Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon *DELETED*

Re: And one more point

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The act says:

[ QUOTE ]
In this Act “wireless telegraphy apparatus” means apparatus for the emitting or receiving, over paths that are not provided by any material substance constructed or arranged for the purpose, of energy to which section 116(2) applies.

[/ QUOTE ]

And section 116(2) says:

[ QUOTE ]
This subsection applies to electromagnetic energy of a frequency not exceeding 3,000 gigahertz that—

(a) serves for conveying messages, sound or visual images (whether or not the messages, sound or images are actually received by anyone), or for operating or controlling machinery or apparatus; or

(b) is used in connection with determining position, bearing or distance, or for gaining information as to the presence, absence, position or motion of an object or of a class of objects.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the distinction you suggest isn't there in the law.

Rick
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]




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!

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, let me think...

Here are some of the situations I have heard cropping up on the VHF radio in recent years:

A fisherman with a corpse turning up in his bow wave and asked for details of clothing and identifying features

A woman, almost hysterical with anxiety, calling for help because her husband had collapsed - she thought he had died - asked for full medical details

A distraught and terrified skipper with a crew prostrate with seasickness and very sick himself, desperately asking for help from the coastguard and being referred back to the French authorities

Another distraught skipper with a child overboard

Would you feel the same if you were involved in any of these situations, I wonder?

As with situations involving the Collision Regulations, I think we are better served by a common discipline than by a free for all in which everyone acts according to how they, personally, feel about it.

VHF radio used on a yacht is not "amateur radio" but is subject to the same regulations as on any other vessel. If you want to look it up for yourself, here it is:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060036_en_1
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, that's was poorly worded on my part.

I meant, and I should have said, It isn't the law that's an ass, it's your interpretation of it.

Sorry. I'll change my post.
 
Re: And one more point

There's a difference between those examples and a boat with a broken engine - common sense should prevail, surely?

The boat was taking on water, it got lifted out - no death, so will you allow us to hear about it?
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between those examples and a boat with a broken engine - common sense should prevail, surely?

The boat was taking on water, it got lifted out - no death, so will you allow us to hear about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned above:

I would prefer to rely on a common discipline than on your personal interpretation of what may, or may not, be acceptable.

General discussion (or, in many cases, gossip) about a distress situation is one thing. Names, dates, locations and descriptions of the content of messages is quite another.

We can all be smug and sanctimonious about other people's failings but few of us know how we would react in a stressful situation of distress. The fact that our reaction is broadcast over the airwaves doesn't necessarily make it public property, either in law or in common decency.
 
Re: And one more point

I've just quoted a VHF transmission I heard.

Nothing has happened, which suggests one of three things: It's actually legal (most likely IMHO), the police don't care or nobody cares enough to tell the police.

Either way it seems you can talk about VHF transmission without fear of prosecution.

So all that's left is the moral issue. Personally if it's broadcast on VHF it's probably the most public thing you will ever say and therefore there can be little expectation that it will be kept secret. Other people have every right to differ.
 
Re: And one more point

"VHF radio used on a yacht is not "amateur radio" but is subject to the same regulations as on any other vessel. If you want to look it up for yourself, here it is:"

I did look it up

The section in question did not specify any specific use of the apparatus. So I would assume that it applies to all transmissions, marine, aeronautic, and amateur. There certainly does not appear to be an exclusion for amateur radio.

If thats the case I guess most "Hams" are likely to land in court if anyone makes a serious attempt to enforce it.

Where broadcasters who repeat recordings of VHF traffic stand with regard to this section I really don't like to think.
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]
Where broadcasters who repeat recordings of VHF traffic stand with regard to this section I really don't like to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, it would square this one away once and for all.

VHF transmissions have been played on all sorts of TV shows.

Which suggests some fairly serious legal teams have considered this issue and decided it's a non-issue.
 
Re: And one more point

Windfinder,

I would politely suggest that you give up your futile argument. Downthecreek has provided a pretty comprehensive explanation of the law covering radio communications.

As he has explained, there are many circumstances where a degree of caution and confidentiality are essential in protecting against the escalation of a particular situation. An example of this occurred a couple of years ago when two Harbour Assistants were lost off a North Wales coast and whilst the emergency services where executing a search some idiots were heard trying to direct their mates to working channels so that they could listen in to "the action."

I guess that the regulations are designed to bring about responsible and reasonable use of the equipment but I've no doubt that if we keep pushing back the boundaries it will soon be possible to order pizza on Ch16
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

Exactly - a broadcast message is just that - a broadcast, so it is intended to be received by all stations.

There is no way you could be prosecuted for disclosing anything you heard on CH16. Were you to eavesdrop on CH 0 then you might be committing an offence.

If you think I am wrong then all you need to do is quote an example where the courts have taken your point of view.
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

I understood that you can listen to ch 0 but not broadcast on it (unless you are authourised). Is this really illegal?
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]
I would politely suggest that you give up your futile argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way. Until I see a definition of the word 'improperly' in this context we haven't had the definitive answer on this one - and as VHF users we all need to know what the law is.

