In article ,
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. 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.

Indeed, given the licensing terms at the time it would require
retrospective legislation to withdraw the RAE pass as a qualification.
Generally retrospective changes are avoided unless there is an important
reason they have to be made.

--

Percy Picacity