Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

Save Money on your Gas and Electricity
 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16
Send Topic Print
101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces (Read 74,804 times)
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,327
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #135 - Nov 21st, 2011 at 9:31am
 
sherbert wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 8:38am:
... From this I would guess it is funded by the shareholders of the telephone companies, if not then by their customers through the charges that are paid for other services?

Well found - many thanks.

I would tend to take the view that shareholders meet the capital funding requirements of a business. Running expenses are met out of revenue from customers, from which the excess after overhead expenses (profit) is distributed to shareholders. Except where price competition, or demand elasticity, is so severe as to prevent costs from being reflected in prices, consumers meet the effect of increased costs before shareholders. I argue that this applies to the telephone calls market in general, especially where a (relatively) small cost can be spread over many prices.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 705
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #136 - Nov 21st, 2011 at 11:08am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 7:11pm:
I have always believed that the primary focus of the site was the covert benefit of revenue sharing.

I am not aware of a general campaign against numbers that are cheaper than geographic rate calls (e.g. 080 for some). Some members oppose the inclusion of 0845 calls in packages, where they are treated as standard numbers. Not all members are opposed to all Directory Enquiries and recorded information services.

If you read the home page for this website (which admittedly isn't brilliant, and is stuck in the late 90s in terms of design) you'll see a chunk of text that's almost entirely about the cost to the caller, and inclusive packages. There is just a single line that says the company may receive a cut of the call. Avoiding calling 084/087 numbers was always the focus in the early days, until certain members decided to get heavily involved in the politics and regulatory side of it. Most people who visit this site do so because they don't want to pay extra for calls. They aren't so interested whether the company they are calling is making money out of the call or not. They aren't going to say, "Acme Ltd makes no money out of its 0871 number so I'm happy to call it."

Alternatives to 080 numbers are provided for mobile users and others who pay extra to call these numbers. In this case, the company you are calling pays to receive the call, so it's a total rip-off that mobile operators charge a premium to call these numbers.

I don't think people generally object to information services that cost money to call as that's how you pay for the service. Generally these are for services no-one needs to phone up for in this day and age, as there are much better ways to access the information online. (Such numbers should be 09 and subject to tight regulation, restrictions on queueing etc. IMHO) What people object to is when there's no alternative to phoning up, and they have to pay extra for the privilege: for example, a customer service number because a company has screwed up an order and you need to complain; you bank because they have incorrectly blocked your card for suspicious activity; or the police because you are a good citizen.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 7:11pm:
jrawle wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 2:39pm:
it isn't right to compare the cost of calling 0845 to 101

I cannot see why it should be wholly disregarded, if that is the difference which some will be experiencing. Should we ignore what callers have been paying previously? I recall the increase from 0p to 15p per call being given as the basis for objecting to the 101 charge.

Police forces using 084 numbers should have been forced to move to 01/2/3 a long time ago. The site has always listed any alternative numbers it has found.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 7:11pm:
At the same time, I am concerned about the upward pressure on the 15p that would result if many callers do not pay it. If this level of fixed charge had to be protected by funding from the Home Office, then one must question whether it would not be better to have no charge at all.

Surely this site has always been to the advantage of the minority who know the tricks to avoid rip-off numbers? Realistically, the percentage of callers who do so is likely to be so small that it will have negligible impact. Otherwise you'd have had far more companies moving to more expensive rip-off numbers due to users of this site avoiding the existing ones (where companies have done this, it is usually due to changes in revenue sharing on 0870, so they move to 0844 or 0871, not due to people avoiding the number by using this site).
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Barbara
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 580
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #137 - Nov 21st, 2011 at 4:20pm
 
Have just read up on the last couple of days' posts.   There is a lot about who pays/should pay but I would say who pays for the inclusive geo calls in a package?  Is it certain that the cost of each subscriber's calls is covered by the fee they pay for their package each month?   Surely 101 could be included in a package on the same basis as geo nos ie paid for by whoever pays for the geo calls (it is, after all, unlikely that a subscriber is going to make 100s of calls per month to 101) and that the cost of calling 101 is capped at 15p for those who do not have the relevant package?  Any argument against the inclusion of 101 could surely also be used against the inclusion of 03, all it needs is a simple change to the regulation, 101 included as is 03 is, job done.  I'm sure I'll be told I'm being too simplistic.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Heinz
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,288
Essex
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #138 - Nov 21st, 2011 at 8:24pm
 
Barbara wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 4:20pm:
I'm sure I'll be told I'm being too simplistic.

