM probably never foresaw the possibility of some oddball
coming forward after 40 years to claim his prize - and so presumably
wouldn't have made any provision for such, I can see no real reason why
an RAE pass should not be accepted.

I'm tempted to write to OFCOM and point out this loophole, truth be told.
This is a backdoor that needs to be locked shut, quick.

The direct implication of your suggestion, which will not be universally
welcomed, is that licensed amateurs should be retested regularly for the
same reason.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea to me. A "top up" test every 5
years to retain your licence would certainly help raise standards. The same
can be said for driving licences, whilst I'm I'm on my soapbox...

In any case, I cannot think of any way in which the
requirements have become more onerous or significantly different;
rather the reverse.

The fact is, though, that the licence conditions and regulatory matters
that are an integral part of the full licence are completely different to
those from the 1960s. By dodging the Full exam, Charlie has not
demonstrated competence in those areas as they pertain to the current
situation, yet his M0 call allows him to build equipment and run it at full
power.

Consider for a moment if Brian had done what Chaz has. There would be a
dozen people in ukra out for his blood over it.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!