On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:36:19 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Anthony R. 
> Gold says...
>
>> Please cite the particular law and offence committed by a consumer who
>> operates a CE compliant device that causes radio interference from EMI.
>>
> I have already.

No, you merely quoted from (an out of date version of) the interpretation
of interference (and which is now found in WTA 1949 s.19(4)).

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1152510

but you have not cited any offence that makes the operation of CE marked
devices that causes such interference illegal.

There are WTA offences of deliberate interference (which is quite different
from to knowingly interfere) plus others related to transmitters and
broadcasting but I don't see anything that supports your claim that a
consumer who uses CE marked devices that cause interference is committing
any offence.  Of course if the devices are improperly marked then the
supplier and or manufacturer/importer could be committing offences.

Tony

In article , Anthony R. 
Gold says...
> 
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:36:19 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
> > In article , Anthony R. 
> > Gold says...
> >
> >> Please cite the particular law and offence committed by a consumer who
> >> operates a CE compliant device that causes radio interference from EMI.
> >>
> > I have already.
> 
> No, you merely quoted from (an out of date version of) the interpretation
> of interference (and which is now found in WTA 1949 s.19(4)).
> 
> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1152510
> 
> but you have not cited any offence that makes the operation of CE marked
> devices that causes such interference illegal.
> 
Yes I have.

> There are WTA offences of deliberate interference (which is quite different
> from to knowingly interfere) plus others related to transmitters and
> broadcasting but I don't see anything that supports your claim that a
> consumer who uses CE marked devices that cause interference is committing
> any offence. 

YOU'VE JUST SAID WHERE YOU'VE SEEN IT. The fact it is CE certified is 
completely and utterly irrelevent. 

> Of course if the devices are improperly marked then the
> supplier and or manufacturer/importer could be committing offences.
> 
And the end user.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:01:39 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Anthony R. 
> Gold says...
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:36:19 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>>
>>> In article , Anthony R. 
>>> Gold says...
>>>
>>>> Please cite the particular law and offence committed by a consumer who
>>>> operates a CE compliant device that causes radio interference from EMI.
>>>>
>>> I have already.
>>
>> No, you merely quoted from (an out of date version of) the interpretation
>> of interference (and which is now found in WTA 1949 s.19(4)).
>>
>> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1152510
>>
>> but you have not cited any offence that makes the operation of CE marked
>> devices that causes such interference illegal.
>>
> Yes I have.

If so the maybe your post is only in your mind and not on any server :-)

>> There are WTA offences of deliberate interference (which is quite different
>> from to knowingly interfere) plus others related to transmitters and
>> broadcasting but I don't see anything that supports your claim that a
>> consumer who uses CE marked devices that cause interference is committing
>> any offence. 
>
> YOU'VE JUST SAID WHERE YOU'VE SEEN IT. The fact it is CE certified is 
> completely and utterly irrelevent. 

Where the only "it" I have seen is merely the correction of your wrong
pointer to Ofcom's interpretation of the word "interference" but no mention
any related offences (other than through operation of radio transmitters or
from intentional interference).

>> Of course if the devices are improperly marked then the
>> supplier and or manufacturer/importer could be committing offences.
>>
> And the end user.

For he sake of form I will ask you to cite the particular offence by such
an end user - although I assume you will merely reply in cryptic grunts
about already having told us in some other life and on some other planet.

Tony

In article , Anthony R. 
Gold says...

> If so the maybe your post is only in your mind and not on any server :-)
> 
I qouted the Wireless Act and you've even mentioned it in reply.

> >> There are WTA offences of deliberate interference (which is quite different
> >> from to knowingly interfere) plus others related to transmitters and
> >> broadcasting but I don't see anything that supports your claim that a
> >> consumer who uses CE marked devices that cause interference is committing
> >> any offence. 
> >
> > YOU'VE JUST SAID WHERE YOU'VE SEEN IT. The fact it is CE certified is 
> > completely and utterly irrelevent. 
> 
> Where the only "it" I have seen is merely the correction of your wrong
> pointer to Ofcom's interpretation of the word "interference" but no mention
> any related offences (other than through operation of radio transmitters or
> from intentional interference).
> 
So why did the Ofcom field engineer and the PLT advice line state that 
the person using it is committing the offence of Radio Spectrum Abuse?


