Beware of those bearing false standards., such as 'decency',
'technical standards', 'gentlemanly behaviour'; here is a partial list
of their postings that have needed correction because they were wrong:

----------

Amateur Radio Technology

[ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to
specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some
circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter.

[ ] A pass in a current examination for a UK Amateur Licence qualifies
the successful candidate for the issue of a UK Licence. Holders of the
appropriate levels of licence are permitted to operate transmitting
equipment that is not subject to a formal approvals procedure, and to
carry out technical investigations. It is not repeat not a mandatory
requirement to limit activity to technical investigations to the
exclusion of operating as an activity in its own right.

 [ ] A qualification for a Licence, or the Licence itself, is not,
repeat not, a qualification to specify, design, construct, modify,
repair, or own transmitting equipment. 

 [ ] FM can be demodulated by an AM receiver using the 'Slope
Detection' method. Placing an NBFM signal entirely within a channel in
a channelised AM receiver is not repeat not Slope Detection.

 [ ] A spring/damper model is not repeat not a mechanical analogue of
a capacitor/inductor.

 [ ] 1 deciBel is not repeat not equal to 10 Bels.

 [ ] Turning up the drive level on a transceiver is not repeat not a
satisfactory method of overcoming the effects of an off-frequency
crystal filter.

 [ ] The connectors designated as PL259 are not repeat not
interchangeable with those of the PL259M series.


Science and Technology

 [ ] Because the 'dimensions' of both sides of the Radar Range
Equation need a term having the units of square metres in order to
balance, references to ratios of these terms expressed in terms of
decibels does not repeat not imply that they are in themselves a ratio
of powers.

 [ ] The length of the day on this planet is not repeat not 23H20.

 [ ] An IP Address in the headers of one's posts is not repeat not
Secret Information.

 [ ] 'Heat' is not repeat not transferred in 'heat bands' in the
electromagnetic spectrum.

 [ ] Home-made XRC equipment is not repeat not a suitable method of
differentiating between the 80 percent of metals that have FCC crystal
structure.

 [ ] Millimetre-waves are not repeat not generated by 'nuclear
emissions'.

 [ ] Dehumidifiers do not repeat not work by 'absorbing heat'.

 [ ] Gas Company piping is not repeat not blue in colour.


Life, The Universe, And Everything:

 [ ] An exemplary driver is not repeat not one who makes an obscene
gesture to show that the other driver is an idiot.

 [ ] An exemplary driver is not repeat not one who repeats an obscene
gesture to confirm that the other driver is an idiot.

 [ ] A company's Returns Policy is not repeat not an admission that it
deliberately produces shoddy goods, no matter how well wrapped at the
time of purchase.


History

 [ ] On Friday, September 1st, 1939, Germany attacked
Poland at 4:45am, when the Battleship "Schleswig-Holstein", on a
so-called goodwill visit, opened fire on the Polish naval depot and
garrison at Westeplatte. World War II had begun. An hour later, the
first German ground units crossed the Polish border. Britain, under
her treaty obligations, entered the war two days later. She did not
repeat not start WWII.

----------

-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:5rv664pvqdn6cqu1jf88f4gqkc1mbumuhm@4ax.com...
>
> Beware of those bearing false standards., such as 'decency',
> 'technical standards', 'gentlemanly behaviour'; here is a partial list
> of their postings that have needed correction because they were wrong:

Well, Mrs.Nugatory, that's one way of raising a smokescreen, but it does
not mask the fact that you have been challenged on your term, "standard
transceiver", been asked to cite a reference for that standard, and to list
those "standard transceivers" that you yourself have tuned up and under
what authorising licence?

<drivel snipped>

You really are, repeat, really are a prise prat aren't you?

RT wrote:

><drivel snipped>
>
>You really are, repeat, really are a prise prat aren't you?

ROFL!

Sez it all, dunnit!

-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:5rv664pvqdn6cqu1jf88f4gqkc1mbumuhm@4ax.com...
> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to
> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some
> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter.

WRONG! Installation of transmitting equipment for which no licence
is held is illegal.
Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.

>
> [ ] A pass in a current examination for a UK Amateur Licence qualifies
> the successful candidate for the issue of a UK Licence. Holders of the
> appropriate levels of licence are permitted to operate transmitting
> equipment that is not subject to a formal approvals procedure

WRONG! Those who are licensed under the gangrenous degeneration that
is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme are severely restricted in the choice
of transmitting equipment that is approved for them. You cannot get
much more formal than a legal restriction.

> [ ] A qualification for a Licence, or the Licence itself, is not,
> repeat not, a qualification to specify, design, construct, modify,
> repair, or own transmitting equipment.

WRONG! Installation of transmitting equipment for which no licence
is held is illegal.
Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.

> [ ] FM can be demodulated by an AM receiver using the 'Slope
> Detection' method. Placing an NBFM signal entirely within a channel in
> a channelised AM receiver is not repeat not Slope Detection.

No-one here has made any claim to the contrary.

> [ ] 1 deciBel is not repeat not equal to 10 Bels.

No-one here has made any claim to the contrary.

> [ ] Turning up the drive level on a transceiver is not repeat not a
> satisfactory method of overcoming the effects of an off-frequency
> crystal filter.

Not so. I've tried it and it works very well. Have you got a licence
which enables you to repeat the experiment?

> [ ] Because the 'dimensions' of both sides of the Radar Range
> Equation need a term having the units of square metres in order to
> balance, references to ratios of these terms expressed in terms of
> decibels does not repeat not imply that they are in themselves a ratio
> of powers.

WRONG! The equation is derived from a ratio of powers (And the deciBel
is definedas onlyexisting for ratios of powers). That common terms cancel 
out
in the numerator and denominator to leave square metres does not alter the
fact that it is a calculation of the ratio of powers.

HTH.

(I can see that someone who has failed to even achieve the qualification
aimed at a 6-year-old in an interest claimed to go back 50 years would be
very easily confused wrt the dB.)

> [ ] The length of the day on this planet is not repeat not 23H20.

Whoever said that it was?

> [ ] An IP Address in the headers of one's posts is not repeat not
> Secret Information.

I think your confusing the respecting of privacy.

> [ ] 'Heat' is not repeat not transferred in 'heat bands' in the
> electromagnetic spectrum.

WRONG! The infra-red spectrum is broadly the heat band and the
peak of energies occur in this band. When temperatures increase, the
spectrum broadens to approach white, but the peak remains in the
infra-red

> [ ] Home-made XRC equipment is not repeat not a suitable method of
> differentiating between the 80 percent of metals that have FCC crystal
> structure.

