# Brendan recommending an unlicensed bus service



## cerbera (14 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> Has anyone else got the [broken link removed]?
> 
> 
> According to The Irish Times on Friday, the owner applied for a license back in June 2006. As no decision had been made by July 2007, he started the service without a license. The day after he started, he got a letter from The Department of Transport telling him to desist. The Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, has asked the Gardai to close down the service.
> ...


 
Brendan, are you promoting an illegal service, however fickle or bad the service is from the Dept of Transport is, the service is still not licensed and illegal. You have closed down threads and discussions on illegal services and products. So why start one????


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 May 2008)

Hi Cerbera

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. You raise an interesting issue, which, frankly, I had not even considered.

My understanding is that the Patten Flyer has made every effort to comply with the legislation by applying for a license. If the Department of Transport is unable to respond to them within a year, then I would personally be happy to use an unlicensed service. 

I have traveled on it a few times now and there is obviously a very big consumer demand for the service. 

It is not like condoning tax evasion where you are damaging the public interest. Promoting a service which is of great value to consumers is what Askaboutmoney is for. It should not be held back by bureaucracy. 

I would have to reconsider, if the Department of Transport refused them a license.


----------



## efm (15 May 2008)

Brendan, 

That is an interesting approach to interpreting the laws of this country.  As I understand it from the info in your posts, this service is unlicensed - whether you agree with the reasons for it being unlicensed or not, is, in my opinion, irrelevant; it remains unlicensed and is therefore breaking the law.

Also, are there any other considerations that need to be taken into account because of the illegal nature of this operation e.g. is it adequately and properly covered by insurance, would ones consumer rights be protected in the event of a dispute because the service is illegal etc?


----------



## ubiquitous (15 May 2008)

Breaches of licensing laws are commonplace in this country. It would be silly imho to label a business as a tax evader and advocate a boycott of their trade if they were successfully prosecuted for a breach of performance rights legislation or TV licence legislation. The private transport sector in Ireland has been hampered for many decades by inefficiencies within its State regulatory framework,  inefficiencies that have played into the hands of the  monopoly or dominant operators which are owned by the State itself. The types of reforms that took place in the aviation sector since the 1980s never happened in the private transport sector and will not do so until the unions' power in the sector is curbed or crushed. The story of the Patten Flyer people having to wait more than a year for a licence is not uncommon.


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

Regardless of the issues raised in _Brendan's _"defence" above I personally can certainly see _cerebra's _point on this matter. When push comes to shove I would agree with him/her.


----------



## efm (15 May 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Breaches of licensing laws are commonplace in this country.


 
Does that make it ok then if everyone does it?



ubiquitous said:


> It would be silly imho to label a business as a tax evader and advocate a boycott of their trade if they were successfully prosecuted for a breach of performance rights legislation or TV licence legislation.


 
I'm not sure that IMRO or An Post would agree - both bodies have sucessfully prosecuted businesses and individuals for breaches of licensing laws.  

Anyway, I think that the licence required for a bus service is more fundamental to the business than a TV licence - eg a pub can operate without a TV but it can't operate without a liqour licence


----------



## cerbera (15 May 2008)

So Brendan if I am understand you correctly you disagree with process and procedures which is in place in this country?? Would you get into a car in the sity centre which had a cardboard "TAXI" sign on the roof and say "Airport Please" just because the driver had told you he was "waiting on a licence"....... I think not, no difference in the "patten flyer".... He is not licenced, not legal and therefore not insured... Which is putting himself, passengers and other road users in danger. Which is a lot of people, if he were a private car driver he would be summonsed to court and possibly in the current trend of the courts JAILED. You, as a passenger, don't know the full story as to why he hasn't got a licence nor have seen all correspondence between himself and the relevant Department.


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

Interesting _boards.ie_ thread on this very issue [broken link removed].


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 May 2008)

Presumably I would be free to recommend a particular pub or resaurant if they have been convicted of not having a TV license. That would not be material. 