You're being too simplistic.

Sorry, couldn't resist it!   
Wink
Back to top
 

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL - How long are you going to continue ignoring government guidelines and RIPPING OFF Council Tax payers with your use of 0845 numbers?
WWW  
IP Logged
 
bazzerfewi
Senior Member
****
Offline


Baz

Posts: 447
Barnsley
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #139 - Nov 21st, 2011 at 10:15pm
 
Barbara wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 4:20pm:
Have just read up on the last couple of days' posts.   There is a lot about who pays/should pay but I would say who pays for the inclusive geo calls in a package?  Is it certain that the cost of each subscriber's calls is covered by the fee they pay for their package each month?   Surely 101 could be included in a package on the same basis as geo nos ie paid for by whoever pays for the geo calls (it is, after all, unlikely that a subscriber is going to make 100s of calls per month to 101) and that the cost of calling 101 is capped at 15p for those who do not have the relevant package?  Any argument against the inclusion of 101 could surely also be used against the inclusion of 03, all it needs is a simple change to the regulation, 101 included as is 03 is, job done.  I'm sure I'll be told I'm being too simplistic.


My seniments exactly as per my earlier post - but can anything be done about it. - Maybe a petition to the relevant body would be a start who ever that may be.
Back to top
 
WWW bazzerfewi aom@blueyonder.co.uk  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,327
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #140 - Nov 21st, 2011 at 11:46pm
 
bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 10:15pm:
Barbara wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 4:20pm:
... the cost of calling 101 is capped at 15p for those who do not have the relevant package ... all it needs is a simple change to the regulation, 101 included as is 03 is, job done.  I'm sure I'll be told I'm being too simplistic.

My seniments exactly as per my earlier post - but can anything be done about it. - Maybe a petition to the relevant body would be a start who ever that may be.

The relevant bodies are the telcos. Ofcom does not regulate in cases like this, where an appropriate agreement has been achieved between the service provider and the telcos.

I doubt that the agreement with the Home Office prevents the telcos from offering free 101 calls to selected customers. If it does, then the Home Office must be petitioned by those who wish it to withdraw this restriction, so as to allow certain people to make cheaper non-emergency calls to the Police than others when using 101.

Those who believe that there should not be a cap need to address only the Home Office.


There is nothing wrong in proposing a simplistic solution. 15p per call for everybody is certainly simpler than making the charge dependant on the terms of whatever arrangement may be in place covering geographic rate calls, but with a call cost cap.

The cap would be very difficult to calculate in cases where geographic rate calls were part of a limited bundle, rather than the unlimited package which applies in many cases.

Many callers would themselves be unsure about whether a chargeable geographic rate call would be likely to cost more than 15p - I suspect that many would guess wrongly.


I strongly suspect that if the telcos do not receive the return they expected when making the agreement at the level of 15p (they had earlier agreed to 10p), they will seek to increase it, or withdraw from the agreement and impose whatever fee they wish.


It appears that what is being sought has been addressed by the assurance from the Home Office that geographic alternatives will be made available in every case, as referred to above. The published list of full non-emergency numbers simply needs the 0845 numbers to be replaced with the geographic equivalents.

I have stated my belief that a cheap way of accessing public services should be made readily available to all if it is offered to some. (I will address this and other points in a further posting on the subject of the politics of this and other matters.)
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,327
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #141 - Nov 22nd, 2011 at 3:33pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 11:46pm:
... a further posting on the subject of the politics of this and other matters.

This is the first of two.

In response to general points about the forum and politics

There is perhaps a difference between the money-saving facility provided by the database of alternatives and the campaigning element of the forum. Some of the forum is largely about the mechanics of the database and the pricing policies of telcos, but a lot of discussion is about the mis-use of revenue sharing numbers, rather than simply avoiding calling them.

I hope that, as this is a public forum, guests and members feel free to read and contribute to those threads which they find to be of interest. It could be that a better structure for the forum sections would make it easier - i.e. there could be sections where the word "Ofcom" and any reference to public policy were banned.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong in saying "I want the best deal for me and I do not give a damn about anyone else"; that is how consumers should behave in a market. This approach does not however enable one to make much progress when attempting to discuss public policy enacted by Ofcom, the Police, the Home Office, the Department of Health etc.

I understand there to be some agreement about there being two aspects of this site. It is public awareness of the issues and the arguments honed in discussion here which have contributed to the achievements referred to, rather than the pressure created by use of alternative numbers.