[ QUOTE ]
As he has explained, there are many circumstances where a degree of caution and confidentiality are essential in protecting against the escalation of a particular situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give an example. (Not that this is relevant to what the law states, but I'm interested anyway.)

[ QUOTE ]
An example of this occurred a couple of years ago when two Harbour Assistants were lost off a North Wales coast and whilst the emergency services where executing a search some idiots were heard trying to direct their mates to working channels so that they could listen in to "the action."

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell has this to do with discussing VHF transmission on forums?

[ QUOTE ]
I've no doubt that if we keep pushing back the boundaries it will soon be possible to order pizza on Ch16

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're suggesting that VHF standards are falling you're wrong. VHF standards are one area where things have improved beyond any comprehension. Since mobile phones came along CH16 is quieter than it's ever been.
 
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 ]

Right then, you've had your 5 minutes of fame and self importance, on the back of a post I made in good faith in the interest of trying to learn and perhaps help myself and my family and those of other forum members who may read the thread, to remain safe at sea on the basis of something that I heard on Saturday that caused me genuine concern; now it's my turn.

The law is not necessarily an ass, but in circumstances such as this where clearly no injury or death, but maybe some embarrassment, has occurred, and where those of us who were not involved may be able to learn from the circumstances such that the likelihood of death or injury to us our ours is diminished by what we learn, then it would seem apparent that this is one of the instances whereby the the letter of the law is intended to be for the absolute obedience of fools and for the guidance of wise men. I have certainly formed my opinion as to which camp you fall into, as perhaps have others.

Whilst you (and I for what it's worth) would much prefer our mistakes at sea and our (hopefully) very rare requests for urgent help as a result of either those mistakes or circumstances beyond our control to remain absolutely private and anonymous, that belies the fact that both the medium through which we call for help and the organisation that we ask for help are publicly funded organisations, not just paid for by people like us who are fortunate enough to be able to play with little boats, but ordinary hard working people with no interest in leisure boating who pay for the CG to keep us safe. If I've screwed up then I, like you, would like to keep it as quiet as possible, but until such time as we can afford to pay either individually or collectively for some private emergency assistance network, then you, I, or the chap you called for help on Saturday have to have our actions and words subject to the scrutiny of the people who we expect to pay for the organisantions that resolve the situations we find ourselves in, particularly so when the people paying for these services could never in their wildest dreams enjoy the leisure pursuits that they're paying for to make sure that we can continue to enjoy them in almost complete safety.

Get a life - or at very least show some appreciation and respect for the people who pay their taxes and go without to allow you to safely enjoy the one that you have.
 
Re: And one more point

Capricorn may have a point.

Thinking his argument through then perhaps we should ask every emerency service - ambulance, fire, police etc to publish the details, including names and addresses, of every incident they attend so that we can learn what went wrong so that, god forbid, if we ever got into the same predicament we would be better able to cope.

We could even extend this principle to GP call outs since tax payers also pay their wages too.

Great thinking or what?

Or perhaps we should just avoid naming names and talking about identifiable incidents?
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking his argument through then perhaps we should ask every emerency service - ambulance, fire, police etc to publish the details, including names and addresses, of every incident they attend so that we can learn what went wrong so that, god forbid, if we ever got into the same predicament we would be better able to cope.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's legal to discuss all of these details already. The only question is is it legal to discuss what you hear on the VHF, and that seems to hinge on the word 'improper'. Is general discussion about a transmission 'improper'. To know that we need to see a defintion or some example convictions.

I think it's unclear that there really is a total ban on repeating VHF transmissions, and I'm certain convictions are heard of.

Giving details of a few previous cases where the word improper has been defined in court would help a lot.

FWIW I think that it must be perfectly legal to discus VHF transmissions or a lot of people would have been law breakers for a long time!
 
Re: And one more point

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]




Right then, you've had your 5 minutes of fame and self importance,



[/ QUOTE ]

How silly, how offensive, and what a ridiculous series of conclusions you have drawn. So far off the point that they are not worth responding to.

I doubt if there is much to be learned from speculation about situations of which you can have only the most sketchy and partial knowledge. Even if there was, chapter and verse adds nothing. It is quite possible to discuss what little information you do have without them.

You chose to make the post. I think you were wrong to do so in the way that you did and have given my reasons. I'm sorry that you and one other here are not able to deal with disagreement without descending into personal insults, but I am not surprised, as that seems to be commonplace on these forums.

If you are so sure you are right and I, and, presumably, others who agree with me, are fools, I am not sure why you deleted your post.
 
Re: Mayday Off Portsmouth Saturday Afternoon

[ QUOTE ]


If you think I am wrong then all you need to do is quote an example where the courts have taken your point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt if anyone but a highly specialised lawyer could quote examples of prosecutions for any disclosure of information heard on any channel, including channel 0. That does not change the facts of what is written in the relevant Act or the interpretation of the law adopted by the RYA, which is, I have no doubt, published with the approval of Ofcom.
 
Congratulations Capricorn!

You have just won the title for the deleted post with largest number of views and most responses! /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top