Would it be wrong to recommend a pub which had no alcohol license? 

I think that the Patton Flyer is a good service, but if they had no insurance, then it would be a very bad service. I assume that they are insured. 

I presume that the Patton Flyer complies with all insurance, tax and other rules. They have tried to comply with the bus licensing laws, but have been unable to do so. I really don't think that is their fault.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 May 2008)

> Does that make it ok then if everyone does it?


 
To be frank, Yes - at least in sectors where is strong reason to believe that inefficiencies in licensing administration are being used by the State to promote their own operators' monopolies or dominant market positions.



efm said:


> I'm not sure that IMRO or An Post would agree


That is their entitlement. As it is my entitlement to disagree with them. That said if either IMRO or An Post were "to label a business as a tax evader and advocate a boycott of their trade" on the basis of a conviction for a licensing offence, then they would imho be widely exposed to defamation proceedings.



> a pub can operate without a TV but it can't operate without a liqour licence


A surprising number do.


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> I think that the Patton Flyer is a good service, but if they had no insurance, then it would be a very bad service. I assume that they are insured.


From what I've read this is a questionable point - i.e. whether the lack of a (route?) license impacts their insurance status.


> They have tried to comply with the bus licensing laws, but have been unable to do so. I really don't think that is their fault.


What evidence is there to support this assertion?


----------



## cerbera (15 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> Presumably I would be free to recommend a particular pub or resaurant if they have been convicted of not having a TV license. That would not be material.
> 
> 
> I presume that the Patton Flyer complies with all insurance, tax and other rules. They have tried to comply with the bus licensing laws, but have been unable to do so. I really don't think that is their fault.


 
They are not Licenced to operate by the Department of Transport, therefore the lack of a proper operating licence would invalidate their insurance. They want to operate but can't obtain a licence so there has to be a good reason, and if it is simply a case of incompetence by the DOT, well let him go through the appropriate channels, like anyone else. CIE, Air coach and other reputable companies are licenced, they obviously had to wait aswell at some point in time so why should this company be any different. Its the same with any service that has to be licenced by the government in this country, it takes time, lots of time.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 May 2008)

ClubMan said:


> From what I've read this is a questionable point - i.e. whether the lack of a (route?) license impacts their insurance status.



Highly unlikely, in my opinion.  It is impossible to tax a car unless its insurance is up to date. A private motorist can insure a car even if its tax (technically its vehicle licence) is out of date. A major catch-22 would apply otherwise.


----------



## flattea2 (15 May 2008)

Would whatever insurance they have not be void on the basis they do not operate a licenced service?

Be interested in how they got insurance and what the insurers take is on it.

Sorry just noticed this point has been made.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 May 2008)

flattea2 said:


> Would whatever insurance they have not be void on the basis they do not operate a licenced service?
> 
> Be interested in how they got insurance and what the insurers take is on it.



If they did not disclose their licence difficulty to their insurers, then they would be uninsured. If this fact was disclosed, it should not affect their insured status. 

In this day and age, I could not imagine the Dept of Transport and the Gardai tolerating for a minute any party operating a passenger transport service without the appropriate insurance. The fact that they are being allowed to trade would suggest to me that they do have this insurance.

I also know for a fact that the lack of a pub licence does not invalidate the pub's public liability insurance. This happens regularly where the licensee's tax affairs are not in order and cannot get a tax clearance cert that is needed for licence renewal.


----------



## cerbera (15 May 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> In this day and age, I could not imagine the Dept of Transport and the Gardai tolerating for a minute any party operating a passenger transport service without the appropriate insurance. The fact that they are being allowed to trade would suggest to me that they do have this insurance.


 
This is where this discussion comes from, in his original post Brendan stated that the DOT had instructed the Gardai to shut down the service as they were not licenced. If you do not disclose to you insurer's anything which may affect your insurance which later turns out to be matrial in an offer or refusal of insurance is a breach, and therefore invalidates your policy. e.g penalty points, endorsements, lack of an operating licence etc... The onus is on the proposer to disclose any and all facts relevant to an insurance application.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 May 2008)

cerbera said:


> This is where this discussion comes from, in his original post Brendan stated that the DOT had instructed the Gardai to shut down the service as they were not licenced.



