I heard today that ALL Police Forces plan to ditch the Geographic 03 numbers that they have been using and will instead introduce a single number, 101, for ALL non emergency calls. Currently only a few forces offer the 101 alternative which costs customers 10p per call, even if you have a home phone package with inclusive calls. Calls from mobile can vary.

When this happens I want to know if the 10p per call will remain, because if not, then this is yet another stealth tax on the millions of people who have to call the Police each month. The 101 number should be classed as a non-geographic number in the same way as n 03 number.

If this is correct, it is truly appalling.  Apart from the stealth tax of the cost, how will a caller contact their LOCAL police?   In rural areas there is enough of a problem with police staff based 20 miles away having never heard of villages of say 500 residents (some years ago Essex introduced mobile police stations, the first call was supposed to be to the village where the Chair of the Police Authority lived, the van got lost & the Chair had to go & find it & conduct it to his village!!). I assume 101 would work like all these other useless call centres where when one calls from Cornwall and, if call volumes are high,one ends up talking to someone in say Scotland  who, not unreasonably, will have no idea of a particular location in Cornwall (& no, sat nav is not the answer, where we used to live, our post code often did not show up on the utilities' data bases & sat nav, on one occasion, we were told there was no record of our post code, would we pretend to be from another address in future!!)   And has anyone recently tried getting directions from a police officer when eg being diverted at an accident site?   In our experience they have NO IDEA of the locality in which they are standing, never mind being able to help people around an obstacle.

Basically, police response has declined since it ceased to be possible to call one's local police station 24/7, it was the local officers & staff who knew the area & knew the problems/ problem people in that area, 101 will make a poor situation even worse and at a cost to the public whom the police are meant to serve.

More on this here

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Reportingcrimeandantisocialbehaviour/DG_185338

Thanks, sherbert, doesn't alter my views, still a bad idea but I have registerd my comments.

sherbert wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 9:12am:

More on this here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Reportingcrimeandantisocialbehaviour/DG_185338

That page talks about 101 with respect only to the three areas that it operates currently, so I think it was written prior to the recent announcement. BTW, can someone provide a link to a story on the latest announcement?

What can be reported in areas varies at present. Abandoned vehicles, dumping and fly tipping and faulty street lights can be reported in Sheffield on 101, but not in the two other areas that 101 is available.

http://www.windsor-telecom.co.uk/news.php?Title=New-101-Non-Emergency-Number-for-Police&id=615

New 101 Non-Emergency Number for Police

Northants Police have confirmed that the 101 UK Wide Non Emergency number is going live after all 43 forces voted for it.

The new phone number will be used for all non-emergency calls and the concept is that it will be easy for the public to remember (in the same way as the 999 emergency phone number).

The Metropolitan Police will be the first force to move over to the new 101 phone number in time for the Olympics in 2012.

The plan is that there will be technical testing during May/June 2011. The proposed plan is that when you dial 101 you will go through to an IVR that says you will be diverted to the local force to which you are calling.

There will possibly be a voice recognition service where you can say the name of the force you want to speak to and are then put through.

Following the technical testing the forces will then be loaded over time. Northants Police is penciled in for September. By the end of 2011, there should be 80% of Forces running on the new 101 service.

This will effectively put an end to all Police Forces non-emergency numbers whether they are 01/02 geographic numbers, 0800 or 0845 numbers or 0303 or 0300 numbers.

I have been advised today that when the the 101 non emergency number is introduced that there will be a fixed cost of 10p from landlines, no doubt calls from mobiles will be vary and cost more. I feel that this number should run alongside a Geographical 03 alternative and not replace it.

Will calls be free from call boxes or will people have to pay the mininum call box charge of 60p? I very much doubt a call box would let you make the call for 10p.

I am afraid if it costs 10p to make contact via the 101 number to contact the police it is a rip off and I SHALL NOT BE CONTACTING the via this number

What do other members think?

Thanks for your info Sherbert

I have left a message as follows

IT IS DISCUSTING that callers are going to be charged to contact the police, I certainly will not use this number if I wish to contact the police I will either use the local station number or ring 999

bazzerfewi, I am with you absolutely on this, I WILL NOT be charged like this to contact the police, particularly when, if you look at your council tax bill, you can see how much you already pay for this PUBLIC service!   This is also at a time when many, particularly smaller, police stations are going to close so it's yet another case of paying more for less.   After all, the police say they need the help of the public in dealing with crime yet want to charge them for being helpful - imagine the outcry if the remaining police stations had a turnstile & you had put insert 10p gain access to report a crime or hand in someone's lost wallet!!

sherbert wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 11:15am:

http://www.windsor-telecom.co.uk/news.php?Title=New-101-Non-Emergency-Number-for-Police&id=615

We await official confirmation of what appears to be an authoritative statement.

All I have been able to glean from various sources is that this will simply be a non-emergency number for contacting the local Police Service. It will not, as originally conceived, also cover reports of matters, e.g. noise, covered by local authorities.

As this looks to be something of a re-launch, the opportunity for the Home Office to re-open negotiations with the telephone companies about the charging basis should have been taken. When granted the number, the Home Office noted the need for consistency of charging and undertook to review the charging basis when assessing the impact of the arrangements initially put in place.

As the scope and nature of the service has changed considerably, there can be no question that a further review is necessary as this goes forward.


I suspect that this item was omitted from the Ofcom consultation - Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers - as it was seen to be essentially dead. As it appears that it will now return to prominence, Ofcom should be ready to canvass opinion in the context of its general review of NGCS, and to comment at a suitable stage.

The present call cost information for 101 sits clearly within the target area of the type of nonsense that Ofcom seeks to outlaw:-


Quote:

Calls to 101 from standard BT lines cost 10p for the entire call. The cost of calls to 101 from other networks and mobiles may vary. Check with your telephone company for details.

Unless a common simple charge (or none) can be agreed then there must be a PCA. (Note: my advocacy for a PCA for this exceptional case - as is the nature of calls to 101 - must not be seen as undermining my general comments on PCAs.)

---

4PetesSake wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 10:01pm:

The 101 number should be classed as a non-geographic number in the same way as n 03 number.

For me the problem is with the variable nature of the charge. The cost of the call has to be met somehow, whether through general taxation or a charge on callers.

Calls to 03 numbers are paid for by the caller at the geographic (lowest) rate they pay for calls (this is generally zero for contract telephones). This is the right approach for many calls to public bodies, where it is proper that citizens incur only the cost associated with a geographical call from their chosen provider and tariff.

In my opinion, 111 should have been priced in the same way as 03 calls (indeed each area ready and able to offer such a service should have had its own 03 number). The 111 trials will be reviewed in the coming Autumn, when I believe that it may have to be reconsidered most seriously. The proposed abandonment of local NHS bodies may make it unworkable in its present form anyway.


Setting 101 at 10p per call from BT makes it cheaper than 03 for some callers at some times, but more expensive for others. The three digit numbers can be priced in any way that can be agreed between the body issued with the number and the telephone service providers; each case should be considered on its merits.

I like the idea of a fixed price per call for 101 and understand the strong arguments for why the rate should not be zero. The police do not have a turnstile at the entrance to a police station, but they do not pay your bus fare or car parking charges when you visit them.

Because of the particular nature of the 101 service, I believe that a single charge rate should be set to apply across all providers, with the necessary cross-subsidy and taxpayer contribution. Whether the appropriate figure is zero, 10p, 20p or £1 per call, it should be the same for all citizens.

If all the costs of the basic telephony (not that of the police call handling, which would be expressed in pounds per call) could be expected to be met at the fixed rate of 10p per call, across all types of telephone, I would not have a problem with this. If such a fixed price went beyond 20p and / or if significant taxpayer subsidy was required, then I would question the propriety of the project. (It seems that I will probably have to raise these questions.)

Barbara wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 9:08am:

... how will a caller contact their LOCAL police? ... I assume 101 would work like all these other useless call centres ... & no, sat nav is not the answer, where we used to live, our post code often did not show up on the utilities' data bases & sat nav ...  In our experience they have NO IDEA of the locality in which they are standing ... it was the local officers & staff who knew the area & knew the problems/ problem people in that area, 101 will make a poor situation even worse

This is a fair attack on bad call centre culture, which commonly fails to deliver what it could and should.

101 and 111, along with many other local services delivered using national numbers (including NHS Direct), rely on use of the locality component of a landline caller's number or the cell from which a mobile call is originated. As these services are currently in operation, these techniques are being used today.

Neither of these locality determinants rely on postcodes or GPS, but that is not to say that they are flawless. If anyone has any knowledge or experience of them giving incorrect results, it would be interesting to hear about it.

On the flip side, it can be very difficult if in a strange area (eg on holiday, etc) to work out:

1. What the local police force is
2. Find the number to contact them on

Having one number for all police forces would be useful, but it would need some kind of assistance if automated - eg someone could look up a road name / town etc to put you through if you were not sure which force you needed.

As for the cost, I agree that it should be uniform across all telecom networks.

The idea of a flat rate per call is okay in my eyes, and I'd much prefer that to say 5p per minute (or worse), but if they could keep the cost down (especially as the volume should go up with more forces joining), something like 3 or 4p per call would be good.

Perhaps the local forces will keep their local 03/01/02 numbers, so you have that choice? 101 could be useful for when you don't know the number, but in your home town, you could phone the free alternative.

I agree with Barbara, and as I stated in my last post I will not use the service, I will not be charged for contacting the police, and I am on Virgin I haven't contacted them yet but it may be more expensive to use this service via the Virgin Network

Two words sum it up RIP OFF


Telecoms should foot the bill - they make enough out at present

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 9:40pm:

Telecoms should foot the bill

This is nothing more than adding a third possibility to the options of 1) callers and 2) taxpayers, as to who pays - 3) all telephone users.

If anyone can suggest how a scheme may be implemented whereby certain costs must be met out of the profits of companies, rather than their revenue from charges, then I would be happy to consider the means of funding that is proposed.

(This assumes an absence of total economic regulation by the government, so that all charges are determined by the state.)

Re post No 10, no, police forces do not pay car parking or travel costs BUT if one needed to travel one would use the phone (to a geo no of course!!); I am talking about walking ito one's local police station to be of assistance to the police in some way eg reporting illegal activity, handing in lost valuables etc.  There are plans in some areas to site police offices of some kind in other buildings perhaps libraries where they still exist - how would 101 work then?  In other areas, there are only mobile numbers for beat officers, again expensive & unacceptable, and beat officers are generally PCSOs who, while I have not doubt of their expertise and commitment, have no powers of arrest so are of limited value.   What is needed is direct contact with local police officers who know the area and have full powers without cost to the caller.

I do take the point in to other post about the need for a single number one could ring when in an unfamiliar area, in which case one is far more likely to be using a mobile phone at an even greater cost, but why could that not be on the same basis as 999 ie not charged to the caller?   After all, the police keep stressing they can only do their job with th help of the public, that situation is only going to become more relevant with the cuts in police officer numbers, why should the public be charged to be helpful??

Barbara wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 9:38am:

In other areas, there are only mobile numbers for beat officers, again expensive & unacceptable, and beat officers are generally PCSOs who, while I have not doubt of their expertise and commitment, have no powers of arrest so are of limited value.   What is needed is direct contact with local police officers who know the area and have full powers without cost to the caller.

Lazy officers are probably still called 'uniform carriers' and Special Constables 'Hobby Bobbies' but Blunkett's policing on-the-cheap PCSOs are something else.

Unfortunately, they appear to always be allowed/told to patrol in pairs and are paid two-thirds the salary of a real PC (hence, 2 PCSOs = one and a third PCs) despite having almost no real powers.

There are some very good points being made about policing policy in this discussion.

The idea of making all calls to the police, and perhaps other public services, "free to caller" is interesting. Any proponents should however address the implications for the defecit, levels of general taxation or redirection of existing budgets. (If efficiency savings could be made to release funds for this, then they must be made anyway, regardless of what is done about telephone call charges. I address the possibity of "Telecoms footing the bill" above.)

One of the other arguments for not setting a zero rate for calls to 101, is the disincentive for nuisance (prank) calls. There should now be evidence to indicate how effective this is by comparing the proportion of such calls to the 101 services that have been in place for some times with those for the 999 service. This does not provide a justification for any particular level of charge by itself. If however, it can be shown that a justifiable charge on callers saves the public cost of agents being tied up on improper calls, then it can add weight to the argument in favour of the cost of the service being met in part by callers, rather than taxpayers (or telephone users) in general.

We must also remember that we are only (generally) talking about meeting the cost of connecting the calls over the telephone network. We are not talking about paying for the call centre where they are handled, to make the service totally self-funding.

The publication of a single non-emergency number (either for each force or for each all forces) would seem to be the best solution as the main non-emergency communication channel.

This thread is speculating on the latest announcement. Has it been assumed that the statement by the OP that "all" non-emergency calls will go through 101 will mean that every last one will do? I am not so sure that this will mean that local police station numbers will no longer be publicised. From my work looking at police non-emergency numbers, some forces publish divisional numbers and others don't. This policy would appear at present to be decided by each individual force. So does this latest announcement bring this to an end?

Most police forces have a single non-emergency number. Perhaps the 101 number will be answered in the same way (from an operational point of view). Again, I understand that single non-emergency numbers don't always go through to one single location; evidently this is another matter which is decided at local (force) level.

In the grand scheme of things, 10p/call for 101 seems pretty good a fair result all in.

Consider the status quo for non-emergencies, some forces have 03x, others have 01/02, others have 084x. Knowing the phone number for your local force is one thing, but when you travel? You're not necessarily in a position to look up "saynoto0870" if you're mobile, so if 101 is setup with the same "location lookup" that is already used for 999 calls from mobiles, then that has to be a good thing.

As for the 10p fixed charge, I've no great problem with that or a charge equivalent to geographic calls. People make the point about a token charge to deter hoax callers and that's fair - there are lots of "fights" about telephone call charges that are worth picking, but arguing over a 10p fixed charge to call the police does seem a little petty IMHO. If it was 50p fixed, then maybe. Thinking what most people pay to call a geographic number, the difference between paying that for 2/3 minutes, and 10p - we're talking pennies. 10 at most.

Comparing a 10p call with what 084x can cost to call (especially if you're mobile), this seems a pretty good deal to me.

Yes, but is it 10 pence from a mobile? :-/

A test call (measured in seconds) I made to 101 yesterday from my Orange mobile, is showing on my unbilled usage as 8.5p.

I am not in a trial area as far as I know, so make of that what you will.

I am totally apposed to the idea of 101 calls

Yes I agree that maybe if there was an alternative number to ring people may use it rather than ringing 999 but SAVY callers such as most Sayno members will not.

I for one would NEVER  ring it I would contact the local station or if I couldn't I would ring 999

It is totally against my principles but being ripped off is as well

There is a simple solution just leave the existing 01/02 numbers in tact for those of us that wish to use them.

It is the intention of all Forces to phase out their 03 or 0845 numbers.

If someone calls from a landline I assume that they may have to pay the 9p connection charge as well as the flat fee of 10p. Any thoughts on this???

I have just contacted Virgin Media and they didn't have a clue. "Its no good them ringing 101 it doen't work in India"

At far as I can make out the charges are as follows

Connection charge 9p
Call Charge 10p

This is a flat rate and callers will only be charged the connection charge and a one off flat rate, but as usual calls may vary etc etc etc

I will stress again if I cannot contact the police without being charged very expensive crazy rates for the call I will not contact them at all

I have been in contact with a number of telecom companies and it appears that the 101 10p service is a wolf in sheeps clothing

Total Charge 10p PLUS -  CONNECTION CHARGE BY THE TELECOM PROVIDER usually 9 to 12p

So callers could be charged 19p to call 101 rip off

How can this be right >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

I am currently working on a comprehensive table of costs for calling 101 from major providers. If anyone else is doing the same then perhaps we should compare progress by PM / Email - it is not easy!!

I am also making considerable progress in verifying the extent of the truth behind the Windsor Telecom announcement. I have nothing to report as yet.

---

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

I have just contacted Virgin Media ... At far as I can make out the charges are as follows Connection charge 9p Call Charge 10p

Virgin Media is actually simple, because its charges are published in the normal way.

Page 53 of Calls from home UK Non-Geographic calls shows the Charge Band for 101 to be "FF31".
Page 11 of Calls from home residential tariffs shows FF31 to be a fixed-fee call at 10.22 pence per call.

There appears to be some commonality here, as most telcos applied the 2.13% increase to VAT inclusive rates in January to all "set" charges.

---

japitts wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 3:45pm:

A test call (measured in seconds) I made to 101 yesterday from my Orange mobile, is showing on my unbilled usage as 8.5p.

If this is exclusive of VAT, then it would confirm a fixed fee set at 10p per call when the VAT Rate was 17.5%.

---

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:29am:

I have been in contact with a number of telecom companies and it appears that the 101 10p service is a wolf in sheeps clothing ... How can this be right

To answer the question, it is probably not right!

I can confirm the general experience of telco telephone enquiry staff having very poor detailed information available to them and no understanding of tariffs or the UK telephone system. They are in no position whatsoever to provide accurate advice on call costs where the issues are in the slightest complex.

To be fair, no such service is offered, as the IVR menus generally do not include an option for enquiries about call costs, other than queries about charges already raised on a presented bill.

Because telcos are obliged to publish all call charges (at least to their customers), one is best to pursue published information, for those who do so with public access through the internet. This may not be easy either, but it does enable one to hold the publisher accountable.

---

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

... I will stress again if I cannot contact the police without being charged very expensive crazy rates for the call I will not contact them at all

We are each fully entitled to our personal views and to behave in whatever way we wish.

On the issue of public policy, it appears that the English Police services are prepared to sign up to the idea of having a common non-emergency number. We can criticise, but we may have to accept this decision as having been made. This leaves the question of how the telephone call element of the cost of the service should be funded, given that each Police service will fund its call centres in the same way as it funds other costs.

One option is for calls to be "free to caller" so they are paid for by taxpayers (national or local) in general or perhaps by the customers of each telephone company. Commercial sponsorship is another option; this is often regarded as acceptable by Police services, but I have considerable doubts. If there is to be a charge, this could be fixed per call or a rate per minute. Telcos could have the option of bundling the charge into package fees.

I can personally see a good argument for having a common charge for all calls to this particular service. What may appear to be crazy and expensive for a landline user with a call inclusive package may not be so for someone calling from a Public Payphone or PAYG mobile. (I have yet to discover exactly what the current, or proposed, situation actually is.)

If a common charge were to be put in place, I can fully understand the resentment that would be felt by those who believe that they have paid for all of their telephone calls, at being treated in the same way as those who have not paid anything in advance. There is indeed a strong argument for those who pay most tax being entitled to a better service from the Police than those who pay little tax.
(I hope that readers can recognise irony ;))

I am inclined to believe that if a common call charge can be set at a reasonable level to enable calls to be self-funding across the board, then this is probably the best way forward. (I must stress that these views apply only to this particular service. I do not commend the same approach for telephone access to public services in general.)

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

... I will stress again if I cannot contact the police without being charged very expensive crazy rates for the call I will not contact them at all

I can think of three acceptable possibilities for charging 101 calls:

1. All calls free from all providers.
2. Call charges aligned to those of 01/02/03 numbers on every tariff.
3. Call charges aligned to those of 01/02/03 numbers on every tariff and capped at an industry-wide amount (perhaps 10 pence).



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

I am currently working on a comprehensive table of costs for calling 101 from major providers. If anyone else is doing the same then perhaps we should compare progress by PM / Email - it is not easy!! I am also making considerable progress in verifying the extent of the truth behind the Windsor Telecom announcement. I have nothing to report as yet.

