Permission for TV aerial.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Aug 26, 2007, 7:52:51 PM8/26/07
to
If you have a house with a chimney stack shared with next door do you need
their permission to mount a TV aerial etc on that stack?

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Hall

unread,
Aug 26, 2007, 8:11:47 PM8/26/07
to
On 2007-08-27 00:52:51 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> said:

> If you have a house with a chimney stack shared with next door do you need
> their permission to mount a TV aerial etc on that stack?

I've never come across that through having experience of living in
several houses with this in the past and having antennas fitted.

However, I always did mention it as a courtesy.


George

unread,
Aug 26, 2007, 8:22:01 PM8/26/07
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f18a89...@davenoise.co.uk...


At a guess Id say no if its bolted to the part of the chimney that belongs
to you.


Steve Firth

unread,
Aug 26, 2007, 8:39:17 PM8/26/07
to
George <now...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

And what if you secure it using a wire?

George

unread,
Aug 26, 2007, 8:52:24 PM8/26/07
to

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1i3hdva.1o42y4jkbwdpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...

Then don't, use an H bracket and secure it by screws or smallest rawl bolts
bought. :-) save a trivial of an argument in the pub


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 3:48:20 AM8/27/07
to
In article <cfpAi.3185$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,

"George" <now...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1i3hdva.1o42y4jkbwdpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> George <now...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:4f18a89...@davenoise.co.uk...
>>>> If you have a house with a chimney stack shared with next door do you need
>>>> their permission to mount a TV aerial etc on that stack?

I would have thought it would come under the Party Wall Act,
but I doubt anyone bothers with that just for an aerial.

>>> At a guess Id say no if its bolted to the part of the chimney that belongs
>>> to you.
>>
>> And what if you secure it using a wire?
>
> Then don't, use an H bracket and secure it by screws or smallest rawl bolts
> bought. :-) save a trivial of an argument in the pub

Wires can do a good job of holding manky chimney stacks together,
whereas bolting to one side can eventually cause the aerial to
pull chunks out of such a stack in a wind, or as a large bird
launches itself off the aerial. (If it's not a manky stack now,
it may be one day.)

If you bolt it, don't bolt it near the top of the chimney, but
do it lower down where you have a good weight of brickwork on
top of the supporting bricks. Use a strong rigid pole and avoid
a bigger aerial than you need (larger wind resistance) so it
won't whip back and fourth on the wind, stressing the mounting
brickwork. Use bracket(s) which spread the mounting points over
a wide number of bricks. Might be a good idea to avoid using
plastic rawl bolts on chimneys which still use their flues.

I put one up a couple of years ago using rawl bolts, and it's
still OK. In hind sight, I would have used a more rigid pole
and a smaller aerial. I also bought a lashing kit, but I
couldn't work out how to get it round the chimney when I
basically only had access to one corner of it.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Vass

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 4:36:41 AM8/27/07
to

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46d281c4$0$642$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...

ah ha, you need one of them trained squirrels you do
--
Vass


Andy Burns

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 5:16:43 AM8/27/07
to
On 27/08/2007 08:48, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

> I also bought a lashing kit, but I
> couldn't work out how to get it round the chimney when I
> basically only had access to one corner of it.

I used the larger version of this bracket with ratchet tightened strap,
http://www.blake-uk.com/prod_products_installation_stackstrap.aspx

very easy to install and gave a secure fix.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 5:40:27 AM8/27/07
to
In article <cfpAi.3185$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,

George <now...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> news:1i3hdva.1o42y4jkbwdpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > George <now...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:4f18a89...@davenoise.co.uk...
> > > > If you have a house with a chimney stack shared with next door do
> > > > you need their permission to mount a TV aerial etc on that stack?

> > > At a guess Id say no if its bolted to the part of the chimney that
> > > belongs to you.

> > And what if you secure it using a wire?

> Then don't, use an H bracket and secure it by screws or smallest rawl
> bolts bought. :-) save a trivial of an argument in the pub

You've nearly guessed the source of the question. ;-) It was actually
from a barbecue.

But a wire lashing is kinder to the stack - I'd not trust a screwed
arrangement on most common sized stacks. Ok on a wall.

--
*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies *

Message has been deleted

F

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 6:08:33 AM8/27/07
to
On 27/08/2007 01:22 George wrote:

> At a guess Id say no if its bolted to the part of the chimney that belongs
> to you.

I saw a TV programme a couple of weeks ago in which an aerial expert
(expert: x = an unknown quantity, spurt = sustained drip) said that
aerials should never be bolted to chimneys as the brickwork is often not
strong enough to withstand some of the forces inflicted in heavy winds.

