Ofcom has just announced that it is to consult on the Home Office's proposal to launch a new 101 phone number for non emergency calls to the emergency services.  In practice this means mainly calls to the Police as one rarely calls either the Fire or Ambulance services on a non emergency basis.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2005/10/nr_20051027

There is consultation on both the actual number to be used (101 is proposed) and also on a proposed flat rate call tariff of 10p per call.

I feel that members of this forum will have plenty to say on this consultation and especially the proposal that this number is not to be either free or charged as per a normal geographic 01 or 02 phone number and thus not to be included in inclusive calling allowances of packages such as BT Option 3, TalkTalk Talk3 etc.

Members of this forum may also wish to ask particularly vigorous questions in their responses to the consultation about what controls are to be imposed on the amount which mobile phone operators can charge for calling 101 and how anyone overseas who needs to call this number (for instance if their home has been burgled while abroad) is to be able to make calls to this service and again at what tariff.

101 must have a memorable geographic alternative for people needing to call from overseas and 101 must be charged the same way as an 01 or 02 number.

Also any of you responding may ask what is the point of this 101 proposal now in the dieing days of conventional PSTN/POTS phone services and surely the Home Office should be concentrating on a single memorable voip contact name for the future.  Also ask in your response to the consultation by what date the emergency services plan to support Voip to Voip calls outside the PSTN network?

They just do not stop do they?

This is another blatant contravention of their own NTNP.

This is another disguised Premium line concept, to help pay for the cost of staff to answer the Police telephones; never mind the fact that we have all paid the taxes to fund the police in the first place!

The real answer is to stop wasting taxpayer's money in escapades like the Iraq disaster, bring the British troops home and stop playing "Remnants of Empire" games all over the world wasting such vast amounts of taxpayer's money. We can no longer afford this nonsense as a Nation if they are to fund running our own country properly with the vast amounts of taxes which they wring out of the British Public.

This more than anything demonstrates absolutely clearly that far from beginning to realise the error of their ways and their total failure to meet their remits under the Telecommunications Acts, Ofcom are set on allowing all  the scams, deceipt, exploitation, rip-offs, rackets and confidence tricks to continue, with no further controls, and worse to allow them to escalate and widen in their scope.

It finally demonstrates to me that unless Parliament calls Ofcom to account or the EU forces their compliance things will continue to get much much worse. That is why I now am totally convinced that any campaigning against these continuing and escalating abuses has to be focussed only and firmly on MPs and MEPs. Otherwise nothing will ever be done to end this continuing deceipt and trickery.

wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 11:46am:

It finally demonstrates to me that unless Parliament calls Ofcom to account or the EU forces their compliance things will continue to get much much worse. That is why I now am totally convinced that any campaigning against these continuing and escalating abuses has to be focussed only and firmly on MPs and MEPs. Otherwise nothing will ever be done to end this continuing deceipt and trickery.

Dorf,

The fact that things can only be changed through our MPS and the media, rather than by attempting to change the minds of the telco scam loving bedfellows known as Ofcom, became obvious to me after they published their current morally bankrupt proposals to make 0845 numbers cost more than 0870 numbers for several years just so that their ISP friends did not lose too much money.

The more one sees of Ofcom the more one realises that their CEO Stephen Carter can only see things in commercial terms and is about the most inappropriate person one could possibly think of to be allowed to run a regulatory organisation.

I belive its unfair to totally blame ofcom as they are only doing what they are asked to by the home office and provide them with a 3 digit number.

Having scanned through the document, it appears that the home office have already consulted on this (glad us consumers were informed of it) and they've already decided on what's what, etc including costs.  All they've done is asked ofcom to provide them with a 3 digit number.

Ofcom have said they are not examining the underlying proposals of the 3 digit number as this was approved and stakeholder views sought by the homeoffice already.  (section 2.5).

wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 1:08pm:

I belive its unfair to totally blame ofcom as they are only doing what they are asked to by the home office and provide them with a 3 digit number.

The old "I was only following orders" defence. :o

Now where have I heard that before.  I seem to recall that is not a valid excuse in law against doing somthing corrupt, misleading, untruthful or illegal. ::)

When Ofcom get a request from the Home Office they are supposed to consider its legitimacy in the context of their primary duty to protect the interests of uk citizens and consumers rather than the business interests of uk telcos and call centre operators.

wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 1:17pm:

When Ofcom get a request from the Home Office they are supposed to consider its legitimacy in the context of their primary duty to protect the interests of uk citizens and consumers rather than the business interests of uk telcos and call centre operators.

That maybe true but the main concern is that either the homeoffice and/or PITO have already decided on everything by the looks of things without consulting us.  It is at these gov bodies we need to concentrate on and trying to get hold of the consultation document that ofcom are referring to.

Everything appears to have been already decided and all ofcom are doing is consulting on the 3 digit access number.

This has to be taken up with HomeOffice and/or PITO.

wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 1:32pm:

Everything appears to have been already decided and all ofcom are doing is consulting on the 3 digit access number. This has to be taken up with HomeOffice and/or PITO.

Ofcom can lobby and make a fuss if they think PITO and the Home Office are doing the wrong thing.  They could also lobby for these powers to be transferred to them for instance.

As for PITO it has already proven itself a totally incompetent organisation viz the fiasco over the London bombings casualty centre number.  So why should we allow an incomeptent organisation to continue to get it wrong.

There is scope to complain about the call cost and the inappropriateness of the number used in terms of call cost and overeseas access difficulties in this consultation response.

The fact that Ofcom is supine and just accepts everything is because people like Stephen Carter just choose to continue drawing their big pay checks for meekly doing what the government tells it to do and don't seem to posess the zeal for fairness and impartiality that the staff of an important regulator should so obviously have.

Doing a google search I managed to find a little more information from this .pdf file.

The .pdf file was found on the Associaton of Police Authorities website but the .pdf file itself is done as a partnership between the HomeOffice and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Having rung the number on the .pdf (homeoffice), I was informed that this is all new and so nothing has been confirmed yet.  They are hoping 10p per call from all networks including mobiles but this is to be confirmed as they are in talks with the different teleco's to sort out the cost.

He did state that all ofcom have been tasked with is providing them with a 3 digit contact number accessible from all teleco's and that 101 is their preferred choice.  Everything else was being dealt with from the group that has been setup to implement this 101 non-emergency police number (details on the .pdf).

Therefore raising objections with ofcom could be useless as they are not dealing with anything other than the 3 digit number.

They have decided on 10p per call so that some of the money will go back into funding it due to the cost involved in implementing it, etc.  Their statistics have found the average call is around 5mins (probably due to queuing, etc) and that most police forces use an 0845 costing 3ppm.  Therefore it would take the call lasting 4mins to benefit.

I did explain to him that some call providers only charge 3p per call to a geographical but I don't think it will make them change their mind because very few people are on Call18866/1899 compared to the larger teleco's and as a lot of police forces use 0845 then the cheapest option would be the 10p per call.

The .pdf did mention something about a public consultation and the guy I spoke with at the homeoffice (using the number mentioned on the .pdf) couldn't really help me much.

wrote on Oct 28^th, 2005 at 2:59pm:

Doing a google search I managed to find a little more information from this . Having rung the number on the .pdf (homeoffice), I was informed that this is all new and so nothing has been confirmed yet.  They are hoping 10p per call from all networks including mobiles but this is to be confirmed as they are in talks with the different teleco's to sort out the cost. He did state that all ofcom have been tasked with is providing them with a 3 digit contact number accessible from all teleco's and that 101 is their preferred choice.  Everything else was being dealt with from the group that has been setup to implement this 101 non-emergency police number (details on the .pdf). Therefore raising objections with ofcom could be useless as they are not dealing with anything other than the 3 digit number..

I don't agree with you at all here bbb.

Ofcom could make this an issue they wanted to contest if they felt like it (ever heard of their own initiative investigations).  But in the main they usually feel like doing as little work as possible.  Also any responses to Ofcom consultations are quite widely read so its always worth responding because at least responses to Ofcom are available to the world at large.

Surely you can see that justifying the cost of the 101 number on the existing cost of 0845 calls to the Police is insane when not all Police use such numbers and they shouldn't be using them in the first place! :o

Millions of people now have inclusive calling plans with BT, TalkTalk, Tele2 etc and what's the betting the cost of these 101 calls will be excluded.  101 should only be charged the same way as for an 01 or 02 call where of course offpeak you get an hour for 5.5p even with BT.

I can't believe you are prepared to give up so easily over all this.

