BBC News - Elderly man dies in Snowdon fall Sean M0GIA
In reply to M0GIA:
Very sad news sean, we all know what its like up them mountains, take extra care even this weekend with the cold snap on its way, sean get wrapped up when you are out tonight. steve m0sgb
In reply to M0GIA:
A sad but familiar story, I’m afraid.
Hazardous conditions can appear almost anywhere on Snowdon, but there are a couple of traps for the unwary that have caused casualties time and time again and are worth mentioning here. The worst one is the steep slope from the summit towards Lliwedd, which ices up badly: a slip here is difficult to arrest even for skilled winter climbers. The other lurks in wait for those who decide that it would be sensible to descend easily via the railway: in places a sheet of ice develops across the track…just where the drop beside it is steepest! Verglas conditions can appear on any of the walking routes on Snowdon, you can go up in beautiful conditions but on the descent every rock has a thin coat of black ice, which is guaranteed to slow you down.
Take care!
Brian G8ADD
In reply to M0GIA:
Kinloss rescue had a busy day, I was listening to this on 5.680mHz at about 12.30 today
Rescue 122 from RAF Valley was in the air most of the day.
Rescue 122 landed at Bangor Hospital then Kinloss asked it to returned to Snowdon to recover the MRT.
A sad day on the hills but sadly it won’t be the last!
Alan MM0XXP
For those who have forgotten…
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006
"48 Interception and disclosure of messages
(1) A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a designated person—
(a) he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or
(b) he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message.
(2) A person commits an offence under this section consisting in the disclosure of information only if the information disclosed by him is information that would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person.
(3) A person does not commit an offence under this section consisting in the disclosure of information if he discloses the information in the course of legal proceedings or for the purpose of a report of legal proceedings.
(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5) “Designated person” means—
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; or
© any other person designated for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State. "
Andy
MM0FMF
Tut tut. Pedantry like that does not qualify you to view my collection of SWL QSL cards from utility stations Andy. Take a look at any copy of Radio User magazine, and you will see readers’ logs of aircraft, ATC, marine, military and even retail shop-watch and pub watch scanner frequencies!
Back to topic, the Met Office website mentions a fair bit of snow and sleet in northern and eastern areas over the next couple of weeks. Take care out there! I will be keeping a keen eye on weather patterns ahead of our intended LD sorte.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to M1EYP:
Well Tom, some of us have been in the position were the official advice was that charges would be brought. When you’ve been there, you see things in a different light. The fact that such information is regularly disclosed does not make it any less of an offense.
Andy
MM0FMF
You are certainly right. The bottom line is that you can listen to broadcast, amateur, CB and PMR446. But nothing else. The disclosure bit is a distraction, because the offence has already been committed by listening anyway. Even listening to a pirate broadcast radio station (of which there are many on VHF in London, Birmingham, Manchester etc) is illegal. So you cannot tune from Radio 2 to Radio 3 on an analogue receiver in London without breaking the law!
As a long-time dedicated SWL, I always understood that some things were tolerated, whereas others were not. For instance, listening to airband radio, marine frequencies, coastal stations, VOLMET etc was OK. The foreign coastal stations would even send a QSL back in reply to a reception report. The British coastal stations would not, although they would to listeners overseas.
In contrast, stuff that was “out of bounds” was the likes of the police frequencies on VHF/UHF, that could be picked up by scanners a few years ago (but not any more).
I’m going to have a listen to this Kinloss frequency, it sounds interesting. But perhaps I won’t send them a SWL reception report.
73, Tom M1EYP
In reply to MM0FMF:
Hi Andy,
I’m quit aware of the act “Interception and disclosure of messages”
Please read the BBC link above this was reported at 18:27GMT
I posted at 19:35GMT and did not disclose any info that was not now in the public domain.
PS the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 is Crown Copy Right did you get a licence to post it! Crown copyright - Re-using PSI
Alan MM0XXP
In reply to MM0FMF:
I know this has gone ‘off topic’, but doesn’t it highlight the fact that the laws on ‘listening’ need to be revued/revised?
After all, how many people do you see in and around airports using scanners?
It’s yet another law that is only applied when ‘the powers that be’ feel like it… sorry getting political!!
73s
Rob (G1TPO)
In reply to G1TPO:
Rob you are correct. The laws are a mess because a “don’t listen” law is unenforceable. Acting upon people who divulge such information is enforceable but the huge amounts of stuff is divulged in magazines and on websites and no action is taken. If divulging is an offense then the gov. should act everytime else repeal the law. A halfway house benefits nobody.
In reply to Alan MM0XXP:
When the RA intended to prosecute me in 2003 it was for putting 3 words onto the net. They were "This is ". Just those 3 words except I included a US AirForce comms station name. They were intending to prosecute for revealing nothing that you can’t find by a moment with Google. In fact the US DoD website reveals huge amounts of information about this. But the UK law says “thou shalt not listen and reveal” even though it wasn’t anything to do with the UK gov. With that background, you can see why I’m cautious! Moreover, you clearly state you listened to a frequency which is not intended for general reception and listed helicopter callsigns and information heard, some of which is contained in the BBC report but not all. And that is still an offense whether we both agree that such laws are silly or not.
As for quoting from Crown Copyright, Acts of the UK Parliament are one of the items included under the waiver of copyright (section 9: Guidance - Reproduction of United Kingdom, England, Wales and Northern Ireland Primary and Secondary Legislation).
The reason for quoting was simple: I don’t want to see people I enjoy talking to on the radio such as yourself getting into the same rum situation I found myself in. They may not be as able as I was in getting the then RA to backdown!
No more from me on this.
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to MM0FMF:
Hi Andy,
I should think just about everyone who has ever been a short
wave listener has heard that station you got into hot water over.
50 years ago it transmitted in AM all over the shortwave bands
including the broadcast segments, and it was impossible not to
’inadvertantly’ hear it from time to time.
But you’re right, diplomacy is the key, and those who want to
listen to transmissions for which they are not licensed will
probably never have any problems unless they discuss or print what
they have heard. (I hasten to add that I am not one of them!)
But how do the magazines and their contributors get away with printing
so much detail concerning traffic which most people would consider
’sensitive’?
Kind regards
Dave G0ELJ
In reply to MM0FMF:
In reply to Alan MM0XXP:
When the RA intended to prosecute me in 2003 it was for putting 3
words onto the net. They were “This is
”. Just those 3 words except I included a US
AirForce comms station name. They were intending to prosecute for
revealing nothing that you can’t find by a moment with Google. In fact
the US DoD website reveals huge amounts of information about this. But
the UK law says “thou shalt not listen and reveal” even
though it wasn’t anything to do with the UK gov. With that background,
you can see why I’m cautious!
Andy
MM0FMF
It’s a shame they can’t be so enthusiastic about protecting the airwaves from the likes of CE equipment that doesn’t meet EMC rules and those d**n PLT devices spreading their rf all over the shortwave bands.
If the station info is already on the web then a link to that would be acceptable - not that you were listening to it of course!
I’m sure some publications leave themselves wide open for prosecution - but Ofcom has a lack of manpower - and nowadays seems to be interested in little more than the amount of money it can make selling off spectrum space…
Think I’d better stop there!
Graham G4FUJ
Who had lots of other bands to play with, a long time ago, as an ex MN R/O ;o)