On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:44:44 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 19:36:29 -0000, Stephen Thomas Troll
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:51:42 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:25:59 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:39:16 -0000, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:58:27 +0000, Judith
wrote:

Simon Mason recently said:

".........in distress as do the police on a weekly basis as I hear
them on my scanner."

I would be interested in how it is done : listening in to police
communications.

(I thought it was illegal - but now understand that it isn't - and
people like Simon do it quite legally)


I was wrong - the person who answered the question made a typo !!

It is apparently illegal to listen in - despite what others have
claimed.

If it's encrypted, then you're hacking. If it's (and it did used to
be) open, then you're not breaking any law.


Sure, but, James, what happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul,
James?

I don't know who either of those people are.

We-l-l, Burt is uk.radio.amateur's TurNiP, but with much better keyboard
skills, and he's retired from a glittering career in the security
services (Ssshh, he doesn't like to talk about it). Paul is
uk.amateur.radio's Simon Mason, but not as likeable, or unemployable.

Paul says that Burt got into trouble when he checked up on him, but
neither he or Burt will say what sort of trouble, or why Burt was
checking up on him in the first place.

All clear to you now?

As clear as mud.


James, let me see if I can help you, James. Paul said that something
happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul, James, but didn't say what
happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul or why, James, Burt checked up
on Paul in the first place. So, we've been asking Burt what happened to
Burt when he checked up on Paul, James, but Burt hadn't let on what
happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul, James. Jim then got involved,
James, and started asking what happened to Burt, James, when Burt checked
up on Paul, James, but then Jim said that Jim wasn't interested in what
happened to Burt after Burt checked up on Paul even though Jim had
literally just asked what happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul,
James. Jim asked me to ask Burt what happened to Burt when Burt checked up
on Paul, so I asked Burt what happened to Burt when Burt checked up on Paul
but Jim then said Jim was going on holiday, James. Hopefully, we'll get to
the bottom of what happened to Burt when Burt checked up on Paul when Jim
gets back from his break, but if you, James, can shed any light on the
whole Burt/Paul saga in the meantime, James, that'd be much appreciated,
James.

That might make more sense with two more vodkas, please hold....

--
I dialled one of those 900 numbers to get some financial advice. They advised me not to dial 900 numbers.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:44:44 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:25:59 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:39:16 -0000, Judith
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:58:27 +0000, Judith
wrote:
Simon Mason recently said:

".........in distress as do the police on a weekly basis as I
hear them on my scanner."

I would be interested in how it is done : listening in to police
communications.

(I thought it was illegal - but now understand that it isn't -
and people like Simon do it quite legally)


I was wrong - the person who answered the question made a typo !!

It is apparently illegal to listen in - despite what others have
claimed.

If it's encrypted, then you're hacking. If it's (and it did used
to be) open, then you're not breaking any law.


Sure, but, James, what happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul,
James?

I don't know who either of those people are.

FFS don't tell him!
If you do he will infest and destroy your group. This well known troll
destroyed uk.rec.driving

I don't think that ukra is able to be ruined anymore than it already is.
Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW ****ed it ragged about a decade ago.

Nothing can be ****ed by one person.

Some wives are.

Graham T wrote:
On 23/12/2016 22:02, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Stephen Thomas Troll wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:34:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

In article . com,
lid (Stephen Thomas Troll) wrote:

Paul says that Burt got into trouble when he checked up on him

I have made no such claim.

Sophism:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:37:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

Yes - so why don;t you ask Spike, who DID check, what comeback he had as
a result...



This has nothing to do with ukra, followups set.


panto


OH YES IT DOES!


Followups restored.


Paul, why the FURIOUS backpedal, Paul? We're just trying to get to the
bottom of what happened to Burt when Burt checked up on you, Paul, and why
Burt checked up on you in the first place, Paul. Paul, Jim was saying you'd
spent some time at a place that Jim called "the big hoose", Paul. Now, I
don't speak Scottish so wasn't entirely sure what Jim was going on about,
Paul, when Jim said that you'd been to "the big hoose", Paul, so was
wondering if you could help clear up exactly what Jim meant when Jim said
that you'd been to "the big hoose", Paul? Thanks, Paul.


