Concert coverage

[Brian Gaff]

Of course I can only go on the audio and what I heard from the talkback.
Firstly, the bbc crew on that worked damned hard by the sound of it, but
was there really any need to have a shot change on every beat of Robbies
opening number? The feed sounded like demented bingo.
Poor girl was breathless by the end!

Well rehearsed adlibs, but then i heard the warm up where the audience were
being coached in the sing along opportunities by the comedians, Andy Lloyd
Webber ad Garry and Cheryl, I can sing honest.

From the sound standpoint, ignoring the six second freeview delay, I
thought it was a creditable effort with obviously some real people on knobs
somewhere fixing some oddities like over loud trumpets and too weak a Paul.
as for who sounded best, well.
Tom Jones, Kylie, and Stevie were the most memorable. They all seem to have
that fill the space knack or talent. Paul had a cold, I guess you don't ring
up the queen and say, I'm not well can you manage without me, like Phil
did..
Elton needed to have warmed up before he started really.
Most of the rest was fine by the scripted adlib standards one expects at
these occasions.


The production team got an invite back to the Palace after the show, no
doubt for fish and chips with Charlie boy.
Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

[red16v]

> bria...@blueyonder.co.uk

> Blind user, so no pictures please!

Was it a 'BBC' crew? I would have thought it was the usual collection
of freelancers. That's not intended to be any sort of critiscm as I
thought overall it was quite good.

[Dickie mint]

On 05/06/2012 09:27, red16v wrote:

> Was it a 'BBC' crew? I would have thought it was the usual collection
> of freelancers. That's not intended to be any sort of critiscm as I
> thought overall it was quite good.

Well I didn't recognise any names other than the Director who was, I
think (still is?), beeb. But then I've been retired 7 years!!

Have noticed the names I know, and respect, on the credits for
Springwatch. May explain the poor coverage on the pageant?

Richard

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I thought it a very creditable effort. Although something went pretty
wrong with Elton's spot. Backing singers going full belt but unheard. Same
as the featured cello. But a minor quibble on an overall excellent result.
although it seemed to fall apart slightly after Elton until Stevie Wonder
got going.

There were lots of sound credits - I assume they used different mixers for
individual acts and that fed back to the TV control room?

FWIW, as an actual overall performance/balance, Tom Jones was head and
shoulders above the majority, with Stevie Wonder a close second.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

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

[Rick]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:529b026...@davenoise.co.uk...

> I thought it a very creditable effort. Although something went pretty
> wrong with Elton's spot. Backing singers going full belt but unheard. Same
> as the featured cello. But a minor quibble on an overall excellent result.
> although it seemed to fall apart slightly after Elton until Stevie Wonder
> got going.
>
> There were lots of sound credits - I assume they used different mixers for
> individual acts and that fed back to the TV control room?
>
> FWIW, as an actual overall performance/balance, Tom Jones was head and
> shoulders above the majority, with Stevie Wonder a close second.
>
>

I thought that Ken Dodd was standing in for a Macca, however the giveaway
was that Ken can still sing in the correct key.

[red16v]

On Jun 5, 10:42 am, Dickie mint <richard_taylorspa...@trapyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

As far as I am aware Geoff Posner left the BBC more years ago than I
can remember, (setting up Pozzitive Productions?) I would think at
least 10/15 years ago.

[Nick Leverton]

Yes I noticed Macca miss a note a couple of times ...

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

[Brian Gaff]

Well they don't go around saying I'm from the bbc, but they did all seem to
know one another and shared jokes etc. There were refs to a company whos
name escapes me at the moment in relation to equipment, but this lot had it
appears little to do with the sound side. I guess its been recorded for DVD
or similar.

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

bri...@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

"red16v" <michael...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cade42cf-d48d-4256...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

[Brian Gaff]

Ah but can he do it with a head cold..