I would have thought that if it is to be 10 pence per call from all providers, then this would be enforced through a rule setup by Ofcom.

If this is the case, then I would be surprised if providers will be allowed to charge a call set-up/connection charge plus the 10 pence.

I know that BT's Call Set-up fee does not apply to fixed fee calls, which are those that are charged at so many pence per call, as 101 is expected to be.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 10:29am: I have been in contact with a number of telecom companies and it appears that the 101 10p service is a wolf in sheeps clothing ... How can this be right To answer the question, it is probably not right! I can confirm the general experience of telco telephone enquiry staff having very poor detailed information available to them and no understanding of tariffs or the UK telephone system. They are in no position whatsoever to provide accurate advice on call costs where the issues are in the slightest complex.

Indeed. I wouldn't hang my hat on what telephone company staff say on this and other call charges.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

On the issue of public policy, it appears that the English Police services are prepared to sign up to the idea of having a common non-emergency number. We can criticise, but we may have to accept this decision as having been made. This leaves the question of how the telephone call element of the cost of the service should be funded, given that each Police service will fund its call centres in the same way as it funds other costs.

This leaves the question of how contact can be made with a police force when within another's area. Each will surely need to retain their 01/02/03/0845 numbers for this purpose.

So, in actual fact, savvy people would ring via the 0x numbers rather than 101, in cases where it's cheaper.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

I am inclined to believe that if a common call charge can be set at a reasonable level to enable calls to be self-funding across the board, then this is probably the best way forward. (I must stress that these views apply only to this particular service. I do not commend the same approach for telephone access to public services in general.)

Points in favour of a single industry-wide charge accepted, but it does mean that the police are driving a horse and cart through the process of consumer-choice.

It would be like having a flat charge of 10 pence to get on the bus to a police station, irrespective of distance, time at which the journey was being made and even whether the passenger had a season ticket or other pass which permitted free or reduced travel.

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

I will stress again if I cannot contact the police without being charged very expensive crazy rates for the call I will not contact them at all

I certainly agree with you so far as using an 084x number for non-emergencies is concerned. Webform, 999 if urgent, or just not bother. There's always Crimestoppers (0800) if it's regarding an existing investigation.

Quote I would have thought that if it is to be 10 pence per call from all providers, then this would be enforced through a rule setup by Ofcom.

If this is the case, then I would be surprised if providers will be allowed to charge a call set-up/connection charge plus the 10 pence.

I know that BT's Call Set-up fee does not apply to fixed fee calls, which are those that are charged at so many pence per call, as 101 is expected to be.T

That may be the case and telcos may only be able to charge 10p but if they are the information that Virgin staff are giving out is incorrect. As per my earlier posting Virgin quoted 19p to make the call although I did contact them on 2 occasions and they didn't really have a clue either way

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

That may be the case and telcos may only be able to charge 10p but if they are the information that Virgin staff are giving out is incorrect. As per my earlier posting Virgin quoted 19p to make the call although I did contact them on 2 occasions and they didn't really have a clue either way

The incorrect pricing information eminating from call providers' call centres is a matter for those providers.

You have said that they appeared not to have a clue either way, in which case, it would appear that the above quoted 19p per call may well be incorrect.

We know that when 03 numbers were introduced, some telcos didn't charge calls as geographic ones, so it should perhaps not come as a surprise that there is misinformation out there about 101. And of course 101 presently only operates in small areas of the country, so relatively few people will be ringing it and therefore likely to be enquiring about its cost.

If the news release by Windsor telecom is seen to be true then the issues must be sorted out before the news is released officially.

With reference to points made above, including my own latest posting (briefly):

Virgin Media - Its actual rates are published.

Enforcement - The Ofcom statement fully explains that that charging is a matter to be resolved by agreement between the Home Office and the Telcos. Such an agreement would be no less enforceable than any Ofcom regulation.

Consumer Choice - A single charge would enable consumers to choose whichever telephone service provider they wish, whilst citizens retain access to the Police service on equal terms - insofar as the Police have any control over the costs they incur. Any "free to caller" service is no less undermining of the principle of consumer choice. The analogy with travel costs is perfectly fair.

Out of area contact - "Incident room" numbers and direct lines for specific functions would doubtless remain. Whether each local service would retain a general non-emergency contact number of its own remains to be seen. One must assume that many calls to 101 would involve co-ordinated response across forces. The possibility of calls being handled by "shared service" call centres may lie behind this - this is why we moved from calls being directed to central numbers for each force, rather than individual stations.

I have contacted the Metropolitan Police in Sheffield via the 0114 2 202020 and the service is working at present maybe the local numbers will remain in tact.

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 6:43pm:

I have contacted the Metropolitan Police in Sheffield via the 0114 2 202020 and the service is working at present maybe the local numbers will remain in tact.

I referred to "Out of Area" - how on earth does a 0114 number connect one to the Metropolitan Police? :-?

Should 0114 2 202020 be listed as an alternative to 0300 123 1212?

There was talk of adjacent police services merging - but I do not recall any suggestion of the Met merging with South Yorkshire ::)

All that is being suggested is that a number which has limited application at present MAY be adopted throughout England over the coming months / years. There is no suggestion that existing advertised services have stopped working.

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 6:43pm:

I have contacted the Metropolitan Police in Sheffield via the 0114 2 202020 and the service is working at present maybe the local numbers will remain in tact.

That number is listed here  http://www.southyorks.police.uk/sheffield on the South Yorkshire police web site (Sheffield section)

0114 2202020 for all non-emergencies and enquiries

I know London is expanding, but don't think it has got that far yet ;D

I contacted Sheffield because I knew the number and because it was one of the areas listed for the 101 number.

O K not metropolitan "South Yorkshire"

In any event I was only stating that the 0114 2202020 number was still live  

For reporting non-emergencies, we do have the option of going to the Force's Website and sending an email. At least we will not get charged for that. See below link for a general enquiry form to contact Northants Police.

http://www.northants.police.uk/default.aspx?id=forms&formid=4&contact=1

I am reliably informed that once 101 comes into effect for all forces that all other non-emergency contact numbers will become redundant. In the event that you are near to a Force Boundary and get put through to the wrong Force, there will be an option to select the Force that you want.

I have never had to contact the local police so I don't suppose that I will use the number anyway, it is just that I hate the fact that the telco's will be making money out of the call that is may grienance

4PetesSake wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

I am reliably informed that once 101 comes into effect for all forces that all other non-emergency contact numbers will become redundant.

Let's hope that there is no need for Interpol, the FBI or other law enforcement agency to contact the plod. I suspect 011 44 101 or 00 44 101 will achieve little.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

... I am also making considerable progress in verifying the extent of the truth behind the Windsor Telecom announcement. I have nothing to report as yet.

As the announcement by Windsor has now been withdrawn it is probably reasonable to assume that work is going on very much as stated but that the time for a public announcement has not yet arrived. It would be very important that nothing be said publicly until all of the details had been finalised so that clear information about the service could be made available to the public.

Part of the objective has to be to help police services to refocus the efforts of warranted officers on roles where they can be most effective - essentially "on the street". If that means moving them away from desks answering telephone calls, so that these can be taken in call centres, then so be it. That is not to say that the quality of service from the call centre MUST be poor.

I see three points as being essential to justify a charge, probably 10p per call, including VAT.

• It must be shown that the areas where the 101 service has been in use have experienced a much lower proportion of nuisance calls than 999 and that this can be fairly attributed to the call not being free to caller.
  
  
• The fee must be modest and the same for all callers, regardless of the type of telephone service, terms of contract etc.
  
  
• The net revenue from all call charges must be negative after telephone companies have retained their reasonable costs.

I believe that if callers can understand that they are only paying for the costs of the telephone call connection, as we are used to - not the costs of the Police - but are doing so in a way that is fair for all citizens, giving access to the Police at equal cost, then it may be found acceptable.

There is a tricky social issue with leaving people to pay the cost of a standard call, because this is generally greatest for those of least means. I am ready to accept this for access to non-emergency NHS services. The types of calls that will go to 101, including all reporting of crime that is no longer being committed, enable me to see this is a different light.

I would personally rather see the money for the 101 telephone service raised through general taxation, but as this approach would not have found favour with those who supported the previous government, let alone the current government, I am prepared to accept that this is not what people want.


If anyone wants the truth of this dragged out into the public domain before those planning to launch it are ready to make an announcement, I suggest that they invite their MP to ask a question of the Home Secretary. I would think this likely to produce something formal, but suitably qualified.

Sorry but I'm pretty sure the Met won't be the first police force to use the 101 number, North Wales Police have been using the number for quite a while.  http://www.north-wales.police.uk/nwpv2/en/yglas/newsDetail.asp?sid=PR647427 only they don't mention when it was actually launched and I'm pretty sure I've seen Dyfed Powys Police using 101 too

According to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7998804.stm April 2009, I'm sure they we're still building the olympic stadium back then.  Hampshire also had 101 from April 1 2009

I don't get the problem with paying just 10p (it's not like it's an 0871 10p PER MINUTE call) to phone the police, you'll probably have their usual number stored in your brain or phone if you've lived in the area for donkeys years.  If you don't it's in the phone book, problem solved.

Our local police station "Sheffield" can still be contacted on the local number and it is listed as one of the stations that are part of the 101 trials, with a bit of look the 0114 number may stay in use.

I have had a reply back form Dan Jarvis MP and he is raising the 101 issue in parliament - I will await the outcome and post the reply

@ floppyfringe

More info regarding the 101 Emergency Number is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Non-Emergency_Number it appears to have started in 2006, in a limited area.

Regarding calling the 101 number I would prefer to call that @ 10p Per Call rather then the current "official" number for my local force Sussex Police who use an 0845 number. Thankfully I know the 01 number for them.

However those who are required to call the 0845 number will be charged anything up to 40 per minute depending on what network they are with.

For that reason, I feel the use of the 101 number represents much better value as long as it IS 10p Per Call and is charged the same accross ALL networks.

Also yes Dyfed Powys Police do use the 101 number.

idb wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

4PetesSake wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 11:38am: I am reliably informed that once 101 comes into effect for all forces that all other non-emergency contact numbers will become redundant. Let's hope that there is no need for Interpol, the FBI or other law enforcement agency to contact the plod. I suspect 011 44 101 or 00 44 101 will achieve little.

A very good point, people often have to call English Police Forces from abroad for a whole host of reasons. Like you, I am sure that 0044 101 etc will not get you through.

101 will go live in September 2011 across Wiltshire, Thames Valley, Devon & Cornwall, Avon & Somerset, Dorset, Gloucester police areas.

All forces nationally, will go live by January 2012. Calls to 101 will be fixed at 15p per call across fixed and mobile networks.

Source: Email received from Wiltshire Police.

Interesting,

so it's going up in cost, as it is extended to more forces?

However it's a fixed cost per call service?

Well what a surprise the price is rising for users!!!   I expect once it is there for all foces, they'll introduce a different money-making tariff & OFCOM or whoever will do nothing to stop it.

According to this government web site

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Reportingcrimeandantisocialbehaviour/DG_185338


Calls to 101 from standard BT lines cost 10p for the entire call. The cost of calls to 101 from other networks and mobiles may vary. Check with your telephone company for details.

I have contacted my local MP Dan Jarvis in regard to my dismay with the use of the Premium Rate 101 none emergency number

I have also brought to his attention thaat Doctors Surgery's use of 0844/0845 income generator numbers he is now pursuing these matters. He is the new guy that took over from Eric Illsley "Barnsley Central" so let us see what he is made of

I urge others to contact their MP in this regard as they will all land on the relevent ministers desk and it may rekindle the campaign

Our local GP surgery still uses 01x numbers and seems pretty well managed, so there's (fortunately) no need to write or email them.

As for the 101-number - so it maybe 15p per call rather than 10, well whoopie-doo-dah. A modest fixed-fee per call with the same number nationally, is a MAJOR step forward from the status quo IMO - so I certainly won't be writing to complain about this.

japitts wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 12:45pm:

As for the 101-number - so it maybe 15p per call rather than 10, well whoopie-doo-dah. A modest fixed-fee per call with the same number nationally, is a MAJOR step forward from the status quo IMO - so I certainly won't be writing to complain about this.

It is hardly a step forward if, as has been suggested, police agencies replace geographic numbers with a number that is inaccessible from overseas.

If, and this has to be established when the changes are formally announced, the rate of 15p per call is what is necessary to ensure that ALL callers pay the same and that this only covers the reasonable charge imposed by the telephone companies for making the connection, not any of the costs of the Police service call centres, then I would think it proper. The change from 10p to 15p will be a sensitive issue for those areas where the number is already in use at the rate of 10p per call. (This sadly takes us back to the whole project having been badly handled initially. Local independence and national plans do not easily co-exist. Look out for what will happen with 111!)

The rate charged to the caller and by the telephone companies is not a matter for Ofcom. The relevant bodies are the Home Office and ACPO representing the English Police services / forces / constabularies.

Some would argue that the money that could be spent on enabling all callers to make non-emergency calls at no cost to themselves is better spent on other aspects of Police work. It is quite fair for others to argue the alternative position, suggesting that free non-emergency calls should be a spending priority.

This should NOT be conflated with the total impropriety of using 084 numbers for contact with public bodies. Furthermore, the particular arguments that apply to this case should not be extended to cover telephone contact with public service bodies in general. Use of 01 / 02 / 03 numbers, charged at the applicable Geographic Rate, is perfectly acceptable for most cases. This is a particular case because the additional costs associated with use of a single three digit number are thought to be worthwhile and other special considerations apply, mainly due to the association with the 999 service.


I trust that appropriate arrangements will be made for handling calls from overseas, as well as those to specific incident rooms and to local services remote from the caller. We await details of these arrangements being revealed and discussed when final plans are in place and the changes are formally announced. Those who are seriously concerned that these may have been overlooked should make the appropriate representations now, whilst there is still time to get it right, unless they would rather moan later.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

I trust that appropriate arrangements will be made for handling calls from overseas, as well as those to specific incident rooms and to local services remote from the caller.

One would hope so, however, on the assumption that either a geographic or 03 number is provided for such situations, then this number will be used (quite correctly, in my opinion) by UK residents wishing to avoid the charge for 101. Similar situations prevail for other organizations discussed here.

idb wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 3:49pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 2:59pm: I trust that appropriate arrangements will be made for handling calls from overseas, as well as those to specific incident rooms and to local services remote from the caller. One would hope so, however, on the assumption that either a geographic or 03 number is provided for such situations, then this number will be used (quite correctly, in my opinion) by UK residents wishing to avoid the charge for 101. Similar situations prevail for other organizations discussed here.

I would clearly not be appropriate for a single 01/02/03 alternative with the same features and facilities of 101 to be provided. I would be see this as being an improper expense, given the decision that has been made about how the service should be provided and funded.

I was referring to calls to 101 being re-directed to another area when necessary, after being answered local to the caller, and special numbers being provided for specific purposes with the appropriate capacity and facilities.

We await confirmation about exactly what a 15p charge per call means, however let us assume for a moment that it is as I described above. One is entitled to disagree with the decision that all callers should make an equal contribution to the cost of calls being connected to the service. The moral justification for evading the charge by misusing another published number is however far weaker here than in cases where, for example, a 0845 number is presented for access to a public service.

I can imagine many particular cases where telephone access to the Police may be required from overseas. These would however mostly be in relation to matters which had arisen whilst the caller was in the UK, when they should have been provided with specific contact details (including a telephone number where telephone contact was appropriate). Matters which arise overseas that may involve the UK Police should also involve the local Police, as the primary point of contact.

I referred to "incident rooms" with dedicated numbers, as this could be relevant to one situation where someone currently overseas needs to make swift telephone contact with the UK Police. If there is a strong argument for why the 101 service should be accessible from overseas, I would be very keen to hear it. I would not see the availability of an alternative number for the benefit of those who wish to avoid the 15p per call charge as sufficient justification!

It should also be noted that Police Services would (rightly) be expected to deploy staff dedicated to answering general telephone enquiries ONLY in the call centres handling 101 calls. This is doubtless part of the "back office" cost saving which lies behind the decision to adopt 101.

If it is not broken then it does not need fixing.

We can contact the Police now for free if we have an all inclusive call package. Therefore it does not make any sense to introduce a new number costing 10p, now increased by 50% to 15p per call.

Who is going to benifit by the millions of pounds from all these 15p calls. The phone companies? The Police? The Chancellor? As I have said before, it is just another stealth tax, which is nicely dressed up to look like a helpful convenient way of contacting the Police.

On principle I will never call 101, but will email them via the, "Contact Us" link on their website and leave my mobile number. They can then phone me at a cost of 20p+ (BT connection Fee and call time) and put money onto their phone bill.

However I am sure that in the traditions of the Saynoto0870 website, alternative contact numbers will eventually become known.

4PetesSake wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

Who is going to benifit by the millions of pounds from all these 15p calls. The phone companies? The Police? The Chancellor? As I have said before, it is just another stealth tax, which is nicely dressed up to look like a helpful convenient way of contacting the Police.

This is a good question and the police need to be open if the 101 plan is to ever succeed.

If the flat 'per call' charge is simply so that everyone pays the same and that there isn't anything left over for the police, telephone companies or any other party to benefit, then this must be explained. Has any information on this programme come been made public yet?

Such a need for a level charge comes about as a result of the diverse call charges available today.

It stands to reason that if 101 is to be billed the same as a normal geographic call and capped at 15 pence per call, then there will be a shortfall, particularly for calls from pay as you go mobiles. This will need to be met either by the originating telcos or paid for by the police (and ultimately taxpayers).

---

I remain to be convinced that 101 at 15 pence per call (or even 10 pence per call) will work in practice. I think that it may well be seen as a rip-off. :-/

If it does come to fruition though, then the charge may need to be changed in the future should telephone charges/packages change in the future.

4PetesSake wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

On principle I will never call 101, but will email them via the, "Contact Us" link on their website and leave my mobile number. They can then phone me at a cost of 20p+ (BT connection Fee and call time) and put money onto their phone bill.

Ultimately, of course, paid from (y)our taxes.

Heinz wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 7:22pm:

4PetesSake wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 2:43pm: On principle I will never call 101, but will email them via the, "Contact Us" link on their website and leave my mobile number. They can then phone me at a cost of 20p+ (BT connection Fee and call time) and put money onto their phone bill. Ultimately, of course, paid from (y)our taxes.

My council tax has been frozen this year and the Police are having to make savings in other areas in order to pay for their 101 number. Threrefore I am not paying any extra.  ;D

4PetesSake wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:30pm:

Heinz wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 7:22pm: 4PetesSake wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 2:43pm: On principle I will never call 101, but will email them via the, "Contact Us" link on their website and leave my mobile number. They can then phone me at a cost of 20p+ (BT connection Fee and call time) and put money onto their phone bill. Ultimately, of course, paid from (y)our taxes. My council tax has been frozen this year and the Police are having to make savings in other areas in order to pay for their 101 number. Threrefore I am not paying any extra.  ;D

Not in council tax, maybe. But expect more crime. Or perhaps you're a burglar, and so will be set to benefit.  ::) :-?

4PetesSake wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

If it is not broken then it does not need fixing. We can contact the Police now for free if we have an all inclusive call package. Therefore it does not make any sense to introduce a new number costing 10p, now increased by 50% to 15p per call.

Not all forces you can't. Avon & Somerset being a case in point.


4PetesSake wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

On principle I will never call 101, but will email them via the, "Contact Us" link on their website and leave my mobile number. They can then phone me at a cost of 20p+ (BT connection Fee and call time) and put money onto their phone bill.

