XPost: uk.radio.amateur, rec.radio.amateur.policy   
   From: not@for.mail   
      
   On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 21:19:32 +0100, Brian Reay  wrote:   
      
   >On 20/08/2017 21:03, highlandham wrote:   
   >> On 17/08/17 17:38, Brian Reay wrote:   
   >>> On 17/08/17 14:34, Roger Hayter wrote:   
   >>>> Jeff  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> they issued them....they can revoke them....simples...don't know   
   >>>>>> what all   
   >>>>>> the fuss is about....only to be expected in these post amateur radio   
   >>>>>> times...chaos   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The problem is that they can't revoke them without a lot of fuss and   
   >>>>> consultation, basically the same problem that led to every change being   
   >>>>> done by NoVs.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Jeff   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If they issued them by mistake, in breach of their published policy,   
   >>>> then they will have no difficulty cancelling them.  The only possible   
   >>>> grounds for court action would be if the recipients had used them a long   
   >>>> time and come to rely on them, and Ofcom  had failed to correct the   
   >>>> error in reasonable time.    And it would be horrifyingly expensive.  So   
   >>>> I doubt if anyone would bother.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm not sure there is a 'published policy' on callsign format. The   
   >>> current format is included in the exams etc but I'm not sure that the   
   >>> 'policy' is actually published in the way that, say, the licence terms   
   >>> and conditions are.   
   >>>   
   >>> After all, if someone had held a G2?? callsign and let it lapse, they   
   >>> could have it reinstated - or a family member could have it allocated.   
   >>> That wouldn't conform to the format 'normally' issued.   
   >>>   
   >>> The RSGB should be challenging any attempts by OFCOM to revoke these   
   >>> licences, assuming the error is what we think. Sadly, I suspect the   
   >>> vested interest lobby will take a different view- the two letter calls   
   >>> being deemed 'special' and the RSGB will want to control them.   
   >>>   
   >>> The error has happened. It isn't serious. Let those he have the   
   >>> callsigns keep them.  Why should they be inconvenience one iota.   
   >>> Moreover, why bother 'fixing' the system, turn the error into   
   >>> something useful to increase the callsign pool.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >> Personally I don't give a hoot about callsign suffixes whether there are   
   >> 1,2,3 or 4 letters. It has nothing to do with actual amateur radio   
   >> communication ....some suffixes are just status symbols .   
   >> I know an Intermediate licensee who managed to "inherit" the G3xxx   
   >> callsign of a deceased relative .   So what !   
   >> We should be more concerned about future solar cycles and if  these are   
   >> not promising there is still a lot of scope by pursuing  higher (or   
   >> lower) than HF frequencies.   
   >   
   >   
   >I couldn't agree more Frank.   
   >   
   >I've no problem with the reissuing of callsigns, especially to relatives.   
   >   
   >As for the idea that some might be 'upset' if those issued the M0+2   
   >callsigns could keep them, they need to be told in no uncertain terms to   
   >stop being so petty.   
      
   You should stop being so petty.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)