| |
G4EBT > ALL 01.11.08 22:55l 179 Lines 6434 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 279369G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: G4EBT; support of freedom 'VXA
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 081101/1936Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:16564 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:279369G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : ALL@WW
Warren, KB2VXA - ever on the ball, astutely wrote:-
> Why do you say Ofcom is silly when it was the RA that was
> "silly"
True,
It started with the RA, but rumbled on through the transition into Ofcom.
>but IMO the term draconian is more applicable?
Maybe we shouldn't venture too far down memory lane:-)
The RA were monumentally incompetent in not understanding their own regs,
and shamefully deceitful for covering up for nine months what was bound
to come out in time.
They knew they'd made a grave error of judgement within two working days.
I can put up with incompetence if mistakes are accepted with good grace
and lessons learned, but to look me in the eye and lie through their teeth
was unconscionable.
But I've got my happy face on - I'm still here and so is McHud.
The RA Keystone Cops have gone.
Probably in a windowless basement at GCHG - the UK equivalent of
the Stasi, eavesdropping on phone calls or steaming open letters.
>Not so much David but more Ofcom is in support of freedom;
Ofcom conceded that as written, the regs on message content were
ambiguous, difficult to understand, didn't comply with a modern regulatory
framework, and thus unenforceable.
The regs had stated we could send messages "of a personal character".
I assumed the RA were sufficiently well-versed in their own regs to
understand this meant that messages on any topic under the sun on our
own behalf - not for a religious or political organisation.
You don't need a law degree to know that.
I've never been a member of any political or religious organisation.
The regs continued:
The licensee shall;
a) have no pecuniary interest (direct or indirect)
in any operations conducted under this licence, and;
b) Except as provided by sub-clauses 1(2) and (3) and except in the case
of activities on behalf of a non-profit organisation established for the
furtherance of amateur radio, not use the station for business,
advertising or propaganda purposes or (without limitations to the
generality of the foregoing) the sending of news or messages of, or on
behalf of, or for the benefit of, any [social, political, religious] or
commercial organisation.
Utter gobbledygook.
The Flesch Kincaid proofing tool rates the ease of reading of text.
A score of 0-30 is best understood by college graduates. I proofed
the above passage - the score was a big fat zero - alphabet spaghetti.
Ofcom accepted that the wording should be amended to:
"Seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
as a leisure activity and not for commercial purposes of any kind".
The score for that text rates it as understandable by an
average student in 8th grade (aged 13-15 in the U.S.).
(But Cambridge University Wireless Society still doesn't understand it).
Uncharacteristically, I managed to compress an 88 word paragraph with 24
polysyllables and no full stop, down to 22 unambiguous everyday words in
one short sentence.
>They make the rules, not him but rather he tests them. (;->)
Rather, I think, the RA were testing me:-)
In Human Rights legislation, if two interpretations can be inferred,
the wider of the two must be taken, but the RA chose to ignore that.
Case law says:
The courts should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere
with fundamental rights. Such an intention must be clearly manifested by
unmistakable and unambiguous language.
General words will rarely be sufficient for that purpose if they do not
specifically deal with the question because, in the context in which they
appear, they will often be ambiguous on the aspect of interference with
fundamental rights.
End quote.
If the amateur radio regs were intended to interfere with basic rights
such as freedom of expression - by for example forbidding discussion of
politics or religion, [which they couldn't] it would need to be spelt out
in "clear, unmistakable and unambiguous language".
They weren't so spelt out.
If the former RA Head of Enforcement didn't understand the regs,
how were amateurs who aren't well-versed in the law expected to?
There never was a time - certainly since 1948, where such a restriction
could be imposed in any countries that are signatories to the ICCPR.
To show how widely misunderstood the licence terms were I cited the
Cambridge University Wireless Society website. In 2005 when I submitted
proposals for revision of the licence wording, the Cambridge University
website stated in its FAQs:
Quote:
What do radio amateurs talk about?
We mainly just chat to each other and exchange codes and callsigns to
enable us to win contests or gain another certificate. Our licences
do not allow us to broadcast any music, speeches or anything of a
religious or political nature. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
End quote.
http://www.g6uw.org/introduction/
Twaddle.
Yet almost three years since the licence terms were clarified, the website
still says that. Ironically, Cambridge University has a faculty of law and
the Cambridge Union Debating Society - founded in 1815.
It - and the similar Society at Oxford have achieved more success
and celebrity than any other Debating Societies in the country.
In its nearly 200-yr history, many of its members had their early training
and won their first triumphs there, sometimes going on to be the country's
foremost orators in Parliament, at the bar and in the church.
The Union attracts eminent speakers from the UK and across the globe.
These have included the first democratically elected President of Iraq
Jalal Talabani, the late U.S President Reagan, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai
Lama, the last state President of Aparthied South Africa Frederik Willem
de Klerk, Ahmed Chalabi, Hans Blix, as well as a multitude of British
politicians.
Presumably students who are amateurs are oblivious to this - huddled over
a rig in their shack saying "don't talk about the war - I did it once and
got away with it - what's your rig and what's your twig?"
Numpties, every one of 'em.
Quote of the day:
"One deceit needs many others, and so the whole house
is built in the air and must soon come to the ground"
Baltasar Gracian (Spanish Philosopher and Writer, 1601-1658)
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 18:53 on 2008-Nov-01
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