--
Frank
(Beware of spam trap - remove the negative)

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 6:25:16 AM8/27/07
to
In article <13d55jr...@corp.supernews.com>,

Interesting. A lot more expensive, though.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Andy Burns

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 7:45:58 AM8/27/07
to
On 27/08/2007 11:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Interesting. A lot more expensive, though.

Yes but I don't have tools or know-how to how to use lashing wire
properly, it made sense for a one-off (I'd already saved enough by
visiting blake's trade counter)

Also you can fit it from one edge without worrying how to get the
corner-plates positioned for the lashing wire, though a mirror on a
stick was useful to make sure I'd not got any twists in it.

I believe they sell a re-badged version of the smaller bracket in B&Q,
presumably even more expensive ...

tony sayer

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 8:17:55 AM8/27/07
to
In article <13d5ebm...@corp.supernews.com>, Andy Burns <usenet.july
20...@adslpipe.co.uk> scribeth thus

If you don't have the bottle to do it is a bigger worry. I used to do
that on a daily basis many years ago on some very big chimneys but the
other month I had to do one as a favour on a semi and it was scary!..

However I don't find a climb up a 40 odd metre mast the slightest worry
possibly its that harness which is constantly connected;)
--
Tony Sayer


Message has been deleted

Andy Hall

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 9:49:05 AM8/27/07
to

How do those work?

Do you have to keep unclipping them and reclipping them as you climb?

Heights still give me the willies. Anything more than gutter level is out.


tony sayer

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 10:21:43 AM8/27/07
to
>The reason the lashing kit is a widely used option is because aerial
>erectors never had cordless power drills or long extension cords in the 60's
>so therefore the lashing kit was designed and was used commonly from then
>on.
>
>If you think about it if the chimney is firm a solid bracket and short pole
>screwed to the chimney brickwork at low level is more solid than a wire
>strap.

Not so on a lot of smaller stacks..

>How many aerials have you seen on rooves that have come down or lying
>element down on the roof,why? because the wind rocks it back and forth till
>it loosens and works its way either up or down into one of the cement
>courses.
>
>

Not quite like that if it does then the wire wasn't tensioned as it
ought to have been, or the mast was too tall for the imposed loading.
What usually happens is the wire rusts away!. Take it from me there are
a lot of chimneys around where the lash wires are holding the bloody
thing together because of lack of maintenance !...

--
Tony Sayer


tony sayer

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 10:18:30 AM8/27/07
to
In article <46d2...@nt1.hall.gl>, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
scribeth thus

Some do, some climbers go up then attach their harness, and some don't
bother even!. There is a system called "railok" a sort of extrusion
section that allows rapid movement up .. but not down. I just use a
couple of clips like Karibiners so that one is always connected. Baby
walker its otherwise known as;-)

Theres a comms install at the top of Ely cathedral thats quite fun, you
have to walk across to it on a ladder some 228 feet above ground level
nice view tho!, can be a bit of a bu**er when its windy, nowt on the
fens to stop the wind;!.,..
--
Tony Sayer



Steve

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 10:56:15 AM8/27/07
to
George wrote:
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:4F18E03714%brian...@lycos.co.uk...
>> On 27 Aug,
>> Not a good idea, chimneys are not usually big enough to bolt into the
> bricks
>> securely. A lashing kit (with permission) is the way to go.
>>
>>
>> --
>> B Thumbs
>> Change lycos to yahoo to reply

>
> The reason the lashing kit is a widely used option is because aerial
> erectors never had cordless power drills or long extension cords in the 60's
> so therefore the lashing kit was designed and was used commonly from then
> on.

Even in the 60's aerial erectors had to drill walls. But even then they
had the sense not to drill chimneys. Lashing has been de-facto for
chimneys since way before that time by all reputable riggers.

In the 90's when satellite TV came along, and a dish had to be put on a
chimney "satellite installers" doing 6 a day changed the rules and put
many dishes up using the wall brackets supplied - rather than doing the
job properly which would have involved considerable extra work and time.
It seems that this practice is catching on...

I believe that Sky had to pay out on some stupid installs that took
bricks out of walls (and chimneys)


>
> If you think about it if the chimney is firm a solid bracket and short pole
> screwed to the chimney brickwork at low level is more solid than a wire
> strap.

Completely wrong. Not all chimneys are solid and most are not big or
wide enough and with enough courses above to support an aerial bracket
which concentrates all the forces into one small area. A lashing
however, gains strength by the fact that it is under tension thus
compressing the chimney and and forces are concentrated on the corners
of the chimney which is best.


> How many aerials have you seen on rooves that have come down or lying
> element down on the roof,why? because the wind rocks it back and forth till
> it loosens and works its way either up or down into one of the cement
> courses.