If you're intersted in technical discussion, you promote discussion
and debate. Sometimes you're in the right and sometimes in the wrong.
It's rather anally-retentive and petty-minded to keep shouting about
a discussion that was completed years ago in that way


> [ ] Millimetre-waves are not repeat not generated by 'nuclear
> emissions'.

WRONG Gamma Rays are so generated.

> [ ] Dehumidifiers do not repeat not work by 'absorbing heat'.

WRONG Yes they do. They absorb heat from the air and so cool
it down causing the moisture to condense out.

> [ ] Gas Company piping is not repeat not blue in colour.

An anally-retentive Mrs.Nugatoryism from a discussion from years
ago. Who cares if one of us gets it wrong sometimes? Thats's the
way of enquiring minds.

You really are a prize fool, Mrs.Nugatory!

> [ ] An exemplary driver is not repeat not one who makes an obscene
> gesture to show that the other driver is an idiot.


An examplary driver drives in an exemplary fashion. Gesture are not
part of that driving.

> [ ] An exemplary driver is not repeat not one who repeats an obscene
> gesture to confirm that the other driver is an idiot.


An examplary driver drives in an exemplary fashion. Gesture are not
part of that driving.


> [ ] A company's Returns Policy is not repeat not an admission that it
> deliberately produces shoddy goods, no matter how well wrapped at the
> time of purchase.

Except in the case of Blackgates Engineering, an exercise well documented
in the Usenet archives.

>
> [ ] On Friday, September 1st, 1939, Germany attacked
> Poland at 4:45am, when the Battleship "Schleswig-Holstein", on a
> so-called goodwill visit, opened fire on the Polish naval depot and
> garrison at Westeplatte. World War II had begun.

WRONG! The move by Germany against Poland was merely a colonising
exercise no different in principle to the colonising by Britland over the 
years.
Germany was given an ultimatum that if they did not withdraw from Poland,
then the war would be started by Britland. Therefore, the war did not start
until the expiry of that ultimatum. Neither Poland nor Germany had declared
war on each other up to the point of the expiry of that ultimatum.

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g40143$n76$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:5rv664pvqdn6cqu1jf88f4gqkc1mbumuhm@4ax.com...
>> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to
>> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some
>> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter.
>
> WRONG! Installation of transmitting equipment for which no licence
> is held is illegal.
> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
> fact that it is a calculation of the ratio of powers.
>

The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g40143$n76$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:5rv664pvqdn6cqu1jf88f4gqkc1mbumuhm@4ax.com...
>>> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to
>>> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some
>>> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter.
>> WRONG! Installation of transmitting equipment for which no licence
>> is held is illegal.
>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
>> fact that it is a calculation of the ratio of powers.
>>
> 
> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.

Quite, the problem is that it effectively allows the LEAs to make up
proscribed acts as they please.

-- 

Brian

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863924c$0$1346$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g40143$n76$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:5rv664pvqdn6cqu1jf88f4gqkc1mbumuhm@4ax.com...
>>> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to
>>> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some
>>> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter.
>> WRONG! Installation of transmitting equipment for which no licence
>> is held is illegal.
>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
>> fact that it is a calculation of the ratio of powers.
> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.

WRONG! The construction of transmitting apparatus without due
authorisation is an act preparatory to terrorism, and all such preparatory
acts are caught under the Act.

In any case, why were you haranguing aioe when you've also got
an alternate means of posting here, as you were above?

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:12:49 +0100, "12 WPM Class A"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>> [ ] Millimetre-waves are not repeat not generated by 'nuclear
>> emissions'.
>
>WRONG Gamma Rays are so generated.
>
Gamma rays typically have wavelengths in the picometre to femtometre
range. They are not 'millimetre waves' by any stretch of the
imagination.

"Custos Custodum"  wrote in message 
news:0v4764hsk0nrhqdvruferp3c95ubq0fnbr@4ax.com...
> Gamma rays typically have wavelengths in the picometre to femtometre
> range. They are not 'millimetre waves' by any stretch of the
> imagination.

Doesn't require imagination, only knowledge.

picometre = 10^(-9) millimetre.

Jeff wrote:

>
>"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>
>> "Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote
>>
>>> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to
>>> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some
>>> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter.
>>
>> WRONG! Installation of transmitting equipment for which no licence
>> is held is illegal.
>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.

>> fact that it is a calculation of the ratio of powers

Que?

>The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.
>
>Jeff 

You'll doubtless note he's also responded to something that wasn't
mentioned; nothing new there, then.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Brian Morrison wrote:

>Jeff wrote:
>> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:g40143$n76$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> "Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:5rv664pvqdn6cqu1jf88f4gqkc1mbumuhm@4ax.com...
>>>> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to
>>>> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some
>>>> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter.
>>> WRONG! Installation of transmitting equipment for which no licence
>>> is held is illegal.
>>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
>>> fact that it is a calculation of the ratio of powers.
>> 
>> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.
>
>Quite, the problem is that it effectively allows the LEAs to make up
>proscribed acts as they please.

That doesn't make true the statement complained about, though.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Custos Custodum wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:12:49 +0100, "12 WPM Class A"
><invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>> [ ] Millimetre-waves are not repeat not generated by 'nuclear
>>> emissions'.
>>
>>WRONG Gamma Rays are so generated.
>>
>Gamma rays typically have wavelengths in the picometre to femtometre
>range. They are not 'millimetre waves' by any stretch of the
>imagination.

He's responded - yet again - to something that wasn't mentioned.

Still nothing new there, then.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Spike wrote:

>>>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>>>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.

>>> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.
>> Quite, the problem is that it effectively allows the LEAs to make up
>> proscribed acts as they please.
> 
> That doesn't make true the statement complained about, though.
> 

No it doesn't, but then with the exception of the WT Act I can't think
of any legislation that would specifically mention transmitting equipment.

I don't agree with Gareth's interpretation, after all we know that an
A-Z atlas has previously been described as an item of use to terrorists.

-- 

Brian

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:298764hnfb6altfe1f2oh66ppk8lkc7lo9@4ax.com...
> He's responded - yet again - to something that wasn't mentioned.
> Still nothing new there, then.

What is the point of Mrs.Nugatory's whingeing pollution of this NG,
as typified by her verbal botty-burp above??

What is the point of Mrs.Nugatory, if it comes to that?

Why cannot Mrs.Nugatory describe the "standard transceiver" upon which
she has been challenged?

Why does Mrs.Nugatory lash out with infantile abuse when she has been
cornered like a M3O^H^H^Hrat?

