RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful to
know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a lot of >people really were believing them.
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful to
know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a lot of people really were believing them.
On 02/03/2022 15:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful
to know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a
lot of people really were believing them.
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If unlawful
then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that worrying. I wonder
what happened to the country where the government never jammed William
Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people could be trusted to judge
for themselves. And what will be taken off air by future governments.
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 15:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful
to know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a
lot of people really were believing them.
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the government
never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people
could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what will be taken off
air by future governments.
And if lord haw-haw had started to be believed?
Wouldn't they have tried to do something about it?
Maybe they were trying to stop lord haw-haw.
If not Why did the Germans go to such lengths, creating incredibly
powerful mobile transmitters and moving them around?
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful
to know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a
lot of people really were believing them.
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the government
never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people
could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what will be taken off
air by future governments.
And if lord haw-haw had started to be believed?
Wouldn't they have tried to do something about it?
Maybe they were trying to stop lord haw-haw.
If not Why did the Germans go to such lengths, creating incredibly
powerful mobile transmitters and moving them around?
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
It carried on on the COM 7 mux (EPG 113) until 16:50hrs
On 02/03/2022 15:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful to
know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a lot of
people really were believing them.
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If unlawful
then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that worrying. I wonder
what happened to the country where the government never jammed William
Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people could be trusted to judge
for themselves. And what will be taken off air by future governments.
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the
government never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2
because people could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what
will be taken off air by future governments.
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider country as a
whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country best interests.
On 02/03/2022 15:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of >>anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful
to know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a
lot of people really were believing them.
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that worrying.
I wonder what happened to the country where the government never jammed >William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people could be trusted
to judge for themselves. And what will be taken off air by future >governments.
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the government
never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people
could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what will be taken off
air by future governments.
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider country as a
whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country best interests.
And if lord haw-haw had started to be believed?
Wouldn't they have tried to do something about it?
Maybe they were trying to stop lord haw-haw.
If not Why did the Germans go to such lengths, creating incredibly
powerful mobile transmitters and moving them around?
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
Read, if you haven't already, R V Jones - "Most Secret War". Direction finding beacons were discussed in it, but it was a long time ago now
since it read it, so I can't remember any details, but I do seem to
recall that there was some problem with them.
On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the
government never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2
because people could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what
will be taken off air by future governments.
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually
spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests of
the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far too
frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and
misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
damaged this country best interests.
I said nothing about "an absolute right" to free speech so I'm not
entirely clear why you raise that issue.
But if misinformation is so deplorable would you be happy to pay a fine
of at least £100 for every factually wrong post you make?
In article <svoecq$6fn$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Read, if you haven't already, R V Jones - "Most Secret War". Direction
finding beacons were discussed in it, but it was a long time ago now
since it read it, so I can't remember any details, but I do seem to
recall that there was some problem with them.
The beams got bent, so intersection between two (the target) ended up in
the wrong place.
In article <svoecq$6fn$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the government >>>>> never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people
could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what will be taken off >>>>> air by future governments.
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually spouted
parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating lies and
propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider country as a
whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently, there have been
multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation have led to such
decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country best interests.
And if lord haw-haw had started to be believed?
Wouldn't they have tried to do something about it?
Maybe they were trying to stop lord haw-haw.
If not Why did the Germans go to such lengths, creating incredibly
powerful mobile transmitters and moving them around?
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
Read, if you haven't already, R V Jones - "Most Secret War". Direction
finding beacons were discussed in it, but it was a long time ago now
since it read it, so I can't remember any details, but I do seem to
recall that there was some problem with them.
The beams got bent, so intersection between two (the target) ended up in
the wrong place.
Britain didn't really need to jam Haw-Haw, because most of his
propaganda was so absurd that few (if any) of his listeners believed a
word of it (or at least they could distinguish the lies from those parts
that did have some grains of truths in them).
Whilst I can't imagine anyone finding it by accident and not realising
it is propaganda, I did wonder if it should be allowed to continue, but forced to un-re-brand back to "Russia Today". The true believers will,
I assume, find alternative, internet based, feeds.
On 02/03/2022 20:46, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the
government never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2
because people could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what >>>>>> will be taken off air by future governments.