I have seen plenty of fallen aerials on roofs. Most have been failures
of the mast, bent over in a gust, often because a cowboy has come along
and stuck a bigger aerial on mast. Some where lashing has not been done
well and has loosened allowing corner damage where the corner plates
have damaged brickwork. I have seen plenty of D-I-Y/cowboy jobs that
were drilled into chimney that failed. Broken chimney = cash to sort
properly.
I much preferred to find a broken/stretched/rusted lashing on a sound
chimney that could be fixed easily than a broken aerial and chimney
together.

Your post was total rubbish. Your advice is dangerous and could lead to
D-I-Y's thinking that they could get away with such bodges. Shared
chimneys especially, and all the hassle that that could entail.

I am sorry to the regulars here for having a bit of a rant but I think
that some of George's posts (whoever he is) are counterproductive to the
ethos of this newsgroup and he needs to be corrected to stop any
newcomers with a similar sort of question getting the impression that
they are getting any sort of informed advice from him.

HTH George and anyone else advocating drilling chimneys ;-)

Steve

George

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 11:51:15 AM8/27/07
to

"Steve" <st...@nospamforme.co.uk> wrote in message

> Your post was total rubbish. Your advice is dangerous and could lead to
> D-I-Y's thinking that they could get away with such bodges. Shared
> chimneys especially, and all the hassle that that could entail.
>
> I am sorry to the regulars here for having a bit of a rant but I think
> that some of George's posts (whoever he is) are counterproductive to the
> ethos of this newsgroup and he needs to be corrected to stop any
> newcomers with a similar sort of question getting the impression that
> they are getting any sort of informed advice from him.
>
> HTH George and anyone else advocating drilling chimneys ;-)
>
> Steve
>

So are you saying the installation engineers who install sky dishes onto the
chimney with corner mount brackets are cowboys?

:-)


Steve

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 11:59:48 AM8/27/07
to
George wrote:

> So are you saying the installation engineers who install sky dishes onto the
> chimney with corner mount brackets are cowboys?
>
> :-)
>
>

If that involves drilling holes in corners of chimney then yes. If it
involves lashing then not so bad. Dishes on chimneys, in general, are
always bad news.
Steve

Message has been deleted

raden

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 3:58:46 PM8/27/07
to
In message <13d538m...@corp.supernews.com>, Vass
<write2...@hotmail.com> writes

A fair challenge on a roof without a crawling board

I improvised a safety harness from something which wasn't really meant
to be one, but it worked


--
geoff

raden

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 4:08:47 PM8/27/07
to
In message <7lGtnecz...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<to...@bancom.co.uk> writes

I never used to bother with mine - too much hassle

Mind you, I wasn't brave enough to clear a wasps nest off a microwave
dish 50m up

... amazing what an Indonesian in a pair of flip flops with a stick
will do for a few rupiah


--
geoff

Harry Bloomfield

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 5:26:49 PM8/27/07
to
Steve brought next idea :

> In the 90's when satellite TV came along, and a dish had to be put on a
> chimney "satellite installers" doing 6 a day changed the rules and put many
> dishes up using the wall brackets supplied - rather than doing the job
> properly which would have involved considerable extra work and time. It seems
> that this practice is catching on...

There is usually no good reason to install a dish on a chimney, they
work just as well at ground level.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk


Harry Bloomfield

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 5:39:29 PM8/27/07
to
After serious thinking F wrote :

> On 27/08/2007 01:22 George wrote:

>> At a guess Id say no if its bolted to the part of the chimney that belongs
>> to you.

> I saw a TV programme a couple of weeks ago in which an aerial expert (expert:
> x = an unknown quantity, spurt = sustained drip) said that aerials should
> never be bolted to chimneys as the brickwork is often not strong enough to
> withstand some of the forces inflicted in heavy winds.

I would never install an heavy load close to the upper courses of
bricks by drilling - the closer you get to the top, the less weight of
brick there is above to hold it together. Lashing kits improve the
strength and stability of a chimneys brick work.

Remember - The easy way to demolish a wall is to start at the top and
work down, where they are weakest.

pete

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 6:05:58 PM8/27/07
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:56:15 GMT, Steve <st...@nospamforme.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

>Your post was total rubbish. Your advice is dangerous and could lead to
>D-I-Y's thinking that they could get away with such bodges. Shared
>chimneys especially, and all the hassle that that could entail.
>
>I am sorry to the regulars here for having a bit of a rant but I think
>that some of George's posts (whoever he is) are counterproductive to the
>ethos of this newsgroup and he needs to be corrected to stop any
>newcomers with a similar sort of question getting the impression that
>they are getting any sort of informed advice from him.

I quite agree - there are many times that he speaks as if he is an
authority; for what he has said to be then totally rebutted by someone
who truly knows what they are saying.