Indeed, but as I said, can you imagine the Gardai tolerating for a minute any party operating a passenger transport service without the appropriate insurance?


cerbera said:


> If you do not disclose to you insurer's anything which may affect your insurance which later turns out to be matrial in an offer or refusal of insurance is a breach, and therefore invalidates your policy. e.g penalty points, endorsements, lack of an operating licence etc... The onus is on the proposer to disclose any and all facts relevant to an insurance application.


Indeed, but as I said, if this fact was disclosed, it should not affect their insured status


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

To be honest there is a lot of speculation in this thread that does not help with identification and discussion of the relevant issues. In particular from where I'm sitting it's not clear what specific license they may be lacking and what impact this might have on their insurance status.


----------



## cerbera (15 May 2008)

Do we know he did disclose it to his insurer's??? NO... We do know he has no operating licence. If he did disclose it I would strongly think that he would be refused insurance as noinsurance company in their right mind would take on an unlicenced operator.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 May 2008)

Folks

This is a very interesting issue which I do want to see teased out. 

Please make a special effort to be civil so that we don't go too far off thread.

Thanks


----------



## ubiquitous (15 May 2008)

cerbera said:


> If he did disclose it I would strongly think that he would be refused insurance as noinsurance company in their right mind would take on an unlicenced operator.



Can you please supply some evidence for this contention. How do you explain how unlicensed pubs and private motor cars can obtain insurance?


----------



## jhegarty (15 May 2008)

Does anyone here actually know the conditions that attach to bus insurance ?

I don't and it's mindless speculation unless someone does...


----------



## zag (15 May 2008)

There is a major problem with the licensing mechanism - there is some anti-competition clause which stops the department issuing a license which duplicates the route of an existing license.  So, if you want to mess up your competitors plans apply for a route license before them, get the license and then sit on it.  The department will then refuse to issue a license for your competitor because "someone else is already licensed". The fact that someone else doesn't even own a bus or have any plans to operate the route doesn't get in the way of the departments logic.

While people might be happy with the service provided and think that it's all ok, the busses are shiney, the drivers are nice, they seem to have insurance, etc . . . there is a fundamental problem in that they are operating without a license.

The relevant legislation needs a bit of shaking up, but until that happens the people in the market have to play by the existing rules.  It's quite astonishing to find the Garai apparently unwilling to act on a clear breach of the regulations (possibly of the law also).

z


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

zag said:


> a clear breach of the regulations (possibly of the law also).


Are they not the same thing? I would have expected the regulations to be ultimately based on _Statutory Instruments_.



zag said:


> While people might be happy with the service provided and think that it's all ok, the busses are shiney, the drivers are nice


Slightly off topic but apropos of this point - I recently had cause to travel day return _Dublin-Wexford _twice a week for the past month or so and found _Bus Eireann's _service excellent all round. I also purchased tickets online which was very handy and at a slight discount to buying in the station or on the bus.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 May 2008)

My experience is that Bus Eireann's services are very good, notwithstanding the appalling facilities in Busaras in Dublin and the fact that their seats offer a little less legroom than other coaches. 

The state of regulation in the sector and the inhibitions against competition are unfortunate, though.


----------



## efm (15 May 2008)

I think there are two issues here:

1. The issue of the legality of the Patton Flyer to operate without a license from the DOT and all the issues that this raises around liability insurance etc

and

2. Brendan recommending this service to readers of AAM even though the service is unlicensed.

One is a legal issue and one is an editorial policy issue. 

Brendan feels that it is ok for him to recommend an unlicensed service because, in his opinion, they (Patton Flyer) have been unfairly treated by bureaucracy and their service is for the betterment of society or the common good. 