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually
spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests
of the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far too
frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and
misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
damaged this country best interests.
I said nothing about "an absolute right" to free speech so I'm not
entirely clear why you raise that issue.
Because you mention "lawful speech (if unlawful [...])" but then
celebrate the lack of jamming of 'Lord Haw-Haw' whose speech was very
likely unlawful according to British censorship rules at the time, which
kind of implies that actually you're celebrating free speech, rather
than free legal speech.
But if misinformation is so deplorable would you be happy to pay a
fine of at least £100 for every factually wrong post you make?
Possibly, it depends on the exact circumstances, but in principle, if
the rules were the same for everyone - and if they were, others here would be a lot poorer than I - then yes.
On 02/03/2022 21:42, Java Jive wrote:
On 02/03/2022 20:46, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the
government never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2
because people could be trusted to judge for themselves. And
what will be taken off air by future governments.
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually
spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests
of the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far
too frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news
and misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
damaged this country best interests.
I said nothing about "an absolute right" to free speech so I'm not
entirely clear why you raise that issue.
Because you mention "lawful speech (if unlawful [...])" but then
celebrate the lack of jamming of 'Lord Haw-Haw' whose speech was very
likely unlawful according to British censorship rules at the time,
which kind of implies that actually you're celebrating free speech,
rather than free legal speech.
I find that unconvincing - not to say contrived. First, I merely
contrasted the absence of even the attempt to frustrate Haw-Haw with the current enthusiasm for bans on various areas of lawful speech. Second,
your "kind of implies" are weasel words. There is nothing in my posts
which justifies your claim that I believe in totally unfettered speech.
 Your assertion is both wrong and defamatory.
But if misinformation is so deplorable would you be happy to pay a
fine of at least £100 for every factually wrong post you make?
Possibly, it depends on the exact circumstances, but in principle, if
the rules were the same for everyone - and if they were, others here
would be a lot poorer than IÂ -Â then yes.
Oh the main rules would be very simple. If the Ministry of Truth say
you are wrong then you are wrong.
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
Read, if you haven't already, R V Jones - "Most Secret War". Direction >finding beacons were discussed in it, but it was a long time ago now
since it read it, so I can't remember any details, but I do seem to
recall that there was some problem with them.
On 02/03/2022 17:17, Mark Carver wrote:Ofcom did nothing. They are still procrastinating, so whatever they
It carried on on the COM 7 mux (EPG 113) until 16:50hrs
From what I can discover, it was the EU that removed it from satellite feeds I can't find anything about Ofcom having removed it from
FreeView, so it is possible that that was also the result of EU action removing the feed.
Britain didn't really need to jam Haw-Haw, because most of his
propaganda was so absurd that few (if any) of his listeners believed a
word of it (or at least they could distinguish the lies from those parts
that did have some grains of truths in them).
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
Java Jive wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered >>> all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they couldRead, if you haven't already, R V Jones - "Most Secret War". Direction
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
finding beacons were discussed in it, but it was a long time ago now
since it read it, so I can't remember any details, but I do seem to
recall that there was some problem with them.
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
which wasn't particularly comfortable.
At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
adequate until we were nearer home.
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
On 02/03/2022 18:35, David Woolley wrote:
Whilst I can't imagine anyone finding it by accident and not
realising it is propaganda, I did wonder if it should be allowed to >>continue, but forced to un-re-brand back to "Russia Today". The true >>believers will, I assume, find alternative, internet based, feeds.
I know one person who seems to regard RT as a good source of dirt on
"our corrupt conservative government". I told him you can't believe a
word they say but he wasn't interested.
Britain didn't really need to jam Haw-Haw, because most of his
propaganda was so absurd that few (if any) of his listeners believed a
word of it (or at least they could distinguish the lies from those parts
that did have some grains of truths in them).
But we do need to know how our opponents are saying, and what they might
even have brainwashed themselves into really believing. On tonight's
Channel 4 News, I've just been watching an interview with Natalya >Narotchnitskaya - a former Russian MP. She simply doggedly spouted hook,
line and sinker the Russian case for invading Ukraine. It was absolutely >chilling to hear her.
Ofcom did nothing. They are still procrastinating, so whatever they eventually decide will be academic now.