An accepted rule on the group should be: if George says don't do it
this way, then that will probably be the best way to do it (and vice
versa).

He's a liability (and a fuckwit)

George

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 6:30:13 PM8/27/07
to

"pete" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message

>
> He's a liability (and a fuckwit)
>

The fuckwit is you,I mean why are you using two aliases on here? do you have
a personality disorder or something?


George

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 6:37:34 PM8/27/07
to

"Harry Bloomfield" <harry.m1...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.dd427d786...@tiscali.co.uk...

Except they lower the tone of the neighbourhood at ground level.

you can't see them on the chimney, walking past the house.


Steve

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 3:08:17 AM8/28/07
to
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> Steve brought next idea :
>> In the 90's when satellite TV came along, and a dish had to be put on
>> a chimney "satellite installers" doing 6 a day changed the rules and
>> put many dishes up using the wall brackets supplied - rather than
>> doing the job properly which would have involved considerable extra
>> work and time. It seems that this practice is catching on...
>
> There is usually no good reason to install a dish on a chimney, they
> work just as well at ground level.
>
Indeed, the only good reason is where a terrace of houses points more or
less exactly at the satellite so that a signal cannot be received from
either wall.

Even then there are better alternatives such as T&K brackets on wall
with pole to take dish just above roof where a clear line of sight to
satellite exists. Or better still a ground mount somewhere in their
garden that did have a clear sight to the satellite.

A lot of people actually want them up on chimney out of sight. I could
normally put people off the idea when I likened it to them trying to
hold an umbrella out of a car window when the car was doing 70mph. This
simple analogy helped even the most mechanically inept of them to be
able to grasp the magnitude of the forces acting on their chimney in a
storm!

Steve

PeteR

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 4:00:03 AM8/28/07
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:37:34 GMT, "George" <now...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

In some local authorities it is strictly against planning regulations
to have them higher than the ridge/roof line.
--
PeteR


cerberus

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 12:51:14 PM8/28/07
to

"Steve" <st...@nospamforme.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BRPAi.3856$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

There's also another good reason to install a dish on the chimney.....in my
case I did it because the little scrotes next door used it for target
practice!


tony sayer

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 5:56:33 AM8/28/07
to
In article <OmIAi.3790$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, George
<now...@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus

There you go the brit attitude to satellite dishes..

Q. "What's that thing hanging on the end of a satellite dish?"

A. " A council house!"...

>
>you can't see them on the chimney, walking past the house.
>
>

Bollocks. Depends which side of the road there're on!...
--
Tony Sayer


tony sayer

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 5:58:37 AM8/28/07
to
In article <LJOubPKg...@ntlworld.com>, raden <ra...@kateda.org>
scribeth thus

>In message <7lGtnecz...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
><to...@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>In article <13d5ebm...@corp.supernews.com>, Andy Burns <usenet.july
>>20...@adslpipe.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>On 27/08/2007 11:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting. A lot more expensive, though.
>>>
>>>Yes but I don't have tools or know-how to how to use lashing wire
>>>properly, it made sense for a one-off (I'd already saved enough by
>>>visiting blake's trade counter)
>>>
>>>Also you can fit it from one edge without worrying how to get the
>>>corner-plates positioned for the lashing wire, though a mirror on a
>>>stick was useful to make sure I'd not got any twists in it.
>>>
>>>I believe they sell a re-badged version of the smaller bracket in B&Q,
>>>presumably even more expensive ...
>>>
>>
>>If you don't have the bottle to do it is a bigger worry. I used to do
>>that on a daily basis many years ago on some very big chimneys but the
>>other month I had to do one as a favour on a semi and it was scary!..
>>
>>However I don't find a climb up a 40 odd metre mast the slightest worry
>>possibly its that harness which is constantly connected;)
>
>I never used to bother with mine - too much hassle

Well you wouldn't get away with that these days what with the current
'elf 'n safety climate!...


>
>Mind you, I wasn't brave enough to clear a wasps nest off a microwave
>dish 50m up
>
>... amazing what an Indonesian in a pair of flip flops with a stick
>will do for a few rupiah
>
>

--
Tony Sayer

Harry Bloomfield

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 12:26:32 PM8/28/07
to
Steve brought next idea :

> Indeed, the only good reason is where a terrace of houses points more or less
> exactly at the satellite so that a signal cannot be received from either
> wall.

Our Sky analogue dish was located at the front, pointing along the
house wall. When the installer came along to install digital, he simply
replaced the analogue dish with the digital one - which then lost much
of its signal looking up via the eaves of the house. I ended up having
to move it around the back, onto the side of a single storey utility
room wall, about 8 foot out from the house wall, to get a full signal.

raden

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 2:09:29 PM8/28/07
to
In message <bZJlYNiNH$0GF...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
In Indonesia ?