As I read it, this thread is totally about public policy. In 2005, the Home Office declared that a list of geographic alternatives to 101 would be published. If that is all that is being sought, the only issue should be the 0845 numbers which are included on that list. For those who want nothing more than a way to make a non-emergency call to the Police without calling 101, there should be no need to get involved in discussing how calls to 101 should be charged. The 0845 alternatives are not what was promised - perhaps that should be the only issue worthy of discussion here.

Whilst I see alternative numbers as valuable, use them myself and pass them on to others, I do not see them as the answer to misuse of revenue sharing numbers, especially in the public sector. I do not believe that anybody has a duty to join in campaigning efforts, however I note that campaigning energy which could be utilised to press for change for the general public good can sometimes be diverted by the ability of those who are particularly concerned about an issue to avoid it.

There are some who argue that a geographic rate alternative should be published alongside every expensive number. I disagree, arguing that there can be no justification for publishing the expensive alternative alongside the geographic rate number.

One exception is where this can be noted as being especially for the use of those with certain perverse tariffs. The other exceptional cases include those where the expensive number is offered for those who wish to make a donation, perhaps to subsidise the running costs of the body being called (e.g. the National Trust), and where a geographic alternative is provided for a 080 number that is only offered as free to landline callers.

On specific points

jrawle wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 11:08am:
it's a total rip-off that mobile operators charge a premium to call these [080] numbers.

One could argue that the rip-off is being practised by those 080 users who do not qualify for the Helpline Association scheme, but, unlike the DWP, refuse to pick up the tab.

jrawle wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 11:08am:
What people object to is when there's no alternative to phoning up, and they have to pay extra for the privilege

I quite understand why this makes people particularly angry. I would not however agree that revenue sharing numbers are OK if there is an alternative means of making contact or an alternative number. If there is a "service charge", on top of the charge to the benefit of the telephone company, for making contact by telephone, it should be declared and justified. I suspect that only in very few of the cases one has in mind could any reasonable justification be offered.

Barbara wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 4:20pm:
... Any argument against the inclusion of 101 could surely also be used against the inclusion of 03

The particular point about 101 is the arrangement about funding without payment from the Home Office - there must be doubt that the level of 15p would be sustained if inclusion was also part of the deal.

03 must be included when 01/02 are included. As more move from 084 onto 03 one would expect upward pressure on the cost of packages.

Barbara wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 4:20pm:
it is, after all, unlikely that a subscriber is going to make 100s of calls per month to 101

I think that we are arguing about the additional cost of a 15p call on a point of principle. I doubt that, unlike the £2 for a five minute call which some would be paying to call the Police at present, the 15p is regarded as a serious expense. That is not to say that the principles involved are unimportant, but an appeal to consider the significance of the issue
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,327
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #142 - Nov 22nd, 2011 at 3:34pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 11:46pm:
... a further posting on the subject of the politics of this and other matters.

This is the second of two.

On 101

I can see how a narrow view of the situation shows 101 to be more expensive to call than a geographic number.

A similar narrow view shows 0844 numbers used by some GPs and even some 0871 numbers to be cheaper to call than geographic numbers.

Another slightly wider, but still highly selective, view shows the 0845 numbers used by HMRC, DWP agencies and NHS Direct to be no more expensive, and in many cases cheaper, to call than geographic numbers.

I cannot see any of these as being "right" - they are true, but incomplete.

The crucial difference is the radical "equitable" approach to charging for calls to 101 which the Home Office has adopted as an alternative to paying the telcos to make it "free to caller". If we assume that 15p per call was the best deal that the Home Office could get, the person who pays more than the cost of a geographic call may be reassured to know that the reason for this is to enable many others to pay less than the cost of a geographic call.


If it could be shown that those with inclusive packages were generally the poorest, whereas those without, and those who paid higher call charges, were generally the more wealthy, then I would oppose a flat rate charge. Although there are exceptions, the normal cost of a telephone call is not found to reflect ability to pay; it is generally the opposite. This provides a good case for pressing an alternative charging scheme where callers are accessing a public service, given that the cost is not going to be met out of taxation and a custom charging arrangement is necessary.


The idea of everybody paying something, but everyone paying the same, is radical and perhaps difficult to put across. It is quite natural for those who pay less than 15p for a geographic call to assume that, as in other cases where they pay more, this is because the called party is benefitting. In this case, the only benefit to the Home Office is the saving of the public expenditure which would have been required to make 101 "free to caller", and the thanks it may receive from those who pay more for geographic calls or were paying more for calls to the Police on a 0845 number.