'The big hoose' = prison AFAIK

Graham, thanks Graham. Your Scottish is better than mine, Graham! Or maybe
you'd had a couple of drinks? Anyway, so what Jim was saying, Graham, was
that the reason Paul hadn't validated Paul's amateur radio licence, Graham,
was due to Paul being in prison, Graham? Well, that's a bold statement from
Jim, Graham, and seeing as Jim said yesterday that Jim was going on holiday
until the New Year I guess we'll have to wait for Jim to return and confirm
that Jim was saying that Paul was in prison, Graham. I'd ask Paul, Graham,
but Paul is currently pretending to have killfiled me so Paul wouldn't
reply, Graham. Thanks, Graham.

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:44:44 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:25:59 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:39:16 -0000, Judith
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:58:27 +0000, Judith
wrote:
Simon Mason recently said:

".........in distress as do the police on a weekly basis as I
hear them on my scanner."

I would be interested in how it is done : listening in to police
communications.

(I thought it was illegal - but now understand that it isn't -
and people like Simon do it quite legally)


I was wrong - the person who answered the question made a typo !!

It is apparently illegal to listen in - despite what others have
claimed.

If it's encrypted, then you're hacking. If it's (and it did used
to be) open, then you're not breaking any law.


Sure, but, James, what happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul,
James?

I don't know who either of those people are.

FFS don't tell him!
If you do he will infest and destroy your group. This well known troll
destroyed uk.rec.driving

I don't think that ukra is able to be ruined anymore than it already is.
Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW ****ed it ragged about a decade ago.

Nothing can be ****ed by one person. Are you incapable of ignoring one person?


Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW did most of the damage over the decade or so before
I started using the group, so before my time, OM. I did manage to run him
off quite quickly, though, and have since entirely dominated the group,
battering his gang of chums and demented perverts into the ground in the
process, especially Burt.

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 24/12/16 09:51, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:44:44 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:25:59 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:39:16 -0000, Judith
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:58:27 +0000, Judith
wrote:
Simon Mason recently said:

".........in distress as do the police on a weekly basis as I
hear them on my scanner."

I would be interested in how it is done : listening in to police
communications.

(I thought it was illegal - but now understand that it isn't -
and people like Simon do it quite legally)


I was wrong - the person who answered the question made a typo !!

It is apparently illegal to listen in - despite what others have
claimed.

If it's encrypted, then you're hacking. If it's (and it did used
to be) open, then you're not breaking any law.


Sure, but, James, what happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul,
James?

I don't know who either of those people are.

FFS don't tell him!
If you do he will infest and destroy your group. This well known troll
destroyed uk.rec.driving

I don't think that ukra is able to be ruined anymore than it already is.
Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW ****ed it ragged about a decade ago.

Nothing can be ****ed by one person. Are you incapable of ignoring one person?


Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW did most of the damage over the decade or so before
I started using the group, so before my time, OM. I did manage to run him
off quite quickly, though, and have since entirely dominated the group,
battering his gang of chums and demented perverts into the ground in the
process, especially Burt.

well tat sort of attitude means you are on probation.

On 24/12/16 09:51, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Graham T wrote:
On 23/12/2016 22:02, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Stephen Thomas Troll wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:34:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

In article . com,
lid (Stephen Thomas Troll) wrote:

Paul says that Burt got into trouble when he checked up on him

I have made no such claim.

Sophism:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:37:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

Yes - so why don;t you ask Spike, who DID check, what comeback he had as
a result...



This has nothing to do with ukra, followups set.


panto


OH YES IT DOES!


Followups restored.


Paul, why the FURIOUS backpedal, Paul? We're just trying to get to the
bottom of what happened to Burt when Burt checked up on you, Paul, and why
Burt checked up on you in the first place, Paul. Paul, Jim was saying you'd
spent some time at a place that Jim called "the big hoose", Paul. Now, I
don't speak Scottish so wasn't entirely sure what Jim was going on about,
Paul, when Jim said that you'd been to "the big hoose", Paul, so was
wondering if you could help clear up exactly what Jim meant when Jim said
that you'd been to "the big hoose", Paul? Thanks, Paul.