If this is the case can all posters recommend a service or a product that is unlicensed if, in their opinion, it is for the betterment of society or the common good?


----------



## efm (15 May 2008)

efm said:


> ... a pub can operate without a TV but it can't operate without a liqour licence


 


ubiquitous said:


> A surprising number do.


 

Ah maybe....but would Brendan be right to recommend such an unlicensed pub on AAM?


----------



## jhegarty (15 May 2008)

efm said:


> Ah maybe....but would Brendan be right to recommend such an unlicensed pub on AAM?



and if not can anyone recommend any company with their tax clearance cert, repack details, weee registration..etc...etc...etc..


----------



## ubiquitous (15 May 2008)

efm said:


> Ah maybe....but would Brendan be right to recommend such an unlicensed pub on AAM?



Provided the lack of the licence did not impact on customer facilities or welfare, or was not attributable to criminality or another serious issue, I wouldn't see any problem in him doing so. Others may take a different view.


----------



## Bronte (15 May 2008)

I recommend the unlicensed pub in the house in the housing estate in Limerick I heard it's great craic and even though completely illegal is still not shut down.

I personally don't mind if the bus servise is unlicensed, but do care if they are insured.  This because I believe Bus Eireann nowadays only give a good service because of the competition they have from operators who started out 'illegally', that's why we now have a great service from Shannon to Galway with Citilink, that's how Nestors/Burkes from Galway to Dublin started out and at a price ordinary people could afford.  Remember if you hailed a hackney cab on the street it was illegal but I did it, coz I wanted to get home and the powers that be decided only a few taxis could operate.


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

Bronte said:


> and the powers that be decided only a few taxis could operate.


What powers were they? Hardly the _Government _or _Taxi Regulator _given deregulation in this sector? Maybe you mean the _NTDU _when they were on strike recently or something?


----------



## flattea2 (15 May 2008)

ClubMan said:


> What powers were they? Hardly the _Government _or _Taxi Regulator _given deregulation in this sector? Maybe you mean the _NTDU _when they were on strike recently or something?


 
I assume Bronte means historically.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 May 2008)

EFM asked:



> If this is the case can all posters recommend a service or a product that is unlicensed if, in their opinion, it is for the betterment of society or the common good?


 

That is what we are discussing here.

I presume most people are agreed that we don't show people how to evade taxes. 

A majority believe that we should not facilitate hacking into NTL etc. 

I think that this Patton Flyer issue is unique.  I am not aware of other unlicensed services being recommended on Askaboutmoney. 

ClubMan thinks we should not be highlighting them. 

I see the inconsistency in allowing one and not the other, but I see good grounds for making an exception. 

Brendan


----------



## efm (15 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> I am not aware of other unlicensed services being recommended on Askaboutmoney.


 
Could this be because other attempts to recommend such services would be closed by the mods for promoting illegal services? (This is an actual question not a rhetorical one as I don't know the answer!)


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> ClubMan thinks we should not be highlighting them.


Not quite. I have a problem with people *recommending *such an unlicensed service. Same as I would if somebody recommended an unbonded travel agent for example. I don't have a problem with people highlighting the fact that such unlicensed services exist.


----------



## jhegarty (15 May 2008)

cerbera said:


> I recall a thread being withdrawn on the use of digital receivers capable of unscrambling the NTL signal. The company that sells these receivers do not have a licence from NTL to do so, however it is not illegal to use one as personally you have done nothing wrong. The only "wrong" being done, or so it is still being argued but cannot be stopped for one reason or another is between NTL and whoever produces the receiver. I don't see the difference here, like the receiver the Patten flyer does not have a licence, but unlike the NTL box it has Brendans approval because it suits him to use one and not the other.



No , those receivers are illegal under irish law, once plugged into the cable point the end user it breaking the law...

a end user riding an unlicensed bus is not....


----------



## z103 (15 May 2008)

> a end user riding an unlicensed bus is not....


Are you certain that is the case? - Even if the end user knows the bus is unlicensed?
If I'm caught drinking in a (licensed) pub after hours, I can get fined.