I've no problem with a 10/15p fixed-price call given all the peripheral benefits of a national-number.. seems like penny-pinching to me. But I certainly wouldn't call Plod on an 0845 - indeed "contact us" is the way to go. The only problem will ever come, if what you need to call them about isn't an emergency but is time critical. Oh well - they should have thought of that before having an 0845 number.

japitts wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 12:36pm:

I've no problem with a 10/15p fixed-price call given all the peripheral benefits of a national-number.. .

So you keep saying, but most of us here on this site do.

sherbert wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 12:57pm:

japitts wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 12:36pm: I've no problem with a 10/15p fixed-price call given all the peripheral benefits of a national-number.. . So you keep saying, but most of us here on this site do.

As you also keep saying :-)

sherbert wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 12:57pm:

japitts wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 12:36pm: I've no problem with a 10/15p fixed-price call given all the peripheral benefits of a national-number.. . So you keep saying, but most of us here on this site do.

We are right to think firstly about our personal situations. Many of us rarely have cause to call the Police and some would be happy to pay whatever is demanded if the need for contact were great enough. Those who call through BT have no problem at all with a 0845 number, indeed for some it is cheaper to call than a geographic number.

If the way forward were to be decided by considering only the interests of the majority who rarely call the Police, but fund them through their taxes, or the largest group of users taking their telephone call services from a particular provider (i.e. BT), then a rather perverse outcome could result.

The Home Office and the Police Services have to look at the situation more broadly in determining what course to follow. We may wish to apply ourselves to this debate.


Those who oppose a proposal to meet the cost of the connection (i.e. the direct costs of the telephone companies, plus a fair margin for overheads etc.) by a universal fixed charge per call to a single number covering all of England, may wish to suggest their preferred alternative.

The status quo includes a different (rarely known) number for each local service and mobile callers paying up to 41p per minute. This leads to improper pressure being placed on the emergency services, due to unnecessary calls to 999. Wider public awareness of an alternative to 999, with an equitable rate of charge, would undoubtedly relieve some of this pressure.

With efforts to use limited money more effectively being demanded, there may be savings to be made by having all incoming calls answered in call centres, possibly on a "shared service" basis. Furthermore, many would argue that spending the money necessary to make every call "free to caller" could not be justified in the present situation. The particular nature of this service, as against others, makes the inequity resulting from the many different rates that apply to calls to Geographic Rate numbers seem unacceptable. Use of a national three digit number opens up all of the possible options for funding, which do not exist otherwise.


Is the opposition to the single national number, or to the proposed method of funding? Is the status quo thought acceptable, or are there other alternatives that opponents would wish to propose? I am keen to know the answers to these questions; it is however for each of us to comment as we wish.

In answer to the final parapgraph of SCV's last post, I would have to say my opposition is to both aspects.  Firstly, on charging, I see no reason why telecos cannot be required to include 101 in all call packages, both mobile & landline, in the same way as 03 numbers must be included, this has set a precedent for the inclusion of numbers which are not geographical.  The earlier post where the person says they have no problem with a charge (repeatedly, as pointed out by sherbert) ignores the fact that some people will quite legitimately have to make a considerable number of calls to the police, possibly on the same evening.   To give an example, last year, when we still lived in north Essex, our village and the neighbouring one were repeatedly the victims teenage children of a particularly difficult family and their entourage. People going about their usual activities and using the village halls, recreation grounds and car parks were repeatedly targeted, abused, intimidated, threatened; the police would be called, officers (normally PCSOs with no power of arrest) would arrive, "read the riot act" and, as soon as they left, the troublemakers would be back again.  This necessitated numerous repeated calls to the police from a number of residents in both villages over a period of some weeks, this would not merely have been 15p in isolation.  And this in an otherwise quiet, sleepy rural area.

This brings me to my second objection.  While I can see the point of a single number countrywide being of use to those outside their home area or without the local police number (all of which should of course be geo or 03 numbers!!) there is still a problem with the lack of local link which already exists.  Particularly in rural areas where minor roads, lanes, fields are involved, local knowledge is indispensible & using call centres, even centralised in a police division within a force, wastes valuable time and can lead to officers wasting time hunting for an unfamiliar location.  There is, of course, also the issue that locally based officers who know their "patch" & its residents are far better equipped to know where to look for troublemakers!  Therefore I feel there needs to be a return to the ability to ring the local police station staffed by locally based officers with local knowledge, probably a forlorn hope but policing will never be as good as it should be without this link.

This summarises my objection to 101 as currently proposed both in format and cost.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:42pm:

idb wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 3:49pm: SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 2:59pm: I trust that appropriate arrangements will be made for handling calls from overseas, as well as those to specific incident rooms and to local services remote from the caller. One would hope so, however, on the assumption that either a geographic or 03 number is provided for such situations, then this number will be used (quite correctly, in my opinion) by UK residents wishing to avoid the charge for 101. Similar situations prevail for other organizations discussed here. I would clearly not be appropriate for a single 01/02/03 alternative with the same features and facilities of 101 to be provided. I would be see this as being an improper expense, given the decision that has been made about how the service should be provided and funded.

It would be wholly appropriate to have an alternative with identical facilities if there was no desire to have the call charged at a new flat rate that is outside of any calling plan. The caller would then have a choice.

Whilst having a short, easy to remember number has tangible benefits, some of which are discussed earlier in this thread, we appear to have yet another mess with respect to the charging aspect of calls to such a number. It is probable that some, perhaps not all, geographic numbers would be withdrawn, or at least hidden from the public, should 101 be introduced. One can reasonably conclude that the introduction of a flat fee, excluded from calling plans, is designed either to fund or partially fund the system, or to generate revenue/profit for one or more parties.

The point I continually make here is that 'we' expect to have calling plans, whether we pay $20, GBP 20 or EUR 20 per month, we expect to be able to make regular calls, excepting PRS and some others, to a range of individuals, businesses and service providers without incurring any additional charges. This is, generally, the case here in the US. In the UK, many 'regular' calls are excluded from bundles, and the 101 number appears to be introduced along similar excluded lines (please correct me if my assertion is wrong).

I would not advocate 101 to be free, just charged at the prevailing regular rate for a geographic number, included in any plans as appropriate.

idb, I agree absolutely.

Barbara wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

idb, I agree absolutely.

.....and me ;)

japitts wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 12:36pm:

4PetesSake wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 2:43pm: If it is not broken then it does not need fixing. We can contact the Police now for free if we have an all inclusive call package. Therefore it does not make any sense to introduce a new number costing 10p, now increased by 50% to 15p per call. Not all forces you can't. Avon & Somerset being a case in point. 4PetesSake wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 2:43pm: On principle I will never call 101, but will email them via the, "Contact Us" link on their website and leave my mobile number. They can then phone me at a cost of 20p+ (BT connection Fee and call time) and put money onto their phone bill. I've no problem with a 10/15p fixed-price call given all the peripheral benefits of a national-number.. seems like penny-pinching to me. But I certainly wouldn't call Plod on an 0845 - indeed "contact us" is the way to go. The only problem will ever come, if what you need to call them about isn't an emergency but is time critical. Oh well - they should have thought of that before having an 0845 number.

My sympathies, That is really tough on you. It is amazing that no one from you area has yet found out what the Geo alternative is. I guess in your case a fixed fee will be better. I can really understand you using the contact us link on their website. Here in Northants we are fortunate enough to have an 03000 number. :)

Dave wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:

4PetesSake wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:30pm: Heinz wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 7:22pm: 4PetesSake wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 2:43pm: On principle I will never call 101, but will email them via the, "Contact Us" link on their website and leave my mobile number. They can then phone me at a cost of 20p+ (BT connection Fee and call time) and put money onto their phone bill. Ultimately, of course, paid from (y)our taxes. My council tax has been frozen this year and the Police are having to make savings in other areas in order to pay for their 101 number. Threrefore I am not paying any extra.  ;D Not in council tax, maybe. But expect more crime. Or perhaps you're a burglar, and so will be set to benefit.  ::) :-?

I am sure the cutbacks will inevitably lead to more crime as Police Officers who retire are not being replaced. The Government has made a big mistake in savagely cutting the Police at a time like this. Our Force had a record reduction in crime last year but unfortunately I think that trend is about to turn.

Barbara wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 5:16pm:

While I can see the point of a single number countrywide being of use to those outside their home area or without the local police number (all of which should of course be geo or 03 numbers!!) there is still a problem with the lack of local link which already exists.  Particularly in rural areas where minor roads, lanes, fields are involved, local knowledge is indispensible & using call centres, even centralised in a police division within a force, wastes valuable time and can lead to officers wasting time hunting for an unfamiliar location.  There is, of course, also the issue that locally based officers who know their "patch" & its residents are far better equipped to know where to look for troublemakers!  Therefore I feel there needs to be a return to the ability to ring the local police station staffed by locally based officers with local knowledge, probably a forlorn hope but policing will never be as good as it should be without this link.

Our local village Police Station still has an external phone number which most villagers know, I am also aware of other Rural Stations where this is the case in a neighbouring Force, so there is still hope.  :)

idb wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 11:38pm:

It would be wholly appropriate to have an alternative with identical facilities if there was no desire to have the call charged at a new flat rate that is outside of any calling plan. The caller would then have a choice.

idb

Please forgive me, I am keen to respond, but I do not follow your point.

The "desire to have the call charged at a new flat rate that is outside of any calling plan" is what is being realised, it has got past the point of being only a desire. You seem to be saying that this desire denies the possibility of an alternative number to access the service. You go on to say that thereby the caller would then have a "choice".

I am not clear on what is the "choice" to which you refer, as you appear to be ruling out an alternative number in this case!

You do not say in what particular circumstances it would be appropriate to have an alternative with identical facilities, although you seem to suggest that there could be such, i.e. if there were no desire to have the call charged at a flat rate ...

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 12:59am:

idb wrote on May 9th, 2011 at 11:38pm: It would be wholly appropriate to have an alternative with identical facilities if there was no desire to have the call charged at a new flat rate that is outside of any calling plan. The caller would then have a choice. idb Please forgive me, I am keen to respond, but I do not follow your point.

Didn't believe that it was overtly complex, but I'll try again. You stated that it would "not be appropriate for a single 01/02/03 alternative(*) with the same features and facilities of 101 to be provided". I am responding that it would be appropriate if the charge was geographic rather than an excluded and additional fixed fee.

(*) Perhaps the area of misunderstanding relates to not explicitly defining what is meant by alternative. In this context, and from my perspective, I am using alternative to mean a simultaneous geographic number, principally for internationally-originated traffic, operating in parallel with 101.

The re-launch of 101 has begun today with a price increase.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 4^th, 2011 at 10:13pm:

The re-launch of 101 has begun today with a price increase.

Where?  Can you provide a link to the announcement?

GIYF

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/101_number_charges_increase_to_15p_1_3541164

loddon wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 7:56am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 4th, 2011 at 10:13pm: The re-launch of 101 has begun today with a price increase. Where?  Can you provide a link to the announcement?

allegro wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 8:04am:

GIYF http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/101_number_charges_increase_to_15p_1_3541164

... and many other individual announcements from the Met, Hertfordshire, Essex et al, along with an update on the Home Office website that only reflects the price change.

Well what a surprise - not!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After some research I have established the current position.

Some forces have switched on the 101 service in the last few days. I understand that there will be announcements and further website updates next week and in time to come.

I understand that the 15p per call charge has been agreed with the vast majority of landline and mobile call service providers. Those managing the scheme will be keen to hear reports of any deviations from this principle. This is very important, so that the operators in question can be put under pressure to fall in line (or exposed as charging a premium for contacting the police) and that confidence in call cost announcements can be maintained. (The Home Office website - accessed through DirectGov - will be updated next week and the reference to the 15p relating only to BT will be corrected.)


There is a clear plan, being driven by ACPO, which will lead to all geographically focussed Police forces in England using 101 by the end of the year. More information will be published over time.

A - The following 7 forces are now operating 101 as their non-emergency contact number:

City of London Police (via the call centre operated by the Met), Essex Police, Hampshire Constabulary, Hertfordshire Constabulary, Metropolitan Police Service, Surrey Police, Sussex Police (adoption not yet announced).

B - The following 10 forces are using a geographic number as their non-emergency contact number:

Bedfordshire Police, Cleveland Police, Dorset Police, Greater Manchester Police, Kent Police, Leicestershire Constabulary, Merseyside Police, South Yorkshire Police*, Suffolk Constabulary, Warwickshire Police.

C - The following 10 forces are using a 03 number as their non-emergency contact number:

Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Derbyshire Constabulary, Durham Constabulary, Lincolnshire Police, Northamptonshire Police, Northumbria Police, Nottinghamshire Police, Staffordshire Police, West Mercia Police, West Midlands Police.

D - The following 12 forces are using a 0845 number as their non-emergency contact number:

Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Cheshire Constabulary, Cumbria Constabulary, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, Gloucestershire Constabulary, Humberside Police, Lancashire Constabulary, Norfolk Constabulary, North Yorkshire Police, Thames Valley Police, West Yorkshire Police, Wiltshire Constabulary.

---

* In Sheffield, calls to some local authority anti-social behaviour services are also handled by 101. This service is intended to remain in place when South Yorkshire Police moves over to 101.

The original concept for 101 was that it would operate as it does in Sheffield (part of the South Yorkshire Police area) across the whole of England and Wales. There are many matters, e.g. car alarms sounding continually, which are thought of as crime, but are actually not matters for the Police. The idea was that 101 would be the number to call without having to be aware of which agency was responsible and to provide 24 hour telephone reporting access for all areas.

Hampshire Police acts as a forwarding agency for receipt of reports that are simply passed on to the respective local authority. Forces will be encouraged to develop appropriate partnership working with local authorities, however there is no longer a general specification that 101 is for anything more than contacting the local Police.

(There is a parallel here with 111, where the original concept was that it would be operated by partnerships of PCTs and local authorities providing care services, so that urgent requests for both Health and Social Care could be made to a single number. This is not a feature of the 111 pilots, however the emphasis on "urgent only" also seems to have been dropped. Given that local health care responsibilities are now being split into 3 different agencies, it is not clear who will be commissioning and controlling the 111 service. Furthermore, the issue of integration of Health Care and Social Care is still being discussed, even though a further radical re-organisation of the NHS would be required to bring this about.)

---

Returning to the point ...

I intend to press for all forces to retain a geographic, or 03, number when moving to 101. This offers two clear benefits:

1. It enables those who have a call inclusive package to save themselves 15p when calling.

2. It enables direct calls to be made from outside the force area, including from overseas.

Where geographic or 03 numbers are already in use, these could be retained. For those with 0845 numbers, they will have to adopt a long term alternative as well as retaining the 0845 number for the period of transition.


I believe that with a geographic rate alternative available for use by those with such calls "free of charge" to them, even if this number is not advertised with the same prominence as 101, most reasoned objections to the basis of a universal fixed charge per call are addressed.

The handling cost per call is estimated at around £30, so 15p is a relatively modest contribution from the caller, rather than the tax-payer. For those who pay their provider for calls to geographic rate numbers, at up to 25p per minute, or with a setup fee of 10p or more, 15p per call cannot be seen as an imposition. If tax-payers would rather meet the full cost, it is for them to say so.

Good Afternoon all

Unless it has already been posted elsewhere, you might find this link useful: http://www.police.uk/101

It lists all the area's moving to 101 and the cost of the call

Story from the Wiltshire Times:

New non-emergency number set to answer criticism

@ Dave and SCV,

I have checked Sussex Police's site today and it STILL show's the 0845 number. As they are my local force I shall be e-mailing them to inform them of this.  I also note on the Direct.Gov and Police 101 site's that Sussex should be on the 101 number.

Not good when the local force cannot get it right!

I understand, from a chat with a helpful assistant on the 0845 number (called via BT), that 101 is working in Sussex.

Each area is making its own decision about when to do the major publicity campaign that is required. Sussex has decided to wait and will be doing this towards the end of the year - no date has been set. This may mean that it will benefit from the national publicity which will accompany the last of the areas moving over.

Apparently there is concern about this change not being welcomed by some and a determination to ensure that the systems have been properly tested before the launch.

I can guess that cynics may suggest that the delay has something to do with the revenue share. My own suspicion is that both the 0845 and the 101 numbers are themselves cost-neutral for Sussex Police - all of their costs are in staffing and operating the call centre.


I have been assured that the geographic alternative - (0 / +44) 1273 475432 will be retained alongside 101. This will provide an option for those who do not wish to pay their fair share towards the cost of the service.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 12:25pm:

I have been assured that the geographic alternative - (0 / +44) 1273 475432 will be retained alongside 101. This will provide an option for those who do not wish to pay their fair share towards the cost of the service.

Interesting.  The http://www.police.uk/101 site gives 0845 60 70 999 as the alternative number to 101 in Sussex, not that 01273 number.

@ Heinz,

feedback submitted to Police.uk pointing out they have NOT included the 01273 number for Sussex, having included it for other regions!

:)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 12:25pm:

I have been assured that the geographic alternative - (0 / +44) 1273 475432 will be retained alongside 101. This will provide an option for those who do not wish to pay their fair share towards the cost of the service.

We already do so, it is called taxation!


.

derrick wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 2:02pm:

We already do so, it is called taxation!

A good point.

The issue is however that we accept each individual being responsible for their part of the cost of accessing public services, that is paid to a third party which they engage: e.g. transport to visit a public building, a computer and internet connection for on-line access to public services and the basic cost of a telephone call. (Special arrangements are made for those who may have particular problems, but in general we accept our personal responsibility to meet these costs.)

Because a special number is being used, a special tariff has to be set for 101. It was decided to set this at a level where the cost would be equal for all callers. I sincerely hope that the level of 15p per call is intended to only reimburse the call originators, not to offset the cost of providing the service.

The cost of providing the service should properly fall mostly on local taxpayers, through the policing precept, although I understand that the Home Office may be underwriting the 15p per call arrangement, using money from central taxation.


A different decision was made for 111. In this case the (central) taxpayer pays the third party costs that would normally fall on the person accessing the service. Given that this will probably have to come out of the budgets provided to the GP-led CCGs, as part of the running costs of 111 which I fear may be seen as unduly high, I foresee problems. The extensive involvement of the NHS Direct NHS Trust (not a favourite amongst the GP community and not known for its sense of economy) will not help. Political considerations may however preclude the possibility of re-visiting the funding decision for the number.

Published by Eastern Daily Press:

Norfolk Police Authority chairman answers your questions
Saturday, October 22, 2011
6:30 AM


Quote:

Whilst I can appreciate the need for a central switchboard, does this have to be an 0845 number? From what I understand, the majority of other Police Authorities have now adopted either a freephone number or a standard 01 number. In many cases the 01 number becomes free after 6pm or at weekends and as a result of this, I feel sure that the police will get a lot more crime/anti-social behaviour information from residents when they do not have to pay a premium cost in these cash-strapped times. Pam Sharp We have been reviewing this and awaiting the outcome of national talks over the introduction of the 101 number for non-emergency calls to the police. I am pleased to say, as reported in the EDP last week this number is now being rolled-out across England and Wales so that, wherever you are, you get put though to the nearest constabulary. Each call costs 15p from mobiles or landlines – whatever the duration. The service will be available nationally by February 2012. We will then phase out the 0845 numbers.

Dave wrote on Oct 24^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

Published by Eastern Daily Press: Norfolk Police Authority chairman answers your questions

I love the way they publish everyone's private email address on that page.  :o

CJT-80 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 1:11pm:

@ Heinz, feedback submitted to Police.uk pointing out they have NOT included the 01273 number for Sussex, having included it for other regions! :)

Good Afternoon,

I have finally received an e-mail from the NPIA regarding the omission of the 01 number for Sussex Police from the Police.uk website as previously mentioned.