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g403vv$ssd$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4863924c$0$1346$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:g40143$n76$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> "Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:5rv664pvqdn6cqu1jf88f4gqkc1mbumuhm@4ax.com...
>>>> [ ] In the UK, no repeat no licence of any kind is necessary to
>>>> specify, design, construct, modify, repair, own, or (under some
>>>> circumstances) test an Amateur transmitter.
>>> WRONG! Installation of transmitting equipment for which no licence
>>> is held is illegal.
>>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
>>> fact that it is a calculation of the ratio of powers.
>> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.
>
> WRONG! The construction of transmitting apparatus without due
> authorisation is an act preparatory to terrorism, and all such preparatory
> acts are caught under the Act.
>

WRONG! Prevention of Terrorism Act covers nothing of the sort. Perhaps you 
should read the said Act and see what it actually covers
rather than being so arrogant.

If you bother to read it you will see your error!!

73
Jeff

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863ad47$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> WRONG! Prevention of Terrorism Act covers nothing of the sort. Perhaps you 
> should read the said Act and see what it actually covers
> rather than being so arrogant.
> If you bother to read it you will see your error!!

You will find yourself to be more successful in debate if
you refrain from indulging in personal abuse merely because
you disagree with someone, OM.

M3/CB Licensee are you?

Brian Morrison wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>>>>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
>
>>>> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.
>>> Quite, the problem is that it effectively allows the LEAs to make up
>>> proscribed acts as they please.
>> 
>> That doesn't make true the statement complained about, though.
>
>No it doesn't, but then with the exception of the WT Act I can't think
>of any legislation that would specifically mention transmitting equipment.
>
>I don't agree with Gareth's interpretation, after all we know that an
>A-Z atlas has previously been described as an item of use to terrorists.

In another context, that of the export control of 'dual use' items -
where the government wanted to sell everything to everybody but
couldn't due to international agreements and treaties - one minister
was heard to trivialise the issue in a similar fashion: "screwdrivers
can also be used to assemble atom bombs". But, like the chap you
quoted, such a trivialisation carried no weight and merely served to
illustrate a certain paucity of thinking.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Brian Morrison wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>>>>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
>
>>>> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.
>>> Quite, the problem is that it effectively allows the LEAs to make up
>>> proscribed acts as they please.
>> 
>> That doesn't make true the statement complained about, though.
>
>No it doesn't, but then with the exception of the WT Act I can't think
>of any legislation that would specifically mention transmitting equipment.
>
>I don't agree with Gareth's interpretation, after all we know that an
>A-Z atlas has previously been described as an item of use to terrorists.

In another context, that of the export control of 'dual use' items -
where the government wanted to sell everything to everybody but
couldn't due to international agreements and treaties - one minister
was heard to trivialise the issue in a similar fashion: "screwdrivers
can also be used to assemble atom bombs". But, like the chap you
quoted, such a trivialisation carried no weight and merely served to
illustrate a certain paucity of thinking.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Brian Morrison wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>>>>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
>
>>>> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.
>>> Quite, the problem is that it effectively allows the LEAs to make up
>>> proscribed acts as they please.
>> 
>> That doesn't make true the statement complained about, though.
>
>No it doesn't, but then with the exception of the WT Act I can't think
>of any legislation that would specifically mention transmitting equipment.
>
>I don't agree with Gareth's interpretation, after all we know that an
>A-Z atlas has previously been described as an item of use to terrorists.

In another context, that of the export control of 'dual use' items -
where the government wanted to sell everything to everybody but
couldn't due to international agreements and treaties - one minister
was heard to trivialise the issue in a similar fashion: "screwdrivers
can also be used to assemble atom bombs". But, like the chap you
quoted, such a trivialisation carried no weight and merely served to
illustrate a certain paucity of thinking.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Brian Morrison wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> Construction of such equipment where no licence is held is unlawful
>>>>> under the Prevention Of Terrorrism Act.
>
>>>> The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains no such provision whatsoever.
>>> Quite, the problem is that it effectively allows the LEAs to make up
>>> proscribed acts as they please.
>> 
>> That doesn't make true the statement complained about, though.
>
>No it doesn't, but then with the exception of the WT Act I can't think
>of any legislation that would specifically mention transmitting equipment.
>
>I don't agree with Gareth's interpretation, after all we know that an
>A-Z atlas has previously been described as an item of use to terrorists.

In another context, that of the export control of 'dual use' items -
where the government wanted to sell everything to everybody but
couldn't due to international agreements and treaties - one minister
was heard to trivialise the issue in a similar fashion: "screwdrivers
can also be used to assemble atom bombs". But, like the chap you
quoted, such a trivialisation carried no weight and merely served to
illustrate a certain paucity of thinking.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g40bmd$btn$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4863ad47$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> WRONG! Prevention of Terrorism Act covers nothing of the sort. Perhaps 
>> you should read the said Act and see what it actually covers
>> rather than being so arrogant.
>> If you bother to read it you will see your error!!
>
> You will find yourself to be more successful in debate if
> you refrain from indulging in personal abuse merely because
> you disagree with someone, OM.
>
> M3/CB Licensee are you?
>

I see that you have dodged the question!!
Also I did not indulge in personal abuse, I merely commented on the rather 
rude "WRONG!" that you used in response my polite reply that merely pointed 
out that the Act that you quoted did not contain any such provision, before 
you bothered to check your facts. If you had, you would have found that I 
was correct.

If you are so sure of your position please cite the clause from The 
Prevention of Terrorism Act that you think supports your case.

73
Jeff

Spike wrote:
> Brian Morrison wrote:
> 
> one minister was heard to trivialise the issue in a similar fashion: "screwdrivers
> can also be used to assemble atom bombs".

Very dangerous that is too, look what happened to Louis Slotin.

-- 

Brian

Brian Morrison wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>> 
>> one minister was heard to trivialise the issue in a similar fashion: "screwdrivers
>> can also be used to assemble atom bombs".
>
>Very dangerous that is too, look what happened to Louis Slotin.

"Using a screwdriver was not a normal part of the experimental
protocol".....poor chap...

-- 

from
Aero Spike

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:26:53 +0100, "12 WPM Class A"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>"Custos Custodum"  wrote in message 
>news:0v4764hsk0nrhqdvruferp3c95ubq0fnbr@4ax.com...
>> Gamma rays typically have wavelengths in the picometre to femtometre
>> range. They are not 'millimetre waves' by any stretch of the
>> imagination.
>
>Doesn't require imagination, only knowledge.
>
>picometre = 10^(-9) millimetre.
>
1 picometre = 3.24077649e-29 parsecs

The whole point of SI prefixes is to produce manageable numbers for
rational people to use. Let me rephrase my previous remark:
Gamma rays would not be described as 'millimetre waves' by any
rational person. Now if you'll excuse me - I'm putting up a dipole for
1.2963106e-15 parsecs this weekend. Not!