I know one person who seems to regard RT as a good source of dirt on
"our corrupt conservative government".
I suppose one difference is that during WWII, people might tell their neighbours what Lord Haw-Haw had been saying and have a laugh about it.
Now the propaganda from the Russian equivalent can spread much quicker
by being quoted on the Internet so some will believe it.
The obverse of this is that these days I suspect many Russians have mobile devices and can see material from outwith Russia. That may, erm. perhaps 'clash' whith what the 'official' media they have tells them.
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
I thought that the German transmitters were only shutdown during local
air raids just as the BBC ones were though there were the lower power
Group H ones here.
In article <j8balbFginuU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Ofcom did nothing. They are still procrastinating, so whatever theyOfCrap are a chocolate fireguard. They simply sell airspace to whoever bids high enough.
eventually decide will be academic now.
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the
government never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2
because people could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what
will be taken off air by future governments.
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider country as a
whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country best interests.
On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually
spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests of
the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far too
frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and
misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
damaged this country best interests.
Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the "Government view" may be right sometimes.
On 02/03/2022 20:14, Ian Jackson wrote:The British executed him illegally.
Britain didn't really need to jam Haw-Haw, because most of his
propaganda was so absurd that few (if any) of his listeners believed a
word of it (or at least they could distinguish the lies from those parts
that did have some grains of truths in them).
My mum was in the Land Army during the war, and she said they
deliberately listened to Lord Haw-Haw because he was hilarious.
It is also worth noting that his name was William Joyce. The name Lord Haw-Haw was deliberately chosen to undermine his credibility.
Jim
The British executed him illegally.
On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually
spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests
of the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far too
frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and
misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
damaged this country best interests.
Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
"Government view" may be right sometimes.
Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and
thereby mislead the public.
On 03/03/2022 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually
spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests
of the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far
too frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news
and misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
damaged this country best interests.
Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
"Government view" may be right sometimes.
Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of
Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and
thereby mislead the public.
Yes it does, as, unless you are God, you can't tell whether people are
lying or not.
And most issues that people care about are matters of
opinion not matters of fact.
In article <svoecq$6fn$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the government
never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people
could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what will be taken off
air by future governments.
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually spouted
parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating lies and
propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider country as a
whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently, there have been
multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation have led to such
decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country best interests.
And if lord haw-haw had started to be believed?
Wouldn't they have tried to do something about it?
Maybe they were trying to stop lord haw-haw.
If not Why did the Germans go to such lengths, creating incredibly
powerful mobile transmitters and moving them around?
So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
Read, if you haven't already, R V Jones - "Most Secret War". Direction
finding beacons were discussed in it, but it was a long time ago now
since it read it, so I can't remember any details, but I do seem to
recall that there was some problem with them.
The beams got bent, so intersection between two (the target) ended up in
the wrong place.
On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a fewWas this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
which wasn't particularly comfortable.
At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
adequate until we were nearer home.
and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
Mark Carver wrote:
On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a fewWas this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
which wasn't particularly comfortable.
At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
adequate until we were nearer home.
and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but
I wouldn't like to say which year.
On 03/03/2022 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually
spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating >>>> lies and propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider
country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently,
there have been multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation
have led to such decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country >>>> best interests.
Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
"Government view" may be right sometimes.
Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of
Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and
thereby mislead the public.
Yes it does, as, unless you are God, you can't tell whether people are
lying or not. And most issues that people care about are matters of
opinion not matters of fact.
Have a Google for "the battle of the beams"
We had that very powerful TV transmitter at Alexandra palace came in
very useful that:)
On 03/03/2022 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
historical time that I am aware of.
Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
"Government view" may be right sometimes.
Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and thereby mislead the public.
Yes it does, as, unless you are God, you can't tell whether people are
lying or not.
And most issues that people care about are matters of
opinion not matters of fact.
In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>,
Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a fewWas this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
which wasn't particularly comfortable.
At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
adequate until we were nearer home.
and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but
I wouldn't like to say which year.
Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
Burghead were added..
charles wrote:
In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
<chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a fewWas this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress, which
wasn't particularly comfortable.
At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot couldn't
get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping out. However,
after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected, confirmed by the
familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly adequate until we
were nearer home.