I have been informed it will be added as soon as possible.

I shall of course be keeping an eye on this.

To all members, if your local areas force DOES have an 01/02 number to contact it and it is NOT mentioned here, I would recommend clicking the Feedback button and telling them!

:)

Sussex police will now switch to a 101 number on November 1st

15 pence a call


http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/sussex_police_to_switch_non_emergency_number_1_3190696

sherbert wrote on Oct 27^th, 2011 at 6:31pm:

Sussex police will now switch to a 101 number on November 1st 15 pence a call http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/sussex_police_to_switch_non_emergency_number_1_3190696

I fear that the newspaper has got the story a little wrong. The big national launch will not be on 1 November, as a number of forces will not go live with 101 until 1 December.

Sussex has been live since July, but has waited before doing a major publicity campaign.

If they are going to keep the geographic alternative in use, they will need to be ready to refer to it to defray criticism from certain quarters. It was obviously omitted from the brief for the newspaper item quoted.

I personally believe that a universal charge of 15p per call (to cover the network connection from any operator) is defensible. If they are going to incur the expense of keeping a geographic number for essentially the same connection in use as well, then they must ensure that anyone who may benefit from using it is aware of it.

sherbert wrote on Oct 27^th, 2011 at 6:31pm:

Sussex police will now switch to a 101 number on November 1st 15 pence a call http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/sussex_police_to_switch_non_emergency_number_1_3190696

That article begins with the line:- "POLICE forces across England and Wales will all switch their non-emergency contact numbers to 101 on Tuesday November 1."

Despite the, (inarticulate),heading stating:- "Sussex Police to switch non-emergency number", suggesting it is only Sussex police!

Posted before I read SCV's post, but still stands.
.

derrick wrote on Oct 28^th, 2011 at 10:10am:

... Posted before I read SCV's post, but still stands.

Indeed, even though the article is only circulated to the people of Sussex, so the local element is paramount; if they travel to some other areas they will find that 101 will not be working for at least another month.

The disturbing point, noting previous comments here, is that whilst retention of the 0845 number (for a period) is mentioned, there is no reference to the geographic number.

sherbert wrote on Oct 27^th, 2011 at 6:31pm:

Sussex police will now switch to a 101 number on November 1st 15 pence a call http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/sussex_police_to_switch_non_emergency_number_1_3190696

It seems the don't update everything that quickly: http://www.sussex.police.uk/contact-us

Only the top "bar" has the 101 number.

As 0845 is "included" in my home tariff, I may just keep calling that... or I may pay 15p to talk to them... So far I have never had to call!

:)

More here.....


http://www.sussexpa.gov.uk/

and here....

http://www.sussexpa.gov.uk/latest/news.aspx?articleid=358

If I need to conact the local police I will not be using the 101 number, it goes against every principle and contacting police via this number is no better that using an 0845 number in my opinion. >:( >:(

sherbert wrote on Oct 28^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

More here..... http://www.sussexpa.gov.uk/ and here.... http://www.sussexpa.gov.uk/latest/news.aspx?articleid=358

I must apologise to the newspaper which I maligned previously. It appears that someone else is promoting a hoax by encouraging Sussex people visiting some other parts of the country to waste time in reporting crime by attempting to call 101 before it has been brought into service.

Noting the comments on this page, I must point out that hoaxes waste the time of citizens and may prevent them from attracting police resources to those who need them. How would you feel if you attempted to contact the Police using a number provided by the Police only to find that it was not working. There is no need to investigate the perpetrator of the hoax, as it is published on its website. This type of silly error is not a criminal offence, unless perpetrated deliberately, so the offender will not be dealt with by the courts.

Information on 101 is at www.police.uk/101

This map showing the rollout schedule is published there:

http://crimemapper2.s3.amazonaws.com/upload/page_30/rollout.gif

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 29^th, 2011 at 3:52am:

sherbert wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 8:13pm: More here..... http://www.sussexpa.gov.uk/ and here.... http://www.sussexpa.gov.uk/latest/news.aspx?articleid=358 I must apologise to the newspaper which I maligned previously. It appears that someone else is promoting a hoax by encouraging Sussex people visiting some other parts of the country to waste time in reporting crime by attempting to call 101 before it has been brought into service. Noting the comments on this page, I must point out that hoaxes waste the time of citizens and may prevent them from attracting police resources to those who need them. How would you feel if you attempted to contact the Police using a number provided by the Police only to find that it was not working. There is no need to investigate the perpetrator of the hoax, as it is published on its website. This type of silly error is not a criminal offence, unless perpetrated deliberately, so the offender will not be dealt with by the courts.

On the database there are geographical numbers verified and unverified for Sussex police ;)

sherbert wrote on Oct 29^th, 2011 at 12:29pm:

On the database there are geographical numbers verified and unverified for Sussex police

I think the point at issue is over the geographic number published by Sussex Police itself - 01273 475432.


I have taken a current image of the Sussex Police "Non-emergencies Enquiries" webpage - https://www.sussex.police.uk/contact-us/non-emergency-enquiries, which will doubtless be updated with the formal launch of 101 on Tuesday.

In addition to any further media coverage, it will be interesting to see how this changes. From Tuesday there will be two alternatives to 101, which will then become the primary non-emergency number. Callers will be faced with a choice of three from which they may wish to determine which is the cheapest for them to call. It will depend on their tariff and, in some cases, the expected duration of the call. The way in which the information is presented could influence any such decision.


With no disrespect to those who compile, edit and use the SayNoTo0870 database, I believe that in this campaigning forum we are concerned about publication of geographic alternatives (where appropriate) by the providers of the services being accessed.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 30^th, 2011 at 12:26am:

With no disrespect to those who compile, edit and use the SayNoTo0870 database, I believe that in this campaigning forum we are concerned about publication of geographic alternatives (where appropriate) by the providers of the services being accessed.

Yeah, SayNoTo0870 has a particular aim - as stated above.

I think the introduction of 101, as long as there are alternative local numbers, is a good idea.

Hopefully it will reduce the amount of "silly" calls to 999, and calls that aren't relating to a crime in progress or someone's life being in danger.

It will hopefully be useful to people who are on holiday, or otherwise out of their home area -as if they need to phone the police, they don't have to work out where they are and what the right force's phone number is.

That said, if they wish to do a little research and save themselves 15p, fair enough.

West Midlands region has gone live with 101:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15623274

I have only just learned that 101 launched in my area two days ago from a post on a broadband forum (the ISP's landline service listed the cost as 17.5p, and apparently this is correct - so much for it always being 15p).

I think charging 15p for this is indefensible, and just as bad as all the public sector use of NGNs over the years.

I have read some people's arguments, such as that it's "paying their fair share towards the cost of the service". So if, as a good citizen, I'm phoning the police to report crime or vandalism, which I could easily have just walked past and ignored like everyone else, I should pay for the privilege?

Then certain people go on to say that 101 is OK because the forum has always promoted advertising alternate numbers that people can call if they wish. However, where is the guarantee that the old numbers will be available indefinitely? The police website suggests they are for switchboards that may not yet accept 101 as a valid number.

I actually have my force's number, which has always been a geographical number, stored in my home phone and mobile, so if I did need to call, I would still have used it. As I've seen no publicity for this, I wouldn't have known about 101 if I hadn't read these forums.

jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 11:30am:

(the ISP's landline service listed the cost as 17.5p, and apparently this is correct - so much for it always being 15p).

This is a very serious matter - please identify the company -
if the Home Office has missed them from its negotiations, or they are breaching an agreement, the Home Office must be notified.



jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 11:30am:

I have read some people's arguments, such as that it's "paying their fair share towards the cost of the service". So if, as a good citizen, I'm phoning the police to report crime or vandalism, which I could easily have just walked past and ignored like everyone else, I should pay for the privilege?

Of course it is unacceptable to be charged a fee for reporting crime or vandalism.

If you engage the services of a telephone company to assist you in doing so, the question is "Who pays for that call?".

As I see it, there are the following policy options:
1. The caller
2. The Police (funded by local taxpayers)
3. The Home Office (funded by national taxpayers)
4. The telephone company (meeting its costs from charges levied on its customers)

The handling of the call by the Police is paid for under option 2. 101 works on the basis that all callers pay the same, regardless of the duration, the type of phone and the tariff to which they subscribe.

It would be helpful to the discussion if those who object to option 1 could offer a view on which of the alternatives (maybe other than those I have listed) they would find preferable.

I agree with jrawle absolutely and totally.   I think the whole point is that, if the police nationally wish to have a single short number which is easily recognised, I do not have a particular problem with that AS LONG AS local numbers staffed by local police staff who know the area (eg county) are also available.  However, I do have every problem with such a number being excluded from call packages; with regards to who funds this, it is largely something done for the benefit of the police forces as a cost cutting measure so I think they should pay for it, that is, it should come out of taxation and hence be included in call packages.   For those without a call package, 15p is not too bad, but my point all through this has been that if someone is doing a public service, as jrawle says, and doing what the police ask the public to do, which is reporting matters to the police, I do not think the caller should bear the cost.  Where we used to live, we went through a spell of serious anti-social behaviour problems where we and other residents of two villages where having to call the police numerous times per evening and it would have become very costly with 101 (999 would not have been appropriate as we needed to speak to a local operator &/or the officers who had dealt previously).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 1:36pm:

This is a very serious matter - please identify the company - if the Home Office has missed them from its negotiations, or they are breaching an agreement, the Home Office must be notified.

The company is Be Un Limited, with their BE Landline product. Unfortunately their forum is not publicly accessible, and I think you can't join unless you are a customer. This is the response from a staff member on Monday:


Quote:

It appears that the price of 15p per call is for BT landlines only. The price still may vary for other providers and unfortunately we fall under that category. The price for a phone call to 101 from our landline service is indeed 17.5p per call.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 1:36pm:

Of course it is unacceptable to be charged a fee for reporting crime or vandalism. If you engage the services of a telephone company to assist you in doing so, the question is "Who pays for that call?".

The answer is that I do. But as Barbara says, the issue is that this number is not included in the calls package that I pay for. I never pay to make calls because I pay money to BT for a calls package that suits my needs. What I have been fighting against, via this site, for many years is companies using NGNs because they are not treated the same as standard numbers, meaning callers have to pay twice for the call.

I suppose it's fair enough if people want the extra convenience of not having to look up a number that they can pay 15p just to dial 101 (a fool and his money, and all that). However, it is imperative that police forces continue to have proper numbers, and that these are advertised widely so that anyone who wishes to find a standard phone number can do so.

The cost of the police force having a phone line has always been there, and doesn't need to have changed. (If we have to pay for that what next? Paying for the fuel for the police car if they travel to the crime scene? Paying for the police dog's food?) The only additional cost is the 101 forwarding system (which I believe forwards the call to the force's existing control room, not to a national centre). So only that part of the system needs to incur an extra cost that hasn't always existed.

As for the cost being the same for everyone under this system, that's rubbish. If I pay £10/month for a landline with inclusive calls, and someone else has a PAYG mobile, I'm being charged twice for the call and they are not. How can that be fair?

Do you also think it would be fairer for public service providers to use 0844 or 0871 numbers because all landline callers had to pay the same, even those with inclusive packages?

I don't think anyone who has campaigned against NGNs on sites such as this should be in favour of 101.

jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 1:36pm: This is a very serious matter - please identify the company - if the Home Office has missed them from its negotiations, or they are breaching an agreement, the Home Office must be notified. The company is Be Un Limited, with their BE Landline product. Unfortunately their forum is not publicly accessible, and I think you can't join unless you are a customer. This is the response from a staff member on Monday: Quote: It appears that the price of 15p per call is for BT landlines only. The price still may vary for other providers and unfortunately we fall under that category. The price for a phone call to 101 from our landline service is indeed 17.5p per call.

I would refer the 'Be Un Limited' to this page

http://www.police.uk/101

and point out this paragraph to them.

What does it cost to call 101?

Calls to 101 (from both landlines and mobile networks) cost 15 pence per call, no matter what time of day you call, or how long you are on the phone.
Everyone calling the police for non-emergency matters will now know exactly how much a call will cost them, and can be assured of equal access whether they are on a pay-as-you-go mobile or a home landline

jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

... Quote: It appears that the price of 15p per call is for BT landlines only. The price still may vary for other providers and unfortunately we fall under that category. The price for a phone call to 101 from our landline service is indeed 17.5p per call. ...

The representative is misinformed. The price is 15 per call from all those who have voluntarily signed-up to an agreement with the Home Office to maintain a consistent single call charge. This includes the overwhelming majority of providers.

The statement about the call cost is based on the assumption that nobody has been missed. Let us hope that the company in question will shortly sign-up.



jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

The cost of the police force having a phone line has always been there, and doesn't need to have changed. (If we have to pay for that what next? Paying for the fuel for the police car if they travel to the crime scene? Paying for the police dog's food?) The only additional cost is the 101 forwarding system (which I believe forwards the call to the force's existing control room, not to a national centre). So only that part of the system needs to incur an extra cost that hasn't always existed.

The important point about the charge for calling 101 is that it only pays for the connection of the call by the telephone company up to the point where the police system takes it. In this sense it is totally different from the revenue sharing arrangement which applies with 084 and 087 numbers.

If 101 were "free to caller" in the normal way then the Police would be carrying the cost of the call imposed on them by the caller's telephone company. Callers are paying to save the Police this potential expense. I do not think that this is quite the same as their fuel and dog food bills.



jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

As for the cost being the same for everyone under this system, that's rubbish. If I pay £10/month for a landline with inclusive calls, and someone else has a PAYG mobile, I'm being charged twice for the call and they are not. How can that be fair?

The £10/month is calculated to cover the cost of only some calls. I understand that you would rather pay more so that more calls could be covered, but whilst you are not doing so you are not paying twice when for you pay for a non-inclusive call. (The fairness of the actual amount that anyone pays is a separate issue.)

One must note the increase to the package fees which followed BT's decision to include 0845 calls. We may disagree about whether or not this was a sensible decision, but we must note the effect.



jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

I don't think anyone who has campaigned against NGNs on sites such as this should be in favour of 101.

I have never campaigned against NGNs. In this thread I only seek to promote informed discussion of the issues raised by 101. I fear that they may be confused with other important and quite separate issues. My fears may have been realised.

Apart from concerns about the potential for a "free to caller" service to suffer misuse, my personal view is that 101 should have been placed in this category, unless it could be made clear that calls are for administrative matters only and will never lead to any form of direct response.

More broadly, I believe that all call packages should be as inclusive as possible, so that telephone call charges are a truly rare event. I disagree with points made above, in that I believe that calls must be charged whenever the recipient is deriving any financial benefit, and the value of this charge/benefit must be declared by that person.

I can think of only very few cases where it could be appropriate to declare a charge for accessing a public service by telephone. I also suspect that many private companies would not think it worth the pain and shame of declaring a modest charge - they would either move to levy a serious charge that they could justify, or revert to geographic rate numbers without revenue share.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

The important point about the charge for calling 101 is that it only pays for the connection of the call by the telephone company up to the point where the police system takes it. In this sense it is totally different from the revenue sharing arrangement which applies with 084 and 087 numbers.

So what has changed compared to the old numbers that means the phone company now has to charge someone (either the caller or the police) 15p? Are the police paying for the "connection of the call by the telephone company..." when I dial the local number? If the police aren't even going to get any of the money, that makes it worse, as it means the phone company are pocketing all of it. A call that would previously have been covered by my calls package will now earn them 15p. How is that acceptable?


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

If 101 were "free to caller" in the normal way then the Police would be carrying the cost of the call imposed on them by the caller's telephone company. Callers are paying to save the Police this potential expense. I do not think that this is quite the same as their fuel and dog food bills.

I wasn't suggesting 101 should be "free to caller", I was suggesting that it should cost the same as a geographical call, which is either paid for by the caller or included in their calls package, depending on which phone service they chose.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

The £10/month is calculated to cover the cost of only some calls. I understand that you would rather pay more so that more calls could be covered, but whilst you are not doing so you are not paying twice when for you pay for a non-inclusive call. (The fairness of the actual amount that anyone pays is a separate issue.)

Again, that's nonsense. On 13 November, I want to call the police to report some vandalism, and it doesn't cost me anything. On 14 November, I'm officially supposed to dial 101 and pay 15p for the same call. The first call wasn't free, it was covered by my package. I'm receiving no additional service, nor making any extra calls in the second case, so I'm effectively paying for something that the day before I would have considered already paid for, i.e. I'm paying for it twice.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

I have never campaigned against NGNs. In this thread I only seek to promote informed discussion of the issues raised by 101. I fear that they may be confused with other important and quite separate issues. My fears may have been realised.

OK, I think "campaigned against NGNs" is a bad choice of words. I have no problem with 03 numbers, for example. I actually meant campaigned against numbers used by service providers (whether public or private) that cost extra to call compared to a standard number. I don't actually see any difference between (hypothetical situation) a company contracted by the local council with an 0844 number to call if you want to report a broken street light; or the police with the 101 number you have to call to report antisocial behaviour. In neither case can you choose to call a different provider. In the former case, I'd come to this site to find an alternative number.

I think I'm going to contact my MP about this, and ask for an assurance that the standard numbers will continue to be available indefinitely.

jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

So what has changed compared to the old numbers that means the phone company now has to charge someone (either the caller or the police) 15p?

The phone companies were always charging the caller, either bundled into a package of calls or charged separately. What has changed is that whilst some were able to use their inclusive package to contact the Police at no extra cost, a mobile user calling a 0845 number could have been paying £2 for a five minute call - now everybody pays 15p per call.

I have no idea about the precise calculations used to arrive at the 15p as some sort of midpoint, but it would make sense that if those with inclusive packages were able to call for free, then those who could not would be paying much more than 15p.

I understand that the Police will need to retain their geo numbers to allow contact from outside the UK. This leaves a loophole for those who are able to call geo numbers for less than 15p per call to do so. More seriously, the geo numbers allow direct contact with a particular force/constabulary/service from outside its area and so they need to be retained for this purpose. If the 15p has to be increased as a result, then that is unfortunate, but inevitable.


I believe that if we get away from the idea that 101 is specifically for reporting crime, so as to solicit a (non-emergency) response from the Police, and accept that it is for administrative contact only, then there is no reason why it could not be replaced by a geographic rate number and only available during office hours. Whilst it is presented as being a (second degree) emergency services number, then it should be "free to caller".

I hope the fact that the Police themselves earn nothing from calls to 101, removes any connection from paying their fuel or dog food bills.


If access via the geo number were removed, so that you were compelled to use one of many special numbers which are not covered by your package, then you would be paying more, although not paying twice for something. Perhaps you are arguing for your package to include calls to 101 and the price be increased to £10.01, on the basis that less than 1 in every 15 subscribers would make a call to 101 each month. I am not sure if the agreement with the Home Office prohibits this, although it may do because of the concern about nuisance calls being more likely if there is no call charge.


I argue that the "Service Charge" element of the 0844 call charge (up to 5p per minute) must be declared by the service provider. If a local authority chooses to impose a 5p per minute charge for reporting faults with street lights to save money on the Council Tax (probably in repairing street lights, as fewer faults would be reported, but also to provide a subsidy towards the cost of the call centre handling the reports) then that must ultimately be a matter between it and those it serves. I campaign for strong Cabinet Office guidance against such charges by public bodies.


