Topics about a single subject's Daily Mail experience
:sunglasses: 50 % :grinning: 50 %
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
TV chaos for millions: 20m homes face retuning sets as frequencies sold to mobile firms
But you need to retune every few weeks anyway. Every time they add /move channels on Freeview. ... z3Jdhby9DD" onclick=";return false;
By spoonman
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
As usual, the M**l take a story where there will be knock-on effects but (a) have little clue what they're on about and (b) get things mixed up.

Of course, "retuning" will take place but as Arnold has mentioned most viewers are reasonably used to this and most new televisions will seek out new channels when on or in standby and change then themselves.

The big issue is that for quite a lot of people is that their aerial on the roof/chimney or in the attic will have to be changed, not moved. It is because this future "700 MHz" clearance of TV services to mobile operation will require a major reshuffling of frequencies at transmitter sites. The first clearance of the 800MHz band from TV to 4G mobile use cleared UHF frequency channels 61 - 69 that was completed last year. When the first DSO occurred, Ofcom and the broadcasters tried at pains to ensure that almost everyone would not have to replace any existing aerials, and even clearing the 800MHz band didn't affect this. But clearing the 700MHz band of television means UHF frequency channels 49-60 will also be cleared leaving television in a band between UHF channels 21-48. The big problem here is that at transmitter sites and relays that have normally used channels from 48 upwards for TV broadcasting will obviously no longer do so in a few years time - and aerials that have been up for a good number of years that are designed to mainly receive UHF frequency channels 48 and higher (called UHF C/D aerials in the industry) will need to be replaced with ones that receive the new frequencies that will then be transmitted from the same site, as their current ones won't work well on them.

There is potential for a lot of upheaval in parts of the UK for this, the biggest one is NW England where the Winter Hill site covers the likes of Greater Manchester, quite a bit of Liverpool, Preston, Blackpool etc. as well as a fair bit of the North Wales coastline. Some people who are having problems getting decent reception of BBC Four HD & BBC News HD have needed to get their aerial replaced. Other parts of the UK that might be in a similar pickle include, of the top of my head, Norfolk, South & East Kent, South Wales, Anglesey, Eastern Borders, Tyneside, Dundee and NW Northern Ireland, not to mention many smaller pockets served by relay sites.

Saying that, most new aerial installs by professionals in Britain in the last few years have been done using "wideband" aerials that cover all UHF frequencies so they shouldn't need replacing. Also a lot of people are now able to get away with indoor aerials for Freeview due to the nature of a digital signal compared to analogue, a lot of aerial installers have noticed a right drop off in installing new terrestrial aerials because of this. So the figure of "20 million" homes is a major exaggeration, but expect some outrage and sad faces come the end of this decade and the beginning of the next.
The Mail has been running scare stories about drones (the personal RC type ones, not the ones used to kill lots and lots of people) for a while now. Classic stuff really. Relatively new technology which has become popular, therefore the Daily Mail hates and fears them and wants its readers to hate and fear them too.

To start with, the Mailites couldn't give a fuck and the comments and ratings reflected that. A few months down the line, and many many scare stories later, the Mailites have been well and truly convinced that drones are now A Very Bad Thing, with the usual Mailite attitude of calling for them to be BANNED.
Mrmakawber, Nottingham, United Kingdom, about 2 hours ago
This technology should not be on general sale it is dangerous in the wrong hands, like guns.
+299 -35
vpharm, Hampshire, about 2 hours ago
I have some fine wire mesh attached to stones so if I see a drone over MY LAND I will try down it as it is illegal to fly drones over private property without landowner agreement!
+167 26
Just Saying, London, United Kingdom, about 2 hours ago
These drones are scary and could kill.
+146 -32
Darth Vader, Death Star, about 2 hours ago
Shoot them out of the sky!
+221 -17
Nana Yaw, Accra, Ghana, 2 hours ago
Technology will definitely cause doom for Humanity, trust me.
+100 -8

BAN this sick filth!

Evie_g23, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom, 2 hours ago
Drones should be banned - it is a gross invasion of privacy!
+98 -21
General David, London, United Kingdom, 3 hours ago
Drones should be banned in public places. Users should be licenced and owners should be registered.
+233 -16
zodster, Crewe, United Kingdom, 3 hours ago
simple, ban drones
+78 -18
Tony Martin, London, United Kingdom, 3 hours ago
Civilian drones should be banned completely.
+53 -19
Ziva8, England, United Kingdom, 4 hours ago
Those drones scare me as you don't know who is using, just shoot 'em down. They should be banned all over not just Paris, because they are a menace.
+701 -41
By Cyclist
Membership Days Posts
vpharm, Hampshire, about 2 hours ago
I have some fine wire mesh attached to stones so if I see a drone over MY LAND I will try down it as it is illegal to fly drones over private property without landowner agreement!
+167 26
Aaaand another Mailtard plucks UK legislation out of his own fundament. :lol:
I did wonder that. It's bollocks, isn't it?

I suppose if someone had an RC drone hovering outside a bathroom window then fair enough, but illegal to fly them over someone's house? Nah, I'd be very surprised if there are laws against that.

Common comment from Mailites about drones, though. Many of them taking great pleasure in describing in detail about how they'd shoot them down, destroy them etc if they saw one above their house/garden.

They'd be looking at a pretty big bill and perhaps even a criminal record, I imagine.
The legendary one-minute Google informs us that it is illegal to fly drone within 50 metres of any structure that is not 'under the control' of the operator. So yes, a householder might well have the right to bring down a drone over their property.

You can look up the rest of the rules yourself. ... quirements" onclick=";return false;
'M'lud, my client was in the garden of his Scottish estate polishing his Purdey when it accidentally discharged and quite by chance brought down one of these so-called surveillance drones, it could have happened to anyone.'

'Indeed. Members of the jury you have heard the eloquent defence of Mr Dacre's actions from the defendant's QC. You have no choice but to find him innocent of all charges and he should leave here without a stain on his unblemished character. Is that OK Paul?'

<Court usher whispers in judge's ear>

"Yes, yes, I was coming to that. On the grounds that the shooting down of the drone was purely accidental it is logical to conclude that the second discharge that took the head off the Mailwatch operator was likewise no fault of Lord Paul of the Ninth Circle of Hell.'

<Court usher whispers in judge's ear again>

'Sorry, that slipped out, getting ahead of myself, this award will of course follow the Prime Minister's Resignation Honours anouncement in May.'
Safe_Timber_Man wrote:From what I understand that refers to them "being used for surveillance purposes" or " flights that are being conducted for aerial work (i.e. in very simple terms, you are getting paid for doing it)."?
If you read the whole sentence you will see that it says
CAA permission is also required for all flights that are being conducted for aerial work (i.e. in very simple terms, you are getting paid for doing it).
So if you aren't being paid, you don't need CAA permission. But the other rules apply. Stay 50m away from structures and people.
I'm not sure. It looks to me that this but applies for any use of a drone:
The aircraft must be kept within the visual line of sight (normally taken to be within 500 m horizontally and 400 ft vertically) of its remote pilot (i.e. the ‘person in charge’ of it). Operations beyond these distances must be approved by the CAA (the basic premise being for the operator to prove that he/she can do this safely).

And this bit if it's "being used for surveillance purposes" or " flights that are being conducted for aerial work (i.e. in very simple terms, you are getting paid for doing it)."
Small unmanned aircraft (irrespective of their mass) that are being used for surveillance purposes are subject to tighter restrictions with regard to the minimum distances that you can fly near people or properties that are not under your control. If you wish to fly within these minima, permission is required from the CAA before operations are commenced.

CAA permission is also required for all flights that are being conducted for aerial work (i.e. in very simple terms, you are getting paid for doing it).

Either way, it'd make for an interesting case. If some kid was flying one 40 metres high around his street and a bloke in his garden got out an air rifle and shot it down as soon as it was over his house it'd probably open a can of worms, seeing as these drones are often flown in residential areas. They can be really quite expensive and not just written off like the foam airplanes I use to lose all over the place!

It would be an extremely cuntish thing to do, anyway. Whether legal or not, in my opinion.
In any case, even if it's illegal to fly a drone over my house, the correct way of me dealing with it would be to alert the appropriate authorities, not to shoot it down which could be a very dangerous thing to do, and might well be classed as criminal damage to boot.
Out of interest, would you? (Report it). In some cases I can see why they'd be a pain in the arse. Flying low literally in your garden or by your windows, for example.

Every time I've seen one in flight, though, they're at a decent height just floating around. I can't understand why some people seem to be so infuriated by them and feel the need to get rid of them, other than out of pure spite.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
Meanwhile in America

I see he's rowing back from the Proud Boys stuff[…]

Priti Patel

Why not just go the whole fuckin hog and build a[…]

Boris Johnson[…]

That's great Arrer. I remember another type he s[…]