> I think that this Patton Flyer issue is unique. I am not aware of other unlicensed services being recommended on Askaboutmoney.
> 
> ClubMan thinks we should not be highlighting them.


I would be inclined to agree with Clubman in this instance. Which is the next unlicensed service to be classified as 'unique'? With a zero tolerance policy, there can be no fuzzy exceptions, and it's easier to police.

(Unless of course Brendan is recommending the service under a personal capacity, and not 'founder of AAM' capacity.)


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

leghorn said:


> (Unless of course Brendan is recommending the service under a personal capacity, and not 'founder of AAM' capacity.)


I think that is a given. Most moderators post most of the time in their personal capacity and not as moderators representing some sort of _AAM_ "party line".


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 May 2008)

I am recommending the service in a personal capacity. Askaboutmoney does not endorse any services or products. 

However, the question is whether Askaboutmoney should allow recommendations or post on unlicensed services, when we have a clear policy of not allowing promotion of illegal activities such as tax evasion.

Brendan


----------



## z105 (15 May 2008)

> It is impossible to tax a car unless its insurance is up to date


Not true at all, when one renews their tax online it asks you for your insurer and your policy number, these can easily be made up so the Motor Tax office does not actually know whether you have insurance or not, you declare you do have insurance by lying but this does not prevent you from renewing your tax.



> However, the question is whether Askaboutmoney should allow recommendations or post on unlicensed services, when we have a clear policy of not allowing promotion of illegal activities such as tax evasion.


IMHO AAM should not allow recommendations or posts on unlicensed services.


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> However, the question is whether Askaboutmoney should allow recommendations or post on unlicensed services, when we have a clear policy of not allowing promotion of illegal activities such as tax evasion.


Recommendations? No. Discussion? Perhaps - depends on the nature of the discussion so it's difficult to outline specific rules.


----------



## Satanta (15 May 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Recommendations? No. Discussion? Perhaps - depends on the nature of the discussion so it's difficult to outline specific rules.


Fully agree with this.

In this case, the licensing issue was fully disclosed along with (at least some of) the issues/reasons behind it. 

If it were a case of "unlicensed pub at 1234 Pub Street, it rawks!" it would be a very different scenario, so a one size fits all rule is very difficult to implement without restricting valid discussions.


----------



## Bronte (16 May 2008)

I think discussion should be allowed and personal recommendations too but not AAM recommendations - to maintain the integrity of the site.  I think the problem is that the founder of the site make the recommendation meaning we assume it's the AAM recommendation.  Plus it would seem unfair that an exception would be made for the founder making a recommendation.  

There are many monopolies/vested interests/restrictive practices operating in Ireland and some people to start in business/whatever cannot always get the licence due to this which in my opinion is anti-competitive.


----------



## efm (16 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> However, the question is whether Askaboutmoney should allow recommendations or post on unlicensed services, when we have a clear policy of not allowing promotion of illegal activities such as tax evasion.


 
My opinion is that AAM shouldn't recommend or allow posts on illegally unlicensed services for two reasons:

1. AAM cannot be sure of any potential risks to users of unlicensed services (eg if the Patton Flyer is operating without the appropriate licence are its users / passengers fully insured?)

2. If you take the "high moral ground" on issues (and AAM does!) you cannot just step off it when it suits - like it or not the high moral ground is part and parcel of AAM. It may grate sometimes and AAM gets some stick about it from the wider internet audience, but discussing only what is demonstrably right and legal has made AAM what it is.

If someone wants to promote an unlicensed service as part of a campaign to highlight a perceived injustice then let them do so in a blog or some other bulletin board outside of AAM.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 May 2008)

efm said:


> 2. If you take the "high moral ground" on issues (and AAM does!) you cannot just step off it when it suits - like it or not the high moral ground is part and parcel of AAM. It may grate sometimes and AAM gets some stick about it from the wider internet audience, but discussing only what is demonstrably right and legal has made AAM what it is.