It is important to recognise that charging for calls to the special three digit numbers falls outside the normal rules. There are strong arguments for why 101 should not have been adopted (even stronger arguments against 111), but once it had, the Home Office was free to choose whatever workable charging scheme it thought most appropriate and could agree with the telcos. It decided against "free to caller" (for the time being) and also decided that £1 for a five minute call would be too much to ask some people to pay.


There are issues with 101, but I do not want them to be confused with the public policy issues around 084 numbers - especially the 0845 numbers used by HMRC, DWP and NHS Direct. The latter are defended on the basis that BT and some other landline callers pay no more, whereas I argue that so narrow an approach is unacceptable.

For everyday contact with HMRC, DWP agencies and NHS Direct, I argue that geographic rate numbers are acceptable as I believe that the taxpayer should not pick up incidental costs incurred in dealing with these agencies - although no fee should be imposed. I see "the reporting of crime" differently; I believe that the taxpayer should pay for the phone call. The Police do not however impose a fee with 101, it is just charged in an unusual way by the telephone companies.

It is unfortunate that the majority (not all) of the group who are losing out with 101 are those who would have no problem with the use of 0845 numbers. As a subscriber to BT Unlimited Anytime and with inclusive geo calls on my mobile contract, I could be said to be taking a rather odd position here. The type of society in which I live is however more important to me than a few pence here and there.


I hope all of these comments make it clear as to why I aim to retain a wide and informed view of these situations and encourage those who wish to get into the campaigning and the politics to do the same.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sherbert
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,011
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #143 - Nov 22nd, 2011 at 4:16pm
 
My post #120 still stands Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
reserved
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 91
East Sussex
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #144 - Nov 22nd, 2011 at 6:29pm
 
daguerrotype wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 12:03pm:
I recommend you all consider signing this Downing St ePetition against 101 charges:



Only got 7 sigs at the moment  Angry
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
poppasmurf
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 51
Arley, Worcs
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #145 - Nov 22nd, 2011 at 7:47pm
 
There has been a little comment in our local newspaper about the 101 number and the 15p charge.

I added my comments for what they're worth.

http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/9348290.New_non_emergency_number_laun...

As I said, if someone robs a Post Office of £1000, you're supposed to dial 999 but if someone runs off with your £30k BMW you are supposed to ring the non-emergency 101.

Pure stupidity!  I for one will NEVER ring 101.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sherbert
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,011
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #146 - Nov 22nd, 2011 at 8:21pm
 
poppasmurf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2011 at 7:47pm:
There has been a little comment in our local newspaper about the 101 number and the 15p charge.

I added my comments for what they're worth.

http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/9348290.New_non_emergency_number_laun...

As I said, if someone robs a Post Office of £1000, you're supposed to dial 999 but if someone runs off with your £30k BMW you are supposed to ring the non-emergency 101.

Pure stupidity!  I for one will NEVER ring 101.


Call the West Mercia Police on 0300 333 3000 which is on their web site along with the 101 number

http://www.westmercia.police.uk/contact-us/phone-us.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,327
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #147 - Nov 23rd, 2011 at 1:06am
 
With reference to the National Single Non-Emergency Number - Designating number “101” - Statement - 8 March 2006,
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 7:11pm:
One particular point of interest is paragraph 6.21 of the Ofcom statement which says:
Quote:
In response to concerns about call-cost, the Home Office will also ensure that alternative geographic numbers for each partnership will be listed on a web site. Callers will be able to continue to call a partnership directly on that geographic number.

We now have only the Police element of the "partnership" and the 10p has become 15p, however this statement should provide a basis for those who wish to campaign on this particular point.

The Home Office has duly published Your force's non-emergency number. The reference to "anti-social behaviour" could be misleading, as many examples of this should be reported to the local authority (the other member of the intended "partnership"), not the Police. The 0845 numbers on this list are in breach of the undertaking given by the Home Office.

sherbert wrote on Nov 22nd, 2011 at 8:21pm:
Call the West Mercia Police on 0300 333 3000 which is on their web site along with the 101 number
http://www.westmercia.police.uk/contact-us/phone-us.html

That same number is indeed given for West Mercia Police on the Home Office site.


