Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon *DELETED*

Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

If you look up the text of the act you will see that the offence is receiving or disclosing information that is not intended for you.

If that applied to broadcasts on Channel 16 then you would be guilty of an offence every time you turned the VHF on!
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

Absolutely.

There are two types of message, or so I was taught:

1. Broadcast messages, openly sent to no specific recipient.
2. Station to Station messages which are from a specific caller to another specific caller.

Technically, a Mayday is an all stations message, freely broadcast.

Interestingly, a Pan Pan Pan message is not considered a broadcast message and should state its intended recipient. Therefore, it would be illegal to "improperly" pass on the details of a Pan message, but ok to "broadcast" a mayday.
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

Well for what it's worth I go along with the view that communications heard over vhf are confidential and it is an offence to pass on information.

This (obviously) does not mean that you dont pass on a mayday relay or assist where required to do so. I guess the act was passed to try and stop careless tittle tattle about what can be very sensitive issues.

As Solitaire points out, those of us who bothered to do the vhf course and sit the test will have been required to sign the statement affirming our agreement upon completion.
 
Anyone watched Seaside Rescue on TV????

Unless I am mistaken there are a fair few VHF conversations that are replayed to quite a large audience.

I could be wrong though....
 
I am in full agreement with the technical points made by Ken (again).

However, it does seem rather odd that it is possible to take somebody to task over a conversation which is broadcast already for all and sundry to hear.

Presumably the original requirement was really to keep a lid on personal conversations - particularly with Coast Radio Stations and link calls (as already stated), but I cannot imagine anyone being prosecuted for it. The call was already in the 'public domain'.

Perhaps now somebody can fill in the details of what this was all about?!
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

[ QUOTE ]
If you look up the text of the act you will see that the offence is receiving or disclosing information that is not intended for you.



[/ QUOTE ]

Section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006

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

(c) any other person designated for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

You can keep a listening watch without criminal intent and I'm afraid your "reduction to the absurd" is, itself, absurd. However, the Act makes no distinction between messages broadcast to all stations and those with a specific adressee. I think it is obvious that the dialogue between the coastguard and the skipper of the casualty is not addressed to or intended for everyone who happens to be tuned to Channel 16 (or possibly whatever working channel is used by Solent Coastguard, where I imagine some of the communication may have taken place) whether or not they are involved in the distress working.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would be very wary of quoting the contents of messages, along with names and locations, on a public forum. That's quite apart from the general undesirability of speculating on the details of an identified case on such a forum. Whatever people may think of the conduct involved, on the basis incomplete information, some modicum of courtesy is due to the people involved, I think.
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

The point of the Act was to give the same security to private message passed by radio that letters have. It is aimed at the Public correspondence channels - ie Phone Calls via VHF. It is similar to the measures applicable to telephone calls over landlines or private radio links.

Has anyone ever come across a prosecution under this Act? I know of none, but I am not a Barrister, nor do I have access to a Case Law/ precedent database.
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

[ QUOTE ]
I would be very wary of quoting the contents of messages, along with names and locations, on a public forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's try it. I heard a boat called Tinker call on CH80 for a lock out in Chichester Harbour this weekend. The response was that freeflow had already started.

Can somebody please report me to whoever needs to know and we'll see what happens.

Ta!
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

[ QUOTE ]


Let's try it.



[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you will not find yourself in a situation where you are forced to broadcast personal or sensitive information, or get yourself into distress.

I think you might value the discretion required by the Act and by the decency of your fellow sailors a little more highly.
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

Well researched

But did you check to see if the 1949 act is still relevant. Certainly some sections, those to do with TV licenses have been superseded by a newer act.

Lastly the wording specifically refers to "wireless telegraphy" whereas what you listen to on VHF is wireless telephony.

Not the same thing at all

In 1949 much traffic was passed by telegraphy but that is no longer the case. Traffic today is passed by RTTY which could arguably be described as telegraphy but that again is a different case.

I would suggest that the prohibition quoted does not apply to the incident referred to.

Personally I am amazed that anyone would worry about such a trifling thing. What is it about the English that makes us look for sticks to beat ourselves with. Who on Earth CARES about what once was the case and has been cheerfully ignored for years without any problem.
 
And one more point

The law is not quite such an ass as many here would love to portray it.

The fact that we do not see prosecutions under any given Act every day of the week doesn't negate the importance of its existence.

If you are forced to broadcast information that should remain private and you suffer harm because someone abuses the privilege of having heard that broadcast, then you have some possibility of redress.
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

[ QUOTE ]
...I hope you will not find yourself in a situation where you are forced to broadcast personal or sensitive information, or get yourself into distress.

I think you might value the discretion required by the Act and by the decency of your fellow sailors a little more highly.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I do, I think this forum is the least of my worries - I will probably be on the BBC News or at least Seaside Rescue! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

[ QUOTE ]
Well researched

But did you check to see if the 1949 act is still relevant. Certainly some sections, those to do with TV licenses have been superseded by a newer act.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Act quoted is dated 2006 and remains in force.
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

[ QUOTE ]

I hope you will not find yourself in a situation where you are forced to broadcast personal or sensitive information, or get yourself into distress.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! Calling for a lock is personal or sensitive information. Give me a break!

Anyway who have you called and did they laugh at you or are they coming to take me away?
 
Searush is right …the idea was to protect anyone making a telephone call from his boat or ship ..connecting through the coastguard to the main telephone system…

With the advent of mobile phones the rule is a dinosaur…
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]
The law is not quite such an ass as many here would love to portray it.

The fact that we do not see prosecutions under any given Act every day of the week doesn't negate the importance of its existence.

If you are forced to broadcast information that should remain private and you suffer harm because someone abuses the privilege of having heard that broadcast, then you have some possibility of redress.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't the law that's an ass, it's your interpretation of it.
 
Re: And one more point

I am puzzled as to why anyone thinks that the Act quoted prohibits the disclosure of a Mayday or PanPan call.

The Act (quoted in full earlier) states "A person commits an offence if ..... he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information ..... of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient ..... or he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message."

Even though the formal text of the Mayday message does not need to state "All Stations", this is implied in the Mayday, and should be stated in the case of a PanPan. In any event, the CG sums up the MayDay with an All Stations broadcast before Seelonce Finee. Therefore when you receive a Mayday, you are an intended recipient, and so the section of the Act quoted does not apply. I am not a lawyer, but would like to see any case law disproving this.
 
Re: And one more point

Maybe you would have some form of redress, although I find it difficult to conceive of any such circumstances.

Even then I would have thought that a civil action would have been more appropriate than a prosecution under this act.

And you have failed to address the point that the Act refers to telegraphy and not telephony.

I suspect that there are no precedents of prosecution under this bit of the act the telephony/telegraphy thing would cause one to fail.

Certainly the bit of the act that deals with amateur radio is quite specific about the difference between the two.

If you wish to press the point I heard on channel 12 yesterday a boat call Tyne VTS and inform them that he was leaving the marina and heading for sea.

There a confession - so sue me!
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It isn't the law that's an ass.

It's you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wondered how long it would take before the personal abuse appeared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top