--
geoff

tony sayer

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 4:18:59 PM8/28/07
to
In article <BfpMuKA6...@ntlworld.com>, raden <ra...@kateda.org>
Ah yes!, over there, still a fall there is the same speed as a fall
here;!....
--
Tony Sayer



Adrian C

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 1:12:05 PM8/29/07
to
tony sayer wrote:
> There you go the brit attitude to satellite dishes..
>
> Q. "What's that thing hanging on the end of a satellite dish?"
>
> A. " A council house!"...
>

Council house dwellers, the poor people who can't afford other types of
worthy entertainment for themselves and their kids. Prime fodder for
murdoch to exploit - and money to pay for 'family' subscriptions comes
almost straight out of a family's income support budget, after the rent.

Shows how evil murdoch really is...

;-(

--
Adrian C

cerberus

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 10:30:11 PM8/29/07
to

"Adrian C" <em...@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:5jlnn6...@mid.individual.net...

I'm not a Council house dweller or a tenant of any sort,
but on their behalf........you're a self opinionated pile of shite !
<plonk>


Adrian C

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 2:48:12 PM8/29/07
to
cerberus wrote:

> I'm not a Council house dweller or a tenant of any sort,
> but on their behalf........you're a self opinionated pile of shite !
> <plonk>
>

Sorry you feel that way.... Surely you haven't misunderstood what I wrote!!!

/me shakes head

It was NOT mean't to be a dig at dwellers...

--
Adrian C

Andy Hall

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 3:50:24 PM8/29/07
to

Umm.. why?


He has a product/service.


Some people seem to want to buy it and have the money to do so.

That doesn't, of itself, make him evil, neither is there any exploitation.

Nobody is saying to said family that they have to buy a satellite
subscription before they receive their handout.

As a taxpayer, I find it irritating that people that I am funding are
wasting money on crap. However, that is a government issue for not
policing the expenditure by providing the income support in the form of
rent and supermarket vouchers as opposed to cash. I would direct my
complaints there.

Equally, I don't think that this is a new phenomenon either - it has
existed ever since the Idiot's Lantern was invented.

Adrian C

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 6:03:11 AM8/30/07
to
Andy Hall wrote:
> On 2007-08-29 18:12:05 +0100, Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> said:

>> Shows how evil murdoch really is...
>>
>> ;-(
>
> Umm.. why?
>
>
> He has a product/service.
>
>
> Some people seem to want to buy it and have the money to do so.
>
> That doesn't, of itself, make him evil, neither is there any exploitation.
>

Some people can choose what they like for daytime entertainment, but
these entertainment sources cost varying amounts of effort when other
factors such as travel, tickets and dedication of time are taken into
consideration. BSkyB's services (and until recently same through cable)
are a cheaper alternative to that, and for lower income households a
necessary expense (especially if with kids) on top of the rent - such is
the power of murdoch marketing. Keeps people inside, and dumbs down the
next generation.

The icing on the cake is the type of on-channel advertising that is
targetted to BSkyB viewers being mainly of the "loan consolidation" or
"cheaper home/car insurance" or "compensation claims". Then there is the
er... "programming"... :-(

BSkyB makes an obscene amount of profit on the backs of other peoples
misfortunes...

The alternative to BSkyB services is of course the wonderful
multi-channel Freeview service. murdoch does not like that, and would
much rather Freeview was dismantled, along with the BBC and it's plans
for FreeSat. TiVo was also a victim intially marketted exclusively
through BSkyB but then abandoned for the inferior but money making Sky+
tradegy.

Competition was meant to bring consumer choice. Choice is a nasty word
to murdoch - he wants the playing field to himself. We are all paying.

> Nobody is saying to said family that they have to buy a satellite
> subscription before they receive their handout.

No, I'm not saying that either.

> As a taxpayer, I find it irritating that people that I am funding are
> wasting money on crap. However, that is a government issue for not
> policing the expenditure by providing the income support in the form of
> rent and supermarket vouchers as opposed to cash. I would direct my
> complaints there.

No, deal with the rat first....


<http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Communications1/>

<http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/StopSkyMonopoly/>

--
Adrian C

manat...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 8:02:53 AM8/30/07
to
On Aug 30, 11:03 am, Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>
> Some people can choose what they like for daytime entertainment, but
> these entertainment sources cost varying amounts of effort when other
> factors such as travel, tickets and dedication of time are taken into
> consideration. BSkyB's services (and until recently same through cable)
> are a cheaper alternative to that, and for lower income households a

What has income got to do with it? Plenty of affluent sattelite dish
owners around where I live.