If you take the "high moral ground" on 100% of occasions and on 100% of issues, you will inevitably, sometime end up being an idiot.

AAM does not adopt the high moral ground on all issues - for example a poster who expresses confusion in relation to VAT issues for their new business will normally be given some guidance as how to correct their problem. They won't simply be read the relevant enforcement sections of the Taxes Acts and ordered to submit to the Revenue a voluntary declaration of their tax default. 

The latter is the legally correct approach. The former is the more sensible approach.


----------



## efm (16 May 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> If you take the "high moral ground" on 100% of occasions and on 100% of issues, you will inevitably, sometime end up being an idiot.
> 
> AAM does not adopt the high moral ground on all issues - for example a poster who expresses confusion in relation to VAT issues for their new business will normally be given some guidance as how to correct their problem. They won't simply be read the relevant enforcement sections of the Taxes Acts and ordered to submit to the Revenue a voluntary declaration of their tax default.
> 
> The latter is the legally correct approach. The former is the more sensible approach.


 
I'm sorry but I don't follow your example .  My interpretation of "taking the high moral ground" does not mean just regurgitating sections of the law; it means no discussion of something that is illegal, but also promoting actions that are morally correct.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 May 2008)

Okay, someone who gets their VAT calculations wrong breaks several laws in doing so, and technically is legally obliged to report their offences to the Revenue and subject themselves to a range of penalties. If they seek help on AAM as to how to deal with this scenario, most posters will normally take the view that it is sufficient for them to correct the error and that they should not bother adhering to the enforcement procedures as set out in the Taxes Acts. I think any sensible person will not worry themselves too much about the fact that this latter approach is illegal.


----------



## Deirdra (16 May 2008)

'shiny buses, nice drivers' to paraphrase one poster  - well people are voting for both the Patton Flyer's and Aircoach's Rock Road / tunnel service by using them to full capacity presently offered by both companies.

Seems customers just don't care about the licensing.


----------



## Bronte (16 May 2008)

" AAM cannot be sure of any potential risks to users of unlicensed services (eg if the Patton Flyer is operating without the appropriate licence are its users / passengers fully insured?)"

Just because something is licensed doesn't mean it is insured.  What risk would I be at if I took the Patton Flyer?


----------



## efm (16 May 2008)

Bronte said:


> " AAM cannot be sure of any potential risks to users of unlicensed services (eg if the Patton Flyer is operating without the appropriate licence are its users / passengers fully insured?)"
> 
> Just because something is licensed doesn't mean it is insured. What risk would I be at if I took the Patton Flyer?


 
Well I'm no expert but MY understanding is (and it could be wrong) is that an operator would have to prove adequate public liability insurance is in place before being granted the licence; alternatively, it may be the case that the operators insurance is deemed invalid when not fully licensed.

The risk to travelling with an uninsured operator is that in the case of an accident, which happens as a result of negligance on the part of the operator or its staff, the insurance companies refuses to pay compensation for any injuries suffered (eg you travel on a bus, there is an accident where the driver is at fault, you are injured in the crash and can't continue working - you go to claim damages including loss of potential earnings from the buses insurance who turn around and say "sorry, the bus was operating illegally we are under no obligation to pay out")

The point is that the impact or potential consequences of being unlicensed are unknown to AAM, and so AAM shouldn't recommend or allow posts on these services.


----------



## amgd28 (16 May 2008)

efm,
You are making a bewildering leap of logic, and whether intentionally or not muddying the discussion. The licence and insurance are two completely separate matters. While the licence may be dependent on the insurance being in place, the reverse is not.
Insurance companies rightly take a pragmatic approach to the provision of insurance and do not make the insurance dependent on having a valid licence, although they may increase the premium in the absence of one.
A case in point is the fact that provisional licence holders will still be covered by their insurance even if they are involved in an accident while driving alone, contrary to the revised licencing legislation coming into force this summer. As many on this thread have stated, there are many examples of this situation across a number of sectors, and so your insistence on connecting the lack of licence to lack of insurance is bewildering and quite frankly somewhat absurd when all precedent indicates that these elements are clearly decoupled.