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863b85f$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g40bmd$btn$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
>> news:4863ad47$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>> WRONG! Prevention of Terrorism Act covers nothing of the sort. Perhaps 
>>> you should read the said Act and see what it actually covers
>>> rather than being so arrogant.
>>> If you bother to read it you will see your error!!
>> You will find yourself to be more successful in debate if
>> you refrain from indulging in personal abuse merely because
>> you disagree with someone, OM.
>> M3/CB Licensee are you?
> I see that you have dodged the question!!

There was no question posited to be answered.

> Also I did not indulge in personal abuse,

<PANTOMIME MODE>

Oh, yes! You did!

</PANTOMIME MODE>

You gratuitously called me arrogant purely because you did not
agree with what I suggested.

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863b85f$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g40bmd$btn$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
>> news:4863ad47$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>> WRONG! Prevention of Terrorism Act covers nothing of the sort. Perhaps 
>>> you should read the said Act and see what it actually covers
>>> rather than being so arrogant.
>>> If you bother to read it you will see your error!!
>>
>> You will find yourself to be more successful in debate if
>> you refrain from indulging in personal abuse merely because
>> you disagree with someone, OM.
>>
>> M3/CB Licensee are you?
>>
>
> I see that you have dodged the question!!
> Also I did not indulge in personal abuse, I merely commented on the rather 
> rude "WRONG!" that you used in response my polite reply that merely 
> pointed out that the Act that you quoted did not contain any such 
> provision, before you bothered to check your facts. If you had, you would 
> have found that I was correct.
>
> If you are so sure of your position please cite the clause from The 
> Prevention of Terrorism Act that you think supports your case.
>
> 73
> Jeff
>

Well since Gareth seems to have gone off and hidden after he eventually 
found out that he was wrong, perhaps I should explain why he was wrong:

1. The Prevention of Terrorism Act only relates to Detention Orders and the 
like and not Terrorism in general (he quoted the wrong Act).

2. However, if he had quoted the correct Acts he still would have been 
wrong: The Terrorism Acts (2000 & 2006) make it clear that for an offence to 
be committed there must be an *intent* for an item to be used for terrorism. 
The 200 Act also states that: -

"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to 
prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected 
with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism."

73
Jeff

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g40fk5$jsd$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4863b85f$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:g40bmd$btn$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
>>> news:4863ad47$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>>> WRONG! Prevention of Terrorism Act covers nothing of the sort. Perhaps 
>>>> you should read the said Act and see what it actually covers
>>>> rather than being so arrogant.
>>>> If you bother to read it you will see your error!!
>>> You will find yourself to be more successful in debate if
>>> you refrain from indulging in personal abuse merely because
>>> you disagree with someone, OM.
>>> M3/CB Licensee are you?
>> I see that you have dodged the question!!
>
> There was no question posited to be answered.
>
>> Also I did not indulge in personal abuse,
>
> <PANTOMIME MODE>
>
> Oh, yes! You did!
>
> </PANTOMIME MODE>
>
> You gratuitously called me arrogant purely because you did not
> agree with what I suggested.
>

No, you rudely shouted "WRONG!" at me, without checking your facts. I find 
that arrogant, especially since my post was correct.
You were the one that was rude.

Jeff

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863c50b$0$1348$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> Well since Gareth seems to have gone off and hidden after he eventually 
> found out that he was wrong, perhaps I should explain why he was wrong:
>
> 1. The Prevention of Terrorism Act only relates to Detention Orders and 
> the like and not Terrorism in general (he quoted the wrong Act).
>
> 2. However, if he had quoted the correct Acts he still would have been 
> wrong: The Terrorism Acts (2000 & 2006) make it clear that for an offence 
> to be committed there must be an *intent* for an item to be used for 
> terrorism. The 200 Act also states that: -
>
> "It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section 
> to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose 
> connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of 
> terrorism."

So why did you not just engage in normal adult debate and introduce what
you knew about it in the first place instead of indulging yourself in rather
silly infantile manoeuvres, OM?

Someone who does not posses a licence will be incapable of proving what
you outline in your final paragraph and hence will be guilty.

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863c555$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> No, you rudely shouted "WRONG!" at me, without checking your facts. I find 
> that arrogant, especially since my post was correct.
> You were the one that was rude.

I never shouted anything.

I emphasized something, yes.

But you see, OM, if you're in a discussion, you must be able to
accept that the other party has a differing view to you.

In your other post, you said that I had run away, which again was
gratuitous rudeness on your part.

You really must learn humility and learn to apologise when you
have been shown to have been rude and not try to pass the
blame onto your innocent correspondent as you do.

Look at your rude remarks about me in the aioe helpdesk thread!

You really cannot help yourself, can you?

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g40gsj$m96$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4863c50b$0$1348$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> Well since Gareth seems to have gone off and hidden after he eventually 
>> found out that he was wrong, perhaps I should explain why he was wrong:
>>
>> 1. The Prevention of Terrorism Act only relates to Detention Orders and 
>> the like and not Terrorism in general (he quoted the wrong Act).
>>
>> 2. However, if he had quoted the correct Acts he still would have been 
>> wrong: The Terrorism Acts (2000 & 2006) make it clear that for an offence 
>> to be committed there must be an *intent* for an item to be used for 
>> terrorism. The 200 Act also states that: -
>>
>> "It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section 
>> to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose 
>> connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of 
>> terrorism."
>
> So why did you not just engage in normal adult debate and introduce what
> you knew about it in the first place instead of indulging yourself in 
> rather
> silly infantile manoeuvres, OM?
>
> Someone who does not posses a licence will be incapable of proving what
> you outline in your final paragraph and hence will be guilty.
>
>

Ah! so do you now accept that you were actually wrong, and your shouting 
"WRONG!" was unjustified and rude?

You also do not seem to grasp the concept of *intent*; in order to be guilty 
*intent* must be shown by the prosecution to use the items for terrorism. 
The proof of possession for non-terrorist purposes is an additional 
'get-out' blanket defence.

Anyway, not holding a licence does not stop you proving that you had a 
transmitter for non-terrorist purposes. It might make it easier, but since 
there is no law (in most instances) that prevents you from owning a 
transmitter without a licence there can be many legitimate reasons that you 
might have one.

Just to make the point, I might be a small one man band RF company that is 
designing a piece of RF equipment, which I will test under Suppressed 
Radiation Conditions, and later submit for type approval. No licence is 
required for that and I have reasonable proof of a non-terrorist use.

73
Jeff

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g40h30$mke$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4863c555$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> No, you rudely shouted "WRONG!" at me, without checking your facts. I 
>> find that arrogant, especially since my post was correct.
>> You were the one that was rude.
>
> I never shouted anything.
>
> I emphasized something, yes.

Using capitals is taken to mean shouting in Usenet postings, as you have 
pointed out in the past.