There is a similarity between this and 101, in that there is no market mechanism working to determine what you pay, both are examples of public policy set by public bodies. I personally find it regrettable that we place so much reliance on markets and the related concept of "personal choice" that we forget the need for public officials to act in proper consideration of the public interest when dealing with public services. I strongly disagree with the assertion that the market model fits all situations and that a market solution is the only solution to any problem.



jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

I think I'm going to contact my MP about this, and ask for an assurance that the standard numbers will continue to be available indefinitely.

It may seem perverse, but given that the geo numbers need to remain in use, I am anxious that they should be clearly described for what they are and made known to as many people as possible. 101 needs to be publicised for what it is and I would not wish for advice of the geo numbers to detract from, or confuse, that message. I do not however see it as satisfactory for them to be wrongly described or hidden in the form +44 1865 ... (or incorrect alternative international representations).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 10:20pm:

The phone companies were always charging the caller, either bundled into a package of calls or charged separately. What has changed is that whilst some were able to use their inclusive package to contact the Police at no extra cost, a mobile user calling a 0845 number could have been paying £2 for a five minute call - now everybody pays 15p per call.

So you are saying that landline users now have to subsidise mobile users? Why should we do that? If people choose to use mobiles, that's up to them. What next? Do you think the cost of standard calls from a PAYG mobile should be reduced, and subsidised by an increase in call costs and/or line rental for landline users?


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 10:20pm:

More seriously, the geo numbers allow direct contact with a particular force/constabulary/service from outside its area and so they need to be retained for this purpose.

That is a very good point, unless they implement a system where you call 101 and then ask to be put through to the other force.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 10:20pm:

If access via the geo number were removed, so that you were compelled to use one of many special numbers which are not covered by your package, then you would be paying more, although not paying twice for something. Perhaps you are arguing for your package to include calls to 101 and the price be increased to £10.01, on the basis that less than 1 in every 15 subscribers would make a call to 101 each month.

Right, I wouldn't be paying twice for something. I'd be paying once for the call through my package, and once to subsidise mobile users through the 15p.

I'm sick of reading comments on various forums by people who say, "I don't need a landline because I use my mobile these days". But then another time they'd be the ones complaining it costs them a fortune to call about all sort of services. They don't stop and think that maybe they made a poor choice to rely on a mobile to do everything. To me, a mobile is still a luxury, premium product for use when out and about, not a substitute for a home phone. If others don't agree, they should understand the costs involved.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 10:20pm:

I argue that the "Service Charge" element of the 0844 call charge (up to 5p per minute) must be declared by the service provider. If a local authority chooses to impose a 5p per minute charge for reporting faults with street lights to save money on the Council Tax (probably in repairing street lights, as fewer faults would be reported, but also to provide a subsidy towards the cost of the call centre handling the reports) then that must ultimately be a matter between it and those it serves.

If it's a number to call to arrange collection of bulk waste, then I can see that those people who use the service should perhaps pay for it, rather than it go on everyone's council tax. But when it's the police or street lights, I don't agree with it. Usually people won't be calling the police for their own benefit, but either because they are a victim, or out of public spirit. I twice had to contact the council about street lights in an entire street being off in the winter (quite busy with traffic, and pedestrians and lots of parked cars - so not good). Hundreds, if not thousands of people must use that street every day, so it was hardly a selfish act to report it. As it happens, the council has a web form for that purpose, but if they hadn't, I would certainly not have paid 5p/minute to do it.

Forgive me for replying in a brief form.

Any system whereby everybody pays the same price for a service must represent cross-subsidy to some degree. One could say that weekend callers are subsidising weekday daytime callers, both on Anytime packages and calls to 101.

I suspect that on being connected through 101 you could be passed on to another area - I was referring to direct contact.

Packages do not cover all calls; you cannot say that you are paying twice e.g. for an international call or to call a premium rate number, if these calls are explicitly excluded from the package. For those without a landline already installed and / or with a poor credit history, a home phone is priced in the luxury bracket.

My point was about paying the service provider, in addition to the telephone company, to access a service by telephone. This may, but need not, be related to whether or not there is a charge for delivery of the service itself. Access via the web is equivalent to a geographic rate telephone call - you pay for your device and your internet connection, you do not pay the other party for theirs and neither do they cover your costs.

I still agree absolutely with jrawle although there are some good points made by SCV, although not regarding who pays!   Re paying an 0844 call for bulk waste collection, however, I would point out that such services go a long way towards minimising fly tipping which is to the benefit of all of us so a justifiable cost, in my view, out of Council Tax.   

I checked Glos Police's website & found some interesting points: 1. there is an 0800 number for reporting abandoned vehicles (although I thought this was now largely dealt with by local authorities and is, of course, another form of fly tipping so why differentiate?), this also raises again the issue of mobile v landline so I'd wait until I got home to report it; 2.  they have an 0800 number for the Anti Terrorist Hot line - why if 101 is so marvellous? ditto re mobile costs; 3.  they also make the point that 101 cannot be used from abroad.

As I see it, the only reason someone might need to use 101 is when not in their home area & they need to contact the police for something immediate (I always keep the local police geo no in my phone for when I'm not at home and now this is a countywide number that is adequate) but perhaps in the latter case 999 might be more appropriate?  I can only think of one occasion when I had wished I'd had the local police number while on a journey out of my home county.

Barbara wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

I checked Glos Police's website & found some interesting points: 1. there is an 0800 number for reporting abandoned vehicles (although I thought this was now largely dealt with by local authorities and is, of course, another form of fly tipping so why differentiate?), this also raises again the issue of mobile v landline so I'd wait until I got home to report it;

Barabara, remember there are the dial through numbers (020 0222 0900 and 020 0222 0700) when dialling 0800 numbers from a mobile phone, so no need to wait till you get home! ;)

sherbert wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 4:21pm:

there are the dial through numbers (020 0222 0900 and 020 0222 0700) when dialling 0800 numbers from a mobile phone

This is a very useful tip for mobile users.

One must however remember that calls to geographic numbers are not always "free to caller" from mobiles and that some are reluctant to enable the dial through providers to make money by exploiting the situation. This fact does not provide a justification for a poorly chosen 0800 number.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

Packages do not cover all calls; you cannot say that you are paying twice e.g. for an international call or to call a premium rate number, if these calls are explicitly excluded from the package.

But now we have to pay for something that previously we didn't, without receiving anything extra. Except, you have now explained that we actually have to subsidise people who call from a mobile.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

Access via the web is equivalent to a geographic rate telephone call - you pay for your device and your internet connection, you do not pay the other party for theirs and neither do they cover your costs.

So that must be the reason that from next week, you'll have to pay 15p every time you look at a police force's website. Never mind that you have already paid for your internet connection, and that it cost nothing extra to look at a police site this week. From next week, you have to pay the 15p as you need to subsidise people who use dial-up. No looking at crime-prevention information unless you pay up.

I have looked at a few police websites, and they all say the existing number will be available for a short overlap period. However, most of them also say you need to use the old number to call from abroad. Are they to stop overseas calls in a few months' time?

Avon and Somerset also say that if you need to call another force, you should dial 101 and ask the operator to put you through:
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/contact/101/101FAQ.aspx

One question you might be able to answer, as I can't find it anywhere. What is the cost of calling 101 from a payphone? Is that 15p too?

jrawle wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 5:13pm:

[ One question you might be able to answer, as I can't find it anywhere. What is the cost of calling 101 from a payphone? Is that 15p too?

Well here is a surprise if I have read it correctly it is free to the caller

http://www.bt.com/pricing/current/Call_Charges_boo/3545_d0e5.htm


(scroll down the page)

sherbert wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

jrawle wrote on Nov 17th, 2011 at 5:13pm: ... What is the cost of calling 101 from a payphone? Is that 15p too? Well here is a surprise if I have read it correctly it is free to the caller

With the 60p minimum fee for chargeable calls, BT had little option.

Where the Police were using 0845 numbers, a five minute payphone call was costing £1.40.

In every case a 5 minute call to a 0845 number was earning the Police around 8.5p. On 101 they earn nothing.

O2 Homephone are charging 18p to call 101 (FF31)

http://www.o2.co.uk/assets2/pdf/O2_HomePhone_Price_List.pdf

Under 101, the cost of contacting the Police will change - some will pay more than they did previously, some will pay less. Amongst those who will probably pay less are landline daytime callers subscribed to a weekends, or evenings and weekends, package.

You can think of that as a subsidy of one group of landline users by another if you wish, but the same principle applies in every other case where all users of a service pay the same price. The notion of a subsidy only arises by looking at the before and after position. To give other examples which could similarly be described as being subsidies: local landline callers subsidise national callers, now that the distinction has been removed; peak rate (morning) callers subsidise off-peak (afternoon) callers now that a single daytime rate applies. Lighter users of inclusive packages will always be seen to "subsidise" heavier users. I would try to reserve use of the word "subsidy" for situations where there a more clear transfer of money between the two parties, e.g. a victim of crime and a Police service with a 0845 number.


The numbers being retained only for the changeover period are the 0845 numbers which have been widely promoted but will be fully replaced by 101, as they cannot be guaranteed to be accessible from overseas.

I cannot think why a Police service would seriously consider blocking telephone calls from overseas. The only concern for those who wish to use the overseas calls number for UK calls is the possibility that the overseas number be connected to a special contact point for that purpose alone, rather than routed into the same call centre as 101 calls.

If 101 calls made from another area can be re-routed, avoiding the need for a direct number to contact the Call Centre, then it is possible that the geographic number for overseas calls may not be a true alternative to 101. Some of the functions performed by the 101 Call Centre would not be relevant in the case of calls from overseas, so overseas calls could be handled differently.


Telephone providers include only some calls in packages, they charge for others. Calls to 00, 07, 08, 09, 118 and others are typically excluded. The cost of some excluded calls incorporates a Service Charge that is passed on to the person called. 101 is NOT an example of this. The basis for the 101 call charge is established by a voluntary agreement between the Home Office and the telephone companies. This does not include any transfer of funds to or from the Home Office or the Police.

ISPs do not charge according to the point being accessed, nor do they collect charges that are passed on to other parties. Chargeable internet site access is covered by a separate subscription process managed by site owners.

ISPs provide direct access through subscription, or public network dial-up access paid for through the revenue share paid over by whichever telephone company connects the call. That telephone company will also add its own charge for a dial-up call using a revenue sharing number.

As Police websites currently sit on the world wide web, I cannot see any need for special access arrangements to be established, distinguishing between different types of connection. If Police websites came off the www, so that special access arrangements were needed, the equivalent to using a three digit telephone number outside the standard national numbering plan and tariff arrangements, then a scheme such as that suggested could be applied.

I cannot however think why the Police would wish to do this.


In many cases they have given up the revenue share benefit of 0845 numbers to take a neutral revenue position. They have not raided their pressured budgets to meet the caller's cost of calls to 101, as an new item of expenditure. In conjunction with the Home Office and the telephone companies they have come up with a scheme whereby everybody pays the same to make calls to 101.

We may be unhappy about the effect on ourselves and may have better policy options to propose, however I see nothing to support the idea that any of the further possible measures suggested have anything in common with what has actually been done.

From a political viewpoint, I believe that the option of tapping citizens for financial contributions to public services (that are not privatised) as they use them will not be deployed for a while yet, if ever.

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  ::)

sherbert wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

Well here is a surprise if I have read it correctly it is free to the caller http://www.bt.com/pricing/current/Call_Charges_boo/3545_d0e5.htm

Well, I now know where I'll be making calls to the police from, should the alternate number stop working. That's assuming it's for something that Crimestoppers isn't appropriate for.


bigjohn wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 5:11am:

O2 Homephone are charging 18p to call 101 (FF31)

BE Unlimited is part of O2 - I was going to mention that.

SilentCallsVictim, I have to wonder, were you part of some sort of committee or focus group involved in setting up the 101 service? I have searched, but I can't find a reference to you having done so, yet I can't see why you would otherwise so vociferously defend use of this NGN.

This site was set up in response to service providers using NGNs that were charged differently from standard telephone numbers. The campaign (not necessarily this site) resulted in the end of revenue sharing on 0870, the introduction of 03 numbers, and new rules for public bodies. However, they have now introduced a new NGN for the police that undoes some of that. Whereas 03 was a big step forward - a number with all the advantages of an NGN but that was treated as a normal number - 101 is a step backwards. It should have been made compulsory for 101 to be treated as a geographical number. (Or perhaps they should have launched 03000 101 101 alongside it?)

The idea of charging to view police websites was intended as an analogy, not as a serious suggestion. There's no need to go into technical details of how calls are routed or how the internet is set up. The point was to show how absurd it is that a certain service costs extra, when it previously cost the same as accessing any other service. Imagine, as you say, there were new arrangements for accessing police information online. Perhaps a new police.uk website that automatically redirected the user to their local force (with the option to go to a different force if they wanted) but where the user had to pay 15p in order to do so (no need to discuss technical details). Then, eventually the existing police URLs were phased out. People would be up in arms, and rightly so. Just because there's a convenient mechanism in place to collect payments from a phone user doesn't mean it's right to do so.

The other thing you keep telling me is that not a penny of this money is going to go to the police, as if that's a good thing. I don't think it is. If we had to pay but the money was going to put extra bobbies on the beat, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. But in fact the money is going straight into the pockets of the phone companies, with I expect BT profiting the most.

As may have been found, I was not amongst those forum members who contributed to the Ofcom consultation, as discussed in this thread. My engagement with this issue is more recent and postdates much of what has been achieved by campaigning. I did contribute to public discussion of the decision by the Met to move to 03 and used this as an opportunity to draw out the Cabinet Office on this issue (see this clip). Further, productive contact with the Cabinet Office was on a wholly informal basis.


It is fair enough to comment on this issue from the perspective of someone who is used to making free calls to the Police, however there are some who have been paying 51p, 63p, £1, £2 or £1.40 for a five minute call and will now be paying 15p, or, in the latter case, nothing.

I think it would be unfortunate, and show an undue bias, if, as a campaigning forum, this site were seen to be wholly disregarding the positive side of the flat call charge for 101. It is not my preferred option, but I admit to being drawn to the principle of equity which it represents.


The website analogy is flawed in a number of respects, not least because it fails to reflect the situation of those who are now paying less than they were. The "101 is more expensive" argument is exactly the type of selective argument which is used to support the claim that "calls to geographic numbers are more expensive than calls to 0844". One cannot ignore particular cases, but a fair minded approach does not ignore any significant particular cases.

There was also an analogy of paying the Police for their fuel and dog food, and the reference to paying the Police for access to their websites is repeated again. This is why I have continued to refer to the fact that the 15p is only going to the caller's telephone company, as these comments seem to suggest that funding of the Police is somehow relevant.


As I have said, my personal view is that 101, as it is currently presented, should have been made "free to caller". (All things being equal) this would however result in fewer bobbies on the beat, tax increases or a bigger deficit. Conversely for 111, my view is that call charges should have been set at the geographic equivalent rate, probably on separate locally focussed numbers, as I do not believe that the case for a national number is sufficiently strong. There are strong arguments against the public expense involved in both projects, especially as both have been changed from their original purpose in the course of implementation.

I do however believe that the case for the re-launch of 101 is well made. The idea that the agreed call charge arrangements have something to do with callers paying the person called, which I understand to be the issue of primary focus for this site, is mistaken. 101 is however a wholly valid topic for discussion here, as the site seeks to encourage discussion of relevant issues, not just to push an agreed doctrine.


I comment as one who is concerned about these matters, keen and ready to contribute to public discourse. For the record, I must indicate my dissent from the suggested focus of a campaign for calls to be charged at the rate applied to standard telephone numbers. I deplore the decision by BT and others to require package subscribers to contribute to the revenue share paid to users of 0845 numbers. I look forward to the imminent scrapping of the "NTS condition" on BT. Similarly, I will be unhappy if, as is likely, landline calls to mobiles come to be included in standard packages before the enhanced termination fee is completely removed.

I understand the argument for the cost of standard calls, and packages of such calls, to be increased so as to cover more items, however I do not see this as being the answer to issues that are raised here. Furthermore, I fear that those who support this argument may not be ready to stand by the consequences of what they propose. Both 101 and 111 are intended to generate more call traffic than previously used numbers. I would have been content to see this put pressure on standard call pricing in the case of 111, however, in my personal opinion, 101, as it is currently presented, should be treated differently.

15p per call for everybody shows a similar (although lesser) degree of equity to the preferred "free to caller" approach. Use of 01/02/03 numbers, or the equivalent charge, is less equitable, given the declared nature of the 101 service, but far more so than 0845.

I hope my position and my personal views are clear. I declare my public involvement in these matters through my blogs and news feeds. I am also happy to engage in private discussion about the detail of my campaigning activities, however there are many good reasons for not discussing all tactics in a public forum.

Hi 101ers!!

I used it for the 1st time the other day - It was from my [T]mobile when out cycling - it automatically determined I was in Hertfordshire and put me through to the correct police force - excellent

Then I see my phone bill - 13p for a 3.46min call - NO WARNING  from T-mobile - unlike 0800 calls - outside my monthly allowance - so if I need the police I will still use 999 - FREE - if I don't know the local number - QED - HMG has shot itself in the foot again :(

I recommend you all consider signing this Downing St ePetition against 101 charges:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22025

I am still uncomfortable with the 101 none emergency number. Even after reading Silent Call Victims coments I still fail to see the differance between paying 0.15p for a 101 call or the charges for an 08 call. I am sure I am not alone in this matter, I will never contact the police via the 101 call. If I cannot call them via the 01/02/03 alternative number I will also use 999. I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

Indeed, to the caller there is a similarity - neither are charged at the same rate as geographic calls; they may be cheaper, they may be more expensive.

(There are situations where the cost is effectively the same, e.g. inclusive geographic calls cost the same as 080 calls from landlines, along with 0845 calls that are treated as inclusive.)


For some, calls to 101 are cheaper than calls to geographic numbers, for others they are more expensive.

The same is true of 080, 0844/3, 0845 and even the lower rated 0871 numbers.


Calls to both 101 and 08 are either cheaper or more expensive than calls to geographic numbers. That is what they have in common. The effect varies according to the particular number and the caller's tariff.

The crucial difference between 101 and 08 is in relation to what happens to the money.

With 08 numbers, the person called is involved with the money, with 101 they are not.

On every call to a 08 number the caller's telephone company (the "OCP") pays money to that of the person called (the "TCP") - with 080 the amount is negative.

With 101 there is simply a different scheme being followed for how the telephone company charges the caller. The Police and the Home Office were instrumental in getting this to be adopted, by agreement, but they are not involved financially.

---

It would be interesting to hear what those who oppose the 101 charging structure propose for those who are benefiting from it.

As the telcos have agreed to 15p per call, presumably on the basis that they would get an acceptable return overall, an alternative scheme would need to achieve that effect also.

If those with inclusive packages for geographic calls were not paying their 15p's to call 101, then where should the money come from?

a) existing Police or Home Office budgets, higher taxes or a bigger deficit (make it free to caller)
b) callers without inclusive packages (set 101 at geographic rate - up to 20p per minute)
c) telephone users in general (a cap of 15p per call on geographic rate for 101 calls)

Option c) is what some would say is "the telephone companies". They would argue for the fee (cap) to be increased for the sake of their other customers, and may even withdraw from the agreement. Extensive use of geographic alternatives is another way of achieving the same effect. If these are in use, then I see it as vital that they receive an adequate degree of publicity by the Police.

I try to avoid being openly political, but my personal position has been questioned. My personal preference is for the latter parts of option a). I do however acknowledge that the consequences would not be likely to achieve a sufficient degree of approval from the public in general. I find the present arrangements preferable to options b) and c).

