Re: RSGB makes it to El Reg

Len GM0ONX wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> Len GM0ONX wrote:
>>
>>> Spike wrote:
>>>> Len GM0ONX wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>>>>>> No he isn't. He likes to feign a legal knowledge but that
isn't the same
>>>>>>> thing. Rather like someone trying to look legally
knowledgeable by using
>>>>>>> words like "calumny".
>>>>>> Oh, I don't know. He showed up Len's total lack of knowledge of
the
>>>>>> Communications Act 2003.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the one that mandates Ofcom to hold consultations when
>>>>>> proposing changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Len thought (hoped?) there wouldn't be any more, after the RSGB
got
>>>>>> rubbished by members and non-members alike.
>>>>> Yes and I contacted OFCOM and made a FOI request about that after
your
>>>>> last claim. They say they contact 10% of all complainants to see
how
>>>>> they have done, that's all the consultation they've done in recent
years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well Spike prove me wrong what other consultation have they done
since
>>>>> there one and only major survey?
>>>> Thanks for once again replying to a different topic.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should have looked back in the group's archive, to see the
>>>> relevant postings by you and Lucifer on the subject of the CA 2003 and
>>>> the consultations Ofcom held concerning Amateur Radio.
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>> I prefer to believe what OFCOM tell me under a FOI request rather than
>>> the misinformation posted here.
>>
>> I'm sure you do, especially as it concerns a different subject to the
>> one under discussion.
>
>You mean the one in the header i.e. RSGB makes it to El Reg.

Nope. You chose to reply to my posting to Brian Reay, namely this one:

----------

Brian Reay wrote:

> "Len GM0ONX" <gm0onx@goooooglemail.com> wrote in message
>news:hd155r$gv7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> >
>> Not much, you're baldy, you're a G3 Lancastrian originally from Preston,
>> you're not really the devil but the nearest thing to it on earth, ie
>> you're from the legal profession.
>
>No he isn't. He likes to feign a legal knowledge but that isn't the same
>thing. Rather like someone trying to look legally knowledgeable by using
>words like "calumny".

Oh, I don't know. He showed up Len's total lack of knowledge of the
Communications Act 2003.

That's the one that mandates Ofcom to hold consultations when
proposing changes.

Len thought (hoped?) there wouldn't be any more, after the RSGB got
rubbished by members and non-members alike.

----------

You chose to reply to this, by saying:

----------

>Yes and I contacted OFCOM and made a FOI request about that after your
>last claim. They say they contact 10% of all complainants to see how
>they have done, that's all the consultation they've done in recent years.
>
>Well Spike prove me wrong what other consultation have they done since
>there one and only major survey?

-----------

I suggest you follow the links given by Lucifer, to get the answer
straight from Ofcom.

-----------

>>> So Spike is that you confirming you have no personal knowledge of OFCOM
>>> carrying out any major survey on the subject of amateur radio since
>>> August 2005? Not exactly a regular plebiscite?
>>
>> So this is a third topic you're trying to shift your ground onto?
>
>Well you can nail it on the head by answering the question, are you
>confirming you have no personal knowledge of OFCOM carrying out any
>major survey on the subject of amateur radio since August 2005?

OK, so what is this 'August 2005' that has made a sudden, and highly
irrelevant, appearance?

Since I didn't say it, and it isn't germane to the posting replying to
Brian Reay (to which you responded), one is left with the impression
that you want to shift your argument onto something you believe you
know about.

I'm afraid that's a rather simple gambit, you can see it every time a
politician appears on TV. Have you missed your vocation?

>> You could always stick with the one at hand, which FYI was Lucifer
>> showing up your total lack of knowledge of the Communications Act
>> 2003.
>
>Section 14 if the CA does not state how often the views of customers are
>ascertained or by what method in respect of amateur radio. Could for
>instance OFCOM claim that is doing so by consulting with the largest
>body representing amateur radio?

Only by breaking the law.

Time you had a look at Lucifer's links.

>> The thread will be on the Google archives, so you shouldn't have any
>> difficulty finding it.

But apparently you are. Keep trying.

--
from
Aero Spike
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]