Listening to RNLI on channel 0

[Fender]

Originally Posted by John Kennett

You asked a question, Poly took the time answer and even gave you a reference to back it up.

It’s funny how differently things come across on a forum post sometimes though. Your initial post sounded like you were rather pleased to have overheard about a fatality. I’m sure you weren’t though.

Can't see that at all, having read the OP original post a few times no where would I say he comes across being 'pleased',

'My question is - is it ilegal to listen on channel 0 the RNLI and coastguard frequency ? I had a radio scanner with me while out today (cant transmit only listen) and came across a major incident unfolding on the cliffs between durlston lighthouse and dancing ledge, two life boats, one helicopter, police, a csi unit and cliff rescue personel on the cliff top. Winchman transferred from helo to lifeboat to cliff edge. Lots of police etc parked up by durlston lighthouse.

Heard reference to 'Tango 4' and a tad later heard exactly what that referred to, not a good outcome. I had yesterday been walking along the exact same path with my girlfriend.

Very sad about the outcome, haven't heard what it was about as yet.'

If anything - I would have said he felt the exact opposite! Aren't we a funny bunch!

[willk]

Originally Posted by Fender

Can't see that at all, having read the OP original post a few times no where would I say he comes across being 'pleased'...

I think it's about how much he said, not quite how he said it. The question about legality was somewhat lost in the detail about the transmission that was overheard. A simple "Is using a scanner to listen to CG comms legal?" would have covered it. Instead we got a "I overheard this XXXX and now I'm repeating XXXX on social media and I'd like to know is it legal".

Sometimes the question gets lost in the asking - example:
I was looking through your bedroom window yesterday and I saw your wife banging the postman - is looking through windows legal?"

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by willk

I think it's about how much he said, not quite how he said it. The question about legality was somewhat lost in the detail about the transmission that was overheard. A simple "Is using a scanner to listen to CG comms legal?" would have covered it. Instead we got a "I overheard this XXXX and now I'm repeating XXXX on social media and I'd like to know is it legal".

Sometimes the question gets lost in the asking - example:
I was looking through your bedroom window yesterday and I saw your wife banging the postman - is looking through windows legal?"

It might have been a Special Delivery [emoji848]

[Fender]

Originally Posted by willk

I think it's about how much he said, not quite how he said it. The question about legality was somewhat lost in the detail about the transmission that was overheard. A simple "Is using a scanner to listen to CG comms legal?" would have covered it. Instead we got a "I overheard this XXXX and now I'm repeating XXXX on social media and I'd like to know is it legal".

Sometimes the question gets lost in the asking - example:
I was looking through your bedroom window yesterday and I saw your wife banging the postman - is looking through windows legal?"

Not sure if I agree 100%, no matter how much was or wasn't disclosed, none came across as if Boris was pleased to be receiving the info, in fact his OP mentioned twice how the situation had in fact a negative outcome, anyway - I'm off back to work, got to deliver some more mail, 'extra duty' over time and all that ( must remember to close the curtains, must remember to close the curtains, must remember..............)

[xpertski]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Only when people ask questions & then don’t like the answer. [emoji57]

You what PD! [emoji23] only joking. Certainly cover allot of interesting topics on here though!

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by xpertski

You what PD! [emoji23] only joking.

I know[emoji106] I was referring to folk who ask questions & get a detailed informative answer which ain’t to their liking, and kick off.

[Last Tango]

I can see part of this argument.
Last year we were out south west of Oban heading in towards Easdale and from the "chatter" on CH16 it was obvious Oban Lifeboat was out looking for a canoeist who was "overdue" at his destination. We heard no mention on CH16 of his departure point or his expected destination and much of the communication was being directed to CH0.

In the circumstances I doubt if the canoeist would have deemed his intended route as "sensitive" and with that knowledge we may have been able to alter our track to help look for him as the light was fading. Fortunately he was picked up by a passing yacht so no harm done, but receive only access to CH0 might have had him found earlier.

[GuyC]

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse...o-Scanners.pdf

I do sort of understand why people would want to share newsworthy information prior to it being in the public domain but the key thing is to resist the urge to do it. There are of course exceptions but this isn't one of them.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Last Tango

In the circumstances I doubt if the canoeist would have deemed his intended route as "sensitive" and with that knowledge we may have been able to alter our track to help look for him as the light was fading. Fortunately he was picked up by a passing yacht so no harm done, but receive only access to CH0 might have had him found earlier.

If you think you can help you can always call the CG on 16 to tell them your location and offer your services (waiting for a break in the urgent traffic). This is one reason why sometimes it is a good idea to tell them your plans - they can ask you if you saw a kayak rather than wait for you to tell them. However as I understand it if there is a general search going on they often broadcast a mayday relay on the relevant masts asking vessels in the area to keep a lookout. Perhaps you were further away than the yacht?