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

I am still uncomfortable with the 101 none emergency number. Even after reading Silent Call Victims coments I still fail to see the differance between paying 0.15p for a 101 call or the charges for an 08 call. I am sure I am not alone in this matter, I will never contact the police via the 101 call. If I cannot call them via the 01/02/03 alternative number I will also use 999. I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

I think you mean £0.15

Oops.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

Quite right, as far as this site is concerned - as a site campaigning against non-geographical numbers that are not billed as standard telephone numbers - there is no difference. People will pay a different amount than they would if they called a local number to contract the police station.

Of course, you know that the "difference" is that 101 costs 15p, whereas 08 numbers are usually charged per minute. That's not what you meant. Silentcallsvictim's shocking revelation is that 101 is run entirely by the phone companies, with the police and home office "not involved financially". So when you pay your 15p, it doesn't go towards funding the police at all. It goes into the pocket of the phone company. No doubt they are happy to see this number promoted (presumably at cost to the taxpayer) as the more people that use it, the more profit for private companies! Every business's dream: a service you can provide for a profit, but someone else advertises for you for free.

If all police forces used a standard 01, 02, 03 number, everyone would know where they were. I know some forces used 08, but they shouldn't have done, and that's what we have been campaigning against for many years, so it isn't right to compare the cost of calling 0845 to 101.

jrawle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

as a site campaigning against non-geographical numbers that are not billed as standard telephone numbers

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.


jrawle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

the more people that use it, the more profit for private companies!

Surely this is true of any telephone number. (Package prices get adjusted if they fail to yield the necessary return for shareholders.)


jrawle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

If all police forces used a standard 01, 02, 03 number, everyone would know where they were.

If only that were true. Sadly there are many who fail to recognise the extent of the penalty charge incurred by landline users who call geographic numbers outside the terms of their call plan; it is generally much more than 15p per call. Barring present anomalies that we wait to hear about, I do not believe that there is likely to be much confusion about the cost of calling 101 - it is the same for everyone.

(101 is one of the exceptional cases where I would not oppose use of a PCA.)


jrawle wrote on Nov 20^th, 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.

Is it right to compare the overall cost of calling a geographic number (up to 20p per minute) to 101, or must we only look at certain selected cases?

---

I have stated my position of opposition - I believe that 101, as it is presented, should be "free to caller". I only seek to see the issue discussed fully and the benefits of the selected approach recognised against the proposed alternative.

I was not engaged in these matters in 2005 when Ofcom undertook its consultation. The option of a tariff based on that for geographic calls was mentioned by Ofcom, but this was not one of the 4 specific options proposed for public consideration by the Home Office.

Those concerned about this matter may be interested to read the consultation document, the responses and the Ofcom statement, all of which may be accessed from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/snen/.

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. I note that the e-petition does not refer to the Home Office honouring this commitment.

My personal view is that the single point of publication for alternative geographic numbers is insufficient, as this will not be adequate to ensure that all those who could benefit from using such a number would be able to do so. 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.

It is interesting to note that the Home Office had hoped that in due course it would be possible to remove the fee. The approach to public spending has however moved in the opposite direction to that which was anticipated in 2005. As I have said, I see little chance of there being general consent to increased public spending on this service; what we have may be the best that we can realistically hope for.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

[quote author=25263D3D22352122302E470 link=1300831283/126#126 date=1321711165]I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

Indeed, to the caller there is a similarity - neither are charged at the same rate as geographic calls; they may be cheaper, they may be more expensive.

(There are situations where the cost is effectively the same, e.g. inclusive geographic calls cost the same as 080 calls from landlines, along with 0845 calls that are treated as inclusive.)

It would be interesting to hear what those who oppose the 101 charging structure propose for those who are benefiting from it.

As the telcos have agreed to 15p per call, presumably on the basis that they would get an acceptable return overall, an alternative scheme would need to achieve that effect also. If those with inclusive packages for geographic calls were not paying their 15p's to call 101, then where should the money come from?
There is a very simple remedy to the 0.15p call cost, the teclos should pay the cost. They are in a very profitable sector and they should be duty bound to provide this service after all it is the alternative emergency service.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 7:38pm:
I think you meant to say:


Quote:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 3:57pm: bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 1:59pm: I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls. Indeed, to the caller there is a similarity - neither are charged at the same rate as geographic calls; they may be cheaper, they may be more expensive. ... As the telcos have agreed to 15p per call, presumably on the basis that they would get an acceptable return overall, an alternative scheme would need to achieve that effect also. If those with inclusive packages for geographic calls were not paying their 15p's to call 101, then where should the money come from? There is a very simple remedy to the 0.15p call cost, the telcos should pay the cost. They are in a very profitable sector and they should be duty bound to provide this service after all it is the alternative emergency service.

101 is the non-emergency contact number for the Police. It is an alternative to the emergency service. Nonetheless, many of us believe that it should be "free to caller".

I must ask how the telcos themselves are to meet the costs incurred in providing this service, if not out of the revenue they take from users of all their services.

It is perfectly fair to argue that telephone users in general should pay, but please do not assume that telco profits derive from any other source, or that the market is sufficiently competitive to prevent costs from being reflected in prices.

---

If anybody knows how calls to the actual emergency service (999/112) are funded, it would be very useful to perhaps be able to bring this into the discussion. I believe that it may be funded by customers of BT, Virgin Media, Kingston and the mobile network owners.

We await the launch of a government sanctioned "alternative emergency service"; G4-Police springs immediately to mind. It would doubtless use a premium rate telephone number to avoid nuisance calls, and offer a service that was far superior to that of its public sector rivals. (I hope that I do not get supporters of consumerism and consumer choice too excited by mentioning this possibility.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 12:19am:

If anybody knows how calls to the actual emergency service (999/112) are funded, it would be very useful to perhaps be able to bring this into the discussion. I believe that it may be funded by customers of BT, Virgin Media, Kingston and the mobile network owners.


[/quote]


See here

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/ind_guidelines/emer1002.htm

I know this document is 9 years old, but guess it still applies?


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?

sherbert wrote on Nov 21^st, 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.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20^th, 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 20^th, 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 20^th, 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).

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.

Barbara wrote on Nov 21^st, 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!   ;-)

Barbara wrote on Nov 21^st, 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.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 21^st, 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.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 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 21^st, 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 21^st, 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 21^st, 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 21^st, 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

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 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.

My post #120 still stands ;)

daguerrotype wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 12:03pm:

I recommend you all consider signing this Downing St ePetition against 101 charges: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22025

Only got 7 sigs at the moment  >:(

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_launched_by_West_Mercia_Police/#commentsList

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.

poppasmurf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 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_launched_by_West_Mercia_Police/#commentsList 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

With reference to the National Single Non-Emergency Number - Designating number “101” - Statement - 8 March 2006,

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20^th, 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 22^nd, 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.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23^rd, 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 ::)

sherbert wrote on Nov 23^rd, 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 ::)

Indeed there are!


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 22^nd, 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 23^rd, 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 18^th, 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  ::)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 22^nd, 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.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 1:06am:

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. [...] 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.

Aren't you making assumptions about who might have a £50,000 car stolen? What if it's someone who's saved for 20 years, doesn't smoke, drink or take foreign holidays, yet has saved and bought the car they wanted. It's extremely distressing to be a victim of crime, yet you seem to think a BMW owner is asking for it simply by having such a car. You continually lecture everyone here for wanting to avoid using 101. Yet this still isn't the case I keep highlighting, which is calling the police as a good citizen to report an issue that doesn't actually affect the caller at all, but the caller is giving his or her time to report the issue for the good of society.

Of course, misuse of 999 shouldn't be condoned, and indeed, the reason for introducing 101 is so that ignorant/uneducated people have a memorable number they can call that isn't 999. I do think there's a case for arguing that people who don't have the intelligence or knowledge to know they need to consult the phone book or web to find the police's local number can instead pay 15p for the privilege and convenience of dialling 101, just as probably the same people dial 118 xxx when they want to find a phone number instead of using cheaper methods. For those of us who do know how and where to obtain the number for the police, we can continue to benefit from calls that are paid for by the phone packages we already pay for.

Thanks also for pointing out that people with calls packages are not only subsidising mobile users, but also people who don't pay for calls packages. Although, in general, it's pretty stupid to pay per-minute charges to call geographical numbers when it's only 5p with 18185. I don't have inclusive daytime calls, but on the rare occasion I need to make one I pay 5p (although during periods I have a mobile contract I use that for daytime calls, obviously).

One thing I do agree with which you said is that it isn't that the 15p cost is significance. It's a matter of principle. For me, the issue is that a public-spirited person who is trying to do something good for society as a whole can end up paying for it. People are already too selfish, so the last thing we should be doing is imposing a financial penalty for people who give up their time (as if it isn't already bad enough that the police take so many details that the caller feels he or she is the criminal...)

jrawle wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 11:33am:

...  It's extremely distressing to be a victim of crime, yet you seem to think a BMW owner is asking for it simply by having such a car.

Not at all. My underlying concern (which is loosely relevant to the issue) is that victims of crime and those reporting it, but who do not see it taking place, are being treated in the same way as those who contact the Police on any trivial or administrative matter. Because 101 is used for both, I believe that it should be "free to caller", totally paid for out of taxation. I would be content for a geographic rate number to be used for the latter purpose.

This situation has existed for a very long time; 101 has simply it brought it more clearly into focus. Both BMW and bicycle owners have been paying 20p (or 40p) per minute to report the loss of their vehicles, as they find them missing and immediately use their PAYG mobiles. In many cases they would have called 999 and been given the number to redial.


The Home Office has stated that the geographic alternatives are made available for use by those who have "concerns about call-cost". My point about the Police switchboard operator was that they may question whether the owner of a high value car was justified in being reluctant to pay their telephone company 15p for a phone call. It seems possible that a caller to the West Mercia Police switchboard may have to press their concern about call-cost, if asking to be put through to the 101 call centre, as this is specifically excluded from the calls that the switchboard is said to handle.

15p is less than a subscriber to the current "default" BT call plan would pay for a 1 minute call to a geographic rate number before 7pm on a weekday. (As Unlimited Anytime is now the most popular BT plan, BT should consider making this the default, with a discount for those who only make calls after 7 or at the weekends - or through other call providers.)

My personal view is that citizens should not be obliged to "ask for favours", e.g. having to express a concern about call-cost, when accessing public services provided to all without charge. I believe that we should all be able to access all such services on equal terms, regardless of wealth, vehicle ownership, telephone tariff or any other personal characteristic.

I see the terms of our arrangements with those who facilitate access, i.e. telephone companies, ISPs, postal and courier services, bus companies, taxi firms, car park operators etc. as a totally separate issue. With 101, this separation has been fudged by persuading the telephone companies to apply an unusually equitable approach to charging for calls.


jrawle wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 11:33am:

the caller is giving his or her time to report the issue for the good of society

I believe that this is one of the reasons why, given that the government was not prepared to pay to make these calls free, it made an arrangement for everyone to pay the same relatively low fee, so as to avoid the sizeable cost that some would incur in contacting the Police by telephone on a geographic rate number.

To achieve what some would see as an equitable outcome, there are obviously some who will pay more than they would to call a geographic number. I believe we are in agreement that the proper approach would have been for us all to pay for these calls through our taxes.


jrawle wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 11:33am:

You continually lecture everyone here

If there is a point that I may be repeating too often, it is that somebody always pays.

It is never the government (central or local) or a public body, it is the taxpayers who provide their money.

It is never the telephone companies or other businesses, it is most often their customers, who provide their money.

Most of the time we are only arguing about the capacity in which we pay for things.

I argue that we should pay for calls to 101 as taxpayers. All of us paying the same as callers is perhaps the next best option. Given that 101 is used for the reporting of crime, I do not think it fair that we should pay according to what we would pay for a geographic rate call. For other contact with public bodies, I do believe that geographic rate calls are the proper option. I do not believe that those accessing public services by telephone should pay to subsidise the cost of providing the service, which should be met by taxpayers. (There may be an exception in the case of self-funding public services, e.g. the Land Registry, where costs are met by fees paid by users, rather than out of taxation. It is however imperative that such fees are clearly declared and justified.)

- End of lecture -

I wonder if this going to go a stage further?

Are we going to have a non emergency number for the ambulance service, like if you break your toe you ring one number and if it is your leg it is 999?

Maybe the same will apply to the fire service, a small fire will require you to dial a different number to a full blown house fire which will require the 999 number.

I am writing in jest before we get another lecture from SCV  ;) but is it  a possibility? :-/

sherbert wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 8:29pm:

I wonder if this going to go a stage further? Are we going to have a non emergency number for the ambulance service, like if you break your toe you ring one number and if it is your leg it is 999? Maybe the same will apply to the fire service, a small fire will require you to dial a different number to a full blown house fire which will require the 999 number. I am writing in jest before we get another lecture from SCV  ;) but is it  a possibility? :-/

Just a brief comment for now, I could do a lecture if you wish! ... certainly on 111.

We have 111 which is the health alternative to 999, allegedly for urgent but non-emergency cases. This is "free to caller". The brief however is apparently being extended to cover all aspects of health information and advice, as offered by NHS Direct. This will end unhappily!

The Fire service grew out of services provided by insurance companies to only deal with emergencies at properties which they covered. It is not impossible that the Fire service will be scaled back to deal only with cases where there is danger to life or to the public interest. Those calling 999 about other cases may be advised to ring their insurance company (and we know what type of number that is likely to be!).

Do not make the mistake which the AA once made, by forgetting that the Coastguard Service (on 999) is the fourth public emergency service.

This morning I attended our Local Neighbourhood Agreement Review Meeting where several Council Dept Heads attend together with the attending Police Sergent of our Neighbourhood Police Unit. I asked the question 'is the 01622 geog. number going to continue longside 101 he said 'no it will be phased out slowly' so no Home Office statement correct here re publishing longside.

After phoning Council Reception where we now have Police presence after losing our Local Cop Shop I was told that this is now our local cop shop for Contact and for the local bobbies to work from same as old Police stn was. They told me to phone 01622 for Admin. etc.

When I dialed 01622 I got through to Main Switchboard and was transf. to Control Room which is also for Admin. When I later had to phone again to correct a number I had given them I thought to ask the Switchboard what if I had dialed 101 and she said I would have gone straight through to Control Room for both Activity and Admin. missing out the Main Switchboard altogether.

So it looks as if the existing geo number or 0845 whichever is in use now will remain for the use of the rest of the Main Hub Building but not published.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 10:05pm:

Do not make the mistake which the AA once made, by forgetting that the Coastguard Service (on 999) is the fourth public emergency service.

...and cave rescue is the fifth.

Although, I am not sure how you get a signal deep under the ground

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 10:05pm:

Do not make the mistake which the AA once made, by forgetting that the Coastguard Service (on 999) is the fourth public emergency service.

SCV I believe the AA once said "to our members we're the Fourth Emergency Service" however I assume your point was made in part jest  ;)

Regarding the use of 101 can anyone confirm what the price to call them is supposed to be? According to http://www.police.uk/101 it's 15p per call, but according to someone on here one provider is charging 17/18p per call?

A very very confusing and frankly shambolic situation.

Maybe it's time to start using phone boxes (where available) to call the Police locally?

Also who does the 15p go to??

:)

From today's Daily Wail,...... sorry Mail ;)


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065288/15p-charge-calling-police-New-cost-101-hotline-report-minor-crimes.html

In this article....


The 15p cost of the call will go directly to Cable and Wireless for providing the service. In addition, forces will also pay a further 0.035p per minute for every call received, an Acpo spokesman said. In 11 forces, 101 will replace premium 0845 numbers which often led to much higher call costs

Quote:

101 was first introduced by Labour in 2006 but was abandoned after costing £41million when it had failed to reduce 999 calls.

This was why I was surprised to find all of a sudden that 101 was being introduced nationally. I thought the trial had ended a failure. What a waste of money too. No wonder they need to charge per call to recoup it (except they won't, as the money goes to phone companies).

Also, if the idea is to have a single contact number, why is there not a single non-emergency number? Are we to have 101 for police, 111 for an ambulance, 122 for a minor fire, 133 for coastguard, 134 for cave rescue, 141 to rescue a cat from a tree, 155 to free someone from a clothes horse...

speedy wrote on Nov 24^th, 2011 at 12:43am:

This morning I attended our Local Neighbourhood Agreement Review Meeting where several Council Dept Heads attend together with the attending Police Sergent of our Neighbourhood Police Unit. I asked the question 'is the 01622 geog. number going to continue longside 101 he said 'no it will be phased out slowly' so no Home Office statement correct here re publishing longside.

And just how do you phase out a phone number slowly?    

You can phase out publicity of the number but actual calls can either get through to the number or, when it's turned off, they can't.

sergeant121 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2011 at 10:35am:

And just how do you phase out a phone number slowly?     You can phase out publicity of the number but actual calls can either get through to the number or, when it's turned off, they can't.

Perhaps they will start only answering it in the morning. And then only on Mondays and Wednesdays.

I have just looked all over the Kent Police Site and nowhere obvious can you find shown their usual 01622 690690 number - however on persisting on Site - Contact Us - Press Office - Out of Hours it does show 101 inside Kent - 01622 690690 outside Kent / Overseas ) there is another 01622 number for the Press Office ending in 50

There is also a Complaints to which I will be sending an email pointing out that their Home Page contravenes the Home Office assurance that a Geo Number would be Published alongside the 101 and see what they come back with - I will look for an Official Home Office statement and include that in my email.  Will update here when any answer.

On the Dorset Police Site they publish a geo number alongside 101.

"Calls to the 101 non-emergency number – from both landlines and mobiles – cost 15 pence per call no matter what time of day you call, or how long you are on the phone.

If you have a speech or hearing impairment, you can textphone 18001 101.

For more information about the 101 non-emergency number, please follow this link >

You can also continue to contact us on 01202 22 22 22 and if you are calling from outside Dorset, please use this number. "

http://www.dorset.police.uk/Default.aspx?page=5507

Adjoining force  Avon and Somerset says
"•International callers, those in the UK residing outside of England and Wales and those residing in local force areas currently awaiting access to 101 should call 0845 456 7000 to contact Avon and Somerset Police."

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/contact/101/

But the other three adjoining forces Devon and Cornwall, Hampshire,and Wiltshire do not offer any alternative numbers. :o

speedy wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 2:56am:

...I will look for an Official Home Office statement and include that in my email.  Will update here when any answer.

It would be very useful if anyone can find or obtain afresh a formal Home Office statement to confirm, deny or supersede that reported by Ofcom at para 6.21 of its statement on 101 in 2006 ...


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.

It could be said that this no longer applies, now that 101 is only being used for the Police (except in Sheffield), rather than for Police / Local Authority partnerships.

It is of some interest to note that there is no reference to geographic alternatives in the "marketing pack" made available to those doing the PR work on the 2011 launch of 101. Although not conclusive, this provides strong evidence that the Home Office policy has changed. A policy to provide alternatives without communicating the fact to those who may wish to use them amounts to not providing them. The "get out" could be that the alternatives are only for use by those who are so concerned about call-cost that they can find them without the Police admitting to the fact that they exist.

P.S. I like the reference to "over 40p per minute" as the cost of calling a 0845 number - I wonder where that particular figure was picked up from! Yes, I know they should have abandoned 0845 some time ago, but we cannot deny those who do the right thing the opportunity to take some credit for doing so, even if it is belated.

---

bigjohn wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 4:44am:

Quote: You can also continue to contact us on 01202 22 22 22 and if you are calling from outside Dorset, please use this number.