> For he sake of form I will ask you to cite the particular offence by such
> an end user - although I assume you will merely reply in cryptic grunts
> about already having told us in some other life and on some other planet.
> 
Radio Spectrum Abuse. That's the offence that OFCOM told me was being 
committed. Or are you saying you know more than Ofcom?

How many cases of radio interference have you reported to Ofcom?
How many times have you had an Ofcom field engineer out to investigate?

None. So you know FUCK ALL and are talking out your arse.

I'm no longer prepared to converse with a clueless cunt like you and 
instead will continue to deal with Ofcom in this who, unlike you, 
actually are the horses mouth and not the monkey's arsehole.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:14:07 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Anthony R. 
> Gold says...
>
>> If so the maybe your post is only in your mind and not on any server :-)
>>
> I qouted the Wireless Act and you've even mentioned it in reply.
>
>>>> There are WTA offences of deliberate interference (which is quite different
>>>> from to knowingly interfere) plus others related to transmitters and
>>>> broadcasting but I don't see anything that supports your claim that a
>>>> consumer who uses CE marked devices that cause interference is committing
>>>> any offence. 
>>>
>>> YOU'VE JUST SAID WHERE YOU'VE SEEN IT. The fact it is CE certified is 
>>> completely and utterly irrelevent. 
>>
>> Where the only "it" I have seen is merely the correction of your wrong
>> pointer to Ofcom's interpretation of the word "interference" but no mention
>> any related offences (other than through operation of radio transmitters or
>> from intentional interference).
>>
> So why did the Ofcom field engineer and the PLT advice line state that 
> the person using it is committing the offence of Radio Spectrum Abuse?
>
>
>> For he sake of form I will ask you to cite the particular offence by such
>> an end user - although I assume you will merely reply in cryptic grunts
>> about already having told us in some other life and on some other planet.
>>
> Radio Spectrum Abuse. That's the offence that OFCOM told me was being 
> committed. Or are you saying you know more than Ofcom?
>
> How many cases of radio interference have you reported to Ofcom?
> How many times have you had an Ofcom field engineer out to investigate?
>
> None. So you know FUCK ALL and are talking out your arse.
>
> I'm no longer prepared to converse with a clueless cunt like you and 
> instead will continue to deal with Ofcom in this who, unlike you, 
> actually are the horses mouth and not the monkey's arsehole.

As a qualified radio engineer and as a radio amateur operator with more
experience than the years that you have been breathing, the only thing on
which I can not compete with you in this discussion is your potty mouth.

Tony

In article , Anthony R. 
Gold says...

> As a qualified radio engineer and as a radio amateur operator 
 
Of course you are.....

Shame your replies amply demonstrate otherwise.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Anthony R. 
Gold says...

> As a qualified radio engineer and as a radio amateur operator 

You'll not mind telling me your callsign so I can check against the 
RSGB database then?


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:30:03 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Anthony R. 
> Gold says...
>
>> As a qualified radio engineer and as a radio amateur operator 
>
> You'll not mind telling me your callsign so I can check against the 
> RSGB database then?

Is there really some RSGB database other than the callbook which indexes
licence holders both by callsign and by name (but which costs money)?

I'll answer that question if 1) you promise to stop cursing and 2) you
either cite some actual offence that a user of interfering CE marked
Homeplugs is committing or just have the modesty to admit that you don't
know of any.

BTW "spectrum abuse" is not a phrase of words to be found anywhere in UK
legislation, let alone is it present there as some kind of offence.

http://tinyurl.com/nwjemv

Tony

In article , Anthony R. 
Gold says...
> 
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:30:03 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
> > In article , Anthony R. 
> > Gold says...
> >
> >> As a qualified radio engineer and as a radio amateur operator 
> >
> > You'll not mind telling me your callsign so I can check against the 
> > RSGB database then?
> 
> Is there really some RSGB database other than the callbook which indexes
> licence holders both by callsign and by name (but which costs money)?
> 
Ofcom produced one.

> I'll answer that question if 1) you promise to stop cursing and 2) you
> either cite some actual offence that a user of interfering CE marked
> Homeplugs is committing or just have the modesty to admit that you don't
> know of any.
> 
I already have. From Ofcoms very mouth "Radio Spectrum Abuse". 

> BTW "spectrum abuse" is not a phrase of words to be found anywhere in UK
> legislation, let alone is it present there as some kind of offence.
> 
I can only go on what the regulatory body have stated. Just because 
you've not found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist especially as most 
people lose the will to live trying to navigate any uk.gov website.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams