Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

In message
19ca30d9-74bc-4c00-8b14-f4c2b5a2f7a7...oglegroups.com,
Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> On 6 Dec, 00:16, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>> "tony sayer" <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Eu7S1tKCQyVHFwtM@bancom.co.uk
>>>> In article <1719975.EEnHyut...@ale.cx>, alexd
>>>> <troffa...@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <Tod5j.195571$I52.2...@fe07.news.easynews.com>,
>>>>>> MichaelJP <m...@nospam.com> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Radio comms in a surface environment is subject
>>>>>>> to all sorts of interference and certainly can't
>>>>>>> be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
>>>>>
>>>>> What about it?
>>>>>
>>>> Well "mission critical" is it not?..
>>
>> <pedant>
>>
>> It's not a "surface" environment either..!
>>
>> </pedant>
>>
>> Ivor
>
> ?
>
> I dispute you're pedantry - I can't see what on earth is wrong with
> calling predominantly non-subterranean railways a "surface
> environment"?

I think he was refering to aircraft comms... (?)

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

On 6 Dec, 11:24, "ChrisM" <chris_mayersb...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote:
> In message
> 19ca30d9-74bc-4c00-8b14-f4c2b5a2f...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
> Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>
> > On 6 Dec, 00:16, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> >> "tony sayer" <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> In article <1719975.EEnHyut...@ale.cx>, alexd
> >>>> <troffa...@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
> >>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In article
> >>>>>> <Tod5j.195571$I52.2...@fe07.news.easynews.com>,
> >>>>>> MichaelJP <m...@nospam.com> scribeth thus
>
> >>>>>>> Radio comms in a surface environment is subject
> >>>>>>> to all sorts of interference and certainly can't
> >>>>>>> be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
>
> >>>>>> Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
>
> >>>>> What about it?
>
> >>>> Well "mission critical" is it not?..
>
> >> <pedant>
>
> >> It's not a "surface" environment either..!
>
> >> </pedant>
>
> >> Ivor
>
> > ?
>
> > I dispute you're pedantry - I can't see what on earth is wrong with
> > calling predominantly non-subterranean railways a "surface
> > environment"?
>
> I think he was refering to aircraft comms... (?)


Yes, looking back on the exchange I think he was too. Oops.

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
>the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
>interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
>users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
>used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."

Well, Ofcom would say that, wouldn't they. They are a law enforcement
organisation inter alia. From what I understand, these jammers have
extremely low power and only have an effective range of around 30 feet
max. Buses and trains, unlike aeroplanes, don't rely on sophisticated
radio equipment to stay on track.

The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.

--
Alasdair.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:01:51 +0000, Alasdair <mail@bobaxter.coo.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
>>the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
>>interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
>>users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
>>used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."
>
>Well, Ofcom would say that, wouldn't they. They are a law enforcement
>organisation inter alia. From what I understand, these jammers have
>extremely low power and only have an effective range of around 30 feet
>max. Buses and trains, unlike aeroplanes, don't rely on sophisticated
>radio equipment to stay on track.
>
>The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.
>
The effective range will be very variable as the devices being
"jammed" will use a wide range of frequencies, transmission powers,
radiation patterns and sensitivities. To cover such a variety of
devices requires a lot of RF rubbish to be radiated with interference
caused to nearby "innocent" devices being far from unlikely.

Alasdair wrote:

> The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.

Under article 12 of the human rights charter, there appears to be a
right not to have one's correspondence interefered with. Whether that
right extends to email I dunno, likewise whether it extends to one's
telephonic communications.

However, ISTM that the minor annoyance some people experience due to
their inability to tolerate possibly only one other person using a
mobile phone isn't sufficient justification for indiscriminately and
anonymously terminating other people's connections with the outside
world.

The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633120.html
(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:09:38 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
<cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote this:-

>The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
>are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.

Perhaps those who have taken to these jammers have tried this
approach in the past and concluded that a more robust approach is
needed.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:09:38 GMT, Chris Tolley <cjt.7@supanet.com>
wrote:

>The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
>are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.

Have you ever tried doing that? These oiks ignore you... if you're
lucky.

A while back, I was sitting in the quiet coach of the Liverpool -
London Pendolino. I was there for the whole run from Lime Street to
Euston. There was a very loud Liverpudlian sitting across the aisle
from me. After about half an hour of his yacking, I tried doing as you
suggest. I was then subjected to loud abuse and physical threats...
and still had to endure his noise for the rest of the journey as well.

Peter.

David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:09:38 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
> <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote this:-
>
> >The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
> >are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.
>
> Perhaps those who have taken to these jammers have tried this
> approach in the past and concluded that a more robust approach is
> needed.

A more robust _and personally safer_ approach?

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "Chris Tolley" <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote in message
> news:c1yp3sdhtlzy$.152j3nqxvakou$.dlg@40tude.net
>:: Alasdair wrote:
>::
>:: : The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason
>:: : is another matter.
>::
>:: Under article 12 of the human rights charter, there
>:: appears to be a right not to have one's correspondence
>:: interefered with. Whether that right extends to email I
>:: dunno, likewise whether it extends to one's telephonic
>:: communications.
>
> What about the human rights of the rest of the bus/train not to have their
> journey interfered with by indiscriminate phone use..?

Such a right does not appear to be defined in the charter. Have you
looked at it?

>:: The appropriate response if someone is really being
>:: annoying when they are using a mobile phone is to ask
>:: them politely to be more considerate. --
>
> And get a smack in the mouth for your trouble..? I don't think so somehow.

Do you have evidence that there is a high correlation between mobile
phone use and violence?

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683636.html
(Class 101 and 108 units at Chester, Jun 1985)

Peter wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:09:38 GMT, Chris Tolley <cjt.7@supanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
>>are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.
>
> Have you ever tried doing that? These oiks ignore you... if you're
> lucky.

Every time (though there haven't been more than half a dozen such
occasions, as I'm not *usually* so easily distracted by what others are
doing) I've asked someone to desist from something of that nature, they
have complied without resorting either to violence or verbal abuse.

> A while back, I was sitting in the quiet coach of the Liverpool -
> London Pendolino. I was there for the whole run from Lime Street to
> Euston. There was a very loud Liverpudlian sitting across the aisle
> from me. After about half an hour of his yacking, I tried doing as you
> suggest. I was then subjected to loud abuse and physical threats...
> and still had to endure his noise for the rest of the journey as well.

In the quiet coach, I would have drawn it to his attention immediately.
If you've let him get away with it for 30 minutes, then I'm not
surprised he reacted as you indicated. Similarly, in a non-smoker, back
in the day, I wouldn't thing there was much point letting someone get
through ten fags before passing the relevant comment.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12906828.html
(47 628 at Reading, 27 Apr 1985)

"Chris Tolley" <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:1eu1lgbtar11z.10ditzmbazvfa$.dlg@40tude.net
: : Ivor Jones wrote:
: :
: : : "Chris Tolley" <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote in message
: : : news:c1yp3sdhtlzy$.152j3nqxvakou$.dlg@40tude.net
: : : : : Alasdair wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : : The jammers are illegal but whether for good
: : : : : : reason is another matter.
: : : : :
: : : : : Under article 12 of the human rights charter,
: : : : : there appears to be a right not to have one's
: : : : : correspondence interefered with. Whether that
: : : : : right extends to email I dunno, likewise whether
: : : : : it extends to one's telephonic communications.
: : :
: : : What about the human rights of the rest of the
: : : bus/train not to have their journey interfered with
: : : by indiscriminate phone use..?
: :
: : Such a right does not appear to be defined in the
: : charter.

Hmm, a pity. Perhaps it should be.

: : Have you looked at it?
: :
: : : : : The appropriate response if someone is really
: : : : : being annoying when they are using a mobile phone
: : : : : is to ask them politely to be more considerate. --
: : :
: : : And get a smack in the mouth for your trouble..? I
: : : don't think so somehow.
: :
: : Do you have evidence that there is a high correlation
: : between mobile phone use and violence?

Yes, I work for a bus company and see it daily.

Ivor

Ivor Jones and I were having this conversation:

>:: : : : The appropriate response if someone is really
>:: : : : being annoying when they are using a mobile phone
>:: : : : is to ask them politely to be more considerate. --
>:: :
>:: : And get a smack in the mouth for your trouble..? I
>:: : don't think so somehow.
>::
>:: Do you have evidence that there is a high correlation
>:: between mobile phone use and violence?
>
> Yes, I work for a bus company and see it daily.

I'd have thought there was little to contest about the suggestion that
the proportion of the population who regularly use mobile phones is
considerably higher (thank goodness) than the proportion who indulge in
violent antisocial behaviour. Perhaps your observations imply something
rather more significant about the sector of the population who use buses
than it does about the sector who use mobile phones.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683676.html
(50072 (Class 116) at Kings Norton, 12 Apr 1980)

Chris Tolley <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote:

> Ivor Jones and I were having this conversation:
>
> >:: : : : The appropriate response if someone is really
> >:: : : : being annoying when they are using a mobile phone
> >:: : : : is to ask them politely to be more considerate. --
> >:: :
> >:: : And get a smack in the mouth for your trouble..? I
> >:: : don't think so somehow.
> >::
> >:: Do you have evidence that there is a high correlation
> >:: between mobile phone use and violence?
> >
> > Yes, I work for a bus company and see it daily.
>
> I'd have thought there was little to contest about the suggestion that
> the proportion of the population who regularly use mobile phones is
> considerably higher (thank goodness) than the proportion who indulge in
> violent antisocial behaviour. Perhaps your observations imply something
> rather more significant about the sector of the population who use buses
> than it does about the sector who use mobile phones.

Snobbery?

Perhaps Ivor should have said there is a correlation between
*annoying* mobile phone use and a tendency to violence. People
who use their phones with consideration for others in public
don't get noticed.

"Chris Tolley" <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:c1yp3sdhtlzy$.152j3nqxvakou$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> Alasdair wrote:
>
>> The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.
>
> Under article 12 of the human rights charter, there appears to be a
> right not to have one's correspondence interefered with. Whether that
> right extends to email I dunno, likewise whether it extends to one's
> telephonic communications.
>
> However, ISTM that the minor annoyance some people experience due to
> their inability to tolerate possibly only one other person using a
> mobile phone isn't sufficient justification for indiscriminately and
> anonymously terminating other people's connections with the outside
> world.
>
> The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
> are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.


Victim: "That looks like a nice phone..... is it the latest model??"
Perp: "Yup.... cost me 200 quid..."
V: "Really....... what does it do, then, apart from phone calls?"
P : "Well.... you can take pictures with its camera"
V "Well I never.... can you show me?"
P "Of course.... here, smile...." (perp taks piccie of victim and shows him)
V "That's marvellous... whatever will they think of next...."
P "... And you can do videos..." (shows victim)
V "Thats really good.... 200 quid, you say? Thats a lot of money..."
P "It's OK, it's fully insured, you know..."
V "The insurance must be good, as well...."
P"Ooooh, it's first rate!"
V" Lets see how that works then..."(chucks phone out of bus window)


> --
> http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633120.html
> (66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

"Andrey Yarnwood" <ay@example.com> wrote in message
news:4de87a4b98f4659cfb06170a49901c36@remailer.met acolo.com

[snip]

: : Perhaps Ivor should have said there is a correlation
: : between *annoying* mobile phone use and a tendency to
: : violence. People who use their phones with
: : consideration for others in public don't get noticed.

Indeed.

Ivor