'The big hoose' = prison AFAIK

Graham, thanks Graham. Your Scottish is better than mine, Graham! Or maybe
you'd had a couple of drinks? Anyway, so what Jim was saying, Graham, was
that the reason Paul hadn't validated Paul's amateur radio licence, Graham,
was due to Paul being in prison, Graham? Well, that's a bold statement from
Jim, Graham, and seeing as Jim said yesterday that Jim was going on holiday
until the New Year I guess we'll have to wait for Jim to return and confirm
that Jim was saying that Paul was in prison, Graham. I'd ask Paul, Graham,
but Paul is currently pretending to have killfiled me so Paul wouldn't
reply, Graham. Thanks, Graham.

*plonk*

In the UK you cannot listen in as the transmissions use the mobile network
and are encrypted. In some parts of the world the police have divided comms,
there are the normal fm ones and the encrypted ones. Since most of the
crooks probably have scanners you do not really want anyone listening if you
are about to raid an address, now do you?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Judith" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason recently said:

".........in distress as do the police on a weekly basis as I hear them on
my
scanner."

I would be interested in how it is done : listening in to police
communications.

(I thought it was illegal - but now understand that it isn't - and people
like
Simon do it quite legally)

On 23/12/16 20:34, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article . com,
lid (Stephen Thomas Troll) wrote:

Paul says that Burt got into trouble when he checked up on him

I have made no such claim.

This has nothing to do with ukra, followups set.


You claimed anyone who checked your (false) story would get into
trouble. Needless to say, like your endless other threats, it was bogus.
Just like you claim re the ICO, denials re the RSPCA and Council tax
cases, claims the 2008 article was never published, the Dr title, Uni
course, ..........

Your problem, or one of them, is that you tell so many lies you can't
keep track of them. That is why it is so easy to catch you out.

In article ,
FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
I remember the days when all you needed was an FM radio.

Actually a rather poor one as many of their transmissions were AM. A very
good receiver would reject them.

--
*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 24/12/2016 09:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , David Lang
wrote:

On 23/12/2016 11:58, Judith wrote:
Simon Mason recently said:

".........in distress as do the police on a weekly basis as I hear
them on my
scanner."

I would be interested in how it is done : listening in to police
communications.

(I thought it was illegal - but now understand that it isn't - and
people
like
Simon do it quite legally)

Not only illegal, ****ing impossible. Airwave is utterly secure.
Mason lives in a world of his own.

When I was a kid and we got our radiogram, it was possible to listen to
the Metropolitan Police talking to police cars on FM. Normally couldn't
hear the cars' responses unfortunately, unless the MP arranged a
car-to-car.

I did the same, great fun!


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman

On 23/12/2016 19:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


I remember the days when all you needed was an FM radio.

I remember the days when all you needed was a Hifi amp actually.


Indeed - a guitar amp would do as well. We used to play a gig near the
polizeiplatz and frequently, you would get 100 watts of police voice
booming out in the hall!

Les.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:11:50 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

If it's encrypted, then you're hacking. If it's (and it did used to be)
open, then you're not breaking any law.

Er, yes you would be.
Another classic sig on your part BTW. Keep 'em coming! :-D

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 00:47:51 -0000, John wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:44:44 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:25:59 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:39:16 -0000, Judith
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:58:27 +0000, Judith
wrote:
Simon Mason recently said:

".........in distress as do the police on a weekly basis as I
hear them on my scanner."

I would be interested in how it is done : listening in to police
communications.

(I thought it was illegal - but now understand that it isn't -
and people like Simon do it quite legally)


I was wrong - the person who answered the question made a typo !!

It is apparently illegal to listen in - despite what others have
claimed.

If it's encrypted, then you're hacking. If it's (and it did used
to be) open, then you're not breaking any law.


Sure, but, James, what happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul,
James?

I don't know who either of those people are.

FFS don't tell him!
If you do he will infest and destroy your group. This well known troll
destroyed uk.rec.driving

I don't think that ukra is able to be ruined anymore than it already is.
Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW ****ed it ragged about a decade ago.

Nothing can be ****ed by one person.

Some wives are.

ROFL!