The number  1212  still seems to be available, as in "Whitehall 1212" and it has a suitable legacy , as the emergency phone number usedin London just before '999'

"The 999 system came about via the Metropolitan Police in London as they found that their Police Stations were being overrun either by visitors to the station alerting them to emergency situations or trying to phone them in the growing trend of using the new invention, the telephone. Not every one could remember or knew the telephone number of the local Police Station. In November of 1927 the general public in London were advised " if you have an emergency dial 0". When the operators answers ask for the service you require. The Metropolitan Police maintained this service till 1934 then they introduced their Information Room with the famous number of Whitehall 1212. Where all emergency calls ended up. Emergency calls via telephone kept increasing and telephone operators were unable to identify emergency calls from other operator service calls."

& who ever heard of a blind person finding it easy to use digits from opposite ends of the keypad  AND Back Again ???

199 would have seemed more appropriate and even then only if the calls are going to be charged at full geographic rates as per an 01 or 02 call.

wrote on Oct 28^th, 2005 at 3:33pm:

...I can't believe you are prepared to give up so easily over all this.

I'm looking at it objectively.  I'm no fan of ofcom at all but ofcom can't be blamed for something that they never had any input on at all and are only now being consulted due to homeoffice needing a 3 digit number available from all networks.

What's the point in blaming ofcom for something that the HomeOffice and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have together started and are dealing with themselves.

All ofcom have been asked to do is provide a 3 digit number.

To make a point and to try and change things then it will have to be done via the consultation that HomeOffice have done or are doing.

Objecting via ofcom isn't likely to get anywhere simply because all ofcom will do is pass your concerns on to the homeoffice when ofcom's consultation is done.  By this time it is very likely that it will be too late and homeoffice will have made their minds up on whatever they plan on doing/charging, etc.

You have to go straight to the dept concerned (homeoffice) instead of going through a middleman (ofcom).

You have a point about people on inclusive calling plans but very few (in the vast scheme of things) are on a 24/7 plan.  Those on an inclusive calling plan are generally only the weekend because most call providers have free inclusive minutes at the weekend (with the exception of BT) included in the basic line rental, with a few more on an evening & weekend inclusive minutes plan.

This along with international access has to be taken up direct with those concerned if you hope to make them change their minds before everything has been finalised.  Going via ofcom will just delay your concerns getting to the homeoffice by a few months at least (due to length of consultation by ofcom).

Give the number a ring that's on the .pdf and see if you can get something out of them about the consultation that they have or are doing.

If the consultation is already out there then where is it?  I did a google search of the homeoffice website for this SNEN and it wasn't much help.

Therefore if this consultation is still open then which department has released it or have they conveniently hidden it away and it will all be decided upon without much public consultation (which I think is the norm with the government these days).

And there is a European policy to explore the use of 116, just as 112 is available across Europe and on mobiles...
Now that would be a benefit if one could dial 116XX anywhere, but the UK appears to be going elsewhere - again :(
URLs to follow when I am back at a stable PC.

wrote on Oct 28^th, 2005 at 9:09pm:

And there is a European policy to explore the use of 116, just as 112 is available across Europe and on mobiles... Now that would be a benefit if one could dial 116XX anywhere, but the UK appears to be going elsewhere - again :( URLs to follow when I am back at a stable PC.

I bet the proposal in the rest of Europe is for 116 to be a free call.

Only in ripoff Britain would they attempt to create a special non standard tariff to line the pockets of the police who will not pay for the cost out of the already huge amounts they rake in from us via the Counil Tax.  Also they hope to transfer the same benefits of free phone call equipment and phone lines with which the telcos have obviously bribed them in connection with their current 0845 non emergency numbers.

And I dread to think how much 101 will cost from a BT Payphone or a mobile.  And Ofcom will just be resting on its hands once again rather than expressing outrage in the media that the Home Office could be doing such a thing.

I think some of you are really missing the point here.

The rest of Europe may be standardising on a different number grouping, but that is not the issue, and that is not particularly significant, although it would clearly be better to have an EU-wide standard.

There are in reality only two issues here.

1) Does the grouping selected conform to the NTNP originally delineated by the regulators. NO!

2) What is the evident and real purpose of this gambit: this is indicated by the announced call rate per minute - even more than current 0870! The real reason for this gambit is so that the police can have call centres with illegal queuing on what will be yet another form of Disguised Premium number at 10 p per minute, to make revenue so that the calling public pay for the cost of the police answering the telephone, although they have supposedly already paid for the police in their taxes already.

In other words the whole thing is yet another extension of the current abuses, rip-offs and extortion, and a further digression from the NTNP, one of the key purposes of which was supposed to have been that the public would thenceforth would be able to discern clearly which numbers were Premium numbers.

The real base of this is again to deceive the public, in attempting to conceal that this in reality will be another scam Premium number! Is the Europe use of 116 or 112 at a similar Premium rate charge relative to ordinary calls? I doubt it.

Hey NGM,

That's amusing. Whilst I was posting my rather longer reply you got your post in ahead of me stating much the same!

wrote on Oct 28^th, 2005 at 10:04pm:

2) What is the evident and real purpose of this gambit: this is indicated by the announced call rate per minute - even more than current 0870! The real reason for this gambit is so that the police can have call centres with illegal queuing on what will be yet another form of Disguised Premium number at 10 p per minute...

Isn't it 10p per call, not per minute?

Now if its this price from a mobile then I believe that is good value for most people (except those with contracts).  Most mobile networks (for a geographical anyhow) charge 25p for the first 3mins that day (drops down after that) so it would be cheaper ringing the 101 instead of a geographical alternative (again except for those on contracts within inclusive minutes).

Ah, so 10p per call can be mandated?
Next stop 087/084 to be geographic and bundled?

We will see whether I am right or not when it is finally implemented.

Knowing Ofcom well now and the devious way in which they deceive, and attempt to manipulate everything to eventually implement what they have already decided and agreed, despite any realities,  and knowing well the already existing abuses, I believe you will find that what they eventually intend is a per minute rate with call queuing, so as to pay for or at least subsidise the cost of operating police enquiry call centres, so that the cost will no longer come from the existing police budgets, if there are enough people dumb enough to call these numbers instead of using 999! ;D :D :'(

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2005 at 12:36pm:

I believe you will find that what they eventually intend is a per minute rate with call queuing, so as to pay for or at least subsidise the cost of operating police enquiry call centres, so that the cost will no longer come from the existing police budgets, if there are enough people dumb enough to call these numbers instead of using 999! ;D :D :'(

That is also my fear.

We must all respond to the Ofcom consultation outlining these concerns and pointing out that it would be totally unacceptable for another important number to be charged at non standard rates just as Ofcom is finally putting in place plans to stop this happening (in a few years time of course) with 0845 and 0870.

Also the problem of people needing to call from overseas and the need for the geographic alternative number needs to be highlighted.  And the difficulty of calling 101 sensibly at all or using voip.  What would be wrong with a single voip geographic number for the Police by the way? ???

Also you can't call 999/112 instead as they refuse to put through calls to do with your lost credit card, missing cat, vandalised car etc.  They only take calls about issues which are considered urgent like an assaut or burglary etc, etc.

It would be typical of dumb uk plod, Pito and the Home Office to conveniently forget that people need to call from overseas, especially about burglaries that happen while they are away.

These points all need to be highlighted in formal responses to Ofcom, Pito and to the Home Office (especially Ms Hazel Blears the Police Minister).

If I may quote the garbage spouted by the Home Office:-
"The expert advice of our stakeholders was to levy a charge to reduce the likelihood of the service being abused".  Well I consider having to pay a charge if I already have an all inclusive uk calls plan to be an abuse.  And not being able to call the police from overseas on a non emergency matter is an abuse!   Strange they seem to get over the abuse problem on 999/112.  Now where have I heard the "it ensures we don't get abusive calls before argument"? Isn't it with all the people who like to run 0870 numbers. :o
I can imagine Operations Director putting forward such an argument. ::)

Also what about the 5.5p per hour off peak rate with BT.  This 101 number is obviously going to cost more than that.  Had they not been greedy and made the charge a flat rate 5p BT minimum connection fee they might have got away with it.  Even though it would still have been unfair to those with inclusive calling plans etc.

Home Office

Having hunted around the Home Office and Pito websites it is clear that the whole consultation is being run by Ofcom on behalf of the Police and Pito and that neither have launched parallel consultations.

You should therefore give your views to Ofcom who will pass them on to the Home Office and Pito as appropriate.  Also Pito and the Home Office are bound to read what is in our responses.

If you need clarification on how the consultation on this issue is being handled by the Home Office and Pito why not call Elizaebeth Greenberg at Ofcom to check the position.  Her phone number is 020 7783 4109.

Or you can email her or formally respond to the consultation by sending an email to elizabeth.greenberg@ofcom.org.uk

The full consultation document is available here:-

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/snen/snen.pdf

I see it says in the document that the Home Office has already consulted and found support for the number but we can still attack it in the Ofcom consultation by pointing out such a number and its charging structure contravenes that National Telephone Number Plan (please tell us where I can get a copy Tanllan), that the 101 number will not be common across Europe, that the 101 number cannot be accessed from overseas, that call costs should not be different from geographic phone numbers and that by the time the Police introduce it 50% of phone call traffic may be voip to voip - computer to computer.

So what is the Police's single Voip address for emergency and non emergency calls and if they haven't planned one then why not?  This would be a lot more relevant than bringing in a single non emergency PSTN number only 50 years too late. ::) :o

I still don't think that ofcom consultation is the one we need to raise our concerns/objections to unless of course it is too late and the consultation is done like it says it is.

I'm going to ring the homeoffice again on Monday and hopefully get a more clearer picture of whether it is over or still open.  I just didn't seem to get anywhere when I asked last time.

Failing that I'll do an FOI for a copy of the consultation or at least a link to it (whether it is too late or not) so we have an idea of what they have proposed, etc

bbb,

I don't think you would make a very good terrorist or fighter of a guerilla war. ;)  You like to play too obediently by the rules.  You have to remember that people like Ofcom and Pito only pay lipservice to public consultation and that in terms of getting our views taken into account this is war, although obviously only by peaceful non violent means involving the use of written correspondence to Ofcom, the media, MPs and so on.  We don't have to play by their rules which are deliberately designed to prevent there being any proper input into the process.  The whole nature of current Ofcom consultations with their ridiculously lengthy industry focused documents, horrid cover sheets and failure to provide a simple web comment form are deliberately designed to scare off Jo Bloggs from responding.

The fact that Ofcom has to consult on the number used gives a lot of ammunition for attack them on this issue because these 3 digit numbers cannot be called from overseas, cannot be called through indirect access codes or using dial through numbers (084/7 etc).  Those are all legitimate things to complain about.  It is almost as though this 101 number has been created assuming we are back in GPO monopoly days and that calls can only be made on the PSTN with one carrier.  Spain has had these 3 digit non emergency numbers for Police etc for years.  It is not exactly a revolutionary concept at the cutting edge of technological development.

This then leads on to the issue of no price competition to keep the costs of the calls down and what about those using voip access to the PSTN and what about support for PSTN consultation.

Whatever you put in your response it will be published verbatim on the Ofcom website and so will add to the debate and potentially be read by journalists.  I don't really give a stuff what narrow area the Ofcom consultation is offically about as the Home Office and Pity only seem to have previously consulted Policmen and telecoms carriers about the issues.  There is nothing found by a Search on the Pito or Home Office website for 101 that relates to a previous consultation on the issue.

In my view we must fight fire with fire.  Thinking we can only comment on the use of 101 compared to say 199 is to play into the hands of the Police, Pito and Ofcom.

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2005 at 1:12pm:

...charging structure contravenes that National Telephone Number Plan (please tell us where I can get a copy Tanllan...

Hi NGM, is http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/261701.pdf of any use?
Well, no, it may not be if they ignore it, but you know what I mean.

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2005 at 10:22pm:

Hi NGM, is http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/261701.pdf of any use? Well, no, it may not be if they ignore it, but you know what I mean.

Tanllan,

I don't find this a very illuminating document.

Can you clarify in what manner you believe 101 charged at 10p per call contravenes the NTNP?

Ah, a bit late this evening. You asked for the NTNP. I am not sure whether the charging does so contravene, but I am concerned at intention to ignore Europe (as reported by one who was at the Ofcom Numbering Forum / meeting). We now have charging on 1XX - and at PRS rates, but it is the inconsistency and confusion.
Will PM you.

You will see from the below email received from Matt Peacock, Communications Director at Ofcom, today that Matt Peacock is either personally watching or has tasked staff members with watching what is being posted on this site.

You will see that he is fully aware of the discussion that I recently started regarding the new Ofcom consultation on the proposed new 101 national non-emergency number.  Perhaps members of staff in the Ofcom Communications Department even produce a journal each day of what is being discussed on these boards.

In many ways we should be flattered as at least it makes clear they take our views seriously as a threat to their own plans to spin public opinion in a direction that will best suit the business interests of the existing uk telecoms and broadcasting operators.

I suppose if we ourselves became as paranoid as Ofcom we might even begin to imagine that Ofcom had made arrangement to have our email and phone conversations tapped.  But there couldn't be any way for Ofcom to get such powers now could there................

You have been warned

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Peacock [mailto:Matt.Peacock@ofcom.org.uk]
Sent: 31 October 2005 12:02
Subject: RE: Interesting Websites re Ofcom & Stephen Carter
 
You and I have exchanged many emails on these themes before, so I've nothing to add to our previous correspondence.
 
You may remember that I mentioned the Home Office Non-Emergency Number project to you a few months ago. You are mistaken on our role here - as some people have pointed out on the www.saynoto0870.com bulletin boards. However, it is worth responding to our consultation, as those views will help inform the Home Office's decision.
 
Regards

Matt

I have been unable to get through to the number on that SNEN Newsletter link I provided.  It has been constantly engaged.

I have tried speaking to the helplines for both the homeoffice and the ODPM but neither had any idea about the SNEN.

I therefore have today resorted to requesting a copy of the consultation along with when it started, where it was published, etc via an FOI request to both the HomeOffice and the ODPM.

In a perfect world I shouldn't have to do FOI requests to find information on something that should be easily available via their websites especially a consultation that (in ofcom's words) has already finished and they won public support for.

At least ofcom publish their consultations on their website and their responses (albeit sometimes 9 months later).

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4401870.stm

<<
Police forces in England and Wales must make a "quantum leap" to improve the way they deal with calls from the public, an official report has said.

People might have to wait days for an officer to respond to a call, said Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. It said a comparison between the way police and the commercial sector handle contact with the public was "damning".

The Home Office said some steps to ease the pressure had been taken but there was "significant work to be done".

It stressed that pressure on the police should ease when the government introduces a national non emergency number which people can ring instead of 999 to report less urgent concerns, such as noisy neighbours.

Police in the UK receive around 67 million calls for assistance each year.

The HMIC inspected 14 forces in England and Wales, as well as two in Scotland which is outside its jurisdiction.

A third of forces had no call-handling strategy in place, the study found.

It also emerged that there was also a lack of overall strategy concerning the best way to set up call-handling centres.

[...]

But, referring to the introduction of a new telephone number to relieve pressure, she added: "The government has already begun work to improve the service that the public receive from the police."

[...]
>>

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 1:55am:

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4401870.stm <<[...] But, referring to the introduction of a new telephone number to relieve pressure, she added: "The government has already begun work to improve the service that the public receive from the police." [...] >>

Training staff adequately might be a start. Cheshire Police's new call-"handling" centre did not know their county and national boundaries.  :(

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 1:55am:

It stressed that pressure on the police should ease when the government introduces a national non emergency number which people can ring instead of 999 to report less urgent concerns, such as noisy neighbours.

They already won't handle a non emergency call on 999 and make you call the Police 0845 number anyway.

So what difference will 101 make.

The problem with the Police is that they treat the public like inmates rather than like customers.

Having had a glance through most of the document, it does seem that they they will use the "first wave" (pilot scheme in old english) to test out the call volume etc and then use the data to see whether calls can then be free when the scheme is rolled out nationally.

Personally I dont have a problem with being charged 10p/call for the service, but it must be "deductable" as part of a call plan if one is in place. I confess I don't know whether Telco's billing systems can cope with such "anomalies" so if not, I would revert to forcing a 3p/min "geographic number equivalent" charge, that can be in a call plan.

As to the number chosen, there are interesting arguments for the 101 option, one of which says of the increased chance of a mis-dial if you have repeated numbers in a dialling sequence, hence their avoidance of 111 (which I think is a good option, easy to remember). I think that research relates to longer numbers with others in the sequence though, eg 01539 993 101 ,where you can quite easily not remember whether you have dialled 2 or 3 9's especially if you sometimes dial the number without the area code in your home area. Wonder if there are lots of mis-dials on 999 then...

Have put my thoughts in to the Ofcom consultation.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 4:01pm:

Personally I dont have a problem with being charged 10p/call for the service, but it must be "deductable" as part of a call plan if one is in place. ...

But that's a contradiction!

What do you mean "deductable"? If it's 10p/call (or whatever fixed rate/price), where is that money going? If it's another revenue sharing number where some of the cost is kept by the telecoms provider you are calling from (to cover the cost of the call) and the rest (the majority) goes to the terminating telco/party, then it's a premium rate number, pure and simple!!!

I doubt that it would be 10p/call and all that 10p goes to the telco you are calling from. Why would the government enforce a rule that says that a certain number must be charged at such and such pence? It's never occurred to them before to do this. They just pass the buck about (for example) the high cost of 0870 numbers; "it's the telcos fault"!!

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 4:01pm:

Having had a glance through most of the document, it does seem that they they will use the "first wave" (pilot scheme in old english) to test out the call volume etc and then use the data to see whether calls can then be free when the scheme is rolled out nationally.

Surely anyone in their right mind would at least make the new number free during the pilot stage, so as to incentivise people to use it and tell their friends about it.

If they make it costly to use then people are going to keep trying to use geographic phone numbers for as long as possible, where available.

As I have said before if they had made the cost of the 101 call 5p (equivalent to the BT minimum connection fee) then they might just have got away with it since it would be cheaper than using the current 0845 ripoff numbers.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 4:32pm:

But that's a contradiction! What do you mean "deductable"? If it's 10p/call (or whatever fixed rate/price), where is that money going? If it's another revenue sharing number where some of the cost is kept by the telecoms provider you are calling from (to cover the cost of the call) and the rest (the majority) goes to the terminating telco/party, then it's a premium rate number, pure and simple!!!

Do you (other members of this site) object to paying for any phone calls? This may sound like a frivolous question because the way you sometimes talk, it seems that way.

I have to say I dont see the contradiction you refer to, I dont actually care that terminating parties may receive revenue, as long as that and the call charge are clear at the outset.

On the "deductable from callplans point" I meant exactly as I said, i.e. if I have a BT talk plan, I would expect calls to SNEN (at 10p/call) to be part of that plan and if not possible, then I would prefer the 3p/min option which must be able to be part of a plan too (i.e. a geographic equivalent).

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 5:02pm:

Do you (other members of this site) object to paying for any phone calls? This may sound like a frivolous question because the way you sometimes talk, it seems that way.

I do not object to paying for telephone calls. I have never said that. I would like to pay the going rate for a telephone call, as determined by a free, open market. 0870/0845 numbers stiffle competition as providers cannot lower their rates because of what it costs them to connect to these numbers.


Quote:

I have to say I dont see the contradiction you refer to, I dont actually care that terminating parties may receive revenue, as long as that and the call charge are clear at the outset.

So you wouldn't object to an 090 number, so long as the call cost is displayed?


Quote:

On the "deductable from callplans point" I meant exactly as I said, i.e. if I have a BT talk plan, I would expect calls to SNEN (at 10p/call) to be part of that plan and if not possible, then I would prefer the 3p/min option which must be able to be part of a plan too (i.e. a geographic equivalent).

But you can't have your cake and eat it!

So where geographical calls are chargable, you suggest that the 101 number be 10p/call, but when on an inclusive package it's free. And who pays for this? You say you "dont actually care that the terminating parties receive revenue", but if they do, why should your telco pay that revenue so that you can call that number for free?

I believe this 101 number should be charged at standard geographic uk rates.

So 3p per minute in the day time on BT and 3p per call with 1899

As its a non emergency police number I don't expect it to be free but I don't expect it to cost any more than my calls to 01 and 02 numbers.  For anyone who paid for inclusive calls to geographic numbers I would expect 101 to be included in this calling allowance.

Simple really.

We just object to this being a specilal number with its own charge and no competition between call providers to give the best deal being possible.

You call yourself NoNumberTrans.  But 101 is a NumberTrans! :o ::)

Thanks NGM, that the "Plain English" version (rather than Ofcom-speak) of what I'm saying!

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 5:32pm:

I believe this 101 number should be charged at standard geographic uk rates. So 3p per minute in the day time on BT and 3p per call with 1899

I don't believe they should - well not exclusively anyhow.

Not everyone is on Call18866/1899 so paying 3p/min can be really expensive especially if they are in a queue and I can imagine there will be queues.  If anyone was to call this 101 charged at geographical rates they would pay over the odds from mobiles, etc

In my opinion the 101 can stay a fixed rate - 5p per call - is reasonable in my opinion as you point out its same rate as minimum call charge.  Anything above that I would class a premium rate call.

There should also be a geographical number to ring for those ringing from abroad, etc or those, like us, that use Call18866/1899, etc.

This has the advantage of benefiting everyone.  Those on inclusive plans or Call18866/1899, etc can use the geographical.  Those that aren't on inclusive plans or Call18866/1899, can use the 101.

It's highly doubtful that calls to 101 will be included in any package.

I could live with a standard 5p fixed  charge for those calling 101 on all networks (including mobile phones and payphones for whom it would generally be a real boon compared to the usual mobile call charges and especially 0845 charges) so long as a geographic number for reaching every individual uk police force call centre is also clearly provided on their websites.  Then those who have inclusive call packages, are overseas or use 1899 etc can call on the geographic number while those who just take the line of least resistance can call 101 and only be charged 5p.

I hope we all make such a suggestion in our responses.

We can say more than 5p is unfair because the BT Option 1 charge off peak for 01 and 02 is only 5.5p for 60 minutes and is 5p for 60 minutes with many other call providers.  So why should a Police non emergency call cost more than calling 01 or 02 with BT?

What do the rest of you think?

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 5:24pm:

So you wouldn't object to an 090 number, so long as the call cost is displayed?

Yes, I wouldn't object to an 090 number provided that it was clear that's what you were calling and the associated rate, though I seriously doubt it would be used in this case.


wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 5:24pm:

But you can't have your cake and eat it! So where geographical calls are chargable, you suggest that the 101 number be 10p/call, but when on an inclusive package it's free. And who pays for this? You say you "dont actually care that the terminating parties receive revenue", but if they do, why should your telco pay that revenue so that you can call that number for free?

I think I'm right in saying that most (if not all) call plans exclude fixed price services such as those being proposed for the 101 SNEN service. What I was saying was that if it was possible to include them in call plans then I would be happy with a fixed 10p/call for SNEN. If not, then revert to NGM's suggestion of 3p/m standard geo. rate. And by the way a call is not "free" on a call plan, the Telco will have calculated an allowance for all calls and makes charges accordingly.

As an explanation of my thoughts, most Telco's offer some "non-standard" calls as an inclusive part of their packages, for instance most Orange customers can dial freephone numbers for free. Orange bears the difference between what the terminating Telco pays them to bear the call and what it costs them, I guess reasoning that they will get revenue from the customer in other ways. This is what I was suggesting could be the case with 101. By the way, on the previous price plan I was on with Orange, 0870 numbers were charged as part of your inclusive minutes as if they were standard (geographic) call.

Oh btw, I sometimes think number translations are necessary, we wouldn't have 999 without it.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 8:07pm:

There should also be a geographical number to ring for those ringing from abroad, etc or those, like us, that use Call18866/1899, etc.

The problem with making a geographic number available is that it would vary from area to area of the country, therefore defeating the point of having a single number valid anywhere in the UK to access the relevant authority. Originally 0870 numbers were accessible from abroad, its only since BT have dropped the basic rental package and call costs have become variable that such access has gone by the wayside.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 8:23pm:

... so long as a geographic number for reaching every individual uk police force call centre is also clearly provided on their websites.

The problem is that 101 is designed not just to access police forces but also local authority services, so you would start to get very long list.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 9:26pm:

The problem is that 101 is designed not just to access police forces but also local authority services, so you would start to get very long list.

No there would not be a long list of alternative geographic numbers as only one Police force covers my area - Surrey Police.  All I ask is that it provides a geographic phone number on its website to call in addition to 101 when this sytem comes in.  Ditto there is only one District Council and one County Council covering where I live.  All I ask is that they show a geographic phone number to call on their website in addition to 101.  However at present neither the Police or the County Council show a geographic number on their website or in the phone book and only the District Council have a geographic number and can be guaranteed to keep that geographic number no matter what, as a result of police that I have had passed.

There is in fact no need for this 101 number at all as:-

(a) PSTN 01/02 numbers will be dead in 10 years time so why bring in this 101 number just as they are dying and only 50 years too late.  And what will be the non emergency voip address to call and why isn't that being specified in this consultaion? :o

(b) No one has any difficulty whatsoever using conventional geographic numbers to call their police force or local authority other than the minor objection caused by the fact that voice directory enquiries are now chargeable.  However if councils can also be accessed via these 101 numbers then I would return to my original position on the matter which is that 101 from any telephone should be charged at that telephone service providers geographic call rates for the plan that the customer is on.  So 101 is free if the customer is on an all inclusive calls package or 3p per minute peak and 5.5p per hour off peak on BT Option 1.  The key thing is that people shouldl be no worse off calling on a 101 number than calling an 01 or 02 prefixed number and they will in fact be significantly better off compared to 0845 off peak, even on BT Option 1.

101 should just be a handy number translation service that gets you through to the underlying council or Police geographic number without having to remember the actual number itself.  But what it shoudl not be is another number translation service that imposes a special different tariiff structure compared to calling the geographical number.

There.  In a nutshell that is what will be the gist of my submission to Ofcom.  As to have a special rate for all calls to police and local authorities will be a major distortion in competition and call tariffs in the uk telecoms market, just as we are beginning to hopefully stamp this out for 0845 and 0870.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 9:22pm:

The problem with making a geographic number available is that it would vary from area to area of the country, therefore defeating the point of having a single number valid anywhere in the UK to access the relevant authority.

Wrong because the 101 number should work anywhere and get you through to the local polcice or local council at your normal geographic call rate with that call provider on that call package.  And in just the same way the underlying geographic number that 101 directs to in your area for the Police and the one or more local councils will be available from those bodies and in directory enquires in addition to the 101 number.

I can't see any problem with that can you?  The only point of 101 is so that if you are out of area you don't have to have a phone book or call mobile phone directory enquiries at about £1 a minute.

But there is need for the convenience of a simple short code number method of accessing these services having a different telecoms tariff not subject to normal competitive market forces in the telecoms industry.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 9:55pm:

Wrong because the 101 number should work anywhere and get you through to the local police or local council at your normal geographic call rate with that call provider on that call package.

But presumably your point about having geographic alternatives published would be so that you can bypass any charging structure that was "premium" if such a scheme was imposed. I guess the  purpose of having 101 as an access number is that it forces a different routing dependant on the called party's location (yes it can work with mobile's too, though cellular transmitter location ID is yet to be used in the uk). My point was that because it depends on your location, you would have to have an alternative geographic number for all potential receiving authorities

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 10:31pm:

But presumably your point about having geographic alternatives published would be so that you can bypass any charging structure that was "premium" if such a scheme was imposed. I guess the  purpose of having 101 as an access number is that it forces a different routing dependant on the called party's location (yes it can work with mobile's too, though cellular transmitter location ID is yet to be used in the uk). My point was that because it depends on your location, you would have to have an alternative geographic number for all potential receiving authorities

No I live in the real world rather than in your theoretical world.

In the real world most citizens live rather dull and predicatable lives where they live in one location and go to work in another.

Therefore they know who their police authority and their local council is and can get the specific geographic number for those bodies from the phone book, from  directory enquiries or from the websites for those bodies.  These calls will be charged at whatever rate applicable on your call package with your current phone provider. As per 01 and 02 or 0845 and 0870 for that matter.

101 is just a helpful add on overlay in addition to the geographic numbers, so that if you are out of area you call 101 and it costs you no more than on the package you are on because 101 should be charged on just the same basis as calling an 01 or 02 number.

Just because the number is 101 that does not mean it cannot be charged on the same geographic tariff as 01 or 02 numbers.  That is just the crazed scheme of Pito (the 0870 casualty bombings number people) and the Home Office who are already high on the abuses of 0845 and 0870 and not in touch with the movement to return everything to geographic call pricing.

Are you sure you shouldn't be called ILoveNumberTranslation? ::)

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 10:43pm:

101 is just a helpful add on overlay in addition to the geographic numbers, so that if you are out of area you call 101 and it costs you no more than on the package you are on because 101 should be charged on just the same basis as calling an 01 or 02 number.

Actually I agree with you there, that's how I think it should work.


Quote:

Are you sure you shouldn't be called ILoveNumberTranslation? ::)

Do you always resort to looking for some ulterior motive for someone not always having the same point of view as you? Do you think I'm some Ofcom lackey with the job of disputing points of view held on this site?

Having read some of the responses to my posts, I can see why this is another issue that animates you as much as 0870 and I have changed my view accordingly. Isn't that the point of such open forums. Maybe one day you'll have a different view on things after someone else has made a point.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 10:43pm:

101 is just a helpful add on overlay in addition to the geographic numbers, so that if you are out of area you call 101 and it costs you no more than on the package you are on because 101 should be charged on just the same basis as calling an 01 or 02 number.

I agree. Just how many people have a problem remembering or locating their local police force's non-emergency number?

What's more, the difference between emergency and non-emergency is that for a non-emergency you might need to phone from out of area. So there wouldn't be any need to phone 999 from out of area.

One solution would be to allow the number to be dialled in the form of STD code followed by 101, as well as dialling 101 with no STD code. For example, to dial London's SNEN from outside London, 020 101. The snag being that "national dialling" numbers have been allocated which have probably put paid to that.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 11:46pm:

One solution would be to allow the number to be dialled in the form of STD code followed by 101, as well as dialling 101 with no STD code. For example, to dial London's SNEN from outside London, 020 101. The snag being that "national dialling" numbers have been allocated which have probably put paid to that.

Dave that is an excellent idea which you should include in your consultation response as indeed may I.

Clearly loads of people live in Kent, Surrey Bucks etc and then work in London but may need to call the police back in their home area about their lost wallet, grafiiti daubed on their wall at home or whatever and yet 101 at their office in London would only out them through to the Met non emergency call centre.  So unless 101 has a 16 layer deep touch tone system how are you going to tell it you want to speak to the control room for Surrey Police instead.

Why are they going to all this trouble to bring in the technology of yesteryear 50 years too late when the whole PSTN system with phone numbers is about to die out?  I repeat where are their nationally accessible non emergency Voip addresses (where it would then be easy to have a next layer computer screen picking Surrey or Northumberland Police force as required) when this is the way of the future from here on in.

What this is really all about is the Police having got a lot of flack for their 0845 single number contact centres, then trying to think of something better and coming up with something even worse as a result. :o

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 11:30pm:

Do you always resort to looking for some ulterior motive for someone not always having the same point of view as you? Do you think I'm some Ofcom lackey with the job of disputing points of view held on this site?

I am sorry if my comments upset you although pleased to hear that you have come round to the point of view that although 101 may provide a handy shortcut if you don't know the local police or council number there is no reason for it to cost the customer any more to call.  It is that way of thinking that unfortunately led to the creation of the whole 084 and 087 nonsense premium charges in the first place.

I think we fell out because you possibly implied I was being daft by suggesting that people carry round 50 different police force numbers with them and I possibly then went a little OTT in proving my point as to why that wasn't necessary.

I hope you didn't take my comments too personally.  They weren't really directed at you but rather the brainwashing that BT seem to have so successfuly achieved over the years that number translation is a service for which people must pay extra.  So that people then end up having a predisposition to assuming it is reasonablt to be charged something extra for number translation.  I just couldn't help but see the obvious irony in your forum name being NoNumberTrans, so would have expected you to really be the first to disapprove of the whole 101 concept.

Anyhow I'm sorry that we seem to have started off on the wrong foot with one another as a result of this.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 1:26am:

the whole 112 concept?

116!  ;)

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 11:46pm:

One solution would be to allow the number to be dialled in the form of STD code followed by 101, as well as dialling 101 with no STD code. For example, to dial London's SNEN from outside London, 020 101. The snag being that "national dialling" numbers have been allocated which have probably put paid to that.

Of course, according to the National Telephone Numbering Plan, these numbers are not for where they would be given out. Thus, it would probably a simple job for Ofcom to hand out some different prefixes for those telcos affected, and for the telcos to reprogram the NGNs so that they point to the new numbers.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 4:40pm:

116!  ;)

101 I meant as I'm sure you realise Tanllan.

Of course it would be nice if they had the good sense to use 116 since this is proposed as the EU standard for non emergency numbers.

Anyhow by the time we get there local loop unbundling will mean loads of people can have a broadband connection and voip without paying BT line rental, so they won't want to call a POTS/PSTN number.  But sadly I won't be one of them as I live on a middle sized country exchange where I doubt unbundling will be attractive.  Although with 1900 lines we have more hope than exchanges with only 300.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 6:21pm:

Of course it would be nice if they had the good sense to use 116 since this is proposed as the EU standard for non emergency numbers.

It would be so nice.  A system is only as good as how well it holds up under fringe cases.  Well, here's a fringe case, probably about the most extreme fringe case I can imagine, which will strengthen the case for 116.  The A3(NI) crosses the UK/RoI border 5 times in about as many miles.  Say you get into a fender-bender and need non-emergency police service.  Does the mobile phone reception match what country you're in?  (Do you even know what country you're in?)  Would 101 work if you're on the UK side of the border, or would it go dead even if you're on the UK side and happen to be in a region that gets a stronger signal from a RoI cellsite?

What about 116?  RoI is more likely to take up anything from Brussels long before the UK does.  So if the UK goes for 116 also, chances are you'll get put through to either Cavan Garda station (RoI) or Dungannon PSNI station (UK), and at least you'll get an answer.

I know the border areas of Northern Ireland are a huge fringe case, but that's probably why NI gets used as a testing ground for new telecoms arrangements.

Of course now that you bring the RoI/ NI border into it one starts to wonder why Oftel, as it then was, ignored the RoI thoughts of using 048 from both sides of the border.
Oh, sorry, I forgot that we should not co-operate.

I've only just noticed this thread. Despite reading lots of reports in the media about a proposed non-emergency number, it's the first time I'd heard the word cost associated with it. I thought the idea was that the number would be free. If it's going to cost 10p, might this not encourage people to continue to use 999 inappropriately? Even if they refuse the take the call and direct the caller to 101, it's still extra burden on 999.

If this is introduced, all police forces should be required to operate geographical numbers alongside. Then people who are lazy can call 101 and pay 10p, the rest of us can dial the ordinary number (after looking it up if necessary - after all, it's not an emergency, so what's the hurry?) In Leicester the number is 2222222, nice and easy to remember.

From the Ofcom document, I note the Home Office favour, "10 pence-per-call initially, with the intention to moving to free
to caller in the future." What's the point of this? If they want it to be free, why does it have to have a charge initially? That's not going to encourage people to use the number.

Finally, I couldn't help noticing references to: "Special Service Basic Rate and Special Service Higher Rate as provided on
0845 and 0870 numbers (formerly known as Local Rate and National Rate)". And, "Genuine Local Rate or Genuine National Rate". Are the latter the new official terms for 01 and 02 numbers?

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 12:17pm:

"Genuine Local Rate or Genuine National Rate". Are the latter the new official terms for 01 and 02 numbers?

Well those certainly ought to be the terms for 01 and 02 numbers whilst 084 and 087 and 070 numbers should all be referred to as "Disguised Premium Rate".  Do you think we could also persuade Ofcom to perhaps adopt this terminology too. ;) ;D

I hope you will be responding to the Police 101 number consultation.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 12:22pm:

was talking to a friend who works as an FOI officer at a local police force, they wish to remain annon for fear of being sacked. I have just recived this E-mail from his private mail account. It brings up interesting questions that the Police Forces are obviously knowing they are doing wrong and are censoring any responses. I doubt that if an MP sent in exactly the same response as we are, that theyd get the cut n past response which is being sent out at the moment. ---- Hi ... Was nice talking to you on the phone yesterday. Yes we are aware of a website called saynoto0870.com which, according to the power's that be, is sending excessive amounts of 0870/0845 FOIA requests. The IC office is also aware of them as well and has sent an Email to all the police FOI departments with several instructions. I have tried to track down this exact E-mail but I have failed. I however have attached the standard draft response which was also sent out by the IC office which we are to send to any further requests regarding 0870/0845 or any telephony matter. Personally I feel that this is unreasonable as I explained to you on the phone, but at the end of the day I am only following orders. It is not hard for us just to re-send the response we sent to another similar request. Please keep my name and where I work private as I am sure I would be sacked for telling you what I have told you. Regards. XXXXXXX

The above item was posted by mc661 in a thread he started in the FOI section of the sanynot0870 discussion forum.

However I felt sure that the contents of his message were also likely to be of relevance to anyone posting in this Police 101 non emergency number thread.

It seems simply outrageous that the Police can try to use these bully boy tactics to scare off legitmate enquiries about their own disgraceful actions in signing up to the use of these disguised premium rate numbers and failing to follow Ofcom guidance to provide an alternative geographic phone number.  And then when they get repeated requests to disclose geographic alternatives they try to portray those asking the questions as disruptive troublemakers.

Aside from making an appeal to the Information Commissioner I would also consider making an appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission if anyone should receive such a letter or email from a uk Police force.

These actions by the Police in sending out such responses to complaints about the use of 0845 are also worth mentioning in any response to the 101 number consultation.

NGM, if you have a copy of the draft reply referred to. perhaps you could post it here.

Then we could judge for ourselves the validity of the assertion that it constitutes bully-boy tactics or an attempt to propagandise and defame enquirers as troublemakers.

As this draft is said to rely on advice from the IC office, it seems rather unlikely that such tactics as those you allege have actually been counselled.

Here is the actual email allegedly being sent out by certain uk Police forces in response to FOI requests that mc661 received:-


wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 12:22pm:

The Attachment I write in connection with your request for information, received by this office on [DATE].  I understand you are requesting information concerning:   [SUBJECT RELATING TO 0870/0845] Requests to public authorities on this subject have been many and numerous since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Much public debate has already been generated over the introduction of these numbers. Various campaign groups have formed and on numerous occasions have posed the same or similar questions. The responses have been posted on a range of websites and this has led to articles and copies of the information appearing in the national media.  The information has been placed in the public domain. In addition to the tactic of repeatedly asking the same question, the responses have often been debated in chat rooms, on websites and in other types of publications.  During these discussions, derogatory personal comments have been made about members of the police service.  Other generic insults have also been published. In some cases, these actions have been supplemented by rude and aggressive personal contact via telephone.   The result has been personal stress and anguish caused to members of staff and this has undermined the efficiency and effectiveness of the forces concerned.  More importantly, these actions have caused harm to the individuals involved.  It is the view of the police service that any form of attack on it staff will not be tolerated, simply because they are performing a public function. It should be noted that [NAME OF POLICE FORCE] considers that this subject is now classified as vexatious under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Any requests on the subject will be refused using the Section 14 exemption. This exemption applies where the day-to-day functions of a public body, in particular its ability to manage the work that arises from its obligation to comply with the FOIA, are undermined by a number of apparently obsessive requests and the pursuit of continuing associated correspondence.   The whole philosophy behind the introduction of the FOIA is to achieve an effective balance between the individual’s right to know and an authority’s need to deliver its functions effectively.  This balance is challenging to maintain.  Whilst the police service wishes to optimise avenues of communication, the Information Commissioner’s view is that, where appropriate, we are entitled to produce an overall strategy, define suitable parameters and implement an approach to control situations such as this.   This position is further supported by the guidance issued by the Information Commissioner, ICO’s guidance no 22.  A synopsis of this guidance follows: The Commissioner is confident that most members of the public will exercise their new rights sensibly and responsibly. However, it is recognised that some individuals - and perhaps some organisations - may seek to abuse these new rights. Even though it may not have been the explicit intention of the applicant to cause inconvenience, it will be appropriate to treat the request as being vexatious.  While giving maximum support to individuals genuinely seeking to exercise the new right to know, the Commissioner’s general approach will be sympathetic towards authorities where a request, which may be the latest in a series of requests, would impose a significant burden and: ·  Clearly does not have any serious purpose or value   ·  Is designed to cause disruption or annoyance   ·  Has the effect of harassing the public authority   ·  Can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable   I regret that I am unable to meet your request but should you have any further information needs in the future then please contact me.   You have the right to ask us to review this decision.  If you wish us to review this decision please set out your grounds for review in writing and send them to the [YOUR INFORMATION MANAGER INTERNAL REVIEW ADDRESS] If you are still dissatisfied following an internal review you also have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at Commissioner’s Officer, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.   end attachment

wrote on Nov 9^th, 2005 at 1:32pm:

NGM, if you have a copy of the draft reply referred to. perhaps you could post it here.

Andy9,

Thankyou for your helpful assistance in pointing out my failure to also post the actual circular message apparently being sent out by uk Police forces getting FOI requests about their 0845 contact centre numbers.

I hope that we can now continue to work together in this constructive manner and that in time we may even be able to take each other off our list of recipients to be Ignored in respect of Instant Messages in this forum.

Thank you.

I see what you mean about alleged bully boy tactics, but somebody else's assertion appears to have rather preceded yours.


Quote:

In addition to the tactic of repeatedly asking the same question, the responses have often been debated in chat rooms, on websites and in other types of publications.  During these discussions, derogatory personal comments have been made about members of the police service.  Other generic insults have also been published. In some cases, these actions have been supplemented by rude and aggressive personal contact via telephone.

I would imagine that anybody telephoning with these enquiries will have given their name, and that some of the alleged troublemakers are therefore identified.

wrote on Nov 9^th, 2005 at 1:47pm:

I hope that we can now continue to work together in this constructive manner and that in time we may even be able to take each other off our list of recipients to be Ignored in respect of Instant Messages in this forum.

My last comments stand, especially in view of your most recent accusations.  

I would imagine that other members wish to hear no further

hi andy9

I spoke to someone who went to school with me who now works as an FOI Officer at a Police Force (which shall remain annon at their request). He has said that his boss the Information Manager has instructed him to answer any telephony FOI's with that standard Response.

What was copied by NGN was what was sent by the IC office to all the police forces.
I have had that exact word for word response sent to me by two different police forces (city of london (which doesnt even use 0845's) and Avon&Somerset), my friend works for another force.

So thats 3 forces, one of which doesnt use 0845's, using the same cut n paste response already.

I will be making a complaint to the IPCC later.

It looks like ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) is behind this and if you check their website they in turn take their lead on IT mattets from a civilian, Mr Philip Jacobs of PITO.

I suggest people email chris.fox@acpo.police.uk who is head of ACPO complaining about these monstrous instructions to FOI officers in uk Police forces probably put together by the people responsible for the 0870 casualty number for the London bombings (www.pito.org.uk.

You might also like to copy this to philip.webb@pito.org.uk, philip.jacobs@pito.org.uk and chris.earnshaw@pito.org.uk

Or am I dropping your friend in it here mc661.  I suspect you ought to have set up a new unknown forum id for this purpose. ;)

how many police forces are there in the country? Including the non regional ones? Theyll never be found out!

You got a link to where those instructions were?

Had my FOI back from the SNEN Programme team based within the HomeOffice.  Despite it was sent in electronic form, their reply back was in snail mail format so I'll just quote most relevant info:-


Quote:

After a thorough search, I regret to inform you that the Home Office does not hold the information that you have requested.  The public consultation referred to in the Single Non-Emergency Number Programme Newsletter ont he Association of Police Authorities website, is in fact a piece of research which is being carried out for the Home Office on the public's priorities and perceptions concerning non-emergency crime, anti-social behavioius and community safety issues and access to and delivery of related public services.  This research consists of telephone surveys and discussions with focus groups.  There is no public consultation document and there is not likely to be one published in the future.

Basically although it was referred to as a public consultation it isn't actually one.  I'm going to ask for a copy of this other consultation (well the sections relevant to this new proposed SNEN).

Rather than send this back via snailmail, does anyone know the email format that the HomeOffice use?

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 27^th, 2005 at 6:41pm:

Rather than send this back via snailmail, does anyone know the email format that the HomeOffice use?

firstname.lastname@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk is the format used.

I have not yet read the SNEN 101 con doc, yet I feel obliged to provide a response, even if it is only a couple of paragraphs as I suspect this is yet another Ofcom balls-up. Obviously my main concern is that calls can be made from outside the UK.

Can anyone tell me whether the proposed 101 number will mean that police forces will not publish geographic numbers for the public any longer?

Is the 101 issue actually irrelevant to people like myself that live overseas; ie should I ignore this consultation?

Quote:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/snen/snen.pdf

I can see the cover sheet on page32 of the above .pdf file but would anyone have or could anyone point me in the direction of the equivalent word document please ?

Deadline's approaching and I want to have my say!

gdh82 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 8:48pm:

I can see the cover sheet on page32 of the above .pdf file but would anyone have or could anyone point me in the direction of the equivalent word document please ?

Coversheet files are here.  ;)

You don't have to attach one. I didn't to the previous consultations and I notice you didn't either.

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 9:11pm:

Coversheet files are here.  ;)

Thanks Dave - appreciate the link.  Perhaps it isn't clear from the responses page but previously I've filled in the word document and then sent as an attachment.  Thanks again anyway :)

idb wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 12:31pm:

Obviously my main concern is that calls can be made from outside the UK. Can anyone tell me whether the proposed 101 number will mean that police forces will not publish geographic numbers for the public any longer? Is the 101 issue actually irrelevant to people like myself that live overseas; ie should I ignore this consultation?

Those all seem to be issues that our press on modernising friends in the Home Office, PITO and the police forces seem not to have thought about.  Also since even someone working in London may need to call the West Sussex or Thames Valley Police then the issue of how to call another police force and whether they have a geographic NEN too (as compared to those current horrid 0845 numbers) arises even in the UK. Ditto for councils and so on.

The questions you raise above are all valid points to be made in your response idb as is the issue of the calls not being priced at geographic rates and even costing more than the BT Option 1 5.5p for 60 minutes off peak when many of these NEN calls will actually be made.

I suspect you will find this is worth at least 3 pages of A4 response if not the full 15 pages that you and I both mustered on NTS Way Forward.

Also you must mention why the Police think they need this single NEN number now just when PSTN phone calls are about to die out and when many European countries have had a single NEN for years.  Also the non standardisation with the European 3 digit NEN code proposed by the EU and lastly the failure to propose a single NEN true Voip contact address as part of this consultation.  This is totally unacceptable in 2005

I hesitate to point out the PRS consultation that is also closing on Dec 22nd too. :o  I fear there are things in that we should also comment.

Its all one spectrum of people having to pay non standard charges for calls to standard uk landlines and people not being properly informed of the call costs they have to pay for calling these numbers.

I see that Ofcom has just wielded its pathetic weak willed regulatory rubber stamp to give a ringing endorsement to the 101 Single Non Emergency Number at 10p per call across all telecoms companies demanded by the Home Office and PITO.  As expected the comments of myself and others who took considerable time and trouble to oppose these ridiculous proposals have been completely and utterly ignored.

As ever Ofcom seems to have taken far more notice of what its government masters (who ultimately dish out patronage such as knighthoods and peerages to senior regulatory staff like David Currie and Stephen Carter) want than of the views of the uk citizen and uk consumer that section 3.1 of the Communications Act 2003 suggest that they are meant to put first. >:( >:( >:( >:(

See www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/03/nr_20060308

<<Ofcom agrees to Home Office request for 101 as single non-emergency number


Ofcom today confirmed that, in response to a specific Home Office request, the telephone number '101' will be made available as a single non-emergency number in the UK.

As part of the Home Office's wider police reform proposals, this service would enable the public to report criminal or anti-social behaviour in situations which are not considered to be an emergency.

The Home Office has already consulted on the introduction of this service and asked Ofcom to make '101' available for it. Ofcom is responsible for the administration of the UK's numbering resource and in October 2005 published a separate public consultation on the use of ‘101’.

Ofcom has not given any view on the appropriate tariff for calling this service. The Home Office has confirmed its plans to secure a common rate of 10 pence per call for this service across all networks. This is subject to ongoing implementation discussions between the Home Office and communications providers.

Ends.>>

The 101 number will be 'trialed' later on in the year in Hampshire, Leicestershire, Northumbria, South Wales and South Yorkshire. So will the existing non-emergency numbers still work for each constabulary or will be forced to pay up if we decide to report a crime?

South Yorkshire Police use 0114 2202020, an easy to remember number which was put in place about ten years ago. Does this mean that this will be lost?

Dave wrote on Mar 8^th, 2006 at 3:17pm:

South Yorkshire Police use 0114 2202020, an easy to remember number which was put in place about ten years ago. Does this mean that this will be lost?

No I expect it will continue to work and this website will still have it but most marketing will instead be put in to promoting their 101 number.  I also bet the geographic phone number is no longer listed with directory enquiries. [smiley=cry.gif]

Nobody seems to have yet been able to tell me if you work in London but your home is in Kent then how can you use 101 to make a non emergency phone call to Kent from your London office?  Surely 101 will inevitably only put you through to a London call centre.

So the true reason comes out.
The reason your charged for 101 is to stop people calling it. (sic)

~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

i also saw it and will keep dialing 999 you do not pay 10 p for that call  :)


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

mc661 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2006 at 6:15pm:

The reason your charged for 101 is to stop people calling it. (sic)

I thought they wanted 101 to stop people from calling 999 unncessarily.  So surely it at least needs to be free to act as competition for 999? ::)


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

Realising that requires a deductive thinking process - you forget that PITO was involved.


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

bill wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 10:47am:

Realising that requires a deductive thinking process - you forget that PITO was involved.

Anyone who watched last night's Panorama about the death of poor Mr Menenzes would realise that the preference of Policemen for following out ill thought out and ill considered pre made rules to the letter over the use of deductive thinking processes on the job (which an alarming number of ordinary Rozzers seems to be distinctly lacking in) is a common problem amongst uk Policemen.

The Police force needs to be restructured to work like the uk armed forces with a separate Officer class in charge of leading the ordinary coppers.


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

I think you missed the point there NGM.  PITO is a civil service organisation, not part of the best (despite its faults) police service in the world.


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

I think you miss the point that the majority of the PITO board is in fact made up of senior serving Police officers and Home Office senior staff who control Police policy so PITO only does the bidding of uk Police forces.  It would be just like the authoritarian mentality of the Police force to think that you will have to do as you are told and call their expensive number.  Also it is typically arrogant of the Police to claim that they aren't responsible for the cost of telephone calls.

See:- www.pito.org.uk/aboutPITO/organisation/board/index.htm


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

Your suspicions are totally unfounded as I now have a totally clean driving license points wise and also a driving license with no past driving offence form to declare at the magistrates court (not the same thing as just having no points on a license as it takes an unbroken run of no driving offences for 5 years to completely clear them off one's record for sentencing purposes at the magistrates court rather than the four to clear down points for speeding).  There have of course been a few close shaves in this time with suddenly spotting yellow boxes on unfamiliar roads at the last moment (especially the A2 in to London and Limehouse link tunnel both ways) but a very heavy application of the brakes has saved the day and/or the cameras may have run out of film.