Now we have the problem with those who would find it much cheaper to call 101 and choose to be connected to Dorset when calling from outside the area. For some, 20p per minute is a lot more than 15p per call.


To quote "Dennis Moore" from the famous Monty Python sketch -
Quote:

Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought!

Whilst Dennis was trying to impose total equity by force, it is no less tricky for those of us who simply seek to have equitable principles applied to the delivery of public services.


In the end it may come down to the particular operations of each Force / Service / Constabulary. Some may operate a geographic number which is suitable for use as an alternative to 101, others may not. I doubt that the Home Office compels a particular operational model for all Police communications services beyond what is necessary to ensure consistency of the 101 service itself.

The question is whether it compels a geographic alternative to 101 to be provided and maintained, as it stated in 2006. If not, then the battle over alternatives will have to be fought in each individual case, unless the Home Office can be persuaded to change its position - and also deal with any funding consequences that may result.

Thanks SCV for the link to the Ofcom Statement - I waded all through - found the relevant para myself - came out and carried on with your post and then found that you had specified further on exactly the para I had found while getting saucer eyes  ;D - must learn to read the whole post before jumping in a link  ;)  I will add this para and Ofcom Document and date not the link - can't have them getting saucer eyes if they bothered to read it at all Ha Ha

It would be nice if an update confirmation could be got from the Home Office - there again they might confirm that it had been dropped   :'( then our point would be lost. I doubt if Police could get accurate info by just contacting Home Office - Most Civil Servants only know their particular Dept accurately sometimes not even then.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9005656/Crime-victims-told-to-call-101-and-pay.html


For the first time, members of the public in every force area in England and Wales will have to dial 101 unless there is an immediate danger to life or the crime is ongoing.

While calls to 999 for the most serious crimes will remain free, all other victims are expected to pay in the biggest shake-up in how police are contacted for 70 years.

The move is designed to ease pressure on the emergency hotline and stop operators being swamped with calls that do not require an immediate response.

But victim groups last night warned the new fee-charging line could deter people from reporting minor offences. Those who are the victims of persistent, low-level nuisance, would also have to call the line.

Ministers insisted the new number makes calling the police simpler and is cheaper than existing premium rate phone lines used for non-emergency calls by some forces.
Related Articles

   
Javed Khan, chief executive of Victim Support, said: “Charging 15p could turn a good idea into a self defeating one, with people either phoning 999 or not bothering to report a crime at all.

“Over 50 per cent of crime goes unreported and we need to be careful we don’t deter people from reporting it.

“This could lead to some victims and witnesses of crime suffering in silence or the police being unable to get a proper picture of crime in their community.”

The 101 line was first launched as a pilot scheme by the last Labour Government, when it cost 10p to call, but was abandoned in 2007 because it did not reduce the number of 999 calls. Two thirds of calls were also deemed inappropriate, including people asking for bus times.

Last year the Coalition revived the scheme and began a national roll out, which has now been completed.

The public is being told to now only call 999 if “a crime is in progress, when someone suspected of a crime is nearby, when there is danger to life or when violence is being used or threatened”.

Emergency operators may tell people to hang up and call 101 if it is not an emergency. Only one in four calls to 999 need an immediate response.

Roy Rudham, chairman of the UK Neighbourhood Watch Trust, backed the principle of having a single alternative number for across the country and said most members of the public would not mind paying.

However, he added those affected by persistent problems who have to call the police on a regular basis would be hit most.

Guy Dehn, director of the charity Witness Confident, said: “The worry for us is a lot of people may be put off calling if they are going to have to pay.”

Unlike its predecessor, the 101 line is self-funding, with the set charge, regardless of whether from a landline or mobile, going to phone companies.

Some 2.5 million calls have been made already, earning firms more than £370,000.

However, the Home Office insisted the line will prove cheaper for many as almost half of police forces currently have premium numbers for reporting crime.

Nick Herbert, the policing minister, said: "The introduction of the 101 number marks one of the most significant changes in the way people contact the police since 999 was introduced nearly 70 years ago.

"Until the launch of the 101 number, the public were charged up to 40p per minute to call 0845 numbers to get through to their local police forces.

“At a flat rate of 15p per call from both mobile phones and landlines, no matter how long the call lasts or what time of day, for many this will be cheaper than the previous cost of calling the police for non-emergencies.”

Commander Ian Dyson, of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said: "Having just two phone numbers – 101 for reporting a crime that has happened, to get advice or to raise local policing issues – or 999 if it's an emergency, makes calling the police a lot easier and makes our services more accessible.”

This post raises some very interesting points.  Not in any order of importantce, the first thing which I noticed is an absolute acknowledgement that 0845 is premium rate and has a high cost (although it seems the figure quoted relates to mobile rather than landline calls), including by the Police Minister (therefore all GOvt ministers should be aware of this).   

Secondly, there is an acceptance that the charge will discourage some callers, and this even though they fail to mention the fact that 101 is not included in inclusive call plans so acts as an even greater disincentive.  The police regularly say they cannot operate without the help and information from the public, this must be even more true in these times of cuts, yet the Government, supposedly the defenders of law and order, are quite happy to discourage the public from assisting the police.

Thirdly is what seems a new definition of when to use  999.   I had (and my grandfather was a policeman so I was brought up in an atmosphere of a duty to help the police) always believed that 999 was for reporting active or any crime as soon as possible even if not actively in progress or for use if one felt at personal risk of harm to oneself or one's property, or if in fear of violence (it did not actually have to be overt threat).   From personal experience when we had particular antisocial behaviour problems caused basically by one family in a small Essex village, I know that it was pointless to follow the advice to call the community beat officer as, if they were not on shift, all one could do was leave an answerphone message and the only hope with the riffraff involved was to have the police out there & then to cart them off to the distant police station as the inconvenience to their parents of having to drive a forty mile round trip to collect them did have some beneficial effect.

From the article, it also seems someone is making a profit from this & it would seem to the the telecos - again, as usual - at the expensive of victims of crime & those doing their duty as good citizens.

Regarding 101, I can see a benefit of having a national number (alongside local non-emergency numbers of course!) as it would benefit people needing to contact police outside their home areas BUT it should not cost more than the cost of a normal geographical call ie have a set fee but also a legal requirement that it be part of inclusive packages from both landlines and mobiles.   The current system is, as the quoted article says, likely to reduce crime reporting and increase calls to 999, the very opposite of its declared intentions.   Also, if it failed in trial, why is the present Government rolling it out nationally in defiance of all logic???  Of course, this could have a desired effect for the Government (bearing in mind all figures relate to reported[i][/i] crime) in that the levels of reported crime falls & the Govt claims success - and please don't say I'm being cynical!

I guess there is always Crimestoppers 0800 555 111 available to use?

Yes, sherbert, I've not tried that so I'm not sure how it works, whether there is a link to each area or whether it's just a means of leaving information or a message, I don't think it organises a direct police response to an incident but, as you say, worth a try.

I understand that the Telegraph item has caused deep unhappiness within the Home Office, as two important points which the Minister should have put across were missed.

The first is that 15p per call is only collected by the telephone companies for themselves. It does not in any way subsidise the Police, as they neither pay to receive calls nor benefit from any revenue share. Those who share my view that calls to 101 should have been paid for in full out of the taxes paid by us all, rather than those who call the Police to report crime, would argue that the previous government made the wrong decision, which has been endorsed by the current government.

The second point is one which I now understand to be firm and clear Home Office policy. Police services are expected to publish an alternative geographic (not 0845) number for contact from outside their local area and from overseas. This should be published prominently e.g. on the "Contact Us" page of their website alongside 101. It need not be published in every place where 101 is promoted, but it should not be hidden or concealed by being represented only in international format as if only usable from overseas.

I am told that Mr Herbert was briefed on these points of policy and may have attempted to put them across to the journalist. Whatever is the case - he clearly failed.

It is pure coincidence that plans for the national media launch of 101 are just now being prepared. The materials, which will include the points made above, are however not yet available.

I see it as vital that the availability of alternative geographic numbers is given the maximum publicity, so that individual Police Services will feel forced (and be forced by local people) to comply.

I am also very keen for any suggestion that 101 is part of the revenue sharing scam to be dismissed, so that attention can be properly focussed on those who really are engaged in it. If the Home Office / Police are linked in with HMRC, DWP and parts of the NHS, then the argument is weakened, because it cannot be fully sustained.

SCV, thank you for the post above, it does clarify things very well.  On that basis, I have just checked GLoucestershire Police's website &, sure enough, on their contact us page is 01452 728199; however, it then says, somewhat strangely, that this is for contact "from outside Gloucestershire or where 101 is unobtainable" - surely the whole point of 101 was that it was supposed to be a national number not just for within Glos?   Oh well, at least they have got the publication of a geo number correct, albeit the HQ in Gloucester I think rather than anything more local eg CHeltenham.

Barbara wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 5:05pm:

"from outside Gloucestershire or where 101 is unobtainable"

I can only think that this their way of referring to overseas and perhaps covering the possibility that some telephone companies may not offer access to 101.

The latter is theoretically possible, but has not occurred, so far as I am aware. "999" is unique in being subject to very specific regulations regarding the fact that access must be provided without charge by all providers. This does not apply to 101 (or indeed many other numbers). They may have got a bit carried away with this distinction.

Barbara wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Yes, sherbert, I've not tried that so I'm not sure how it works, whether there is a link to each area or whether it's just a means of leaving information or a message, I don't think it organises a direct police response to an incident but, as you say, worth a try.

I think you quote a reference number for an existing crime,  which doesn't help you if you see someone actually committing a crime.

sherbert wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 5:34pm:

I think you quote a reference number for an existing crime,  which doesn't help you if you see someone actually committing a crime.

There is no doubt whatsoever that if you see a crime in progress, or recognise any need for an immediate police response, you must call 999.

There is much wrong with 101, and what lies behind it, but let us please not stretch the point too far.

There is also a lot wrong with "Crimestoppers", but that is another issue altogether.

I take all coments on bord but I still stick to my original coments I will never ring 101, if I cannot contact my local police station via the usual number I will not make contact. I have never had a need to ring 999 but that is the number I shall use as I will only contact them in an Emergency.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:57pm:

15p per call is only collected by the telephone companies for themselves. It does not in any way subsidise the Police, as they neither pay to receive calls nor benefit from any revenue share.

If 18185, 1899 etc can connect a call to an 01/02/03 number of unlimited duration 24/7 and make a profit on it what possible excuse can the greedy and conscience lacking telcos have for charging 15p and for having increased that flat rate charge by 50% in only a couple of years!  I assume the 50% has been justified on the basis of BT's constant ramping up of its despicable per call connection charge for out of bundle calls to 01/02/03 numbers not covered by bundled minutes and for all other calls to 0844/0871/070/09 etc. This connection fee is simply used as a form of blackmail by BT to try to make everyone take an Anytime calls package and has nothing whatsoever to do with the real cost to it of connecting a phone call.  If it did then 18185 etc would not be able to make a profit at 5p per call of any length.

I also scarcely dare ask what the cost of a 101 call is from a BT Payphone?  Is it only 15p or is it subject to the 60p Minimum Call charge?  If so then how on earth do the Police expect people on low incomes who cannot afford a phone line to be able to afford to contact them about non 999 matters?

But the main point is that people who have call bundles which cover calls to all normal 01/02/03 numbers will once again find these calls are excluded.  In my book there is no excuse at all for this and Ofcom needs to mandate a General Condition that where a caller has a package covering the cost of a call to an 01/02/03 number that calls to 101 will also be covered by that inclusive calls package.

[/quote]
I also scarcely dare ask what the cost of a 101 call is from a BT Payphone?  Is it only 15p or is it subject to the 60p Minimum Call charge?  If so then how on earth do the Police [/quote]

That IS a big concern, personally if someone has the time, why not ring them and ask? http://www.payphones.bt.com/contactus/bytelephone.htm

CJT-80 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Quote: I also scarcely dare ask what the cost of a 101 call is from a BT Payphone?  Is it only 15p or is it subject to the 60p Minimum Call charge?  If so then how on earth do the Police That IS a big concern, personally if someone has the time, why not ring them and ask? http://www.payphones.bt.com/contactus/bytelephone.htm

Calls to 101 are free from BT Payphones.

BT Price List > Section 2:Call Charges & Exchange Line Services > Part 26:BT Payphones Call Charges > Subpart 1:Call Charges From BT Public Payphones

Dave wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Calls to 101 are free from BT Payphones. BT Price List > Section 2:Call Charges & Exchange Line Services > Part 26:BT Payphones Call Charges > Subpart 1:Call Charges From BT Public Payphones

Very interesting indeed Dave.

I feel sure that a journalist and/or Parliamentarian/local politician would wish to investigate further why it should be free to call the Police from a BT Payphone but be a special rate call excluded from bundled minutes when calling from a landline or mobile phone.

And for the record I believe it should always be free to call the Police on 101 from any telephone of whatever kind.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

I feel sure that a journalist and/or Parliamentarian/local politician would wish to investigate further why it should be free to call the Police from a BT Payphone but be a special rate call excluded from bundled minutes when calling from a landline or mobile phone.

I personally think that the scandalous premium rates for calling HMRC and DWP agencies from payphones could be a higher priority.


NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

And for the record I believe it should always be free to call the Police on 101 from any telephone of whatever kind.

The previous government decided not to commit taxpayer's money to make 101 calls free. They probably also thought that trying to extend the demand on telcos to recover the cost of handling 999 calls from their customers in general to cover all calls handled by emergency service providers was not a good step to try to take.

Instead they negotiated an arrangement for a single fixed fee charge to be applied by all providers along with an obligation on the 101 providers to publish geographic alternatives. With the re-launch of 101 as a Police-only number, the current government retained the same rules, although agreeing a price increase from 10p to 15p.


Because of the 60p minimum charge, BT could not offer the 15p fixed rate from payphones and so decided to make the calls free. The economics of public payphones are totally different from those of general landline and mobile services. It is not helpful to try to make comparisons, especially by drawing on a single exceptional case.

If I understand them correctly, I do not believe that it is sensible to draw a comparison between a bucket shop (with minimal overheads and operating offshore, presumably to avoid regulation) and the primary operator on whose excess capacity they rely.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 3:52pm:

I personally think that the scandalous premium rates for calling HMRC and DWP agencies from payphones could be a higher priority.

That is only because you have a personal longstanding fetish about it being immoral to pay a covert premium rate to make an appointment by phone with a GP but do not have such qualms about people who need to call any other covert premium rate numbers other than the ones you set such store in needing to call (apparently you never need to call the Police).  For instance HMRC whom one is obliged to deal with by law and who refuse to support contact with them on routine matters by email or online enquiry form.

I would note that all GPs do actually offer a way to make appointments and request prescription renewals online free of charge for anyone who can use the internet so arguably anyone who has set this up does not need to call their GP on the phone at all.


Quote:

The previous government decided not to commit taxpayer's money to make 101 calls free. They probably also thought that trying to extend the demand on telcos to recover the cost of handling 999 calls from their customers in general to cover all calls handled by emergency service providers was not a good step to try to take. Instead they negotiated an arrangement for a single fixed fee charge to be applied by all providers along with an obligation on the 101 providers to publish geographic alternatives. With the re-launch of 101 as a Police-only number, the current government retained the same rules, although agreeing a price increase from 10p to 15p.

Why has a 50% price increase already been necessary after only two years when the only service now accessible is for the Police whom have traditionally always been callable for free.  Also with reference to not clogging up their 999 number with non emergency calls it would have been perfectly easy to bring in a short IVR message on 999 saying please press 1 if your call is an emergency requiring urgent Police attendance or 2 to speak to the Police about a non urgent matter.  So long as these calls could have been free there was no need at all for 101.

Also why has the charge needed to increase 50% in only two years.  What exactly has changed to make the telcos need to change 50% more.  I would suggest all that has changed is BT's despicable practice of now charging a huge and constantly spiralling connection fee on out of bundle calls to force people to buy a call bundle.  Yet outrageously 101 is not covered by these call plans that cover calls to normal rate 01, 02 or 03 numbers.  So non urgent calls to the Police are clearly on a Premium Rate number.


Quote:

Because of the 60p minimum charge, BT could not offer the 15p fixed rate from payphones and so decided to make the calls free. The economics of public payphones are totally different from those of general landline and mobile services. It is not helpful to try to make comparisons, especially by drawing on a single exceptional case.

Hogwash.  BT payphones could be programmed to charge 15p or at least for that matter 10p or 20p (as they do any more take 5p pieces) for just 101 calls.  BT's current payphone equipment is highly sophisticated and can charge whatever it has been programmed to charge.  We are no longer in the era of beep, beep,  beep and the 2p and 10p push in coin slot or for that matter Button A and Button B (which I am too old to remember other than as science museum exhibits but which my mother distinctly recalls using).

Also if the normally rapacious BT Payphones empire (who principally charge what they do in order to minimise Payphone use and make the case for getting rid of all remaining Payphones as fast as possible) can afford to carry the calls for free then why can they not be free to customers paying a line rental that BT has increased nearly 90% in only eight years!!!


Quote:

If I understand them correctly, I do not believe that it is sensible to draw a comparison between a bucket shop (with minimal overheads and operating offshore, presumably to avoid regulation) and the primary operator on whose excess capacity they rely.

What is your evidence that 18185, 1899 use BT call capacity to route their calls?  My experience is that they route their calls all over the world if necessary to get the possible rate.  That is why one sometimes get an international ringing tone when dialling a UK call.

The wholesale cost of calls is in the fractions of tenths of pence a minute.  The rest is all retail markup by companies like BT with large expensive advertising budgets to support.  18185, 1899 etc mainly the flat 5p to cover the cost of supporting their customer invoicing and payment systems and to make a profit rather than to reflect the actual underlying call cost they pay.  If you think it costs BT anything like the 15p they charge to 101 you are living in cloud cuckoo land.  Only the mobile networks have call costs anywhere near this high.

Oh yes and you are reminding me why I mainly stopped participating in this forum as I already anticipate your long, preachy, pontificating and highly self important reply to this message.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

I already anticipate your long, preachy, pontificating and highly self important reply to this message.

I wonder whether the following meets expectations!


I prefer to address issues in this forum, rather than personalities. I will however quote a previous posting to this thread, outlining my personal view on the charge for calling 101. I hold a common view about all public services, although I direct my campaigning energies according to the likelihood of achieving change.  The NHS is also a matter of particular personal political concern and it raises some heavy Political issues, especially at the present time.

The quoted posting (to which I have added colour and highlights) explains how I see 101 as distinct from other everyday contact with public services. This is because it is used, in part, for a very particular purpose.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2011 at 3:34pm:

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.

If 101 had been used exclusively for the reporting of crime (and social nuisance, handled by local authorities), rather than for all non-emergency contact with Police services, then I believe that the failure to make it "free to caller" would have been found to be wholly unacceptable. Because it has a "hybrid" purpose, this is more difficult. As things stand, I believe that the definition of the types of crime that can be reported using 999 is too tightly drawn.

(We have a similar situation with 111, although in the other direction. Had this been only for urgent, but non-emergency, access to health services, then it would have right to keep it as "free to caller", fully paid for by taxpayers. In fact its function is drifting to become a replacement for, and even an extension to, the services offered by the NHS Direct information and advice line, which was previously deemed to be too expensive and not cost effective. One fears a sinister political motivation behind attempts to make NHS services too expensive for the public purse.)


I address other points made, excluding quotes for the sake of brevity.

Not all GPs offer online contact. It is unlikely that someone using a public payphone would have internet access, as this normally comes with voice telephony.

The "tradition" of non-emergency calls to the Police being "free" is only as old as the idea that calls to geographic (and, in some cases, 0845) numbers are "free". I am not sure that this idea has even been truly established yet, let alone become a tradition.

