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

--

Percy Picacity