My own attitude to ordinary coppers is determined by no less than four bad experiences in 25 years driving of driving (19 of them in 2 seat sports cars) of power crazed traffic cops who have been on a jealousy persecution trip against sports car drivers.  The last of these was last Christmas Eve around 7.30pm on my way over to my mother's house.  I entered the M25 at Junction 9 Leatherhead en route to M25 Junction 15 and half a mile later came across a huge logjam of cars stuck behind two marked Police cars about 400 yards apart.  The second of these two Police cars was probably travelling at about 68mph and I passed it slowly with no problem but when I reached the second travelling about 68mph to 71mph after playing the no passing game for about 2 miles I got really sick of this nonsense and so attempted to crawl past at about 74mph well within the ACPO speed limit +10% + 2mph tolerance.  Whereupon as I just began to inch past the Police car it speeded up to 75mph.

I momentarily tried accelerating more but then thought better of the entrapment that was clearly taking place so hit my brakes to fall in behind the Police car.  Wherupon flashing blue lights immediately went on.  I was so incensed at this rolling blockade of the motorway by a Police car for no reason that I asked why I had been stopped and if the Policeman didn't realise that having a huge bunching of traffic that could not pass him might cause a major pile up.  Whereupon I was subjected to some dirge about if he had his way the limit would be 50mph on the M25 all the time and it was only because he was a firearms cop rather than the traffic cop he used to be that he wasn't going to issue a speeding ticket.  Highly significant I think was the fact that this Policeman's partner never got out of the marked Police car which suggests to me that he thought his partner was in fact behaving like a stupid little prick.  I thought of making a formal complaint but unfortunately with the Police they always close ranks.

I have also been stopped by a Police car coming off Hyde Park Corner when I saw him the marked car pull in behind me and went at no more than 30mph for the next mile and a half whereupon he stopped me and incredibly accused me of speeding.  When I said I knew this wasnt' true I was then accused of being on drugs and when I asked for their PC numbers it was then suggested that a charge of dangerous driving against me would be arranged if I dared to make any formal complaint.  I did complain the next day to a local Police Inspector but as my father was Parliamentary Adviser to the Police Federation at the time it just wasn't going to be worth causing him embarassment by pursuing the complaint.

So while I am sure there are some very good Policemen who track down murderers and burglars to protect ordinary citizens one can't get away from the fact that the personality of quite a few Policmen tends to be that of the small minded dictator who enjoys petty rule enforcement against others for its own sake.  And no I don't put driving 10mph or 15mph over the speed limit in the same category of criminal offence as murder, whatever loony political claptrap our friends at BRAKE and elsewhere may try to come up with.


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

Wicked wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 7:39pm:

Those are strangely vitriolic comments about people you don't know. Am I alone is suspecting that you may have recently fallen foul of a speed camera whilst putting on your makeup?

So I wasn't far off then.


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

Wicked wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 5:43pm:

So I wasn't far off then.

More like Way Off I would say. [smiley=tongue.gif]


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

mc661 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2006 at 6:15pm:

~Edit by DaveM: Title amended

Dave I hate to point out that Biased has only one s and is spelt BIASED not BIASSED

Rule No 1 of making spelling corrections is surely to correct to the correct spelling. ;) :D


~Edit by bbb_uk: Title amended

wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 5:59pm:

Dave I hate to point out that Biased has only one s and is spelt BIASED not BIASSED Rule No 1 of making spelling corrections is surely to correct to the correct spelling. ;) :D

Oops.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=biassed&ls=a

Wicked wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 9:56pm:

Oops. http://www.onelook.com/?w=biassed&ls=a

15 references for biased versus only 5 for biassed.  It appears biassed is permitted in North America but is not used in the UK.

wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 10:23pm:

15 references for biased versus only 5 for biassed.  It appears biassed is permitted in North America but is not used in the UK.

So is capital punishment, but I remain to be convinced that we should have it here.

Tanllan wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 11:04pm:

So is capital punishment, but I remain to be convinced that we should have it here.

It seems Americans rationalize these things differently ;)

Wicked wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 9:56pm:

wrote on Mar 10th, 2006 at 5:59pm: Dave I hate to point out that Biased has only one s and is spelt BIASED not BIASSED Oops. http://www.onelook.com/?w=biassed&ls=a

OK - but this is a British website and those 5 references are all 'non-British' English dictionaries.

And the link you provide has a note at the top:

Quote:

Note: More dictionaries have definitions for: biased

and that provides a list of 16 references with only one "s" - True English :P

wrote on Mar 11^th, 2006 at 12:19am:

It seems Americans rationalize these things differently ;)

Do they?  I thought certain Americans were incapable of rationalising anything - but that's not only off topic, but way off this board!    :P :D ;D

is this how low this forum has got now? Moaning about how people spell? Sheesh
Goodbye.

mc661 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2006 at 11:42pm:

is this how low this forum has got now? Moaning about how people spell? Sheesh Goodbye.

Sorry if you're offended mc661 - speaking for myself, my comments were intended only as light-hearted banter - just a little light relief from the heavy topics.
:-[

I agree its been a little light relief but can we stay more on topic please!

From reports in the media, 101 is now in use at 10p a call.  

Is this true?  

What is the Ofcom consultation for?

Media you are reading are obviously confused.  Its unlikely to come in to operation for at least a year or two as there would have to be lots of systems developmen work on the national telephone network and with the many uk regional police forces.  They have also have to cope with a whole load of possible Police force mergers too.

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2006 at 5:52pm:

kk wrote on Mar 12th, 2006 at 10:17am: From reports in the media, 101 is now in use at 10p a call.   Is this true? ... Its unlikely to come in to operation for at least a year or two ...

ITN says that it will shortly be on trial in selected police areas:

Quote:

Police launch non-emergency number 8.20PM, Wed Mar 8 2006 ... Five areas - Hampshire, Northumbria, Cardiff, Sheffield and two areas in Leicestershire, Leicester City and Rutland County - will pilot the scheme this summer and it will be rolled out across England and Wales by 2008.

trevord wrote on Mar 12^th, 2006 at 6:43pm:

ITN says that it will shortly be on trial in selected police areas:

I expect they were using the Ofcom definition of either Shortly or for that matter Spring which in either case usually occurs much later than you might suppose would be the case. ;) ::)

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2006 at 6:59pm:

trevord wrote on Mar 12th, 2006 at 6:43pm: ITN says that it will shortly be on trial in selected police areas: I expect they were using the Ofcom definition of ... Shortly

It was actually me that used the word "shortly"  :-/ - what ITN wrote is in the quote.

From the Ofcom Statement on Single Non-emergency Number:

Quote:

The Tariff 6.6 In the October consultation Ofcom suggested four tariff options that the Home Office considered might be appropriate: a) Option 1: free to caller including free from payphones and mobiles b) Option 2: 10 pence-per-call c) Option 3: 3 pence-per-minute d) Option 4: 10 pence-per-call initially, with the intention to moving to free to caller in the future Responses received 6.7 Nine respondents preferred the first option. ... 6.8 No respondents preferred the second option, one respondent preferred the third option and four respondents preferred the fourth option.

So, of course they go for the option that no-one wanted!  :'(
Maybe we should all have voted for this option so that they would have rejected it?  :P

They have also ignored - without comment - a number of the good arguments that were given against choosing "101" as the number.

Clearly, no real point in having a consultation except to keep the OfCon lords in work until they get to the Lords!   ::)

Oh dear. All this makes me wonder if "consults" is some form of contraction of "Condescendingly insults"?

I can't find the topic for this although I thought there might be one so I am sure someone will move it if appropriate.   I was appalled  to be told today by my husband who works in local government that the govt is forcing local authorities to use the 101 rip off number, as well as the police.  I think this is a disgrace, although I am a little puzzled by the sort of non-emergency emergencies envisaged - noise nuisance?   flooding?   all of these should be on ordinary numbers of course.   I wonder did NGM know of this?   Or any of the other councillors or MPs who use the site?

SNEN website now operational

http://snen.homeoffice.gov.uk/

which contains the rather odd statement...

"This site is not intended for use by the general public."

And a quote from Ms Blears (remember her?)

"Vandalism, graffiti, dumped rubbish, fly tipping, abandoned cars, relentless noise and nuisance neighbours all have a long lasting and corrosive effect on the quality of people's lives. 101 represents significant new investment to strengthen community engagement and tackle the anti-social behaviour that blights local communities."

Hazel Blears, Clueless Minister (8 March 06).