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"Rick" <ri...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:jqkp90$os5$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff]

In a way in todays climate, being a freelance producer surely gives you more
work opportunities, but I'd have thought at least the Beeb would have wanted
to be really safe for the River bunfight, but it seems not unless the tail
in effect wagged the dog in that case.
Certainly the producer of the concert put his foot down hard to stop random
stars drifting into his control gallery while he was working after a certain
Mr McCartney just wandered in earlier in the day. He had people stationed
at the entrances to stop it.

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

bri...@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

"red16v" <michael...@live.co.uk> wrote in message

news:5f4d9587-de07-4244...@l16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

[Dave Liquorice]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:11:23 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

> Well they don't go around saying I'm from the bbc, but they did all seem
> to know one another and shared jokes etc.

There aren't *that* many people working on OB's in the country, at a
very rough guesstimate maybe 2,000 over cameras, racks, VT and sound.

As for a "BBC Crew" the BBC does not have any TVOB facilties other
than SNG stuff, which are part of News anayway. SiS bought BBC
Resources (TV OBs only not Studios and Post) a good while ago. Those
trucks and crews are still on the road and the BBC do use them quite
a bit.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Mark Carver]

On 05/06/2012 12:17, red16v wrote:

> As far as I am aware Geoff Posner left the BBC more years ago than I
> can remember, (setting up Pozzitive Productions?) I would think at
> least 10/15 years ago.

Even longer than that I think ?

Didn't he used to direct LWT LE shows in the 70s and 80s ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

[Mark Carver]

On 05/06/2012 10:42, Dickie mint wrote:

>
> Have noticed the names I know, and respect, on the credits for
> Springwatch. May explain the poor coverage on the pageant?

Springwatch is being covered by trucks from Arena Mobiles

[red16v]

I can't see any obvious LWT references on Imdb or his company's
website, I never saw him at LWT. Certainly his forte is big 'event'
television and the concert coverage was very good (I thought).

[Graham.]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:19:51 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>In a way in todays climate, being a freelance producer surely gives you more
>work opportunities, but I'd have thought at least the Beeb would have wanted
>to be really safe for the River bunfight, but it seems not unless the tail
>in effect wagged the dog in that case.
> Certainly the producer of the concert put his foot down hard to stop random
>stars drifting into his control gallery while he was working after a certain
>Mr McCartney just wandered in earlier in the day. He had people stationed
>at the entrances to stop it.
>
>Brian
>
>--

Your talkbacks sound much more interesting than what got broadcast.
If it wasn't for the legal transgressions aspect, I would ask you to
upload the edited highlights somewhere.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:32:19 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> Have noticed the names I know, and respect, on the credits for
>> Springwatch. May explain the poor coverage on the pageant?
>
> Springwatch is being covered by trucks from Arena Mobiles

And BBC Bristol.

[Bill Wright]

Graham. wrote:

> Your talkbacks sound much more interesting than what got broadcast.
> If it wasn't for the legal transgressions aspect, I would ask you to
> upload the edited highlights somewhere.
>

Why shouldn't he?

Bill

[sp...@1985.tv]

Because the staff working on these events can expect privacy?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article
<5fae91f3-99d1-4974...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

<sp...@1985.tv> wrote:
> Because the staff working on these events can expect privacy?

Very foolish to expect talkback to be private in any way.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

[MB]

On 06/06/2012 13:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article
> <5fae91f3-99d1-4974...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> <sp...@1985.tv> wrote:
>> Because the staff working on these events can expect privacy?
>
> Very foolish to expect talkback to be private in any way.
>

Sounds rather like what certain newspapers might say about Voicemail.

[Graham.]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:59:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article
><5fae91f3-99d1-4974...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> <sp...@1985.tv> wrote:
>> Because the staff working on these events can expect privacy?
>
>Very foolish to expect talkback to be private in any way.