Westerglen and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but I
wouldn't like to say which year.
Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan & >Burghead were added..
Sorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never heard of
the transmitters.
On 04/03/2022 10:07, Chris J Dixon wrote:
charles wrote:
In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>, Chris J DixonSorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never heard of
<chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but I
A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a fewWas this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress, which >>>>> wasn't particularly comfortable.
At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot couldn't >>>>> get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping out. However, >>>>> after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected, confirmed by the
familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly adequate until we
were nearer home.
Westerglen and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
wouldn't like to say which year.
Burghead were added..
the transmitters.
In short, up until Nov 1978 BBC 200 kHz was just a single service from Droitwich.
On 23rd November 78 (the day the BBC shuffled all their national MW and
LW services) two transmitters were added, also on 200 kHz. Westerglen (halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh) and Burghead (east of Inverness)
So after that date, the use of Droitwich as a navigation beacon would
have become 'blurred'
charles wrote:
In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>,Sorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never
Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but
A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a fewWas this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen >>>> and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
which wasn't particularly comfortable.
At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
adequate until we were nearer home.
I wouldn't like to say which year.
Burghead were added..
heard of the transmitters.
In article <j8e79mF31v4U1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver ><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/03/2022 10:07, Chris J Dixon wrote:
charles wrote:In short, up until Nov 1978 BBC 200 kHz was just a single service from
In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>, Chris J DixonSorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never heard of
<chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but I
A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a fewWas this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress, which
wasn't particularly comfortable.
At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot couldn't
get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping out. However,
after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected, confirmed by the
familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly adequate until we
were nearer home.
Westerglen and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
wouldn't like to say which year.
Burghead were added..
the transmitters.
Droitwich.
On 23rd November 78 (the day the BBC shuffled all their national MW and
LW services) two transmitters were added, also on 200 kHz. Westerglen
(halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh) and Burghead (east of Inverness)
So after that date, the use of Droitwich as a navigation beacon would
have become 'blurred'
I suspect it depends of how far south of Hadrian's Wall you were. That's >where big blurring happens.
I don't know how the Radio 2 signal is at Hadrian's Wall, but with a non-directional receiving aerial (eg in your car) it's just a load ofYou mean Radio 4 of course :-)
mush around the north east Borders area. Burghead is probably a lot
weaker. With a transistor portable you can null out Westerglen, and
it's at least intelligible (probably good enough to hear the
cricket!). However, as Droitwich is distinctly the most powerful, at a distance to the east it's possible it might still provide a general indication of the direction the UK lies.
I don't know how the Radio 2 signal is at Hadrian's Wall, but with a non-directional receiving aerial (eg in your car) it's just a load of
mush around the north east Borders area. Burghead is probably a lot
weaker. With a transistor portable you can null out Westerglen, and it's
at least intelligible (probably good enough to hear the cricket!).
However, as Droitwich is distinctly the most powerful, at a distance to
the east it's possible it might still provide a general indication of
the direction the UK lies.
When Droitwich has had periods of being off air, the signal from the
other two sites in Scotland is very weak down here in Southern England.
Would be interesting to see what the relative strengths might be on the
Dutch coast for instance ?
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful to
know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a lot of people really were believing them.
--
Ian
On 04/03/2022 16:32, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
IIRC the UK also forced Press TV (Iranian) off the air, and although
its coverage was incredibly biased, they were the about only media
outlet with reporters in Libya during the period Gadhafi fell and
their on the ground reports were mostly factual.
The BBC were receiving reports from inside Tripoli right up to the
downfall of Gadhafi.
IIRC the UK also forced Press TV (Iranian) off the air, and although its coverage was incredibly biased, they were the about only media outlet with reporters in Libya during the period Gadhafi fell and their on the ground reports were mostly factual.
In message <c53a0d98-067c-4918-9e06-e753e8647e51n@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> writes
On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:51:13 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful to
know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a lot of >>> people really were believing them.
--
Ian
A mistake IMO to take RT off the air. We are supposed to be free, so
why can't one assess their lies for oneself.
IIRC the UK also forced Press TV (Iranian) off the air, and although
its coverage was incredibly biased, they were the about only media
outlet with reporters in Libya during the period Gadhafi fell and
their on the ground reports were mostly factual.
