Ch16 and S48 of The Wireless and Telegraphy Act (2006)

toad_oftoadhall

toad_oftoadhall

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Jun 2007
Messages
3,910
Location
Med/Scotland/South Coast
Visit site
I'm told the MCA posted the below images on Facebook today. My question below in bold.


14bixxu.jpg


2eklpfm.jpg





I'd guess both the MCA or the CPS could be the prosecuting authority for this. Is anyone able to point to a case where either have tried to get a prosecution of someone chatting about something they heard on their VHF under S48?

Here's S48:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48

Thanks, in advance.
 
The government just don't like social media and really want to control it. Don't discuss court cases, don't slag off politicians, don't discuss channel 16, in fact don't talk to each other. Divide and conquer. All part of the "nudge" process.

I doubt whether they could ever get a conviction under S48.
 
elton said:
Doesn't the coastguard use channel zero for rescue services comms?
Click to expand...

Yes - so most examples of "talking about someone's family" would not be audible to most of us with unmodified radios. I've heard them specifically switch to ch0 or even mobile phones in order to pass personal information about casualties.

That said, if they're talking to the casualty vessel itself, they don't have much option but to do it all on 16 (or at best a working channel but they've announced the switch). Any medical link calls would be audible, for example.

Pete
 
l'escargot said:
The government just don't like social media and really want to control it. Don't discuss court cases, don't slag off politicians, don't discuss channel 16, in fact don't talk to each other. Divide and conquer. All part of the "nudge" process.

I doubt whether they could ever get a conviction under S48.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's my military background but I wish they would prosecute under S48. Then just maybe more people would take RT procedures more seriously.
 
Buck Turgidson said:
Perhaps it's my military background but I wish they would prosecute under S48. Then just maybe more people would take RT procedures more seriously.
Click to expand...

Why do they need to take it more seriously? It is just another communication medium - and a public one at that. You can hear far more interesting conversations these days, walking down the street listening to people shouting into their mobile phones. Or if you want to do boring, get a PMR... It is only the UK that has had this strange attitude to people using radios for communication.
 
Last edited:
While not wishing to encourage distasteful and unnecessary gossip, I would point out that Section 48 says (my emphasis):
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.
Click to expand...


Mayday transmissions are, by definition, addressed to all stations so anyone who receives one is "an intended recipient" in terms of the Act. The same, of course, cannot be said for responses to such transmissions.
 
Last edited:
elton said:
Doesn't the coastguard use channel zero for rescue services comms?
Click to expand...

Channel 16 (the "Distress and Calling frequency" is used in any rescue situation where boats other than lifeboats are involved. Obviously any comms with a vessel being assisted, are on Ch16. When the CG do use Ch 0, is talking to lifeboats, helicopters etc.
 
oldvarnish said:
No it's not. Maritime radio procedures are there to ensure your safety and mine and others at sea. It's not Facebook.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has likened it to Facebook, I certainly haven't, but it is just a public communication medium - it's primary purpose is communication and not just limited to emergencies.
 
Last edited:
moodyNick said:
I'm with Buck on this one, as we both well know in the Solent there is far too much tittle tattle which blocks working channels from others using them properly, and is generally annoying.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't defend people using working channels incorrectly. There are plenty of channels for routine communications - ship to ship, ship to shore, HMs, coastguard routine traffic, even calling up marinas for a berth. Emergency communications are only a very small part and is not the sole purpose of marine radio.
 
I've mentioned this on the forum before but didn't know the specific regulation. The result was that almost everyone on here told me I'd made it up and there was no such rule so I'd like to see them enforce if only to strengthen knowledge of the rules amongst the radio using public. I'm also regularly surprised people are unaware of the majority of DSC radio functions.
Having said that, my mum and brother took their VHF course this week with the new setup and apparently it was considerably more thorough than when I took it. I assume because the separate examiner gives some incentive to the instructor to actually teach.
 
Buck Turgidson said:
Perhaps it's my military background but I wish they would prosecute under S48. Then just maybe more people would take RT procedures more seriously.
Click to expand...

What problem are you trying to solve here? How would prosecuting people for tweeting Ch 16 messages improve the RT procedures of those sending them?
 
prv said:
Yes - so most examples of "talking about someone's family" would not be audible to most of us with unmodified radios. I've heard them specifically switch to ch0 or even mobile phones in order to pass personal information about casualties.

That said, if they're talking to the casualty vessel itself, they don't have much option but to do it all on 16 (or at best a working channel but they've announced the switch). Any medical link calls would be audible, for example.

Pete
Click to expand...

Medical link calls are made on a duplex frequency that are not able to be listened to in general.
 
NormanS said:
I think you mean that you may only be able to hear one side of the conversation. Not much use if nobody can hear them.
Click to expand...

Indeed!

Actually, though, the only time I've ever encountered a medical link I'm pretty sure I could hear both sides. If I remember rightly, the Coastguard just moved them from ch16 to ch67, which of course is still simplex. I don't think anybody in this part of the world uses the duplex phone channels any more - we could really do with reallocating them, but the wheels of the radio bureaucrats move very slowly indeed.

Pete
 
prv said:
Indeed!

Actually, though, the only time I've ever encountered a medical link I'm pretty sure I could hear both sides. If I remember rightly, the Coastguard just moved them from ch16 to ch67, which of course is still simplex. I don't think anybody in this part of the world uses the duplex phone channels any more - we could really do with reallocating them, but the wheels of the radio bureaucrats move very slowly indeed.

Pete
Click to expand...

Hereabouts the CG use Duplex Channels for some of their routine traffic. You quite often here them telling the Lifeboat going to a casualty, "They are speaking to us on Channel 23. You'll be able to call them direct". No they won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top