>
> But you see, OM, if you're in a discussion, you must be able to
> accept that the other party has a differing view to you.
>
> In your other post, you said that I had run away, which again was
> gratuitous rudeness on your part.
>
> You really must learn humility and learn to apologise when you
> have been shown to have been rude and not try to pass the
> blame onto your innocent correspondent as you do.
>
> Look at your rude remarks about me in the aioe helpdesk thread!

Perhaps you should look at the 2 post that I made:

"Would it be possible to un-ban uk.radio.amateur. It was only one user that
was complained about and now the whole group is banned and has been for some
time. In the intervening period the user has moved from aioe."

and

"In that case can you not just ban him rather than everyone??"

I can see nothing rude in those remarks, can you??

No, I didn't think so; wrong again perhaps......????

73
Jeff

12 WPM Class A wrote:

>> "It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section 
>> to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose 
>> connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of 
>> terrorism."
> 
> So why did you not just engage in normal adult debate and introduce what
> you knew about it in the first place instead of indulging yourself in rather
> silly infantile manoeuvres, OM?
> 
> Someone who does not posses a licence will be incapable of proving what
> you outline in your final paragraph and hence will be guilty.

Au contraire, it will be for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the intent to commit a terrorist act was present. At least until
more safeguards are removed by parliament in the future.

I believe that the court case that established this, relating to the
"lyrical terrorist" was earlier this year or late last.

BTW, it seems that in the UK one can be accused of possessing
terror-related material by downloading Al-Qaeda manuals from various US
law-enforcement sites where they are provided to allow study by people
whose job it is to counter such organisations. You couldn't make it up!

-- 

Brian

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863cfe1$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> You also do not seem to grasp the concept of *intent*; in order to be 
> guilty *intent* must be shown by the prosecution to use the items for 
> terrorism. The proof of possession for non-terrorist purposes is an 
> additional 'get-out' blanket defence.

You just cannot help yourself being gratuitously rude, can you?

What you typed above would have been sufficient without the
personal remark, "You also do not seem to grasp the concept of *intent*;".

"Brian Morrison"  wrote in message 
news:g40j6l$f6m$1@news.datemas.de...
> 12 WPM Class A wrote:
>>
>> Someone who does not posses a licence will be incapable of proving what
>> you outline in your final paragraph and hence will be guilty.
>
> Au contraire, it will be for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt
> that the intent to commit a terrorist act was present.

Not according to the final paragraph that was quoted where it
is a defence to be able to "PROVE" ......

It seems that the defence has to prove innocence and not the
other way around as you suggest.

Spike wrote:

Loads of drivel snipped.....

This proves beyond any doubt that your real name should be Spite and not 
Spike!

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g40le4$um9$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Jeff"  wrote in message
> news:4863cfe1$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> You also do not seem to grasp the concept of *intent*; in order to be
>> guilty *intent* must be shown by the prosecution to use the items for
>> terrorism. The proof of possession for non-terrorist purposes is an
>> additional 'get-out' blanket defence.
>
> You just cannot help yourself being gratuitously rude, can you?
>
> What you typed above would have been sufficient without the
> personal remark, "You also do not seem to grasp the concept of *intent*;".
>
>

So how about keeping to the point rather than trying to deflect the argument
to rudeness;
which may I remind you,  you were the first to resort to by shouting
"WRONG!" ( even when I was right).

I don not consider "You also do not seem to grasp the concept of *intent*"
as being rude, merely a statement of fact
when you make assertions that so obviously ignore the need that intent must
be proved for an offence to be committed.

73
Jeff

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g40ljt$v8l$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Brian Morrison"  wrote in message
> news:g40j6l$f6m$1@news.datemas.de...
>> 12 WPM Class A wrote:
>>>
>>> Someone who does not posses a licence will be incapable of proving what
>>> you outline in your final paragraph and hence will be guilty.
>>
>> Au contraire, it will be for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt
>> that the intent to commit a terrorist act was present.
>
> Not according to the final paragraph that was quoted where it
> is a defence to be able to "PROVE" ......
>
> It seems that the defence has to prove innocence and not the
> other way around as you suggest.
>

That is not correct, the Acts *always* require the prosecution to prove that
there is intent. The paragraph that you refer to where it is stated that it
a defence to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose
connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of
terrorism is an absolute defence for the possession of a particular item.

It becomes more relevant where things are not clear cut and either intent or
legal possession are difficult to decide.

63
Jeff

Jeff wrote:

> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g40bmd$btn$1@news.albasani.net...
> 
>>"Jeff"  wrote in message 
>>news:4863ad47$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>
>>>WRONG! Prevention of Terrorism Act covers nothing of the sort. Perhaps 
>>>you should read the said Act and see what it actually covers
>>>rather than being so arrogant.
>>>If you bother to read it you will see your error!!
>>
>>You will find yourself to be more successful in debate if
>>you refrain from indulging in personal abuse merely because
>>you disagree with someone, OM.
>>
>>M3/CB Licensee are you?
>>
> 
> 
> I see that you have dodged the question!!
> Also I did not indulge in personal abuse, I merely commented on the rather 
> rude "WRONG!" that you used in response my polite reply that merely pointed 
> out that the Act that you quoted did not contain any such provision, before 
> you bothered to check your facts. If you had, you would have found that I 
> was correct.
> 
> If you are so sure of your position please cite the clause from The 
> Prevention of Terrorism Act that you think supports your case.

As usual, if he can't he will twist words and invent one. Just wait and see.

Dave

12 WPM Class A wrote:

> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4863b85f$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> 
>>"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>>news:g40bmd$btn$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>>>"Jeff"  wrote in message 
>>>news:4863ad47$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>>
>>>>WRONG! Prevention of Terrorism Act covers nothing of the sort. Perhaps 
>>>>you should read the said Act and see what it actually covers
>>>>rather than being so arrogant.
>>>>If you bother to read it you will see your error!!
>>>
>>>You will find yourself to be more successful in debate if
>>>you refrain from indulging in personal abuse merely because
>>>you disagree with someone, OM.
>>>M3/CB Licensee are you?

The use of a question mark denotes that a question has been asked.

>>
>>I see that you have dodged the question!!
> 
> 
> There was no question posited to be answered.

Is this another of your invented words (posited).

Dave

Jeff wrote:

> Just to make the point, I might be a small one man band RF company that is 
> designing a piece of RF equipment, which I will test under Suppressed 
> Radiation Conditions

That sounds like the piece of information that I have been trying to pin 
down for some time. I have enough info now.

It looks like it will blow quite a hole in one poster's boat  :-)

Dave

Brian Morrison wrote:


> Au contraire, it will be for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt
> that the intent to commit a terrorist act was present. At least until
> more safeguards are removed by parliament in the future.
> 
> I believe that the court case that established this, relating to the
> "lyrical terrorist" was earlier this year or late last.

