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.

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

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

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?


Nowhere I know of. But drivers licenses are issued by the individual
states; radio licenses by the feds. So the comparison is moot.

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

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

On 7/31/2014 7:41 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:36:13 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Does the US apply that requirement to a driving licence?


Nowhere I know of. But drivers licenses are issued by the individual
states; radio licenses by the feds. So the comparison is moot.

That distinction doesn't exist in the UK, but I can see that it's a
different situation to some extent.

What would cause a driving licence to be revoked in your state, other
than the usual medical conditions/DUI type offences?


That is immaterial.

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

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

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

On 31/07/2014 16:01, 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.


In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving.
However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be permitted
to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical appointments. You get a
special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates".


--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.

"A. non Eyemouse" wrote in message
...
In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving.
However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be permitted
to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical appointments. You get a
special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates".

or "****ed Plates"?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

On 31/07/14 22:52, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"A. non Eyemouse" wrote

In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving.
However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be
permitted to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical
appointments. You get a special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates".

or "****ed Plates"?

One of my neighbours has a vehicle that sports 'potato plates'.

--
Spike

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.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lre34j$ko6$1@dont-
email.me:

The law does not need logic!


Maybe it does... It just hasn't got much of it.

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

On 8/1/2014 8:37 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:49:54 -0400
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!

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.


We NEVER expect anything logical out of Congress! Or any of the state
legislatures, for that matter.


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?


Moral equivalence has nothing to do with it. The two are completely
unrelated (other than both are privileges).

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

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