³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

999 calls

Comments

1. At 02:11 PM on 14 Dec 2007, wrote:

   They give airtime to these nuisance calls from time to time but it never seems to stop the idiots. Maybe they should fine them for the truly ridiculous ones.

   I called 999 a couple of years ago when I witnessed a lad in a fight who was unconscious. It took over 2 minutes for anyone to answer, presumably because of the number of people who had lost their dog or couldn't find their way to T***o's

2. At 02:15 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Aperitif wrote:

   I see the 101 non-emergency calls number is being done away with. I tried to use it once and it was a complete waste of time: I wanted to ask police to check everything was OK at a neighbour's house where an alarm was ringing (the house was empty as she was away on holiday so it wasn't an emergency). I told the operator that quite clearly. Two days later I got a telephone call from the local council asking me about the nuisance alarm I'd reported!?!?!

   And it seemed like such a good idea when it started...

3. At 02:33 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:

   Gossipmistress - you raise a good point here.

   I have phoned 999 a couple of times when I have seen something happening in the street where a person could get hurt. In one case a busker was being verbally abused by someone [who may have been known to him] who started to prod and kick him.

   When I spoke to the Police they seemed less than interested, and far more interested in taking a load of bureaucratic details than actually taking any action. I gave up and told them that if they weren't that bothered about someone potentially being beaten up, I would have to give up.

   Another time I reported a dangerous driver speeding through a pedestrianised precinct where only buses should go, late at night. Despite giving a detailed description of the car, the fact that I couldn't give them an accurate number plate rendition meant that, as ever, they seemed less than interested.

   I would have a bit more sympathy with the police in this instance if they took important calls a bit more seriously, or made it a bit easier to call another number [Note, not one of fifty numbers depending where one is in the country] for the reporting of aggressive / antisocial / dangerous behaviour which could be construed as criminal.

4. At 05:57 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   Last time I rang a non-emergency police number to report a crime (someone letting off fireworks within ten feet of a through road, and across it, at two in the morning, and going on doing so for more than twenty minutes) my call finally reached a human operator more than an hour after I dialled.

   It really didn't help that the operator told me that at that time of night the police had more important things they were doing. That may be true, but what's the point of giving the number at all if people who ring it and persevere get told after all their time and trouble that reporting a crime isn't going to have any result whatever? Alternatively, when *am* I supposed to report a crime that is only slightly life-threatening, and how?

   The experience left me unsurprised by any drop in reported 'crime figures' for minor crimes: unless one needs a 'crime number' for insurance purposes, it clearly isn't worth bothering to report a crime such as petty pilfering or vandalism at all.

   I have to say that next time it happens and I am thoroughly woken up, I might feel inclined to get up, dress, find a phone box and dial 999 to report an explosion and its location. After all, there *might* be a car-crash caused by a rocket across the car's bonnet...

5. At 08:13 PM on 14 Dec 2007, bill barker wrote:

   OK, how about this to cut down on 999 calls and I just wonder if anyone thinks this idea has any merit? (everyone I talk to does, but no one with any 'clout' seems to 'get' the idea - yes I know, you really want to stop reading now, but please don't - this idea really could save lives, or stop old grannies being mugged in their houses, or women being raped in their apartments - really it could and at the same time dramatically reduce 999 calls)
   
   This is a system that could be implemented using ANY mobile (or for that matter fixed line) phone:-
   
   To give an outline of the idea, simply imagine the following scenario:-
   
   Whilst lying in bed one evening I hear a suspicious sound downstairs.
   
   At this point I feel most anxious, and currently have two options:-
   
   • Immediately go downstairs to investigate the situation. If I find an intruder I can at this point reach for a phone and attempt to contact the emergency services. Unfortunately this will take a certain amount of time for the call to connect, for me to explain my predicament, and my location.
   
   During this time it is perfectly feasible that I may be stopped in my endeavours by the intruder, and the situation may degenerate into one of considerable danger for myself, and my family.
   
   • I could call the emergency services BEFORE investigating, explaining the situation, and my fears for what is happening downstairs.
   
   In the vast majority of cases this will turn out to be a false alarm, however I am not to know this at the time I make the call.
   

   USING THE NEW SERVICE THE SENARIO WOULD PRECEED AS FOLLOWS (for example):-
   
   After hearing the suspicious noise I pick up my mobile handset and dial 888 (I am not yet sure if there is an emergency, so don’t dial 999), and am immediately put through to an automated system (on the same lines as the mobile answer phone systems) that asks for my location, and description of the situation. I reply:-
   
   ‘This is Bill Barker, at The Old Vicarage, Chester Green, Derby. I am going downstairs to investigate suspicious noises, and suspect there is an intruder in my house’.
   

   I now got downstairs with the handset - WITHOUT ENDING THE CALL.
   
   Should I come across a ‘bad’ situation I simply press ‘9’ on the keypad, and the information I previously recorded is passed immediately to the emergency services.
   
   If however I discover the dog is simply banging into the furniture (a false alarm!), I press ‘5’ on the keypad and the call is ended, with no further action taken.
   
   However if I perform NEITHER action within ten minutes, or the call is ended, the call is AUTOMATICALLY escalated, and the details passed to the emergency services (the handset could have been knocked from my hand, or indeed I may have succumbed to some injury).
   
   Once the call has been escalated to the emergency services, a sms text message will be returned to the handset saying the emergency services have been informed.
   
   In some circumstances this alone may be enough to diffuse the situation - it would take a rather 'bold' intruder to hang around KNOWING the emergency services had been alerted.
   
   
   
   It must be pointed out here that ALL mobile phone companies already have the technology to implement this system for relatively little cost, and ANY mobile phone handset could be used, there is no requirement for specialist equipment.
   