> necessary expense (especially if with kids) on top of the rent - such is

What have kids got to do with it? In most households I know with a Sky
sub, it's the Dad's who want it for the sport. Kids are too busy
terrorising the local pensioners.

I bet you think they eat tripe as well. You certainly write it.

MBQ

Steve Firth

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 8:17:49 AM8/30/07
to
manat...@hotmail.com <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 30, 11:03 am, Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Some people can choose what they like for daytime entertainment, but
> > these entertainment sources cost varying amounts of effort when other
> > factors such as travel, tickets and dedication of time are taken into
> > consideration. BSkyB's services (and until recently same through cable)
> > are a cheaper alternative to that, and for lower income households a
>
> What has income got to do with it? Plenty of affluent sattelite dish
> owners around where I live.

"What do you call that little box attached to a satellite dish?"

Adrian C

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 8:33:59 AM8/30/07
to
manat...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> What has income got to do with it? Plenty of affluent sattelite dish
> owners around where I live.

I can't write anymore without becoming insulting to those that have
become attached to this BSkyB junk.

So I won't.

Each to his own...

--
Adrian C

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 9:38:47 AM8/30/07
to
In article <1188475373.7...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,

manat...@hotmail.com <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What has income got to do with it? Plenty of affluent sattelite dish
> owners around where I live.

Indeed. Anyone truly keen on football has no choice.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Hall

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 10:46:39 AM8/30/07
to
On 2007-08-30 11:03:11 +0100, Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> said:

> Andy Hall wrote:
>> On 2007-08-29 18:12:05 +0100, Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> said:
>
>>> Shows how evil murdoch really is...
>>>
>>> ;-(
>>
>> Umm.. why?
>>
>>
>> He has a product/service.
>>
>>
>> Some people seem to want to buy it and have the money to do so.
>>
>> That doesn't, of itself, make him evil, neither is there any exploitation.
>>
>
> Some people can choose what they like for daytime entertainment, but
> these entertainment sources cost varying amounts of effort when other
> factors such as travel, tickets and dedication of time are taken into
> consideration. BSkyB's services (and until recently same through cable)
> are a cheaper alternative to that, and for lower income households a
> necessary expense (especially if with kids) on top of the rent - such
> is the power of murdoch marketing. Keeps people inside, and dumbs down
> the next generation.

*Everybody* can choose what they like for daytime entertainment, or for
that matter any entertainment. Whatever happened to going out for a
walk?


>
> The icing on the cake is the type of on-channel advertising that is
> targetted to BSkyB viewers being mainly of the "loan consolidation" or
> "cheaper home/car insurance" or "compensation claims". Then there is
> the er... "programming"... :-(
>
> BSkyB makes an obscene amount of profit on the backs of other peoples
> misfortunes...

It's not obscene profit. The advertising of those financial
products and mug's game compensation claims are made because it has
been identified that the audience reached is open to buying them.

It isn't BSkyB's fault that is has an audience that is receptive to
that, they are simply the messenger.


>
> The alternative to BSkyB services is of course the wonderful
> multi-channel Freeview service. murdoch does not like that, and would
> much rather Freeview was dismantled, along with the BBC and it's plans
> for FreeSat. TiVo was also a victim intially marketted exclusively
> through BSkyB but then abandoned for the inferior but money making Sky+
> tradegy.
>
> Competition was meant to bring consumer choice. Choice is a nasty word
> to murdoch - he wants the playing field to himself. We are all paying.

That's something else. We are only paying because we choose to pay.
Nobody says that one *has* to have a Sky subscription or a given
package or indeed a television at all.


>
>> Nobody is saying to said family that they have to buy a satellite
>> subscription before they receive their handout.
>
> No, I'm not saying that either.
>
>> As a taxpayer, I find it irritating that people that I am funding are
>> wasting money on crap. However, that is a government issue for not
>> policing the expenditure by providing the income support in the form of
>> rent and supermarket vouchers as opposed to cash. I would direct my
>> complaints there.
>
> No, deal with the rat first....

The rat is the handouts of public money to people who don't know how to
use it properly.

There is no point in shooting the messenger.


manat...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 11:48:01 AM8/30/07
to
On Aug 30, 1:33 pm, Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> wrote:

> manatba...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > What has income got to do with it? Plenty of affluent sattelite dish
> > owners around where I live.
>
> I can't write anymore without becoming insulting to those that have
> become attached to this BSkyB junk.

Go ahead. I don't subscribe so it will be no insult to me.

I agree with you that much of the Sky output is crap, I just don't
agree with your argument.

