Not allowed a Sky Dish - Options?

Moneymaker

Bonking_Mad wrote: »

Thanks for this :j I'll be taking it up with the managing agents :eek:

"...could breach the right to freedom of expression by preventing people from practice (sic) religion."

I'd be interested to see your explanation of why you can't practise your religion because of the lack of dish.

scotsbob

Moneymaker wrote: »

"...could breach the right to freedom of expression by preventing people from practice (sic) religion."

I'd be interested to see your explanation of why you can't practise your religion because of the lack of dish.

The answer to that is in the article.

However the ruling in the Swedish case was based on the freedom to receive information.

yangptangkipperbang

There is a major problem with the alternative types of "dish" that people have recommended.

If the OP is allowed to have one, all the others who wanted Sky would also have them installed. The building/grounds would end up looking like a cross between a cold war listening station and a mushroom farm.

Bonking_Mad

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

all the others who wanted Sky would also have them installed

“all the others” may not be aware an alternative exists, I for one wasn’t aware until I created this thread.

yangptangkipperbang

Bonking_Mad wrote: »

“all the others” may not be aware an alternative exists, I for one wasn’t aware until I created this thread.

Yes - but as soon as one appeared they would "mushroom" - if you were allowed one, they could not refuse anyone else.

scotsbob

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

The answer is not in the article, even if it was the Daily mail has no part to play in legal research.

I'll use whatever newspaper I fancy for legal research, thank you very much. However if you wish to get all anal and snobby about it you can refer to the Sunday Times http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article695968.ece

[Deleted User]

scotsbob wrote: »

I'll use whatever newspaper I fancy for legal research, thank you very much. However if you wish to get all anal and snobby about it you can refer to the Sunday Times

Hilarious that you are quoting Murdoch-owned Sunday Times for evidence about the "legality" of satellite dishes!:D

Just to reiterate, the Swedish case referred to has no bearing on anyone other than an isolated case where a disabled house bound person had a religious/language need.

It was also because the eviction/withholding of information was seen to be carried out by the state and not a private party.

Article 10 of the Human rights act is related to state interference.

It has not been replicated in Sweden or elsewhere in Europe.

scotsbob

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

Yes - but as soon as one appeared they would "mushroom" - if you were allowed one, they could not refuse anyone else.

To all external appearances the Digiglobe is a light, it functions as a light. Unless you open it up and show it to people no one knows it is a receiver, therefore no one else will want one.

[Deleted User]

scotsbob wrote: »

To all external appearances the Digiglobe is a light, it functions as a light. Unless you open it up and show it to people no one knows it is a receiver, therefore no one else will want one.

I wonder just how effective it is as a receiver? I certainly won't be purchasing on the strength of some random French website's claims.

[Deleted User]

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

simply a matter of using the actual data rather than a sensationalist slanted view of the data. I wouldn't trust newspapers for articles on media restriction.

I especially wouldn't trust the Sunday Times (or The Sun) in any such news story where satellite dishes are concerned. Rupert Murdoch owns those newspapers and there have been numerous examples of Sky-slanted "news" stories from that particular press stable!:D