On 04/03/2022 11:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

Radio 2?

Normally when you taking a bearing, you use a null so any "mush" could
give a less precise reading.

On 04/03/2022 11:36, Mark Carver wrote:
> 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 ?

Before we had Radio 4 on VHF FM, I would have to listen on Long Wave.
There quite distinct nulls between Burghead and Westerglen where there
would be a very deep dip in signal of distortion. One was just before
where I turned into the drive up to my work location.

Not listened to Long Wave or Medium Wave for many years, bother are
useless in the Highlands.

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 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 04/03/2022 18:01, MB wrote:
> 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.
>
Libya didn't have a terribly advanced network of 'spookery'.  I was
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.

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/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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?"
--
Ian

On 04/03/2022 19:44, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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?"

Well Jon Snow was allowed to present the news on Channel 4 for over 20
years until December last :)

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

On 05/03/2022 09:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> That doesn't seem terribly advanced either. You'd think they'd have
> heard of high input impedance buffer amplifiers at least.

Perhaps they wanted people to know they were being monitored?

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.

On Friday, 4 March 2022 at 18:01:43 UTC, MB wrote:
> 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.

Indeed, but Press were getting them from all over the country, giving a much better picture of what was going on.

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:06:41 UTC, MB wrote:
> On 05/03/2022 09:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > That doesn't seem terribly advanced either. You'd think they'd have
> > heard of high input impedance buffer amplifiers at least.
> Perhaps they wanted people to know they were being monitored?
>
> 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?

On 05/03/2022 11:54, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Were you in the Judean People's Front or the People Front of Judea?

Just have a friend who used to have sit through the meetings.

In article <o6a62hd2rvbs605qo7l57cqhq2l876nnt3@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >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.

That assumes they wanted to prevent you from realising they were monitoring
your call. In practice they may well have preferred to make it clear to you
that they *were*. To the point where simply arranging for the 'drop' to be
audible meant they didn't have to bore themselves by actually listening to
*every* call. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 04/03/2022 16:32, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> 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.

Don't forget we now have a younger generation with smartphones, who
think that everything shown on their phone screen is true. It would
never occur to them that RT was spouting lies.

Jim

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 article <t023vm$cbr$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> 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.

If she'd said the believed the West, she'd have ended up in Jail/

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

On 06/03/2022 11:29, charles wrote:
> If she'd said the believed the West, she'd have ended up in Jail/

Trued but from what she said, she had complete belief in what she was
being told by Putin's regime.

In message <t023vm$cbr$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>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.
>
There was a report from a lady in Ukraine who had phoned her mother in
Moscow to tell her what was really happening. She even sent her photos
of the destruction - but her mother still would not believe her.
--
Ian

On 06/03/2022 13:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> In message <t023vm$cbr$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>>
>> 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.
>>
> There was a report from a lady in Ukraine who had phoned her mother in
> Moscow to tell her what was really happening. She even sent her photos
> of the destruction - but her mother still would not believe her.

Ukraine war: 'My city's being shelled, but mum won’t believe me'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60600487

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 08:32:24 +0000
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

> 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

For years the veracity of the BBC was lauded as telling "the truth, the
whole truth and nothing bit the truth". Then came the claims of biased
reportng from its Middle East correspondents.

An indication of that could be seen when you watched their sign-on that
used to bounce between all the cities in which it had representation.
Except Jerusalem where in fact it had its biggest contingent and where
like here there is a free press.

When the clamour became loud and non-ending, the BBC or its trustees
commissioned a report from a respected journalist Malcolm Balen (2004).
Mr Balen produced and delivered his report. The BBC read it and buried
it.

Attempts to get the Courts to force the BBC to publish it (its cost
having been met with public money) were denied. According to reports at
the time, somewhere between £200,000 and £300,000 was spent in legal
costs to prevent the public finding out what they had been up to.

So what's that got to do with RT?

Just that none of the news outlets is squeaky clean and to have a
counter-balance makes it easier to corroberate reports.

As it happens RT had increasingly made me want to puke to the point
where I stopped watching it a few weeks ago. I mainly watch Al-Jazeera,
Sky News and BBC News in that order. GB News is a bit like a
work-in-progress so I just pop in now and again to see how the
decorating is going.

Everything else I get on-line. Mainly from www.quora.com.

Just saying.

Alan

Mint 20.3, kernel 5.4.0-95-generic, Cinnamon 5.2.7
running on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition processor with 16GB of
DRAM.

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:
> 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>
>

Quite !

It's hard to tell who is the world's most useless organisation, Ofcom or
the UN. It's a close call I think.

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.

On 18/03/2022 09:06, MB wrote:
> 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.

Yes, because all of the distribution links it used to get its signal to
the UK, were via satellites owned by EU countries.
Within a day or two of the EU deciding RT was 'no good' the signal was gone.

Meanwhile, Ofcom's man on a broken bicycle finally turns up.....

MB wrote:

> 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.

EU sanctions happened to remove UK feeds, still available on several streaming
services, so what's the point of broadcast licences?

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.
--
Ian