[Uram-rejections] G2DQU SK

Sun Sep 4 19:28:19 BST 2016

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

 You appear to be ridiculing claims made in ura, presumably by identifiable indi

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

Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to
another contributor.

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 Sun Sep 04 17:45:08 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: Brian Reay <no.sp at m.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Subject: Re: G2DQU SK
> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 18:45:00 +0200
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Message-ID: <nqhj2b$7d4$1 at dont-email.me>
> References: <npak86$sna$1 at dont-email.me> <npeo7p$l3v$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <gl0mrb11a2vp7h7rdesg4s7g2n12h4bmlb at 4ax.com> <npf8j1$h1a$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <do0jVdS5GzuXFwm6 at b-howie.demon.co.uk> <npfm91$61t$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <nph25s$j96$1 at gioia.aioe.org> <e22hr6F263qU1 at mid.individual.net>
>  <nph8cs$esk$1 at dont-email.me> <nphj7t$ibv$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <npi06s$67k$2 at gioia.aioe.org> <e23og5Fbic3U1 at mid.individual.net>
>  <npkhau$qje$1 at dont-email.me> <d5adnfsSzNUCkF7KnZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d at giganews.com>
>  <memo.20160828181730.252M at postmaster.cix.co.uk> <nq0sfk$k0d$2 at gioia.aioe.org>
>  <nq1rlh$aoi$1 at dont-email.me> <memo.20160829193328.160A at postmaster.cix.co.uk>
>  <nq3fsa$nl8$2 at gioia.aioe.org> <nq4klr$99e$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <W4ydnSb9yuyNI1vKnZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d at giganews.com> <nq6vlg$a8i$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <nq8tll$1uc$1 at dont-email.me> <nq9t7o$grs$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <nqbbej$os8$1 at gioia.aioe.org> <nqeolb$sbb$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <1mt0lzq.11cwiqc1b0hn9cN%roger at hayter.org> <nqgrb8$phi$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <nqhh1s$de$1 at dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
>  Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX197zElUNVtin32lMeYFA6mNaS6gYUXXKqU=
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:cYvDpM4V5IFdKDN+4/LCiyxMP8Q=
> X-Gradwell-Message-ID: 26648567
> X-Gradwell-MongoId: 57cc4f8e.c5c3-441a-a
> X-Gradwell-Forwarding-Rule: 1748292
> X-Gradwell-Edge-Server: inbound-edge-10.mail.thdo.gradwell.net
> 
> On 04/09/2016 18:10, Jimbo in the near of Girvan ... wrote:
> > "Brian Reay" <no.sp at m.com> wrote in message
> > news:nqgrb8$phi$1 at dont-email.me...
> >> On 03/09/2016 20:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
> >>> Brian Reay <no.sp at m.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 02/09/2016 09:58, Jeff wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OFCOM funding doesn't work like that. No matter what the license fee,
> >>>>>> not a penny would go to OFCOM. It is simply buying, or not as things
> >>>>>> are, a 'bargaining' position.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not a penny of any licence fee goes to OFCOM but the look after some
> >>>>>> licence payers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ofcom's accounts would seem to suggest the opposite.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whilst not specifically detailed for Amateur Licences, Ofcom certainly
> >>>>> retains the income from licensing in other sectors.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is listed in teh accounts and they also make the statement:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Ofcom raises its funds from the
> >>>>> following sources:
> >>>>> Sector stakeholder funding
> >>>>> Broadcast licence fees for:
> >>>>>  Television
> >>>>>  Radio
> >>>>> Administrative charges for:
> >>>>>  Electronic networks and services
> >>>>> and making available associated
> >>>>> facilities
> >>>>>  Postal services regulation"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeff
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I answered this previously but it seems to have gone astray. Perhaps it
> >>>> fell foul of moderation, although I can't think why.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like a number of other pseudo gov. organisations (for want of a better
> >>>> description), OFCOM is funded by a 'vote' from Parliament. While