--
I've never had a problem with drugs,
I've had problems with the police. - Keith Richards

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 09:01:09 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 24/12/16 09:51, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:44:44 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:25:59 -0000, Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:39:16 -0000, Judith
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:58:27 +0000, Judith
wrote:
Simon Mason recently said:

".........in distress as do the police on a weekly basis as I
hear them on my scanner."

I would be interested in how it is done : listening in to police
communications.

(I thought it was illegal - but now understand that it isn't -
and people like Simon do it quite legally)


I was wrong - the person who answered the question made a typo !!

It is apparently illegal to listen in - despite what others have
claimed.

If it's encrypted, then you're hacking. If it's (and it did used
to be) open, then you're not breaking any law.


Sure, but, James, what happened to Burt when he checked up on Paul,
James?

I don't know who either of those people are.

FFS don't tell him!
If you do he will infest and destroy your group. This well known troll
destroyed uk.rec.driving

I don't think that ukra is able to be ruined anymore than it already is.
Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW ****ed it ragged about a decade ago.

Nothing can be ****ed by one person. Are you incapable of ignoring one person?


Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW did most of the damage over the decade or so before
I started using the group, so before my time, OM. I did manage to run him
off quite quickly, though, and have since entirely dominated the group,
battering his gang of chums and demented perverts into the ground in the
process, especially Burt.

well tat sort of attitude means you are on probation.

Anybody using the followup header is a worthless troll.

--
Please be bending short long rod before inserting the output firmly inwards to save health unwellness.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 21:40:28 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:11:50 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

If it's encrypted, then you're hacking. If it's (and it did used to be)
open, then you're not breaking any law.

Er, yes you would be.

What law am I breaking by listening to something that has been broadcast into MY property?

Another classic sig on your part BTW. Keep 'em coming! :-D

:-)

--
Little Tony was staying with his grandmother for a few days.. He'd been playing outside with the other kids for a while when he came into the house and asked her, "Grandma, what's that called when 2 people sleep in the same room and one is on top of the other?"

She was a little taken, but she decided to just tell him the truth. "It's called sexual intercourse, darling".

Little Tony just said, "Oh, OK," and went back outside to play with the other kids.

A few minutes later he came back in and said angrily, "Grandma, it isn't called sexual intercourse. It's called "Bunk Beds". And Jimmy's mum wants to talk to you."

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:15:10 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

What law am I breaking by listening to something that has been broadcast
into MY property?

The key point is that police comms do not fall within the legal
definition of "broadcast" which is a signal intended for general
reception. None of the signals originated between agencies of the
emergency services (fire, police, ambulance, coastguard etc.) are
intended for general reception.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:54:37 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:15:10 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

What law am I breaking by listening to something that has been broadcast
into MY property?

The key point is that police comms do not fall within the legal
definition of "broadcast" which is a signal intended for general
reception. None of the signals originated between agencies of the
emergency services (fire, police, ambulance, coastguard etc.) are
intended for general reception.

Then they shouldn't put them in my house. It's akin to sending post to every door, then expecting you not to open the ones that don't have your name on it.

--
A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car.

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:54:37 -0000, Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:15:10 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

What law am I breaking by listening to something that has been
broadcast into MY property?

The key point is that police comms do not fall within the legal
definition of "broadcast" which is a signal intended for general
reception. None of the signals originated between agencies of the
emergency services (fire, police, ambulance, coastguard etc.) are
intended for general reception.

Then they shouldn't put them in my house. It's akin to sending post
to every door, then expecting you not to open the ones that don't
have your name on it.

Yes, of course it is.
Have you had your daily dose of chocolate and alcohol today Mr Hucker?

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:41:05 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:54:37 -0000, Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:15:10 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

What law am I breaking by listening to something that has been
broadcast into MY property?

The key point is that police comms do not fall within the legal
definition of "broadcast" which is a signal intended for general
reception. None of the signals originated between agencies of the
emergency services (fire, police, ambulance, coastguard etc.) are
intended for general reception.

Then they shouldn't put them in my house. It's akin to sending post
to every door, then expecting you not to open the ones that don't
have your name on it.

Yes, of course it is.

Yes, it is.

Have you had your daily dose of chocolate and alcohol today Mr Hucker?

PKB.

--
Top Tip. If someone shoves your feet in a fire, quickly put your head in a bucket of iced water. On average, you will be pretty comfortable.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:12:17 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:41:05 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

Yes, of course it is.