The way gareth is going on, he will turn over the rule of law that 
prosecutors have to prove intent, to the accused having to prove 
innocence. I think he should throw that £4-00 book of law away before he 
gets locked up again.

Dave

In article <g40ejm$74v$1@news.datemas.de>, Brian Morrison
 writes

>Very dangerous that is too, look what happened to Louis Slotin.

Indeed... but Slotin autodarwinated.

-- 
(\__/)   Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=)  http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
(")_(")  http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf

In message , Dave 
 writes
>Is this another of your invented words (posited).
>
>Dave

Don't make yourself look a bigger fool than you are.
-- 
Nedlar

Nedlar wrote:

> In message , Dave 
>  writes
> 
>> Is this another of your invented words (posited).
>>
>> Dave
> 
> 
> Don't make yourself look a bigger fool than you are.

I reckon that you are making a bigger fool of yourself than I am.

Dave

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863f611$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>
>
> So how about keeping to the point rather than trying to deflect the 
> argument
> to rudeness;
> which may I remind you,  you were the first to resort to by shouting
> "WRONG!" ( even when I was right).
> I don not consider "You also do not seem to grasp the concept of *intent*"
> as being rude, merely a statement of fact
> when you make assertions that so obviously ignore the need that intent 
> must
> be proved for an offence to be committed.

Sorry, OM, but you come across as yet another person who instead of just
contributing to the debate in a mature fashion, go on to try to
score points in some anally-retentive pissing-in-the-playground contest
like G6KHP contemporaneously.

Chill out.

Take a step backward and consider whether your contribution to debate
perhaps casts you as an infant with a temper tantrum?

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4863f6a6$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> That is not correct, the Acts *always* require the prosecution to prove 
> that
> there is intent.

You're not right there.

There are a number of laws that state "Thou shalt NOT", and your intent or
lack of it of you do the proscribed thing is irrelevant.

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:_OCdna4ycYvNav7VnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...

> As usual, if he can't he will twist words and invent one. Just wait and 
> see.

G6KHP, your continuing vendetta is making you appear a fool.

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:8NSdnYOPdJdHZf7VnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@bt.com...
> 12 WPM Class A wrote:
>> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
>> news:4863b85f$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>>"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>>>news:g40bmd$btn$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>"Jeff"  wrote in message 
>>>>news:4863ad47$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>>>>M3/CB Licensee are you?
> The use of a question mark denotes that a question has been asked.

G6KHP go and stand in the corner with the Dunce's hat on!

Your obsession against me has just rendered you the "Dork Of The Year"
in this NG.

_THAT_ question was put by me.

>>>
>>>I see that you have dodged the question!!
>> There was no question posited to be answered.
> Is this another of your invented words (posited).

And now your ignorance of your mother-tongue renders you the
"Even Bigger Dork Of The Year".

I'd give up now, OM, whilst you are still trailing so far behind.

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:5cadnXndgPFRnfnVnZ2dnUVZ8qDinZ2d@bt.com...
> The way gareth is going on, he will turn over the rule of law that 
> prosecutors have to prove intent, to the accused having to prove 
> innocence. I think he should throw that £4-00 book of law away before he 
> gets locked up again.

G6KHP you need to take a step backward and review your continuing
tirade of rather silly and infantile jibes directed at me.

You just make yourself look a bigger fool as the days go by.

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g428uh$8fl$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4863f6a6$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> That is not correct, the Acts *always* require the prosecution to prove 
>> that
>> there is intent.
>
> You're not right there.
>
> There are a number of laws that state "Thou shalt NOT", and your intent or
> lack of it of you do the proscribed thing is irrelevant.
>

"the Acts" in the comment above refer to the Acts under discussion, and more 
specifically your statement regarding transmitters and those Acts, not laws 
in general, where, as you say, intent is not always required.

By the way I am still waiting for an apology regarding your accusation that 
I was rude to you in the aioe.new.helpdesk group, which I clearly 
demonstrated that I was not.

73
Jeff

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4864ab9c$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> "the Acts" in the comment above refer to the Acts under discussion, and 
> more specifically your statement regarding transmitters and those Acts, 
> not laws in general, where, as you say, intent is not always required.
> By the way I am still waiting for an apology regarding your accusation 
> that I was rude to you in the aioe.new.helpdesk group, which I clearly 
> demonstrated that I was not.

Chill out, OM.

Concentrate on the discussion and not on personal remarks which
just show you up for what you perhaps really are?

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g42b0h$cfi$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4864ab9c$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...

>
> Chill out, OM.

Trying to shift the ground?

>
> Concentrate on the discussion and not on personal remarks which
> just show you up for what you perhaps really are?

I'm sure Jeff and the whole forum, has noted your embarrassing climb down...

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g42b0h$cfi$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4864ab9c$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> "the Acts" in the comment above refer to the Acts under discussion, and 
>> more specifically your statement regarding transmitters and those Acts, 
>> not laws in general, where, as you say, intent is not always required.
>> By the way I am still waiting for an apology regarding your accusation 
>> that I was rude to you in the aioe.new.helpdesk group, which I clearly 
>> demonstrated that I was not.
>
> Chill out, OM.
>
> Concentrate on the discussion and not on personal remarks which
> just show you up for what you perhaps really are?
>

So concentrating on the discussion:

Your reply to the discussion where you said:

 ">> That is not correct, the Acts *always* require the prosecution to prove
>> that there is intent.
>
>You're not right there.
>
>There are a number of laws that state "Thou shalt NOT", and your intent or
>lack of it of you do the proscribed thing is irrelevant."

 and I replied

>""the Acts" in the comment above refer to the Acts under discussion, and
 >more specifically your statement regarding transmitters and those Acts, 
not laws in general, where, as you say, intent is not always required."

is what....??

73
Jeff

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4864b244$0$1346$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> So concentrating on the discussion:
> Your reply to the discussion where you said:
> ">> That is not correct, the Acts *always* require the prosecution to 
> prove
>>> that there is intent.
>>You're not right there.
>>There are a number of laws that state "Thou shalt NOT", and your intent or
>>lack of it of you do the proscribed thing is irrelevant."
> and I replied
>>""the Acts" in the comment above refer to the Acts under discussion, and
> >more specifically your statement regarding transmitters and those Acts,
> not laws in general, where, as you say, intent is not always required."
> is what....??

There was no point in replying and so I did not reply.

You had referred to "the Acts" which would have seemed to mean, "the Acts of 
Parliament"
and so I responded to your deemed statement.

I have never made a statement "regarding transmitters and those Acts" 
because I was
aware of only one Act (singular) and referred to only that one.