> >>>> payments for licences etc. may be paid to OFCOM (as in the Cheques are
> >>>> payable to them)*, the money goes to the treasurey. True, the vote, like
> >>>> all money the gov. spends comes from the big treasury pot, all gov.
> >>>> income goes into that pot.
> >>>> So, claiming Ofcom are funded via licences is no more true than they are
> >>>> funded by, say, VAT on adult clothes.
> >>>>
> >>>> The funding mechanism for OFCOM was explained at an early meeting of
> >>>> OFCOM, virtually a 'launch meeting', when they (amoung other things)
> >>>> were hoping to see off the old UHF 'police' frequencies. It was quite
> >>>> interesting to see the reaction from the attendees, who showed little
> >>>> interest. Sure enough, as time has shown, there is been no huge 'sell
> >>>> of' on the scale OFCOM hoped- they (or the treasury I expect) wanted
> >>>> another 'cash cow'.  I've referred to this meeting before in the other
> >>>> NG.
> >>>>
> >>>> *Previously cheques for our licences have been paid to SSL, the PO (as
> >>>> 'Road tax' is/was (I do mine online)) but the money goes to the gov., it
> >>>> doesn't stay with the collecting agency. The collecting agency get a fee
> >>>> for the 'contract' to handle to work.
> >>>
> >>> While it is true that statutory licence fees are collected by OFCOM on
> >>> behalf of the Government, this does not give the whole picture.   A
> >>> large part of its income comes from fees paid directly by broadcasters
> >>> and some other radio users for OFCOM's regulatory functions, and OFCOM
> >>> keeps these in order to balance its budgets.  Indeed it returns some of
> >>> these fees when it has managed to economise.   I was reading OFCOM's
> >>> annual report and idly wondering whether amateurs, perhaps via the RSGB,
> >>> could actually contract with OFCOM to provide some investigatory
> >>> functions.  Probably we wouldn't be willing to pay what it costs,
> >>> especially as we get a (rather minimal) service for nothing at present.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Given the glee many embraced the free licence, without thinking of the
> >> consequences, not to mention the pitifully low support for things like
> >> repeater groups, or (for example) the free CODEC project, the chances of
> >> all amateurs willingly contributing to such an idea are about nil.
> >>
> >> The ending of the licence fee was a significant step towards removing
> >> the 'power' of amateur radio to be heard in an organisation more
> >> interested in business interests than public services. As a group,
> >> amateurs fell for the ploy, lock, stock, and barrel.
> >>
> >>
> > but that was after the hobby had been lowered to a joke..........the
> > incomers were happy to spurge on equipment worth about £5k on average ie
> > something they could touch....and they got all the bands and a good cover
> > for their continued 11m activity and an unenforceable 10w power
> > restriction......why pay when you have everything you wanted for ticking a
> > few silly questions?...and remember they all came from FREEBAND ........
> >
> >
> 
> Many newcomers never operated on CB, let alone Freeband, and you have no 
> way of knowing what their average spend on equipment is. Equally, to
> suggest they obtained a licence as 'cover' is just speculation.
> 
> The largest influx of former CBers was just after the legalisation of 
> CB, when the G6 series  of callsigns was 'used' in about 18mths, far 
> more rapidly than the uptake of the FL scheme. Anyone who holds, or 
> held, a G6, is probably a former CBer, unless they have some other 
> reason to have obtained a licence- eg family connection to the hobby.
> 
> As for the 10W limit, it is no less enforceable than any of the power 
> limits on our licences. The wild claims, based on 'off air' reports of 
> it being exceeded, have been discredited countless times yet they still 
> appear- even when they have been proven to be ridiculous. In one case, 
> the claim equated to a station running 64kW, demonstrating the claimiant 
> knew rather less than he should have of such things.
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXzGfDAAoJEJ0q8Kb5p+MeNeIIAK/z3qJwhE5JCocnBwlokzc+
6BZgh/AL6LMru6NZ90fFUB2rclwHrg4BJsO716QjPVtvrt5aBsh86TikIjD37znW
la2//qb6oDEhgvTLJw4b421b/KLyVVG1XzmCQwZqzEL2de9l6bJ2Bgd9MaosUnAX
+CEGbge/akbsxYWm7HmmDnWgOTgEeODN71yDd+9H1juQVosNSrY1WYE8Xkm/h2lg
YpHEXKQ1d64F0l9NQU/PA2KOHIPLcOPE368HOF32XgrDWEB9n7LTWKiLRmEF2LkX
ERBwNg9UyLSusDSnnblVUTZZtRPwCoE5ldAtKSXI1dtJ85FKMWETHT+yUA/1axA=
=y/h4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----