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
that illegal?" with a reasoned answer that demonstrates harm if it
exists and a clear benefit from preventing whatever it is.


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


Yes, but don't you think that some sort of moral equivalence should
apply to those privileges?

Not unreasonable to suggest a person holding a ham ticket be of clean
criminal record and good morals , a short certificate to the effect
should be required for registration after a suitable police check surely ?



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

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

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

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 11:42:02 +1000, atec77 wrote:

Not unreasonable to suggest a person holding a ham ticket be of clean
criminal record and good morals

Some of the most unpleasant people I have come across have never been
convicted of a crime and as for morals- they are a moveable feast, in
time and space!



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

On 02/08/14 08:19, Brian Reay wrote:
atec77 "atec77 wrote:

Not unreasonable to suggest a person holding a ham ticket be of clean
criminal record and good morals , a short certificate to the effect
should be required for registration after a suitable police check surely ?

Exactly. The checks should cover offences related to things like the
harassment related crimes (inc. malicious communications), sex offences,
violent crimes, and radio related crimes.

I can't help thinking we've reached the point were perhaps offenders in two
of the above groups should automatically be totally banned from using the
internet. The bans should also be firmly enforced.

We could always dig up Timothy Evans and ask him what he thinks of the idea.

--
Spike

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Exactly. The checks should cover offences related to things like the
harassment related crimes (inc. malicious communications), sex offences,
violent crimes, and radio related crimes.

I can't help thinking we've reached the point were perhaps offenders in
two
of the above groups should automatically be totally banned from using the
internet. The bans should also be firmly enforced.

How would they be enforced? You could block the offender's home address, but
he only has to go to an Internet Cafe or log in to a wi-fi hotspot with an
ipad or similar.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

On 02/08/14 10:30, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Exactly. The checks should cover offences related to things like the
harassment related crimes (inc. malicious communications), sex offences,
violent crimes, and radio related crimes.

I can't help thinking we've reached the point were perhaps offenders
in two
of the above groups should automatically be totally banned from using the
internet. The bans should also be firmly enforced.

How would they be enforced? You could block the offender's home address,
but he only has to go to an Internet Cafe or log in to a wi-fi hotspot
with an ipad or similar.

It would have to be enforced by catching then doing it. Then lock them
up for a long time, in a real jail. None of this nonsense of TVs and
time off for good behaviour etc. Such people seem incapable of behaving
themselves so they will some betray they presence and can be reported.
If they have, say, a USB stick which has software which permits them to
use a machine and leave no trace, that should be enough.

On 02/08/2014 11:06, Brian Reay wrote:

It would have to be enforced by catching then doing it. Then lock them
up for a long time, in a real jail. None of this nonsense of TVs and
time off for good behaviour etc. Such people seem incapable of behaving
themselves so they will some betray they presence and can be reported.
If they have, say, a USB stick which has software which permits them to
use a machine and leave no trace, that should be enough.

Er, precisely what crime is committed by leaving to trace on a machine?
Presumably you would like all the posters on here who use a pseudonym to
have fifty lashes each?

Les.

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

On 02/08/2014 11:06, Brian Reay wrote:

It would have to be enforced by catching then doing it. Then lock them
up for a long time, in a real jail. None of this nonsense of TVs and
time off for good behaviour etc. Such people seem incapable of behaving
themselves so they will some betray they presence and can be reported.
If they have, say, a USB stick which has software which permits them to
use a machine and leave no trace, that should be enough.

Er, precisely what crime is committed by leaving to trace on a machine?
Presumably you would like all the posters on here who use a pseudonym to
have fifty lashes each?

Les.

I believe he's suggesting a digital version of "going equipped", but he
hasn't thought (it through very well).

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
that illegal?" with a reasoned answer that demonstrates harm if it
exists and a clear benefit from preventing whatever it is.


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


Yes, but don't you think that some sort of moral equivalence should
apply to those privileges?

Not unreasonable to suggest a person holding a ham ticket be of clean
criminal record and good morals , a short certificate to the effect
should be required for registration after a suitable police check
surely ?



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.

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

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

On 02/08/14 13:29, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:17:58 +0100, Lordgnome wrote:

On 02/08/2014 11:06, Brian Reay wrote:

It would have to be enforced by catching then doing it. Then lock them
up for a long time, in a real jail. None of this nonsense of TVs and
time off for good behaviour etc. Such people seem incapable of behaving
themselves so they will some betray they presence and can be reported.
If they have, say, a USB stick which has software which permits them to
use a machine and leave no trace, that should be enough.

Er, precisely what crime is committed by leaving to trace on a machine?
Presumably you would like all the posters on here who use a pseudonym to
have fifty lashes each?

Les.

I believe he's suggesting a digital version of "going equipped",


Exactly.

but he
hasn't thought (it through very well).


Not being acquainted with such activities as 'going equipped', being
precise is easy for all of us.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Exactly. The checks should cover offences related to things like the
harassment related crimes (inc. malicious communications), sex offences,
violent crimes, and radio related crimes.

Should those who are so reckless as to the safety of their fellow man such
that
they receive a criminal conviction for speeding be banned from installing
any
radios in a car or a mobile home?

And if a 4-square antennae arrangement is then spotted on their mobile home,
should they be banged up without mercy in jail for years?

Just curious as to whether your spite applies equally to you as you intend
it
to apply to others?