Yes, it is.

Well there is absolutely nothing in law to prevent you from erecting a
Faraday Cage around your house to prevent this intrusion you appear to
feel so strongly about.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 20:32:02 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:12:17 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:41:05 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

Yes, of course it is.

Yes, it is.

Well there is absolutely nothing in law to prevent you from erecting a
Faraday Cage around your house to prevent this intrusion you appear to
feel so strongly about.

I don't want to prevent it, I want to see what it is.

--
A daughter asked her mother how to spell penis, her mum said you should have asked me last night it was on the tip of my tongue.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:11:48 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I don't want to prevent it, I want to see what it is.

Well you can't. Not legally, anyway.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:14:13 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:11:48 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I don't want to prevent it, I want to see what it is.

Well you can't. Not legally, anyway.

Looking at something doesn't draw attention to yourself. Only transmitting does.

--
In light of the Madrid bombing, France has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide."
The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:23:21 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:14:13 -0000, Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:11:48 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I don't want to prevent it, I want to see what it is.

Well you can't. Not legally, anyway.

Looking at something doesn't draw attention to yourself. Only
transmitting does.

Indeed. But it's still against the law. Keep it up, though, I'm enjoying
your wonderful sigs.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:23:36 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:23:21 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:14:13 -0000, Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:11:48 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I don't want to prevent it, I want to see what it is.

Well you can't. Not legally, anyway.

Looking at something doesn't draw attention to yourself. Only
transmitting does.

Indeed. But it's still against the law.

It's only illegal if you're caught :-)

Keep it up, though, I'm enjoying your wonderful sigs.

:-)

--
The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:08:28 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:54:37 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:15:10 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

What law am I breaking by listening to something that has been broadcast
into MY property?

The key point is that police comms do not fall within the legal
definition of "broadcast" which is a signal intended for general
reception. None of the signals originated between agencies of the
emergency services (fire, police, ambulance, coastguard etc.) are
intended for general reception.

Then they shouldn't put them in my house.

I wouldn't worry too much about that : you need to concentrate on the voices in
your head.

lordgnome Wrote in message:
On 23/12/2016 19:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


I remember the days when all you needed was an FM radio.

I remember the days when all you needed was a Hifi amp actually.


Indeed - a guitar amp would do as well. We used to play a gig near the
polizeiplatz and frequently, you would get 100 watts of police voice
booming out in the hall!

Les.


100 watts?
What sort of gig were you playing?
Mouth harp?
:-)
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:15:39 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:08:28 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:54:37 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:15:10 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

What law am I breaking by listening to something that has been broadcast
into MY property?

The key point is that police comms do not fall within the legal
definition of "broadcast" which is a signal intended for general
reception. None of the signals originated between agencies of the
emergency services (fire, police, ambulance, coastguard etc.) are
intended for general reception.

Then they shouldn't put them in my house.

I wouldn't worry too much about that : you need to concentrate on the voices in
your head.

And you need to mind your own business.

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:15:39 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:08:28 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:54:37 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:15:10 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

What law am I breaking by listening to something that has been broadcast
into MY property?

The key point is that police comms do not fall within the legal
definition of "broadcast" which is a signal intended for general
reception. None of the signals originated between agencies of the
emergency services (fire, police, ambulance, coastguard etc.) are
intended for general reception.

Then they shouldn't put them in my house.

I wouldn't worry too much about that : you need to concentrate on the voices in
your head.

And you need to mind your own business.

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:23:36 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:23:21 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:14:13 -0000, Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:11:48 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I don't want to prevent it, I want to see what it is.

Well you can't. Not legally, anyway.

Looking at something doesn't draw attention to yourself. Only
transmitting does.

Indeed. But it's still against the law. Keep it up, though, I'm enjoying
your wonderful sigs.

Rules are for fools.

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:23:36 -0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:23:21 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:14:13 -0000, Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:11:48 +0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I don't want to prevent it, I want to see what it is.

Well you can't. Not legally, anyway.

Looking at something doesn't draw attention to yourself. Only
transmitting does.

Indeed. But it's still against the law. Keep it up, though, I'm enjoying
your wonderful sigs.

Rules are for fools.

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/