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 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.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

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.

It carried on on the COM 7 mux (EPG 113) until 16:50hrs

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?

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
> 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?
>

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.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 02/03/2022 17:17, Mark Carver wrote:
>
> 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.

I take the view that Haw Haw rules should be applied, although there is
little doubt that they are breaking their licence terms and it might be
better to say the equivalent of not jamming Haw Haw would be not
blocking internet access to direct feeds from Russia.

I must admit I decided, several years ago, that they were too biassed to
be useful even to show the world with Russian eyes.

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 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.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

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.
>
Don't forget this was the same country that banned the broadcast of IRA
spokesmen.

I think it is a question of how believable the person would be that
decides what should and what shouldn't be censored.

Jim

In message <49be138d-3035-31b1-fcc5-d0c12dd5d27b@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> writes
>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.
>
It appears that the decision to take RT off was not the UK's, but the
EU's instead.

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.
--
Ian

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?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

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.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

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.

When discussing issues in a public place, we each have to take
responsibility for ensuring that what we say is true, or at least very
likely to be true, whereas far too many just try to lie their way out of
arguments. Public debate here, in England particularly, is up shit
creek without a paddle, and something needs to be done to improve it.
Such a system as you suggest would impose a healthier standard of public
debate than currently exists, though also it might have the undesirable
side effect of ensuring that lying in public becomes a privilege of the
rich, because they would be able to pay the attendant fines, as in ...

.... a story that was once told me years ago as 'warranted true', but
actually was probably just an urban myth at the time! A Rolls Royce
draws past a parking place somewhere in London in order to reverse into
it, but before it can do so, a mini following behind it is able to drive
forwards into the parking space and so steals it. As he gets out, the
mini driver chortles: "That's the advantage of having a practical car!".
The RR driver then backs into the parking space, shunting the mini up
onto the pavement. As he gets out of his car, he says: "That's the
advantage of being able to afford a Rolls Royce!"

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 02/03/2022 21:05, charles wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, now you mention it, that sounds familiar. Thanks for reminding me.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 02/03/2022 21:05, charles wrote:
> 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.
>

I think "beams" (like Knickebein) ain't what Goering meant by ordinary
MW & LW transmitters being used as "beacons".

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 02/03/2022 at 20:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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).

I think the point was maybe not so much that they'd believe most of his
lies, but that even hearing his voice might affect morale.

--
Wilf

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.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

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 I  -  then yes.

Oh the main rules would be very simple. If the Ministry of Truth say
you are wrong then you are wrong.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 02/03/2022 22:08, Robin wrote:
> 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.

Well, your remarks invoking Lord Haw-Haw came across to me as I've
recounted above.

>>> 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.
>
> Oh the main rules would be very simple.  If the Ministry of Truth say
> you are wrong then you are wrong.

The Ministry of Truth would probably be worst source of misinformation,
if we are going the Orwellian route.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 02/03/2022 18:35, David Woolley wrote:
> On 02/03/2022 17:17, Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>> 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.
Ofcom did nothing. They are still procrastinating, so whatever they
eventually decide will be academic now.

Java Jive wrote:

>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.

A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
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.

Sadly, the aircraft later failed to gain height at takeoff from a
grass strip at Lausanne, and was burnt out, luckily without
serious injuries to those on board.

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=29048

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

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.

Famously the German closing during air raids was taken advantage of by
using ASPIDISTRA.

On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> 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.
> A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
> 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.
>
>
Was this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen
and Burghead have muddled the signal ?

On 02/03/2022 20:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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).

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.

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.

There were concerns before WWII that the Germans would have beacons
operated by agents in the British Isles but the VIs of the RSS soon
found there were not any but of course found other interesting
transmissions which turned out to be Abwehr around the world which
resulted in a huge operation to intercept and decode it and other traffic.

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