The purpose of this thread is to identify whether there are certain valid occassions where a service is being offered that is ultimately for the pbulic good but contrary to licencing regulations can be recommended by a poster on AAM. As mentioned earlier, the lack of licence in this case appears to be clearly as a result of anti-competitive and bureaucratic practices rather than lack of adherence to standards, as if it were the latter, there would have been a refusal of the licence, with the reasons outlined.

On a broader note, if the 'high moral ground' were taken across the board on this site, then wave goodbye to recommendations of tradesemen etc who give prices for 'cash'. This practice actually poses far more of a threat to the public good than the operation of an unlicenced bus service, as it deprices the state of income to operate its public service obligations.


----------



## efm (16 May 2008)

amgd28 said:


> efm,
> You are making a bewildering leap of logic, and whether intentionally or not muddying the discussion. ....... and so your insistence on connecting the lack of licence to lack of insurance is bewildering and quite frankly somewhat absurd .........


 
Wow. Tell me what you really think!  Anyway, to retort:

1. I did state that it was MY opinion and that this opinion could be wrong

2. I was responding to Bronte's post on the risks to travelling on the Patton Flyer and caveated that with 1 above.

3. I am aware of the purpose of the thread and am only trying to continue to tease it out; obviously I am doing so clumsily and for that I apologise

4. I am not aware of any recommendations for tradesmen etc on this board where the recommendation stated that they dealt in "cash" - in fact from memory any time the issue of a "cash price" is raised everyone rushes to the high moral ground and roundly denounce all people who pay in cash!


----------



## Peeete (16 May 2008)

efm said:


> Wow. Tell me what you really think!  Anyway, to retort:
> 
> 1. I did state that it was MY opinion and that this opinion could be wrong
> 
> ...



Brendan,

Just to tease it out a little further. If for instance we know that there is a waste collection issue in a particular area of the country (for whatever reason). Could we freely discuss and promote the use of an unlicensed waste collector, who would just get rid of the waste (no questions asked)?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 May 2008)

We don't normally comment on moderation or banning decisions. 

Cerbera made the following comment:



> I don't see the difference here, like the receiver the Patten flyer does not have a licence, but unlike the NTL box it has Brendans approval because it suits him to use one and not the other.



If this had been made about any other named or identifiable individual, it would have been deleted and the poster warned for defamation. I simply asked him by PM to withdraw the comment, which he first ignored and then refused to do. 

So I have banned him.


----------



## zag (16 May 2008)

Brendan,

I don't think what cerbera said was incorrect.  You happen to have a use for (and thus an interest in) the Patton Flyer, but you don't have a use for the NTL box.  It seems that you are willing to continue discussions on the Patton Flyer primarily because it is something you are interested in.

I think banning him was quite a strong action to take in this case.  It's not like he accused anyone of criminal action, fraud, deceit, etc . . . he simply stated a view based on observation of your comments on the matter to date.

I also think that making an exception to your normal policy of not commenting on moderation decisions wasn't wise.  What was so extra-ordinary about this posting that warranted a banning ?

z


----------



## zag (16 May 2008)

I don't think that the Patton Flyer is worthy of any more or less attention than any other subject on AAM, but I also think that it is important that the moderation policy of AAM be seen to be upheld consistently.

z


----------



## ubiquitous (16 May 2008)

zag said:


> It's not like he accused anyone of criminal action, fraud, deceit, etc . . .


Maybe... but he did say...


cerbera said:


> , no difference in the "patten flyer".... He is not licenced, not legal and therefore not insured... Which is putting himself, passengers and other road users in danger.



...which I thought was an outrageous comment.