This is a NG about Radio Hammery and not about the
law and I believe that most people who are not touched by such things would 
be
vaguely aware of the Prevention Of Terrorism Act and would class all other
excuses-for-infringing-civil-liberty by the Labour misgovernment under the 
same
Act without even being aware that they existed.

Take a step back and chill out, OM. You're exhibiting an obsessive (and, 
indeed
aggressive) attitude towards a side issue. it really is not important as to 
how many
Acts there are because it still remains that anyone constructing a TX 
without
due justification will be guilty of acts preparatory to some crime or other.

You have suggested that you are running a business cobbling together TXs, 
that
would surely take you out of the discussion of illegal operation. Why not
leave it there, because your wish to come back time and again with remarks
that owe more to personal attacks makes you, and others like you 
contemporaneously,
appear to be something that you would not want to appear to be.

As I said, my interpretation of your remarks was that you were changing your
mind over an interpretation by me, so there was nothing to be gained by my
response. I had one opinion, you another, both had been offered, no point
in further discussion unless you were intent on a personal battle, which you
appear to be.

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g42coj$fua$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4864b244$0$1346$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> So concentrating on the discussion:
>> Your reply to the discussion where you said:
>> ">> That is not correct, the Acts *always* require the prosecution to 
>> prove
>>>> that there is intent.
>>>You're not right there.
>>>There are a number of laws that state "Thou shalt NOT", and your intent 
>>>or
>>>lack of it of you do the proscribed thing is irrelevant."
>> and I replied
>>>""the Acts" in the comment above refer to the Acts under discussion, and
>> >more specifically your statement regarding transmitters and those Acts,
>> not laws in general, where, as you say, intent is not always required."
>> is what....??
>
> There was no point in replying and so I did not reply.
>
> You had referred to "the Acts" which would have seemed to mean, "the Acts 
> of Parliament"
> and so I responded to your deemed statement.
>
> I have never made a statement "regarding transmitters and those Acts" 
> because I was
> aware of only one Act (singular) and referred to only that one.
>
> This is a NG about Radio Hammery and not about the
> law and I believe that most people who are not touched by such things 
> would be
> vaguely aware of the Prevention Of Terrorism Act and would class all other
> excuses-for-infringing-civil-liberty by the Labour misgovernment under the 
> same
> Act without even being aware that they existed.

Excuse me, but you were the one that unequivocally stated that it was an 
offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act
to possess a transmitter without a licence, and even shouted "WRONG!" when 
it was pointed out that you were not correct.

You were not correct even if you were to "class all other 
excuses-for-infringing-civil-liberty by the Labour misgovernment under the
 same Act", but you also say that you not aware of them anyway!!!
(Quote:" I was aware of only one Act (singular) and referred to only that 
one")

As you put it the group is about "Radio Hammery" so it would be better if 
mis-information about the law were not spread on it.

73
Jeff

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4864be62$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> Excuse me,

You are excused, but try to behave in future.

> but you were the one that unequivocally stated

What is the difference in meaning between "stated" and "unequivocally 
stated"
and how was what I stated classifiable into one or other in comparison
to other statements made in this NG?

> that it was an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act
> to possess a transmitter without a licence

As indeed it is.

> As you put it the group is about "Radio Hammery" so it would be better if 
> mis-information about the law were not spread on it.

Another one of the rude remarks that you say that you do not make?

Chill out, OM.

12 WPM Class A wrote:
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4863f6a6$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> That is not correct, the Acts *always* require the prosecution to prove 
>> that
>> there is intent.
> 
> You're not right there.
> 
> There are a number of laws that state "Thou shalt NOT", and your intent or
> lack of it of you do the proscribed thing is irrelevant.

Strict liability offences are a small, and very dangerous, part of
statute law. But after the appeal court ruling the various Terrorism
acts now have to demonstrate intent and we are all much the better for
that change.

All we need to do now is to get the police to understand that it is
traditional to gather evidence *before* arresting people and not to bang
them up without charge for up to 6 weeks.

-- 

Brian

"Brian Morrison"  wrote in message
news:g42g7r$1du$1@news.datemas.de...
> All we need to do now is to get the police to understand that it is
> traditional to gather evidence *before* arresting people and not to bang
> them up without charge for up to 6 weeks.

That is one trend by the Britland ploddery that has become
disturbing in recent years.

Take my own case - a malicious complaint by M3OSN which
was easily dismissed without me answering any questions and
without any charges being preferred, purely because I printed
off M3OSN's comments from very recent (to that event) periods
in which he had gleefully posted that he was deliberately winding me
up and enjoyed doing so.

Now, if it was so easy for me to find this info, then it would have
been equally easy for the local ploddery to find it and to dismiss their
fellow w*nkmason as an crying-baby loony.

As I said yesterday, a piece of used and soggy toilet paper is more
socially valuable than the whole of the ploddery in Chippenham.

What is even more disturbing is the record of M3OSN's malicious
postings addressed to Stan White G4EGH on the very day that he
had Stan arrested.

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g42g5h$mf6$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4864be62$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> Excuse me,
>
> You are excused, but try to behave in future.
>
>> but you were the one that unequivocally stated
>
> What is the difference in meaning between "stated" and "unequivocally 
> stated"
> and how was what I stated classifiable into one or other in comparison
> to other statements made in this NG?
>
>> that it was an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act
>> to possess a transmitter without a licence
>
> As indeed it is.
>

As has been adequately demonstrated to everybody else's satisfaction it is 
clearly not.

If you believe to the contrary please cite your case; which you so far have 
not.

It is clear from the relevant Acts that *intent* is required for an offence 
to be committed.

Transmitters are not mentioned specifically, and are treated no differently 
to an A to Z map, a bag of chapatti flour, or a box of shotgun cartridges.
There are perfectly good reasons to possess any of those including a 
transmitter without a licence. The only time that possession of any of those 
items falls with the scope of the Terrorism Acts is when there is proved to 
be intent to use them for terrorist purposes. Terrorist purposes and 
terrorism is also clearly defined in the Act and it requires more than just 
possession.

Just to be complete let me post the relevant section from the Terrorism Act 
2006 regarding 'Preparation of terrorist acts ' in rebuttal of your 
statement: "WRONG! The construction of transmitting apparatus without due 
authorisation is an act preparatory to terrorism, and all such preparatory 
acts are caught under the Act.";

note the need for intent:

"(1) A person commits an offence if, with the intention of—
a) committing acts of terrorism, or
(b) assisting another to commit such acts,
he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his 
intention."

73
Jeff

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4864ce99$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> If you believe to the contrary please cite your case; which you so far 
> have not.

I do not have to cite anything to justify my beliefs to you or to anbody.
I have stated my opinion, you have a different opinion which you
have also stated. You are not a qualified lawyer and so your opinion
holds no greater weight than mine, except, of course, that your opinion
is wrong IMHO.