As you might have seen in another NG, you can still get RT at https://www.rt.com/on-air/embed/
or
https://www.rt.com/on-air/
and select 'RT Player'.
Yes - in times of conflict it's extremely useful (and even essential) to
know what your opponent is thinking and saying. However, RT has for many years been airing a virtual constant stream anti-West propaganda, and a surprising number of UK citizens seem to have been influenced by it. In
the sacred principle of preserving 'free speech', it's one thing to be
able to hear the other side of the argument - but, as one LBC presenter
said, "Would we have allowed Lord Haw-Haw to make his broadcasts from a studio in Whitehall?"
On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:51:13 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful to
know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a lot of
people really were believing them.
--
Ian
A mistake IMO to take RT off the air. We are supposed to be free, so
why can't one assess their lies for oneself.
IIRC the UK also forced Press TV (Iranian) off the air, and although
its coverage was incredibly biased, they were the about only media
outlet with reporters in Libya during the period Gadhafi fell and their
on the ground reports were mostly factual.
On 04/03/2022 18:01, MB wrote:
On 04/03/2022 16:32, R. Mark Clayton wrote:Libya didn't have a terribly advanced network of 'spookery'. I was
IIRC the UK also forced Press TV (Iranian) off the air, and although
its coverage was incredibly biased, they were the about only media
outlet with reporters in Libya during the period Gadhafi fell and
their on the ground reports were mostly factual.
The BBC were receiving reports from inside Tripoli right up to the
downfall of Gadhafi.
there mid 00s, the internet barely worked, and I don't think anyone from
Col G's regime was tapping in.
One of my memories of Moscow, was about 5 seconds into any call on my
hotel room phone, there'd be a click, and a 6dB drop in the audio level.
That doesn't seem terribly advanced either. You'd think they'd have
heard of high input impedance buffer amplifiers at least.
On 04/03/2022 16:32, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
IIRC the UK also forced Press TV (Iranian) off the air, and although its coverage was incredibly biased, they were the about only media outlet with reporters in Libya during the period Gadhafi fell and their on the ground reports were mostly factual.The BBC were receiving reports from inside Tripoli right up to the
downfall of Gadhafi.
On 05/03/2022 09:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
That doesn't seem terribly advanced either. You'd think they'd havePerhaps they wanted people to know they were being monitored?
heard of high input impedance buffer amplifiers at least.
A bit like the SB who had to attend political meetings, when they were getting bored or needing bog or drink, they would get their notebook out
and start writing everything down.
Were you in the Judean People's Front or the People Front of Judea?
One of my memories of Moscow, was about 5 seconds into any call on my
hotel room phone, there'd be a click, and a 6dB drop in the audio level.
That doesn't seem terribly advanced either. You'd think they'd have
heard of high input impedance buffer amplifiers at least.
On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:51:13 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful to
know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a lot of
people really were believing them.
--
Ian
A mistake IMO to take RT off the air. We are supposed to be free, so why can't one assess their lies for oneself.
Erm, that depends on the case I'd think. But I agree that some people are stubbornly deluded about their contra-factual beliefs and reject evidence that clashes with it out of hand.
If she'd said the believed the West, she'd have ended up in Jail/
On 03/03/2022 17:44, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Erm, that depends on the case I'd think. But I agree that some people are stubbornly deluded about their contra-factual beliefs and reject evidence that clashes with it out of hand.
BBC News spoke to an elderly Russian lady yesterday, she did not
believe any of the "lies" from the West and Ukraine because she "knew"
that the Russian authorities told the truth.
You might have thought that someone who has lived through various
regimes of the USSR up to the present day, would have a scepticism of anything she was told by the Russian authorities but she believed it all.
On 03/03/2022 17:44, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Erm, that depends on the case I'd think. But I agree that some people are
stubbornly deluded about their contra-factual beliefs and reject evidence
that clashes with it out of hand.
BBC News spoke to an elderly Russian lady yesterday, she did not
believe any of the "lies" from the West and Ukraine because she "knew"
that the Russian authorities told the truth.
You might have thought that someone who has lived through various
regimes of the USSR up to the present day, would have a scepticism of >anything she was told by the Russian authorities but she believed it all.
In message <t023vm$cbr$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
There was a report from a lady in Ukraine who had phoned her mother in
You might have thought that someone who has lived through various
regimes of the USSR up to the present day, would have a scepticism of
anything she was told by the Russian authorities but she believed it all.
Moscow to tell her what was really happening. She even sent her photos
of the destruction - but her mother still would not believe her.
In message <j8a858FahpkU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> writes
On 02/03/2022 18:35, David Woolley wrote:
Whilst I can't imagine anyone finding it by accident and not
realising it is propaganda, I did wonder if it should be allowed to >>continue, but forced to un-re-brand back to "Russia Today". The true >>believers will, I assume, find alternative, internet based, feeds.
I know one person who seems to regard RT as a good source of dirt on
"our corrupt conservative government". I told him you can't believe a
word they say but he wasn't interested.
These days, a great number of people have come to realise that what some
of our politicians say is sometimes/often/always far from the truth. As
a result, many prefer to get their information from a vast number of alternative sources - and quite a few are willingly prepared to believe almost anything they hear, provided it contradicts the 'official'
version.
I'm sure that all this was far less so in the past - especially in the
days before the explosion of 'social media', when the general population were only influenced by a limited number of (albeit divergent) sources.
As such it would have been inconceivable that many of Lord Haw-Haw's audience would have believed much of his propaganda (or, for that
matter, all the other German propaganda). Although many the nation's
wartime and Cold War opponents routinely jammed our broadcasts to them
(to prevent their citizens' minds being corrupted), the only time I
recall the UK jamming anything was in the latter 60s - and that was to
make it difficult to listen to the pirate pop radio stations!
--
Ian
Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful
to know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a
lot of people really were believing them.
The horses are well and truly over the horizon, so OFCOM gently leans
on the stable door.
<https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/ofcom-revokes-rt-broadcast-licence>
On 18/03/2022 08:17, Andy Burns wrote:
The horses are well and truly over the horizon, so OFCOM gently leans
on the
stable door.
Not paid a great deal of attention but I thought it had already been
taken off.
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful to know how and what
Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a lot of people really were believing them.
The horses are well and truly over the horizon, so OFCOM gently leans on the stable door.
Andy Burns wrote:
The horses are well and truly over the horizon, so OFCOM gently leans on the >> stable door.
Not paid a great deal of attention but I thought it had already been taken off.
Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of >>anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful
to know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a
lot of people really were believing them.
The horses are well and truly over the horizon, so OFCOM gently leans
on the stable door.
<https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/ofcom-revokes-rt-broadcast-licence>
In message <j9itg7FrajmU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
Ian Jackson wrote:
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful
to know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a
lot of people really were believing them.
The horses are well and truly over the horizon, so OFCOM gently leans
on the stable door.
<https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/ofcom-revokes-rt-broadcast-licence>
Fortunately (or otherwise) it's still on the internet. The level of lies
and misinformation has now risen to a crescendo, leaving little time for those snippets of truth that are designed to convince the gullible that
RT isn't 'totally bad'. Presumably this is the sort of stuff that
Russian citizens are being fed, but it beats me how those producing it
can in any way think that non-Russians will believe it.
On 18/03/2022 at 13:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <j9itg7FrajmU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
Ian Jackson wrote:Fortunately (or otherwise) it's still on the internet. The level of
RT went 'No Service' at 3:40pm, during a torrential compilation of
anti-West propaganda. In a way it's a pity, as it's extremely useful
to know how and what Russia was thinking but, unfortunately, quite a
lot of people really were believing them.
The horses are well and truly over the horizon, so OFCOM gently leans
on the stable door.
<https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/ofcom-revokes-rt-broadcast- >>>licence>
lies
and misinformation has now risen to a crescendo, leaving little time for
those snippets of truth that are designed to convince the gullible that
RT isn't 'totally bad'. Presumably this is the sort of stuff that
Russian citizens are being fed, but it beats me how those producing it
can in any way think that non-Russians will believe it.
When you've been brainwashed, thinking doesn't come into it.
It's hard to tell who is the world's most useless organisation, Ofcom or
the UN. It's a close call I think.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:17:39 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,214 |
| Messages: | 5,336,447 |