----------



## zag (16 May 2008)

Yes, but people make outrageous comments on AAM all day long and don't get banned for it.

z


----------



## efm (16 May 2008)

I think we are losing the point of the thread here but while we're at it:

Ubi - It is my reading that cerbera was banned for what he said about Brendan, not what he said about the Patton Flyer

Brendan - I agree with zag on this - I think a ban was a bit much

*OK - to avoid more posts I am editing this one - I suggest that posts #54 to #60 are deleted / binned / moved / whatever, as they are diverting this thread completely*


----------



## ubiquitous (16 May 2008)

efm said:


> Ubi - It is my reading that cerbera was banned for what he said about Brendan, not what he said about the Patton Flyer



I didn't say or imply otherwise.


----------



## NicolaM (16 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> If this had been made about any other named or identifiable individual, it would have been deleted and the poster warned for defamation. I simply asked him by PM to withdraw the comment, which he first ignored and then refused to do.


To be fair to Brendan, if an administrator requests by PM that a poster withdraw a comment (on the basis of defamation), and they first ignore the request, and then blatantly refuse to do so, the recourse normally would be to ban them surely? This is a complete breach of site etiquette (as well as being very rude to moderators/administrators who give a large amount of their time free, in moderating this site).
If someone wants to use this site, they need to abide by site rules/moderating decisions. This is what maintains the high quality of the site.
Nicola


----------



## MrMan (16 May 2008)

> If someone wants to use this site, they need to abide by site rules/moderating decisions. This is what maintains the high quality of the site.
> Nicola



I'm sure cereba would argue that they were within the rules and felt that being asked withdraw a statement that they believed in was unfair.



> This is a complete breach of site etiquette (as well as being very rude to moderators/administrators who give a large amount of their time free, in moderating this site).



I think most posters appreciate Brendan and the mods work here, but having a disagreement with the site owner is not a lack of site etiquette. Cereba had a right to question Brendans position on recommending unlicenced operators as much as Brendan has a right to ban posters from his site.


----------



## John Rambo (16 May 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Highly unlikely, in my opinion.  It is impossible to tax a car unless its insurance is up to date. A private motorist can insure a car even if its tax (technically its vehicle licence) is out of date. A major catch-22 would apply otherwise.


 
That is not the case. When you renew your motor tax online and are asked for your insurance policy number you can actually input any gibberish without any consequences.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 May 2008)

John Rambo said:


> That is not the case. When you renew your motor tax online and are asked for your insurance policy number you can actually input any gibberish without any consequences.



Okay then...

It is impossible to legally tax a car unless its insurance is up to date. A private motorist can insure a car even if its tax (technically its vehicle licence) is out of date. A major catch-22 would apply otherwise.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 May 2008)

MrMan said:


> having a disagreement with the site owner is a lack of site etiquette.



I don't think this is the case. I have disagreed with Brendan on many issues over the years. I have yet to see him abuse his position as administrator in response. That said, if I were to openly attack his integrity, he would be quite justified in deleting my attack and asking for me to retract & withdraw it. If I refused to do so, he would be quite justified in banning me.


----------



## NicolaM (16 May 2008)

MrMan said:


> I think most posters appreciate Brendan and the mods work here, but having a disagreement with the site owner is a lack of site etiquette. Cereba had a right to question Brendans position on recommending unlicenced operators as much as Brendan has a right to ban posters from his site.



Of course Cerebra had a right to question Brendan (or any other contributor to AAM for that matter), this was not the issue. 
The etiquette problem was his response to a PM from an administrator/moderator: he was given an option to withdraw his comment, he declined that choice, after ignoring the first attempt to contact him, then he was banned as a result. I think it would be hard not to ban a poster in those circumstances.
That doesn't seem unreasonable.
Nicola


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 May 2008)

Folks

We don't discuss mods' decisions. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I have no problem with anyone pointing out a possible inconsistency in the editorial approach.

i do have a serious problem where someone accuses a named person of a dishonest motive. They would normally be formally warned about this. In this case, I simply asked him to withdraw the comment. 

He accuses me of dishonesty on the issue. That is offensive. 

Brendan


----------