MBQ

Message has been deleted

KEA...@tiscali.co.uk

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 9:22:06 PM9/9/07
to
CAI and Sky don't allow fixing using bolts to a stack, the reason is
because it is not a load bearing structure, I have seen 3 stacks
collapse by other ppl, I do bolt to the stack occasionally when needs
must, but as a DIYer Andrew G I would stick to your own house and not
advise ppl to drill into the stack, I have drilled a stack with
written consent from the owner before install and the vibration
cascaded soot into the front room, customer tryed to sue, but had
written consent.

It is against Health and safety regulations to drill into the stack
LOL this will void your house insurance when a £20000 bill for
building work comes through the door, next time you tell someone to
drill into a 1-2 ton unstable structure looming on top of their house
with no house insurance think before you put your foot in your mouth.

I am a CAI SKY Microsoft Ericsson Lucent accredited Special heights
Engineer

Mash up your own house not others

Pay the man £150 pound for a single aerial feed + 40-65 for each extra
point, thats the going rate for ppl that can install lashing kits.

Oh yeh the chimney in the middle of two building is communal, if it is
installed the neighbour would have to take you to court and loose, if
the neighbour damages the install that is a criminal offence, hope
that cleared that one up LOL

KEA...@tiscali.co.uk

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 9:25:54 PM9/9/07
to
On Aug 27, 12:52 am, "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk>
wrote:
> If you have a house with a chimney stack shared with next door do you need
> their permission to mount a TV aerial etc on that stack?
>
> --
> *The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*
>
> Dave Plowman d...@davenoise.co.uk London SW

> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

No dude the stack is communal the neighbour can try and sue if they
are stupid but they will loose in court I have seen 5 such court
cases, if the neighbour objects LOL move to a better area and give the
old neighbour a slap LOL

KEA...@tiscali.co.uk

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 9:27:54 PM9/9/07
to
On Aug 27, 1:17 pm, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <13d5ebm4itt8...@corp.supernews.com>, Andy Burns <usenet.july
> 2...@adslpipe.co.uk> scribeth thus

>
> >On 27/08/2007 11:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> >> Interesting. A lot more expensive, though.
>
> >Yes but I don't have tools or know-how to how to use lashing wire
> >properly, it made sense for a one-off (I'd already saved enough by
> >visiting blake's trade counter)
>
> >Also you can fit it from one edge without worrying how to get the
> >corner-plates positioned for the lashing wire, though a mirror on a
> >stick was useful to make sure I'd not got any twists in it.
>
> >I believe they sell a re-badged version of the smaller bracket in B&Q,
> >presumably even more expensive ...
>
> If you don't have the bottle to do it is a bigger worry. I used to do
> that on a daily basis many years ago on some very big chimneys but the
> other month I had to do one as a favour on a semi and it was scary!..
>
> However I don't find a climb up a 40 odd metre mast the slightest worry
> possibly its that harness which is constantly connected;)
> --
> Tony Sayer


KEA...@tiscali.co.uk

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 9:39:23 PM9/9/07
to


Hang on Tony, you don't mind climbing up a 120+ ft mast because you
once was a chimney sweep, you are a fool, how did you harness yourself
to the top of the mast then, I have been a specialist heights engineer
for 15 yrs + and you are the thickest idiot I have ever heard, do you
think there is any reason to climb up the mast to align an aerial, if
so tell me why, I abseil off blocks of flats daily and still can not
work out how you pay for a helicopter to fix your harness to the top
of the mast, we on the other hand take the mast off the bracket test
the components and align from the ground with a meter, chim chimeny
chim chimney chim chim cheroo, leave it to the pros coz your not that
bright....

tony sayer

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 4:35:00 AM9/10/07
to
In article <1189388363.8...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
KEA...@TISCALI.CO.UK scribeth thus

Being fairly tolerant and generous to a fault I'll ignore your abusive
remarks as part of your ignorance on the subject..

The mast in question was a free standing structure used for telecoms
purposes and as such is fitted with "Railok" to which you can attach a
full body harness to, and with this you are "connected" to the structure
at all times. The device is arranged so that movement in the one upwards
direction is very easy, however if you move at the slightest bit too
fast in the downward direction in a fall situation it locks up thus
arresting the fall.

And me old chum you very often have to attend to various equipment's on
such structures for things like microwave links etc which you can't line
up on the ground.....
--
Tony Sayer



Owain

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 5:27:33 AM9/10/07
to
KEA...@TISCALI.CO.UK wrote:
> I am a CAI SKY Microsoft Ericsson Lucent accredited Special heights
> Engineer

I think it's useful when people post their qualifications then we know
exactly how to regard their postings.

Owain

Andy Hall

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 6:24:57 AM9/10/07
to

I didn't think that Microsoft achieved any elevation in anything.

Of course "special heights" may not mean something high (vs. low).