I was thinking more about this aspect:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/publication/ra_info/ra169.htm

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <883vs75s84kcludu7...@4ax.com>,

Interesting. So you have to get permission from the Home Secretary before
dishing a talkback receiver out to a runner? ;-) And are the broadcasters
committing an offence when they allow it to 'leak' on air? As on all the
BBC2 continuity announcements the other day.

--
*Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.

[Norman Radox]

> I was thinking more about this aspect:
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/publication/ra_info/ra169.htm

Let's at least have the up to date version :)
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance

According to this document all the discussion on what was heard is illegal,
trust we'll be handing ourselves in !

[Bill Wright]

If they're using a radio system so insecure that some old geezer with a
scanner can listen in they can't expect privacy.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

It is an offence to listen to any other radio services unless you are
authorised by a designated person to do so.

That's bad law. For an activity as innocuous as passively listening to
the radio the law should be specific about what you can't listen to, not
all-encompassing. Laws that the innocent can easily break bring all the
law into disrepute.

Bill

[Dave Liquorice]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:47:39 +0100, MB wrote:

>>> Because the staff working on these events can expect privacy?
>>
>> Very foolish to expect talkback to be private in any way.
>
> Sounds rather like what certain newspapers might say about Voicemail.

The otherside of that coin is why didn't the owners of those
voicemail boxes change the passwords from the defaults. Followed
rapidly by why didn't the mobile operators tell the owners that they
could access voicemail from any other phone and that it would be very
advisable to change the password.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:34:09 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Interesting. So you have to get permission from the Home Secretary
> before dishing a talkback receiver out to a runner? ;-)

No because the runner is authorised to receive the transmissions.
Brian in his attic Gaff is not authorised and is technically breaking
the law by listening and also breaking the law by talking about what
he heard.

But as you said earlier "Very foolish to expect talkback to be
private in any way." be that talkback wireless or purely on wires. I
don't think may on OB's realise how far the radio talkback can go.
Not surprisingly it might not penetrate very well under the thick
reinforced concrete stand a few hundred yards away but out across the
neighbour hood several miles to a scanner owner with base aerial
isn't a great problem. I was cringing the other day with a directors
"colourful" language.

> And are the broadcasters committing an offence when they allow it to
> 'leak' on air? As on all the BBC2 continuity announcements the other
> day.

No 'cause that is probably leakage from a deaf presenters ear piece
or from a pair of cans still plugged in but without a sound absorbing
mass between the muffs. No RF involved.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[MB]

The law is quite simple. You can listen to broadcast transmissions,
standard frequency and amateur transmissions. Anything else is illegal.

The authorities take a fairly relaxed attitude though, some years ago I
was visited by the police and asked to monitor some transmissions on
behalf of OFCOM's predecessor.

It does get dodgy though if you communicate anything heard on
frequencies that you are not authorised to listen on.

[Norman Radox]

> The otherside of that coin is why didn't the owners of those
> voicemail boxes change the passwords from the defaults. Followed
> rapidly by why didn't the mobile operators tell the owners that they
> could access voicemail from any other phone and that it would be very
> advisable to change the password.

Clicking the Like button

[MB]

It gets complicated though. Some time ago I read of someone working in
the comms department of one of the utility companies had a special
receiving licence to listen to the company's radio traffic on a scanner.

Though you would find that most utility and emergency service radio
techies would have an amateur dual band handheld in their bag as they
made excellent monitor receivers as well as signal generators with a bit
of modifying.

I once used an amateur IC-2E on a BBC channel when the Pye Europa died
half way through helping phase a transmitting antenna - someone tuning a
trombone section whilst I watched for minimum noise on a TV set.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <cLOdnT6IUszQX1LS...@bt.com>,

MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> The law is quite simple. You can listen to broadcast transmissions,
> standard frequency and amateur transmissions. Anything else is illegal.

At one time, talkback was on broadcast frequencies. Lime Grove could be
picked up on Band 3 of a 405 line ordinary TV set if you were close enough
to the studios. I also could get talkback on my FM car radio in the
'60/'70s if close to a scanner. Although this could have been down to poor
receiver design.

--
*Gun Control: Use both hands.

[Bill Wright]

MB wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 20:32, Bill Wright wrote:
>> It is an offence to listen to any other radio services unless you are
>> authorised by a designated person to do so.
>>
>> That's bad law. For an activity as innocuous as passively listening to
>> the radio the law should be specific about what you can't listen to, not
>> all-encompassing. Laws that the innocent can easily break bring all the
>> law into disrepute.
>>
>> Bill
>
> The law is quite simple. You can listen to broadcast transmissions,
> standard frequency and amateur transmissions. Anything else is illegal.

You are re-stating the position. There was no need to do that, since the
position is clear.

>
> The authorities take a fairly relaxed attitude though,

That's beside the point. Or maybe it is the point. Are you saying 'the
authorities' disregard the law? If so you've made my point.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <cLOdnT6IUszQX1LS...@bt.com>,
> MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>> The law is quite simple. You can listen to broadcast transmissions,
>> standard frequency and amateur transmissions. Anything else is illegal.
>
> At one time, talkback was on broadcast frequencies. Lime Grove could be
> picked up on Band 3 of a 405 line ordinary TV set if you were close enough
> to the studios. I also could get talkback on my FM car radio in the
> '60/'70s if close to a scanner. Although this could have been down to poor
> receiver design.
>

200 Greys Inn Rd had a voice circuit in the middle of UHF channel 51 in
the late 1980s.

Bill

[Mark Carver]

On 05/06/2012 18:57, red16v wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:28 pm, Mark Carver<mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2012 12:17, red16v wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I am aware Geoff Posner left the BBC more years ago than I
>>> can remember, (setting up Pozzitive Productions?) I would think at
>>> least 10/15 years ago.
>>
>> Even longer than that I think ?
>>
>> Didn't he used to direct LWT LE shows in the 70s and 80s ?

> I can't see any obvious LWT references on Imdb or his company's
> website, I never saw him at LWT. Certainly his forte is big 'event'
> television and the concert coverage was very good (I thought).

He was Producer (rather than Director) of LWT's Friday Night Live in 1988

http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/friday_night_live/details/

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <cLOdnT6IUszQX1LS...@bt.com>, Mb wrote:
> > It is an offence to listen to any other radio services unless you are
> > authorised by a designated person to do so.
> >
> > That's bad law. For an activity as innocuous as passively listening to
> > the radio the law should be specific about what you can't listen to, not
> > all-encompassing. Laws that the innocent can easily break bring all the
> > law into disrepute.
> >
> > Bill
>
> The law is quite simple. You can listen to broadcast transmissions,
> standard frequency and amateur transmissions. Anything else is illegal.
>

> The authorities take a fairly relaxed attitude though,[...]

They have to. It's completely unfeasible to do anything else. Without some
sort of monitoring equipment covering every square metre of the country
there's no way of knowing what everybody is listening to. They'd need to
know not only what signals are available everywhere at any time, but what
receiving equipment was switched on and what fequencies it was tuned to.
They'd also need some means of telling whether anybody was actually
listening to it rather than just leaving the equipment switched on, perhaps
unaware of what it was tuned to. Not only that, but the number of people
required to check all this would probably have to be comparable to the
number of people being monitored - so who authorises and checks them?

We might as well have a law that said "It is an offence to think wicked
thoughts, the penalty for which is to be burnt at the stake". I'd like to
think we've progressed a bit since we did have that sort of thing. How many
centuries do we need?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

[Bill Wright]

Unenforceable law is bad law.

Bill

[MB]

Some police were very sensitive about people listening to them and set
up traps several times but they are now all on Airwave. Their main
concern was probably not the bad guys hearing them planning a raid on
some premises but someone recording them using non-PC terms to describe
some ethnic groups though I am sure "IC3" can be used as badly as the
dreaded N word.

I mentioned that I spoke to the Radiocommunication Agency people several
times some years ago when helping them and they had no interest in
people with scanners and saw them as a useful resource when there was a
problem in a remote area because it was expensive for them to hang
around for days.

A cheapo scanner of mine also traced a source of interference to a
broadcast site that they had failed to find.

[sp...@1985.tv]

Happy days, Ian Hamilton's still around of course. I'm not sure about
FN Live, but certainly for its forefather Saturday Night Live, we used
to send two video feeds over to one of the facility houses to perform
live Quantel Harry effects - them sending back to us a return video
and associated key. I only mention it because in a way I think it
perhaps illustrates the sense of adventure that was still prevalent in
television then, nowadays I think the tendency is for the production
staff to 'drop it' if it looks like its going to be too much bother -
is that unfair, maybe it is?

[Graham.]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:09:43 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:

Some of the most interesting operational law enforcement stuff I have
ever heard was picked up on the LF end of the dial of an ordinary VHF
broadcast radio on about 86.7 MHz.

I won't say what it was about but let me put it this way, if you
remember a TV series in the 90s called "The Knock", I can tell you the
storylines, and particularly the radio procedure was very accurately
portrayed.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[m]

MANY years ago, we used to use VHF radio "in-band" frequencies for
talkback at The Boat Race. One year, BBC got complaining phone calls
about someone listening on their VHF home radio hearing vaious swaer
words (on duff cuts?)!!

Mike

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <4FD1C1B5...@tiscali.co.uk>, M wrote:
> MANY years ago, we used to use VHF radio "in-band" frequencies for
> talkback at The Boat Race. One year, BBC got complaining phone calls
> about someone listening on their VHF home radio hearing vaious swaer
> words (on duff cuts?)!!

92.5MHz if I remember correctly, FM, and quite reasonable sound
quality. It was more entertaining than the broadcast itself.

[jimguthrie]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:16:49 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>> MANY years ago, we used to use VHF radio "in-band" frequencies for
>> talkback at The Boat Race. One year, BBC got complaining phone calls
>> about someone listening on their VHF home radio hearing vaious swaer
>> words (on duff cuts?)!!
>
>92.5MHz if I remember correctly, FM, and quite reasonable sound
>quality. It was more entertaining than the broadcast itself.

A bit OT for this thread but I remember being in Glasgow sound control
room in the 60s on a Saturday when Scotland were doing a live inject
into the Sports programme and the studio talkback was routed via the
SB network - by far the best entertainment that made a Saturday
afternoon shift bearable. :-)

Jim.

[m...@privacy.net]

On 6 Jun,

MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> The law is quite simple. You can listen to broadcast transmissions,
> standard frequency and amateur transmissions. Anything else is illegal.

You can "hear" anything, but you can't divulge it to an unauthorised person.
The "accidental" hearing isn't illegal, the divulging is.

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <529CD97FF7%brian...@lycos.co.uk>, m...@privacy.net writes:
>On 6 Jun,
> MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> The law is quite simple. You can listen to broadcast transmissions,
>> standard frequency and amateur transmissions. Anything else is illegal.
>
>You can "hear" anything, but you can't divulge it to an unauthorised person.
>The "accidental" hearing isn't illegal, the divulging is.
>

Doesn't it have to be accidental though - i. e. you're not supposed to
deliberately try to do so?

ISTR the old wording on the TV licence, before they changed it (a decade
or two ago?), also required you to relay the content of anything you
heard but shouldn't have, to a representative of the secretary of state
or something like that, BICBAM.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

…the arts industry…employs more…than the coal iron and steel industries
combined in their heyday…represent more than seven percent of our national
product…replaced…heavy industry. - Lord (Melvin) Bragg, RT 22-28 January 2011

[MB]

On 09/06/2012 00:51, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> On 6 Jun,
> MB<M...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> The law is quite simple. You can listen to broadcast transmissions,
>> standard frequency and amateur transmissions. Anything else is illegal.
>
> You can "hear" anything, but you can't divulge it to an unauthorised person.
> The "accidental" hearing isn't illegal, the divulging is.
>

Though deliberate listening can be considered illegal. The police used
to be told not to touch any scanner receiver but pass on to technical
people who could examine memory contents (in case they were erased). I
don't think the police have any powers under the WT Acts but probably do
under the Interception of Communications Act.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <yIHcvuiz...@soft255.demon.co.uk>,

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >You can "hear" anything, but you can't divulge it to an unauthorised
> >person. The "accidental" hearing isn't illegal, the divulging is.
> >
> Doesn't it have to be accidental though - i. e. you're not supposed to
> deliberately try to do so?

Anything which can be picked up on a legally bought receiver would fall
into that category. Which is why there are so few prosecutions.

If a transmission is so important it mustn't be heard by those
unauthorised to do so, it should be protected in some way - hardly rocket
science in this day and age.

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

[Graham.]

And that wonderful catch-all piece of legislaton known as RIPA.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <529d164...@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"

<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
>In article <yIHcvuiz...@soft255.demon.co.uk>,
> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >You can "hear" anything, but you can't divulge it to an unauthorised
>> >person. The "accidental" hearing isn't illegal, the divulging is.
>> >
>> Doesn't it have to be accidental though - i. e. you're not supposed to
>> deliberately try to do so?
>
>Anything which can be picked up on a legally bought receiver would fall
>into that category. Which is why there are so few prosecutions.
>
>If a transmission is so important it mustn't be heard by those
>unauthorised to do so, it should be protected in some way - hardly rocket
>science in this day and age.
>

You're talking about the difference between what it is practical to
police and what is illegal. I totally agree with you, anything which it
is intended to keep secret shouldn't be transmitted in a way that's
easily interceptable - but that doesn't mean the deliberate interception
of it is legal.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"So, I take it you've ... been with a man before?" "I'm a virgin. I'm just not
very good at it." Topper Harley & Ramada Thompson (Charlie Sheen & Valeria
Golino), in "Hot Shots!" (1991).

[Mark Carver]

On 09/06/2012 12:06, Graham. wrote:

>> Though deliberate listening can be considered illegal. The police used
>> to be told not to touch any scanner receiver but pass on to technical
>> people who could examine memory contents (in case they were erased). I
>> don't think the police have any powers under the WT Acts but probably do
>> under the Interception of Communications Act.
>
> And that wonderful catch-all piece of legislaton known as RIPA.

As an aside, didn't you have to have some sort of 'Wireless Telegraphy'
licence to operate a metal detector ? What was the twisted logic behind
that ?

[John Williamson]

On 09/06/2012 17:12, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 12:06, Graham. wrote:
>
>>> Though deliberate listening can be considered illegal. The police used
>>> to be told not to touch any scanner receiver but pass on to technical
>>> people who could examine memory contents (in case they were erased). I
>>> don't think the police have any powers under the WT Acts but probably do
>>> under the Interception of Communications Act.
>>
>> And that wonderful catch-all piece of legislaton known as RIPA.
>
> As an aside, didn't you have to have some sort of 'Wireless Telegraphy'
> licence to operate a metal detector ? What was the twisted logic behind
> that ?
>

It generated electromagnetic radiation at higher than audio frequencies,
so was considered to be a radio transmitter by the Powers That Be of the
day.

The licence also gave them a handy list of those subversive treasure
hunting types.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Bill Wright]

Mark Carver wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 12:06, Graham. wrote:
>
>>> Though deliberate listening can be considered illegal. The police used
>>> to be told not to touch any scanner receiver but pass on to technical
>>> people who could examine memory contents (in case they were erased). I
>>> don't think the police have any powers under the WT Acts but probably do
>>> under the Interception of Communications Act.
>>
>> And that wonderful catch-all piece of legislaton known as RIPA.
>
> As an aside, didn't you have to have some sort of 'Wireless Telegraphy'
> licence to operate a metal detector ? What was the twisted logic behind
> that ?
>

You had to have a dog licence, but that was fair enough I suppose
because of the powerful emissions.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

John Williamson wrote:

> It generated electromagnetic radiation at higher than audio frequencies,
> so was considered to be a radio transmitter by the Powers That Be of the
> day.
>
> The licence also gave them a handy list of those subversive treasure
> hunting types.
>

What's audio frequencies got to do with it?

Bill

[John Williamson]

A purely legal fiction. If it was audio frequencies, by definition it
wasn't a radio transmitter. Don't ask me why, the law was made before I
was born...

[charles]

In article <a3hlrj...@mid.individual.net>,

what about the Rugby vlf transmitter on 16kHz? It emitted electromagnetic
waves within the audio range.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[MB]

Never got to Rugby but in the coil room at Criggion you could "hear" the
OMEGA pulses going out.

[John Williamson]

On 09/06/2012 20:25, charles wrote:

Did that have/ need a licence? I don't know.

[Graham.]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:12:40 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 09/06/2012 12:06, Graham. wrote:
>
>>> Though deliberate listening can be considered illegal. The police used
>>> to be told not to touch any scanner receiver but pass on to technical
>>> people who could examine memory contents (in case they were erased). I
>>> don't think the police have any powers under the WT Acts but probably do
>>> under the Interception of Communications Act.
>>
>> And that wonderful catch-all piece of legislaton known as RIPA.
>
>As an aside, didn't you have to have some sort of 'Wireless Telegraphy'
>licence to operate a metal detector ? What was the twisted logic behind
>that ?

It was called a pipe finders' licence. 15 bob for 5 years.

It proves just how draconian wireless telegraphy legislation used to
be.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:43:23 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

>> what about the Rugby vlf transmitter on 16kHz? It emitted
>> electromagnetic waves within the audio range.
>
> Did that have/ need a licence? I don't know.

It had a callsign GBR so one would asume a licence associated with
that callsign.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[MB]

Didn't the Post Office both issue the licences and own and operate the
transmitter.

[Bill Wright]

That must have been awkward in the case of the VLF stations.

Bill

[Graham.]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 01:13:35 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:

Do the CEGB (or whatever they call themselves now) need a licence to
transmit on 50Hz with that rather elabarate longwire array they have.

On the other hand, do those powerful medical ultrasound machines need
a licence, they operate at several MHz and there is bound to be
leakage from the cable feeding the transducer.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[MB]

On 10/06/2012 11:24, Graham. wrote:
> On the other hand, do those powerful medical ultrasound machines need
> a licence, they operate at several MHz and there is bound to be
> leakage from the cable feeding the transducer.

We might need those again if the German try to bomb London again.

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, June 10th, 2012, at 11:30:08h +0100, MB fantasized:

> We might need those again if the German try to bomb London again.

Would they really want to blow up all the buses and trains that they own?

Anwyays no need for Germans to blow up inner London when there are
jihadistas in Bradford trained and ready to do the job.

[Graham.]

Can you explain your remark? I am aware of electronic countermeasures
that were used using equipment not designed for that purpose, but was
medical ultrasound even in use in the 40s?

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[MB]

It was a joke on the commandeering of diathermy sets in 1940 for use in
Aspirin.

[m]

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <4FD1C1B5...@tiscali.co.uk>, M wrote:
>
>>MANY years ago, we used to use VHF radio "in-band" frequencies for
>>talkback at The Boat Race. One year, BBC got complaining phone calls
>>about someone listening on their VHF home radio hearing vaious swaer
>>words (on duff cuts?)!!
>
>
> 92.5MHz if I remember correctly, FM, and quite reasonable sound
> quality. It was more entertaining than the broadcast itself.
>
> Rod.

Don't get me started Rod - 88.2, 93.1, 92.4 etc and vision on 786, 849
etc etc

Mike