Brendan recommending an unlicensed bus service

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
Recommendations? No. Discussion? Perhaps - depends on the nature of the discussion so it's difficult to outline specific rules.
 
ClubMan said:
Recommendations? No. Discussion? Perhaps - depends on the nature of the discussion so it's difficult to outline specific rules.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
'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.
 
" 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.
 
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.
 

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!
 

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)?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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
 
zag said:
It's not like he accused anyone of criminal action, fraud, deceit, etc . . .
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

...which I thought was an outrageous comment.
 
Yes, but people make outrageous comments on AAM all day long and don't get banned for it.

z
 
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
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register