   
   Other circumstances that immediately come to mind are:-
   
   • Someone enters a poorly lit multi-storey car park and feels ‘vulnerable’. They are unlikely to call the police as 99 time out of 100 this will be a false alarm, however if they feel in the slightest bit worried, they should ‘Arm their Mobile’.
   
   Assuming everything goes as normal, once they are safely in their car they simply disarm the system, if however they found themselves in a hazardous situation, they would immediately press ‘9’ on the handset, or end the call, and all the details previously given to the automated system (name, location, and situation) would be forwarded to the emergency services.
   
   IF THE DRIVER FAILED TO PRESS ‘5’ (disarm) or ‘9’ (escalate) within 10 minutes the system would AUTOMATICALLY forward the information to the emergency services.
   
   
   
   • A nurse walking home after a late shift sees a suspicious group of youths that she needs to pass on a street corner. Without hesitation she should ‘Arm her Mobile’ describing the location and situation - just in case. Once safely past the ‘situation’, she disarms the system.
   
   • Doctors and Social workers going about their normal duties may feel the need to ‘Arm their Mobiles’ before making certain house visits.
   
   • Before opening the door to a suspicious looking character, claiming to be from the gas company, ‘Arm your Mobile’ - just in case.
   
   • An estate agent meeting a new client for the first time at an empty property, as a precaution, she should ‘Arm her Mobile’ before entering the property.
   
   • A shop keeper has a ‘funny feeling’ about one of the customers hanging around his shop. He should ‘Arm His Mobile’ before challenging the customer.
   
   The general rule would become ‘When in doubt, Arm Your Mobile’.
   

   This would not only be a personal safety device, but also as a means to help eliminate many of the thousands of false 999 calls made (all mobiles have the potential to track the call back to a subscriber - and any abuser could be tracked), and all the 'Speculative' calls would be cut out immediatly as people would not need to place these speculative calls using this system.
   
   
   Anyone got this far? Any views? any pitfalls? any drawbacks? any comments?
   
   Thanks

6. At 10:33 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   bill barker @ 5, your idea would certainly eliminate many calls that had no need to happen at all, which would be good.

   It wouldn't prevent another problem, which is that for each incident that used to be rung about perhaps once by one person who went and found a phone (to the applause of the rest of the worried watchers), there are now dozens of calls, one made by each person present with a cell-phone. There's no way round that, because there's no way for each person ringing to know whether ten or more people have rung already about that particular car-crash or whatever it is. I suppose that it might be possible to put an 'answerphone' type message in place that said 'we know about the incident on the High Street', but that would take up as much time, probably, and require constant updating.

   Your plan also wouldn't help with the non-emergency police phonelines being so slow and unsatisfactory that people dial 999 in despair of getting an answer any other way.

   I do like the 'Arm Your Mobile' idea, even so, just for the peace of mind it could give to so many people in so many circumstances.

7. At 10:46 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Big Sister wrote:

   In London, having witnessed a mugging and then IDed the assailants, leaving in a car whose index I'd noted, I dialled 999, gave all the relevant information, offered myself as a witness, and then, to my amazement, found the police to be less than interested. My faith in the Metropolitan Police fell to rock bottom as a result. On the other hand, when witnessing a motorcyclist endangering himself, his passenger and four road vehicles by a manoeuvre on a blind bend, a phone call to the Sussex police resulted in him being cautioned and my being thanked for providing the information.

   That said, I'd never waste police time by silly calls.

8. At 11:39 PM on 14 Dec 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

   Bill (5) it's a great idea and might make a lot of us feel a lot safer but it won't stop those idiots who block up the 999 system with stupid enquiries.

   This item just featured on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ 1 news and Fiona Bruce was laughing her socks off at the 999 calls from people who couldn't find Home***e or wanted to speak to the PM. Fiona - These people could've been blocking the line for someone in genuine danger - get real, it's NOT funny, they should be given ASBOs!!

   We have an emergency line at work (a veterinary surgery) and despite being told whilst being diverted onto it that it is strictly for emergencies and that non urgent calls may stop urgent calls from getting through, people still telephone at all hours over complete trivia such as *do we know a good groomer's for their dog* or *how much are worming tablets*.

9. At 12:24 PM on 16 Dec 2007, Les Willis wrote:

   Surely it would be a simple matter for the opperator of
   the 999 center to divert the non-emergency call to another location, "Hold the line (Sir or Madam) i'm putting you through to our non emergency number". There, a recorded voice would ask for your name,
   adress, and nature of your call ? Then to press button
   (three?). this would then cut you off.(end the call).
   Days later you would receive a letter from the police
   telling you That you are putting lives at risk, ect, ect.
   I think the word would soon get around that you won't
   get answers to the kind of questions as broadcast on PM

10. At 08:14 PM on 16 Dec 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    If one could be sure that the thing one wished to report would actually *be* reported and made a note of, I don't suppose that talking to an answerphone would be impossible for most people in matters that weren't life-and-death emergencies. Then the police could let one know later, by letter or phone or someone calling by, that they knew about it; if they wanted a statement that too could be arranged when they had enough time to give it their attention. That would be another way to keep the 999 calls free for the 999 things: people knowing that the other number did have some effect.

    And yes, I'm with Les, no being kind to the timewasters, but no, I don't want them given ASBOs. I don't think ASBOs are a good idea at all, especially if they are used, as they can be, to put someone in prison without a proper trial or verdict. Nothing in them isn't covered by things that are against older laws like disorderly conduct or behaviour liable to lead to a breach of the peace or threatening behaviour or assault, and I don't see that anything is gained by creating a replacement offence apart from making it too dratted easy to give someone a bad time for the offence of being young in the street, or looking over a fence, or feeding the pigeons. The older offences needed witnesses to them rather than just complaints made about them, but that doesn't seem to me to be all bad.