Aerial for radio, I am just out of range.

[bernardgreen]

Lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse foe breaking it

Lack of knowledge is no excuse for making a fool of yourself.

 

[winston1]

Lack of knowledge is no excuse for making a fool of yourself.

Indeed, but what I said is the truth, not a lack of knowledge.

Legally you are only allowed to listen to authorised broadcasters and licensed amateurs. If you accidently hear something else you are not allowed to act on it.

 

[bernardgreen]

The OFCOM statement is HEAR

This is different to the rules way back when passing on or acting on information was the only offence.

The interpretation of "broadcast" was never really defined, Base transmitting to a single entitled receiver, is that broadcast or point to point. ?

 

[winston1]

1. The OFCOM statement is HEAR

Makes it quite clear then doesn't it?

This is different to the rules way back when passing on or acting on information was the only offence.

The interpretation of "broadcast" was never really defined, Base transmitting to a single entitled receiver, is that broadcast or point to point. ?

Base transmitting to single entitled receiver is point to point in my opinion

 

[bernardgreen]

Base transmitting to single entitled receiver is point to point in my opinion

But what is the base station doing ? Is it sending a narrow beam to the entitled receiver ? Or is it radiating signal as a broadcasting station would ? If the single entitled receiver is mobile then a "broadcast" is needed.

There was a lot of discussion about this in the 1980's and in the end encrypted transmission was the only effective solution.

 

[JohnD]

Legally you are only allowed to listen to authorised broadcasters and licensed amateurs.

That's not what section 48 says.

It says

"A person commits an offence if, [F1without lawful authority] —

(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,

If you accidently hear something else you are not allowed to act on it.

Nope.

It says

"or
(b) he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message."

which is not the same thing.

For example, if you heard that the house next door to you was on fire, it would not be an offence to evacuate your own house (acting on it) or to get your garden hose out; but it would be an offence to phone the local paper (disclosing). Maybe.


In this particular case, we don't know if a railway volunteer is an "intended recipient." If he has been issued with a PMR set, and is on duty, or call-out standby, then he probably is.

 

[bernardgreen]

but it would be an offence to phone the local paper (disclosing). Maybe.

as is a newspaper reporter listening to emergency service channels and going to the scene of incidents.

 

[JohnD]

as is a newspaper reporter listening to emergency service channels and going to the scene of incidents.

Where does it say that?

 

[bernardgreen]

Where does it say that?

Probably in Court records late 1980's As I recall he was "stung" with messages about a ficticious incident which he arrived at.

 

[JohnD]

It's not in Section 48.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48

It's the listening or disclosing that's an offence.

Not driving to the scene.

 

[JohnD]

Surprisingly few News International and other employees have gone to prison for far worse offences.

At least one of them still makes a handsome living pontificating on TV.

I hear they keep their wrongdoings out of the public eye by heaping money on complainants in out-of-court settlements.

Lucky is the criminal who can afford to do that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal

 

[mattylad]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48

48 Interception and disclosure of messages
A person commits an offence if, [without lawful authority]

(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....

Any licensed amateur is also required by virtue of their license conditions to additionally not receive messages that they are not the intended recipient of on frequencies that are neither general broadcast or they are not licensed for.
Which, very much like speeding - is something that many of us do on a regular basis with little retribution, however as a license holder we do have the issue of if we get caught we may lose our license (although that's as rare as hens teeth).

 

[JohnD]

with intent

 

[mattylad]

Deliberately listening to it is considered with intent.
Accidentally hearing something as you pass through a frequency is not.

Stop trying to be pedantic and argue the issue John, some of us are trained in radio use and know what we can and cannot legally do (and what we can usually get away with).

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

The interpretation of "broadcast" was never really defined, Base transmitting to a single entitled receiver, is that broadcast or point to point. ?

A broadcast is a transmission for anyone/everyone to hear who might have a suitable receiver. A point to point link is a transmission.

Modern transmission intended not to be received by the general public, which might be sensitive, is usually encoded in some way or uses spread spectrum.