Van Helsing

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 8:06:06 AM9/10/07
to
Andy Hall wrote:

>> KEA...@TISCALI.CO.UK wrote:
>>> I am a CAI SKY Microsoft Ericsson Lucent accredited Special heights
>>> Engineer

>

> I didn't think that Microsoft achieved any elevation in anything.
>

Its a qualification required by Microsoft's bankers and accountants for
standing in the mountains of cash they get from milking their customers.

VH.

Pete Cross

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 8:59:07 AM9/10/07
to
Slightly OT but, is drilling into the stack lower down also frowned on ?
i.e. fitting a plasma tv to the chimney breast ?

Pete


meow...@care2.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 9:49:16 AM9/10/07
to

Handouts are worth it imho, they bring many and large benefits to all
in society. However, I totally agree they are ill used. The less able
someone is to run their own finances, the more likely they are to
claim benefit, so its no surprise that some claimants pee the money up
the wall.

A good starting point to adressing this would be a sensible education.
Todays school curriculum simply fails to teach key life skills in area
after area.

I think the main problem with the benefits system is the lack of the
will to do anything about it at ground level. Those involved simply
couldnt care less.


NT

Steve

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 10:26:27 AM9/10/07
to
Yes, any drilling of chimneys is, or should be, frowned upon (1). Do the
job properly and use a lashing kit plus any other bits you need for
fitting if it HAS to be on chimney.

Better still, try to find another suitable place to put it.

(1) A lot of chimneys are fragile and of such low overall mass that the
vibration caused by an SDS drill or possibly even an normal hammer drill
could further weaken or damage them. Then those weakened chimneys will
have to cope with resisting the sideways force imposed by a flat (in
your case) object that was never meant to be there in a severe storm
that just happened to be perpendicular to your surface.

Why do you want a plasma tv on chimney?

Steve

manat...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 10:43:42 AM9/10/07
to

Try reading the post again.

The two words "chimney" and "breast" have to be taken together with
the fact that it's a plasma TV as indicating the context.

Would you want a plasma TV on a chimney or on the chimney breast in
the lounge, say?

MBQ

manat...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 10:45:03 AM9/10/07
to

Now I understand why people like this are tagged "Tiscali idiot".

MBQ

manat...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 10:46:02 AM9/10/07
to
On Sep 10, 2:39 am, KEA...@TISCALI.CO.UK wrote:
> > However I don't find a climb up a 40 odd metre mast the slightest worry
> > possibly its that harness which is constantly connected;)
> > --
> > Tony Sayer
>
> Hang on Tony, you don't mind climbing up a 120+ ft mast because you
> once was a chimney sweep, you are a fool, how did you harness yourself
> to the top of the mast then, I have been a specialist heights engineer
> for 15 yrs +

You should have taken some time out for grammar lessons.

MBQ

Andy Hall

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 10:06:02 AM9/10/07
to
On 2007-09-10 14:49:16 +0100, meow...@care2.com said:

> Andy Hall wrote:
>
>> The rat is the handouts of public money to people who don't know how to
>> use it properly.
>
> Handouts are worth it imho, they bring many and large benefits to all
> in society.

They don't bring anything to me, although having said that, I don't
really believe in the concept of "society".

> However, I totally agree they are ill used. The less able
> someone is to run their own finances, the more likely they are to
> claim benefit, so its no surprise that some claimants pee the money up
> the wall.
>
> A good starting point to adressing this would be a sensible education.
> Todays school curriculum simply fails to teach key life skills in area
> after area.

That's certainly true.

>
> I think the main problem with the benefits system is the lack of the
> will to do anything about it at ground level. Those involved simply
> couldnt care less.


So the solution, apart from education is that people receiving benefits
from the public purse should have to account for significant
expenditures.

I would rather pay for healthcare directly than to give money in taxes,
going to benefits, then tobacco taxes, then government health funding.
There are too many middle men in that chain.


Steve

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 11:42:41 AM9/10/07
to
OK! Silly me. But if you can read carefully you will also see that PC
referred to the stack and then changed that into breast.

The points about drilling chimneys etc. still stand and I have no idea
why the poster would be worried about drilling into internal walls if
that is the case.

But at least my message continues the message that this practice is
taboo and thus should be avoided by DIYers at all cost.

Steve

Owain

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 9:31:41 AM9/10/07
to
Andy Hall wrote:
> I didn't think that Microsoft achieved any elevation in anything.
> Of course "special heights" may not mean something high (vs. low).

I wondered if "Special" referred to the school...

Owain


Stuart Noble

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 1:08:20 PM9/10/07
to
Andy Hall wrote:
> On 2007-09-10 14:49:16 +0100, meow...@care2.com said:
>
>> Andy Hall wrote:
>>
>>> The rat is the