Mobile phone jammers

[BrilloPad]

If you had a jammer, and knew there was an emergency, then I would expect any decent person to stop blocking the signal.

If you were using a jammer, and there was a nearby emergency that you were not aware of, would you block the signal? Possibly.

I'm not suggesting that people would deliberately jam a signal when it was needed, it's the inadvertent use that causes problems - hence they are illegal to use.

Is a few seconds of silence (before the blocked call is re-connected when you stop jamming it) really, really worth the possibility that you've put someone's safety or health at risk? It's a sad world we live in if you can't see this.

At this moment in time I agree with you 100%. After a day of dealing with the f**kwitted users at clientco then having to put up with some chav shouting away - then I might disagree. Probably 90% of mobile phone users are fine - but there is this 10% element who feel the need to infect the whole carriage with their boring lives. And its usually the posh types too......

[TheFaQQer]

At this moment in time I agree with you 100%. After a day of dealing with the f**kwitted users at clientco then having to put up with some chav shouting away - then I might disagree. Probably 90% of mobile phone users are fine - but there is this 10% element who feel the need to infect the whole carriage with their boring lives. And its usually the posh types too......

If the same person was in the carriage, and was talking to someone with them in the same way, would that induce the same level of anger?

Is it the conversation that riles, or the fact that you can only hear one side of it?

[BrilloPad]

If the same person was in the carriage, and was talking to someone with them in the same way, would that induce the same level of anger?

Is it the conversation that riles, or the fact that you can only hear one side of it?

As per my earlier post :-

http://forums.contractoruk.com/697319-post36.html

Its the noise.....

[TimberWolf]

Is a few seconds of silence (before the blocked call is re-connected when you stop jamming it) really, really worth the possibility that you've put someone's safety or health at risk? It's a sad world we live in if you can't see this.

Emergencies rarely happen and even in that scenario a jammer could and likely would turn off the device, so the I would say short-range jammers (the most useful and practical sort) are okay/mandatory. The practicalities of removing the source of annoyance of someone using a mobile outweighs the remote possibility of it doing harm.

[moorfield]

One downside though if one is using the jammer for short intervals this will just cause even more annoyance as said chav will no doubt keep reconnecting their calls, then there'll be some witter about tunnels and calling back if the signal cuts out again, then back onto the witter about what Jase was doing with Keely down The Nags Head last night. First Class travel subsidised by your fellow tax payer travellers is the way forward (if you're not doing it already).

[TheFaQQer]

I disagree.

Emergencies rarely happen and even in that scenario a jammer could and likely would turn off the device, so the I would say short-range jammers (the most useful and practical sort) are okay/mandatory.

Emergencies happen more frequently than you would expect. Regardless of that, as I have said earlier, if the jammer knows there is an emergency then I'm sure that most of them would switch the device off. However, if you don't know that there is an emergency going on, then you probably would not.

The practicalities of removing the source of annoyance of someone using a mobile outweighs the remote possibility of it doing harm.

Either the person using the jammer will be using it very frequently, or constantly. If you are using your phone, and the connection drops, do you immediately redial (or keep trying until you get a signal) and then moan about how bad the connection is, or do you think "oh, I'll not try and complete that conversation, as my signal must be being blocked". More often than not, it's going to be the first one, so they "need" to be blocked on more occasions.

Whatever I write, you're never going to see the potential harm that your few seconds of silence can do - I can only hope that when you need someone to be calling the police / ambulance / anyone on your behalf, there is someone less inconsiderate than yourself blocking the mobile signal so that they can get a moment where there is no mobile being used.

[Money Money Money]

Shallow and unperceptive individuals such as myself might mistakenly believe that he's a selfish cunt who prizes his own comfort above all other considerations, but that's just because we haven't yet come to terms with his awesome majesty.

:

How the **** do you get away with that? I was sin binned!

[TimberWolf]

Emergencies happen more frequently than you would expect.

A meaningless and incorrect non-statistic. Most of us rarely encounter emergency situations and it's worth re-iterating that even in these cases a jammer would have to be in close proximity, the callers glued to the proximity for some reason (usually the first thing people do is look for a better signal) and the jammer to fail to turn off his device. For it to cause a problem in this scenario is stretching the bounds of reason too far.

[BrilloPad]

How the **** do you get away with that? I was sin binned!

Its due to his high post count in tpd - he has protected status.

HTH

[expat]

If the same person was in the carriage, and was talking to someone with them in the same way, would that induce the same level of anger?

Is it the conversation that riles, or the fact that you can only hear one side of it?

That and the speech patterns used: the annoying talkers seem to use the mobile phone as a species of megaphone. It is not the volume itself but the nature of the intonation that commands attention and therefore eliminates concentration or repose.

I do wish at least that people in a "silent" carriage on a train would respect that.