If the "switchboard" asks for the name of a "particular person or department", the answer is that one is calling the Home Office advised "alternative geographic [rate] number" for 101 because of "concerns about call-cost". It may be prudent not to tell the switchboard operator that you can afford to buy a £50,000 BMW and it has been stolen. Concerns about paying your phone company 15p to get through to the Police simply to ask for a crime number to put on a £50,000 insurance claim may not be treated with the greatest sympathy.

You could be reporting £1000 having been pinched from a Post Office. If either crime were in progress at the time, then you should have called 999.

The fact that the Police will apparently do nothing else about your stolen car other than adding it to some statistics, because nobody reported the crime whilst it was in progress, is a wholly separate issue. Although this is of great concern to me, it is strictly outside the scope of this discussion. I have already noted my concern that the reporting of crime is grouped together with contacting the Police on purely administrative matters. I believe that the latter needs a geographic rate number, the former should be "free to caller".

I fear that calling 999, as the number which prompts a response, when no response will be made, is not going to change Police policy or resources. 101 was deliberately chosen so as to make it less likely for calls to 999 to be made out of ignorance of the proper number to call. One may have to take care in deliberately calling 999 knowing that the call is inappropriate, and soliciting others to do the same; I understand that this could be a criminal offence.


One could say that it is "taxpayers" whose pockets are being lined as a result of the Home Office choosing not to use their money to pay to make 101 "free to caller" or "free to some callers". This of course includes those taxpayers for whom 15p is a lot cheaper than calling a normal telephone number, who could be lining their pockets with the money they have saved. One could also say that telcos are lining their pockets because they charge for their services, even though they typically charge 101 callers without inclusive packages in effect at the time less than what they charge them for a geographic call.


(I am not sure if the misrepresentation of the situation with 101 arises from genuine misunderstanding, or if it is deliberate. I too believe that it should be "free to caller", but I am prepared to try to understand it as it is, so that my arguments may be sustained.)
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sherbert
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,011
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #148 - Nov 23rd, 2011 at 9:50am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23rd, 2011 at 1:06am:
The Home Office has duly published Your force's non-emergency number.


I notice in this list that there are several 0845 numbers here, including Sussex police Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,327
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #149 - Nov 23rd, 2011 at 10:59am
 
sherbert wrote on Nov 23rd, 2011 at 9:50am:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23rd, 2011 at 1:06am:
The Home Office has duly published Your force's non-emergency number.

I notice in this list that there are several 0845 numbers here, including Sussex police Roll Eyes

Indeed there are!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 22nd, 2011 at 3:33pm:
In 2005, the Home Office declared that a list of
geographic alternatives
to 101 would be published.
If that is all that is being sought, the only issue should be
the 0845 numbers which are included on that list
.
For those who want nothing more than a way to make a non-emergency call to the Police without calling 101, there should be no need to get involved in discussing how calls to 101 should be charged.
The 0845 alternatives are not what was promised - perhaps that should be the only issue worthy of discussion here.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23rd, 2011 at 1:06am:
With reference to the National Single Non-Emergency Number - Designating number “101” - Statement - 8 March 2006,
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 7:11pm:
One particular point of interest is paragraph 6.21 of the Ofcom statement which says:
Quote:
In response to concerns about call-cost, the Home Office will also ensure that
alternative geographic numbers
for each partnership will be listed on a web site. Callers will be able to continue to call a partnership directly on that geographic number.

We now have only the Police element of the "partnership" and the 10p has become 15p, however
this statement should provide a basis for those who wish to campaign on this particular point.

The Home Office has duly published Your force's non-emergency number. The reference to "anti-social behaviour" could be misleading, as many examples of this should be reported to the local authority (the other member of the intended "partnership"), not the Police.
The 0845 numbers on this list are in breach of the undertaking given by the Home Office
.


sherbert wrote on Nov 18th, 2011 at 10:18am:
You really have to wonder, don't you that something so simple as to advertising a 101 number charged at 15 pence from any telephone, (whether you agree with this or not), turns into something so flipping complicated  Roll Eyes

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 22nd, 2011 at 3:33pm:
I hope that, as this is a public forum, guests and members feel free to read and contribute to those threads which they find to be of interest.

I must regret the fact that, although they were highlighted in the original, I had apparently buried points of interest amongst points that some members find to be too complicated.

I am however grateful that a point which was seen to be unnecessarily complicated is now noted as being of interest.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, bbb_uk, CJT-80, DaveM)

Website and Content © 1999-2014 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2014. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge