Bonjon   10 #13 Posted September 22, 2009 Costs too much  You woul donly need to pay around £500 for a jammer to cover the prison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #14 Posted September 22, 2009 Isn't the thing about prison to take away your freedom?   Indeed it is, and that's why they are locked in. Everything else is trivial; the fact they can't get out is sufficient to prevent them being a threat to society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Swan_Vesta   11 #15 Posted September 22, 2009 they are not prisons anymore they are holiday camps ---sex drugs phones who do u blame ---i blame the wardens  Do you really think that? Or are you attempting to provoke a reaction by airing ill informed views - How exactly are Officers to blame then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
L00b   441 #16 Posted September 22, 2009 I don't know why they don't just jam the signal in the prison area - problem sorted. You woul donly need to pay around £500 for a jammer to cover the prison.Don't know how clued up about jammers you two are, but they're completely illegal to own/use unless authorised by the MoD (which happens extremely rarely, only at a given place, only for a given -short- duration).  I'd be you, I'd start watching out for the black helicopters Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bonjon   10 #17 Posted September 22, 2009 Don't know how clued up about jammers you two are, but they're completely illegal to own/use unless authorised by the MoD (which happens extremely rarely, only at a given place, only for a given -short- duration).  I'd be you, I'd start watching out for the black helicopters   I'm sure a prinson would be granted a license: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/enforcement/jammers/ I'm also pretty sure its only illegal to operate not to own in the uk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
L00b   441 #18 Posted September 22, 2009 I'm sure a prinson would be granted a license.Currently, it would not.  You may be right in relation to ownership, however I cannot for the life of me understand why a person would want to own a jammer, without ever being able to use it? (unless, of course, said person is a collector of jamming equipment ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bonjon   10 #19 Posted September 22, 2009 Currently, it would not.  You may be right in relation to ownership, however I cannot for the life of me understand why a person would want to own a jammer, without ever being able to use it? (unless, of course, said person is a collector of jamming equipment )   I suppose they could always use this section instead: Alternatives to jammers It is understandable that the owners of theatres, cinemas, concert halls, restaurants, prisons etc may want to restrict the use of mobile phones within their premises but jamming is an inappropriate means of achieving this. The alternative, legal way to do this is by education and publicity in informing users to keep mobile phones switched off when requested to do so. This may be assisted by the use of cellphone detectors at entrances that, without transmitting any interfering signal, give visible and/or audible warnings if an active device is nearby. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Paul2412 Â Â 10 #20 Posted September 22, 2009 Indeed it is, and that's why they are locked in. Everything else is trivial; the fact they can't get out is sufficient to prevent them being a threat to society. Â But surely for any "gang" leaders, being able to update Facebook and use their mobiles means they are still in contact with their "homies", therefore prison is less than useless? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #21 Posted September 22, 2009 It is understandable that ... people ... may want to restrict the use of mobile phones within their premises but jamming is an inappropriate means of achieving this. The alternative, legal way to do this is by education and publicity in informing users to keep mobile phones switched off when requested to do so.  What this article fails to point out is that, while it's an alternative way to do it, and a legal way to do it, it isn't a successful one. It doesn't work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Kthebean   10 #22 Posted September 22, 2009 But surely for any "gang" leaders, being able to update Facebook and use their mobiles means they are still in contact with their "homies", therefore prison is less than useless?  You do realise you sound like Alan Partridge Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
pem123   10 #23 Posted September 22, 2009 It's quite bad that not only are they able to get mobile phones in to the prison, but the charger to go with it. I've heard of someone who uses Facebook on their phone in prison. Making status updates about their daily prison.  Something like;  HY M8Z HD BRKFST THS MORN THN EMPTD SHT BCKT. THN LY ON BD 4 10 OAZ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
slimsid2000   10 #24 Posted September 22, 2009 It's quite bad that not only are they able to get mobile phones in to the prison, but the charger to go with it. I've heard of someone who uses Facebook on their phone in prison. Making status updates about their daily prison.  Knuckels Mckenzie is slopping out. (3 people like this) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...