Really, once I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours, there
is no room for further opinionating, the point at which I ceased to reply
before. One is forced to question the way in which you are returning
to these points. What are you so desperate to prove, OM?

> Transmitters are not mentioned specifically, and are treated no 
> differently to an A to Z map, a bag of chapatti flour, or a box of shotgun 
> cartridges.
> There are perfectly good reasons to possess any of those including a 
> transmitter without a licence. The only time that possession of any of 
> those items falls with the scope of the Terrorism Acts is when there is 
> proved to be intent to use them for terrorist purposes.

That's the point at which your not being a lawyer shows you up. There are
other times "that possession of any of those  items falls with the scope of 
the
Terrorism Acts " and that is when they are _USED_ for terrorism.



> Just to be complete let me post the relevant section from the Terrorism 
> Act 2006 regarding 'Preparation of terrorist acts ' in rebuttal of your 
> statement: "WRONG! The construction of transmitting apparatus without due 
> authorisation is an act preparatory to terrorism, and all such preparatory 
> acts are caught under the Act.";

Unless you quote the whole text of the Acts you prove nothing.

12 WPM Class A wrote:

>> Transmitters are not mentioned specifically, and are treated no 
>> differently to an A to Z map, a bag of chapatti flour, or a box of shotgun 
>> cartridges.
>> There are perfectly good reasons to possess any of those including a 
>> transmitter without a licence. The only time that possession of any of 
>> those items falls with the scope of the Terrorism Acts is when there is 
>> proved to be intent to use them for terrorist purposes.
> 
> That's the point at which your not being a lawyer shows you up. There are
> other times "that possession of any of those  items falls with the scope of 
> the
> Terrorism Acts " and that is when they are _USED_ for terrorism.

Presumably the same is true if one uses a cardboard toilet roll centre
as part of a bomb to separate the main charge from the initiating
charge/detonator?

If you have actually *used* the items for terrorist purposes, then their
mere possession becomes moot in the case of charges of possession
without intent.

-- 

Brian

"Brian Morrison"  wrote in message 
news:g42nkp$h5m$1@news.datemas.de...
> Presumably the same is true if one uses a cardboard toilet roll centre
> as part of a bomb to separate the main charge from the initiating
> charge/detonator?

Why would you wish to separate them?

Surely you'd want maximum coupling?

12 WPM Class A wrote:
> "Brian Morrison"  wrote in message 
> news:g42nkp$h5m$1@news.datemas.de...
>> Presumably the same is true if one uses a cardboard toilet roll centre
>> as part of a bomb to separate the main charge from the initiating
>> charge/detonator?
> 
> Why would you wish to separate them?
> 
> Surely you'd want maximum coupling?

You need to ensure the main charge is constrained so that it detonates
instead of blowing itself apart before all the fuel is consumed.

Sometimes you also need a little space to get the detonator shockwave
established and travelling rapidly before it ignites the main charge.

Now, I shall wait for the knock on the door....

-- 

Brian

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g42nbv$55f$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4864ce99$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> If you believe to the contrary please cite your case; which you so far 
>> have not.
>
> I do not have to cite anything to justify my beliefs to you or to anbody.
> I have stated my opinion, you have a different opinion which you
> have also stated. You are not a qualified lawyer and so your opinion
> holds no greater weight than mine, except, of course, that your opinion
> is wrong IMHO.
>
> Really, once I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours, there
> is no room for further opinionating, the point at which I ceased to reply
> before. One is forced to question the way in which you are returning
> to these points. What are you so desperate to prove, OM?

Well I have put forward a reasoned case with supporting evidence, all you 
have done
is say that your opinion is right, but have offered no evidence to support 
that view.
Therefore, all I can think is that you have no evidence and therefore your 
opinion is wrong.
Where is the reasoned argument that you were asking for earlier from your 
side??

73
Jeff

"Brian Morrison"  wrote in message
news:g42r5v$spo$1@news.datemas.de...
> 12 WPM Class A wrote:
>> "Brian Morrison"  wrote in message
>> news:g42nkp$h5m$1@news.datemas.de...
>>> Presumably the same is true if one uses a cardboard toilet roll centre
>>> as part of a bomb to separate the main charge from the initiating
>>> charge/detonator?
>> Why would you wish to separate them?
>> Surely you'd want maximum coupling?
> You need to ensure the main charge is constrained so that it detonates
> instead of blowing itself apart before all the fuel is consumed.

ISTR that "detonation" is the characteristic that makes high explosive
"high",
in that detonation is a shockwave of ignition travelling at faster than the
speed
of sound?

Is it "conflagration" that is the characteristic of ordinary (Low?)
explosive, i.e. a rapid
burning, as with black powder, creating a rapidly expanding gas but
travelling at
below the speed of sound? (Too many years since reading about these
things in the school library!)

> Sometimes you also need a little space to get the detonator shockwave
> established and travelling rapidly before it ignites the main charge.

Presumably no good if you've a chemical that doesn't go bang on pressure
alone?

Also raises the question as to why detonators are needed ... why can't you
just
light a match and apply to the main charge (except that with a match you'd
be
too close for safety!!!!!)

"Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:4864f38f$0$1350$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g42nbv$55f$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> Really, once I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours, there
>> is no room for further opinionating, the point at which I ceased to reply
>> before. One is forced to question the way in which you are returning
>> to these points. What are you so desperate to prove, OM?
> Well I have put forward a reasoned case with supporting evidence, all you 
> have done
> is say that your opinion is right, but have offered no evidence to support 
> that view.
> Therefore, all I can think is that you have no evidence and therefore your 
> opinion is wrong.
> Where is the reasoned argument that you were asking for earlier from your 
> side??

There you go off again.

Nobody is obliged to produce evidence for the opinions that they hold.

You are not a lawyer, and you have not produced "evidence" because you
have to produce complete documentation and not selected extracts, the
complete documentation that I suggested which you have run away from.

All you are doing is trying to instigate and further a pointless quarrel.

As I said previously, ...

"Really, once I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours, there
is no room for further opinionating."

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g42si5$gkf$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Jeff"  wrote in message 
> news:4864f38f$0$1350$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:g42nbv$55f$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>> Really, once I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours, there
>>> is no room for further opinionating, the point at which I ceased to 
>>> reply
>>> before. One is forced to question the way in which you are returning
>>> to these points. What are you so desperate to prove, OM?
>> Well I have put forward a reasoned case with supporting evidence, all you 
>> have done
>> is say that your opinion is right, but have offered no evidence to 
>> support that view.
>> Therefore, all I can think is that you have no evidence and therefore 
>> your opinion is wrong.
>> Where is the reasoned argument that you