[Uram-rejections] fobbed off ....

Tue Oct 4 17:20:37 BST 2016

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

 You could have added a bit more.

The post that you submitted to uk.radio.amateur.moderated has been rejected by a
moderator. 

This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been
made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too
repetitive.

The group charter and moderation policy can be found at
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/uram/
Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup
  uk.net.news.moderation

============================================ Full text of your message follows
> From webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Oct 04 15:40:38 2016
> Return-path: <webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk
> X-Envelope-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Forwarding-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> Delivered-To: forwarding-uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com
> To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> From: "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <james.stewart497 at ntlworld.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Subject: Re: fobbed off ....
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 15:40:23 +0100
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Message-ID: <nt0f08$pkh$1 at dont-email.me>
> References: <nsr0h4$6v7$2 at dont-email.me> <1mui8ix.1fp2pqn1t7a73yN%roger at hayter.org> <nsrku9$dlo$1 at dont-email.me> <1muidej.zt9sjt84766yN%roger at hayter.org> <nst3is$8ph$1 at dont-email.me> <nsu7h4$7l2$2 at dont-email.me>
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
> X-Priority: 3
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19V1xSmCAkvc8S3mRmkdX3BSsf0OtPHxV0=
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:5zcLLUR71xvz4QbSNsr8sefDEtA=
> X-Gradwell-Message-ID: 30841095
> X-Gradwell-MongoId: 57f3bf58.12bf5-ad3-8
> X-Gradwell-Forwarding-Rule: 1748292
> X-Gradwell-Edge-Server: inbound-edge-8.mail.thdo.gradwell.net
> 
> 
> "mm0fmf" <none at invalid.com> wrote in message 
> news:nsu7h4$7l2$2 at dont-email.me...
> > On 03/10/2016 09:07, Jimbo at the trailer park ... wrote:
> >> "Roger Hayter" <roger at hayter.org> wrote in message
> >> news:1muidej.zt9sjt84766yN%roger at hayter.org...
> >>> mm0fmf <none at invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 02/10/2016 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
> >>>>> Jimbo at the trailer park ... <james.stewart497 at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> is it illegal jam an unprotected key fob with a 70cm signal?.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It may well be illegal to do it deliberately, though I am not sure 
> >>>>> what
> >>>>> the offence would be.  But it may a breach of licence conditions  to
> >>>>> transmit where you know, or should know, that it is likely to happen.
> >>>>> On the other hand you might claim that it is up to users of the
> >>>>> unprotected ISM frequencies to design and use their equipment in such 
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> way that legitimate spectrum use does not interfere with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am interested to know what experts in the licence conditions think 
> >>>>> on
> >>>>> this point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It may be unwise to do this in a busy urban carpark in such a way that
> >>>>> you can easily be spotted as the culprit.  Some people may have heard
> >>>>> ot
> >>>>> the problem, see the handheld radio, and leap to the obvious
> >>>>> conclusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Probably 7(3), 7(6), 5(1)(b) would apply. Asking in public if you can
> >>>> deliberately cause problems would remove any chance of pleading it was
> >>>> accidental should anyone do anything about it. IANAL however.
> >>>
> >>> No doubt Brian Howie's WTA clause would apply if it were done
> >>> deliberately.   I am not sure 7(3) or 7(6) would be breached by
> >>> inadvertent interference as firstly the problem generally arises from
> >>> the fob system's sensitivity to large signals outside its nominal
> >>> reception band, including perfectly good 70cm signals,  and secondly I
> >>> am not sure that ISM equipment has any legal protection against 'normal'
> >>> out of band signals, or even in band ones.  Even if they were breached,
> >>> does breaching them in itself amount to an offence?  The clause Brian
> >>> quoted would seem only to apply to deliberate use.  And 5(1) merely
> >>> gives  an official the right to tell you to stop.  It is a fair bet (and
> >>> no doubt someone could confirm from the WTA) that it would be an offence
> >>> to ignore a 5(1) instruction, if only because it could bring you under
> >>> the "deliberate interference" offence, once you were warned.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> If I was caught I would just demonstrate that my car which on 315 Mc/s is
> >> not affected ....
> >>
> >>
> > 315MHz is not approved in the UK or rest of Europe.
> 
> (archers voice).....oh no 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX89bVAAoJEJ0q8Kb5p+MeRr8H/3zGszlAhHSU6ptDagvB4+LF
aDxiyKMjXiWVxvOszqeSZXg64n4Lul0bVF6fZYzALvTPLYodLqpQJk75OC8pIhv2
1UXbZ+QpKNkud9uN4ZusCESIrsIiQx/5B60T1RqsU8cKSjOLgkUZlEQVPILYVfZ/
YdzZ1qqSS5ApJDqqiCBULKqqUqQYAdwFuCc/x/jXall2LKoKT3sEebgBmXR6m8bn
8lHnAOz+NUH6gfFfirUcZx5NSsCeWTeQYGMoLUj+FcujuIWbL3fcjRlwfmhx7XVw
2veH7PxlqKxP19BMSqYKKro27MZ+1BTPjyOszrOuTKU4+4u/Iv+3BMhmwgq/CeQ=
=jDGO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----