The level of 15p per call, as well as the 50% increase, does warrant enquiry - this is a good point. I have no idea of how this figure was determined, nor how the revenue is distributed. It needs to be taken up with the Telcos, acting together, who proposed this and the Home Office, which agreed it - in conjunction with the ACPO 101 team who are leading the project. I fear that the availability of geographic alternative numbers will distract those who may have otherwise been keen to pursue this issue. It is unlikely that those who are saving money as a result of the switch to 101 will want to make a fuss about the fact that they should be saving more, even though there is a legitimate case to answer - why 15p?

I cannot believe that anyone would take up the laughable proposal of putting a IVR message on 999 seriously. We are however free to comment as we wish - perhaps with our tongues in our cheeks!

BT may have decided that the exercise of re-programming all of its payphones was not cost-justified by the prospect of the revenue from the 15p's which this would enable. There are many issues raised by the fact that BT customers in general have to subsidise the losses made on payphones.

I referred to an understanding of how bucket shops work, which is essentially confirmed. I have to apologise for a genuine typo in the quoted comment - I intended to refer to "operators" in the plural, I was not thinking solely of BT, although it is the leading primary operator in the UK, having a very large network. If the BT network is not used by the bucket shop providers, then I am happy to add this qualification to my remarks. I have no idea what evidence could be produced to support an argument that the bucket shop businesses were comparable with those of the regulated primary operators, so as to provide the basis for a challenge to the 15p per call fee, which obviously has to reflect overheads and a net margin. That responsibility rests with those who wish to advance this case.

I continue with some further comments in conclusion ...

Further to my previous posting ... some comments in conclusion.

Separate from the points actually exchanged above, I am very interested to understand if (and how) the availability of geographic alternatives affects the arguments advanced. This availability is not yet complete and publication of it is not properly in place in all cases, however the principle has been laid down very clearly. I would expect many who are concerned about the 15p, and in particular those who argue that calls should be able to be made within the terms of an inclusive package, to be focussing on this aspect. There is some work left to do to ensure that all the alternative geo (or 03) numbers are made available and properly presented.

There are some, like me, who believe that the availability of alternative numbers cannot always be seen as being the answer to a problem. In this case however, I believe that, once properly in place, this does address the issue of those who are unwilling to pay the 15p, because they could call a geographic number more cheaply. I am genuinely interested to hear the views of those who disagree.


(My personal views seem to be a point of some interest and discussion. I make the following comments only because they seem to have been misunderstood. As stated previously, I would much rather that we were discussing the issues, rather than who said what and what our motivations may be.)

To confirm my personal position on 101:

I accept that both the present government and the party currently in opposition have both decided that taxpayers should not meet the cost of connecting 101 calls, only the much greater cost of handling them. The latter is measured in pounds, the former in pence, however I believe that the taxpayer should meet both, in this particular case. I do not believe that customers of the telephone companies in general should be required to meet the cost of connecting 101 calls (in part or in full).

Given that there is Political consensus against my argument and many more pressing cases to address, not to mention widespread misunderstanding of 101, I do not dedicate any significant energy to advancing my preferred approach to this matter. I also see the idea of an agreed common fixed fee per call as representing a radical equitable approach that is worthy of some positive recognition, even though it is perhaps applied to the wrong case. It is however not for me to dictate how others should set their priorities. This is particularly true when we are discussing priorities in public spending.


On contact with public services in general:

I do not believe that the taxpayer should meet the cost of connecting calls through the telephone network, nor should customers of telephone companies in general. There should be no call cost surcharge - geographic rate numbers should be used.

There may be exceptional cases where a "self-financing" public service is funded exclusively by users of the service, and it is thereby appropriate to recover some costs from telephone callers - e.g. some Land Registry services. This should only be done where the scale of charges and associated incidental costs can be clearly laid out - this is immensely difficult under the present regulatory regime. The Land Registry fails hopelessly, however it only applies these charges to "Business" users, i.e. mostly conveyancers. For those who may argue that this cost would be passed on, this is true, however the cost of having a telephone call connected (at "Business Rate") is tiny in proportion to that of the person conducting the call.

There may be other exceptional cases where it is appropriate to make the call "free to caller" - e.g. the completion of initial DWP benefit claims by telephone. As stated above, I would add the case of a call to report a crime or social nuisance or in seeking urgent medical assistance.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

I would note that all GPs do actually offer a way to make appointments and request prescription renewals online free of charge for anyone who can use the internet so arguably anyone who has set this up does not need to call their GP on the phone at all.

My own GP practice have had 0844 since 2006 and have never allowed patients to make appointments on-line, although they do allow repeat prescriptions on-line.    It is necessary to either call or visit in order to make an appointment.   I believe many other GPs follow a similar policy. 

loddon wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

My own GP practice have had 0844 since 2006 and have never allowed patients to make appointments on-line, although they do allow repeat prescriptions on-line.    It is necessary to either call or visit in order to make an appointment.   I believe many other GPs follow a similar policy.

My mother's GP surgery uses a normal geographic number for all patient contact (it never stopped doing so but is a surgery with four GPs serving a community of 5,000 or so patients) and does allow appointments to be booked online.  This suggests to me that the 0844 GP cowboys deliberately prevent patients booking appointments online (even though the NHS IT platform for GPs provides the facility) in order to maximise their revenue share earnings (blocking online surgery bookings is no doubt required under the terms of the GP contract with NEG and fellow telecoms highway robbery merchants).

This seems to be a new angle that none of you have previously pursued that could be profitably followed up as a complaint with local PCTs and/or with ministers and interested MPs and also with journalists.  It seems quite shocking that these surgeries are preventing patients booking appointments when it suits them by the means that suits them in order to further prop up telecoms revenue share racketeering that is already suppose to be banned. >:( >:( >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 6:19pm:

loddon wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 2:06pm: My own GP practice have had 0844 since 2006 and have never allowed patients to make appointments on-line, although they do allow repeat prescriptions on-line.    It is necessary to either call or visit in order to make an appointment.   I believe many other GPs follow a similar policy.  My mother's GP surgery uses a normal geographic number for all patient contact (it never stopped doing so but is a surgery with four GPs serving a community of 5,000 or so patients) and does allow appointments to be booked online.  This suggests to me that the 0844 GP cowboys deliberately prevent patients booking appointments online (even though the NHS IT platform for GPs provides the facility) in order to maximise their revenue share earnings (blocking online surgery bookings is no doubt required under the terms of the GP contract with NEG and fellow telecoms highway robbery merchants). This seems to be a new angle that none of you have previously pursued that could be profitably followed up as a complaint with local PCTs and/or with ministers and interested MPs and also with journalists.  It seems quite shocking that these surgeries are preventing patients booking appointments when it suits them by the means that suits them in order to further prop up telecoms revenue share racketeering that is already suppose to be banned. >:( >:( >:(

My surgery http://www.holbrooksurgery.com/ which unfortunately still has a 0844 number actually does let you book appointments on line

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

I draw the following off-topic comments from another thread here, in order to reply.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:32pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 8:31pm: I draw the following off-topic comments from another thread here, in order to reply.

No link :-/

sherbert wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 10:00pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 8:32pm: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 8:31pm: I draw the following off-topic comments from another thread here, in order to reply. No link :-/

The link is on the heading of the quote, as usual - or should be - it works for me.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

The link is on the heading of the quote, as usual - or should be - it works for me.

I find no such link although I feel it is distinctly unwise to encourage you to further pursue your general habit of contributing around 85% of the content of most government policy related threads in the forum.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

sherbert wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 10:00pm: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 8:32pm: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 8:31pm: I draw the following off-topic comments from another thread here, in order to reply. No link :-/ The link is on the heading of the quote, as usual - or should be - it works for me.

That is a very strange way of following a link. I get what you mean but doubt anyone else would have followed a link in that manner

SCVs manner of doing things is always strange compared to usual practice yet as usual he expects us to adapt to his offbeat methods.

Source: Scunthorpe Telegraph

New statistics on non-emergency police number

Monday, February 20, 2012

Half of all non-emergency calls to Humberside Police are now being made using the force's new 101 contact number.

I for one will never use the 101 number to contact any Emergency or none Emergency service.

It will be 999
The local 01/02/03 number or not at all

Prior to switching to 101, North Wales Police used 0845 607 1002. Now it offers 0300 330 0101 as an alternative to the 101 number.

That is the most logical solution why don't they all follow suit

Dave wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 9:44pm:

Prior to switching to 101, North Wales Police used 0845 607 1002. Now it offers 0300 330 0101 as an alternative to the 101 number.

bazzerfewi wrote on Apr 9^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

That is the most logical solution why don't they all follow suit

In some cases they had geographic or 03 numbers rather than, or as an alternative to, a 0845 number. It is only those who do not have such an option who need to adopt a new alternative to 101.

The key point is that, in every case, a geographic rate alternative to 101 must be presented.

All secondary services such as 03 and 08 numbers must sit on a geographical 01/02 number. In all cases every region could operate an alternatvie none geographical 03 number because all 0845 numbers have the facility to be transfered to a 03 number FREE OF CHARGE

In any event all regions could provide 01/02/03 numbers at no extra cost.

bazzerfewi wrote on Apr 9^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

All secondary services such as 03 and 08 numbers must sit on a geographical 01/02 number. In all cases every region could operate an alternatvie none geographical 03 number because all 0845 numbers have the facility to be transfered to a 03 number FREE OF CHARGE In any event all regions could provide 01/02/03 numbers at no extra cost.

We have to be very careful not to over-egg the point about migration to 03. It is more expensive to operate a 03 number than a 0845 number, because there is no revenue share. It is standard industry practice to allow migration from 084 to 034 without penalty during the term of a contract. There could be a modest administration charge levied by the telco for the change and there may be costs in changing materials to reflect a different number.

It is not true to say that non-geographic numbers MUST sit on a geographic number. This is one way of delivering calls to the point where they are answered, but there are others. If calls to a non-geographic alternative to 101 are delivered directly to the same call centre, then it is likely that this would not be done through the PSTN.

All telecoms services are provided at a charge to someone!

Well: Most Police Forces have now embraced the 101 non emergency number and the cost is 15p per call as opposed to the original proposal of 10p. The 15p charge is the same from a mobile.

If you are calling from a landline and the Force you are calling has an alternative 03000 number then I suggest that you use that instead if calling from a landline.

Staff cutbacks have affected most Forces as they seek to save money and you may find yourself in a queuing system for 10 minutes or more. Here in Northamptonshire I have been in a queue for 15 minutes, fortunately I had called their 03000 number which is included in my Geographical Calls package.

A 15p call from your moble is probably better than using up lots of your free minutes (unless you always have loads of unused one).

I guess if I go to a different County where I have no idea what the Police geographical Non-emergency number is then, I guess 101 is useful.

I have a 101 leaflet here and no alternative number is shown on it, so  Iwill only be using 999 or a number which I do have a geographical number 2222222 which goes to the police, I used the 2s a few times to report alarms and such.

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

I have a 101 leaflet here and no alternative number is shown on it, so  Iwill only be using 999 or a number which I do have a geographical number 2222222 which goes to the police, I used the 2s a few times to report alarms and such.

http://www.dorset.police.uk/Default.aspx?page=5507

I've just had to contact Maidstone Police Station.  The main number on their web page is 101 however, they do give 01622 690690 for those people dialing from outside the UK.  Does anyone think it would be a good idea for all of us to record our local police geographic numbers so that they can be posted on saynoto0870 before the geographic numbers are removed ?

Apologies re previous post.  I originally searched police and came up with nothing.  I've done it again and found the numbers and links. 

Kiwi_g wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 11:30am:

I've just had to contact Maidstone Police Station.  The main number on their web page is 101 however, they do give 01622 690690 for those people dialing from outside the UK.  Does anyone think it would be a good idea for all of us to record our local police geographic numbers so that they can be posted on saynoto0870 before the geographic numbers are removed ?

The wording on the webpage - http://www.kent.police.uk/contact_us/by_phone/non_urg.html - needs to be changed. It should be made clear that the geographic alternative is for use by any caller, not just those from overseas or outside Kent. (One hopes that most people will be able to work that out for themselves, but that does not excuse the misrepresentation of the situation.)

Kiwi_g wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 11:30am:

I've just had to contact Maidstone Police Station.  The main number on their web page is 101 however, they do give 01622 690690 for those people dialing from outside the UK.  Does anyone think it would be a good idea for all of us to record our local police geographic numbers so that they can be posted on saynoto0870 before the geographic numbers are removed ?

The local geographic numbers for police forces in England and Wales are listed alongside 101.

Unfortunately when a search by number for 101 is done, it doesn't return any results. I raised this with the site administrator a while ago, but no solution has been enacted.

This must have been raised previously:  101 is apparently the non-emergency number to use to ease the pressure on 999, understandably enough, though whether for just the Police or also for Fire and Ambulance is not entirely clear.  What is clear is that it is a premium rate number - which I consider to be lamentable - and it seems from my searching that 0870 forum members have yet to find a cost-free or low cost way round it.   If I have missed something please say - and include it in the look-up list.

Magic_Sam wrote on Sep 30^th, 2012 at 1:05am:

This must have been raised previously:  101 is apparently the non-emergency number to use to ease the pressure on 999, understandably enough, though whether for just the Police or also for Fire and Ambulance is not entirely clear.  What is clear is that it is a premium rate number - which I consider to be lamentable - and it seems from my searching that 0870 forum members have yet to find a cost-free or low cost way round it.   If I have missed something please say - and include it in the look-up list.

Magic Sam, you can find this number yourself.

Here is how,

Go to: http://www.police.uk/ - The National website for Police Forces. At the bottom of the screen click the blue link to the individual forces list: http://www.police.uk/?view=force_sites

Find the appropriate force, in my instance Sussex Police - www.sussex.police.uk,

Then contact us: http://www.sussex.police.uk/contact-us and find the 0845 or 01/02 number which is sometimes listed as International.

So for Sussex it's: 01273 475432

:)

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

I also scarcely dare ask what the cost of a 101 call is from a BT Payphone?  Is it only 15p or is it subject to the 60p Minimum Call charge?  If so then how on earth do the Police expect people on low incomes who cannot afford a phone line to be able to afford to contact them about non 999 matters?

On checking the current BT Payphones price list today at www.bt.com/pricing/current/Call_Charges_boo/3545_d0e5.htm#3545-d0e5 I I was interested and quite surprised to see that 101 is currently listed as being "Free To Caller", whereas I was expecting it would either cost 10p or 20p (BT Payphones don't take 5p pieces) or be subject to the full 60p minimum fee for geographic calls but perhaps without the 30 minute time limit before further charges accrue.

Having said that it is just the "Time In Seconds" that is listed as Free to Caller in the same way as for 0800 and 0808 but then the rubric at the top of the list says:-


Quote:

A minimum fee of 60p (including a 40p connection charge) applies to calls from BT public payphones, which will purchase two 10p units of time. Thereafter call time is purchased in 10p units. Excludes calls to Freephone services.

So I can only conclude that calling 101 is a Freephone call from a BT Payphone.

I can only hope this is the start of a trend since surely it being a Freephone call from a BT Payphone but a chargeable call from a landline or mobile is a very confusing marketing message indeed by the Police.  If it is free from a BT Payphone then I would also expect it to also be free from landlines at least.  This current situation with 101 being free from BT Payphones but not from landlnes recalls for a moment the period when Directory Enquiry Calls to 192 were chargeable from landlines but still free from BT Payphones.

I see that even the Police's own information on this at http://www.police.uk/101/ doesn't correctly describe the situation since they wrongly simply claim:-


Quote:

Why does it cost 15p to call 101? The 15p cost of the call goes to the telephony providers to cover the cost of carrying the calls. The police and government receive no money from calls to 101. Everyone calling the police for non-emergency matters now knows exactly how much a call will cost them, and can be assured of equal access whether they are on a pay-as-you-go mobile or a home landline.

The final point is clearly wrong since users of BT Payphones (and also I would suspect private payphones) clearly have superior and therefore unduly favourable access to calling the 101 service on a freephone basis.

Of course I can see the argument as to why it is free from a BT Payphone as some Payphones only take cards and people might not have the right change etc for a cash payphone (also these phones don't take a 5p piece and in addition for card only phones credit card companies often have a minimum charge per transaction of 20p) but why does the same argument not exist for Pay As You Go Mobiles where a customer may have exhausted their credit and be in a position where they cannot add any further credit to call 101.

Also thinking of my discriminatory situation in Spain as an Orange Pay As You Go customer of Orange Spain where I cannot add credit to my phone either on their website or on my phone itself with my UK credit cards but only at a shop or a petrol station I immediately ask myself what a mobile phone customer roaming from overseas in the UK is going to be charged for calling 101.

As soon as the call is allowed to be anything other than free the situation stops being a simple one and access to calling 101 is impeded.  So if a foreign tourist has their wallet stolen on holiday how do they make follow up calls about this if they don't know what calling 101 will cost them. I bet if I explore this issue further I will find overseas roaming customers are either charged nothing or charged extortion prices of £1 per minute or more if they come from outside the EU.

I would also note that the BT Price List at www.bt.com/pricing/homepage.htm remains a totally useless disgrace with documents being in xls zip and various other formats that cannot be simply read as a web page.  Even the Search function did not seem to find me anything meaningful or useful about the cost of calling 101 numbers.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 3:52pm:

Because of the 60p minimum charge, BT could not offer the 15p fixed rate from payphones and so decided to make the calls free.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 8^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

On checking the current BT Payphones price list today at www.bt.com/pricing/current/Call_Charges_boo/3545_d0e5.htm#3545-d0e5 I I was interested and quite surprised to see that 101 is currently listed as being "Free To Caller", whereas I was expecting it would either cost 10p or 20p (BT Payphones don't take 5p pieces) or be subject to the full 60p minimum fee for geographic calls but perhaps without the 30 minute time limit before further charges accrue. … So I can only conclude that calling 101 is a Freephone call from a BT Payphone.

The situation is indeed unchanged.


Quote:

[quote]Why does it cost 15p to call 101? The 15p cost of the call goes to the telephony providers to cover the cost of carrying the calls. The police and government receive no money from calls to 101. Everyone calling the police for non-emergency matters now knows exactly how much a call will cost them, and can be assured of equal access whether they are on a pay-as-you-go mobile or a home landline.

The final point is clearly wrong since users of BT Payphones (and also I would suspect private payphones) clearly have superior and therefore unduly favourable access to calling the 101 service on a freephone basis.[/quote]
For what it is worth, this point is true.

The creation of this anomaly was not however sufficient to persuade the Home Office to use taxpayer's money to fully fund calls to 101.


Quote:

I immediately ask myself what a mobile phone customer roaming from overseas in the UK is going to be charged for calling 101.

It is an interesting question as to whether UK roaming operators connect calls to 101. If they do, I would argue that these calls fall within the terms of their agreement to charge 15p per call. (The 15p rate is by agreement between the telcos and the Home Office/ACPO.)

To make a non-emergency call to a UK Police Service from an overseas network, one would need to use its published alternative geographic number. This would obviously work whilst roaming from overseas, at the rate for a call to a UK geographic number.

This alternative geographic number is also available for use by those who may feel disadvantaged by the fact that the 15p 101 fee is waived for payphone callers and can call the alternative more cheaply.


Quote:

the BT Price List at www.bt.com/pricing/homepage.htm …

… is not a consumer document.

There is quite enough to criticise in the pricing information that BT offers to its customers, without getting into the detail of this inpenetrable technical garbage intended only for those sad people amongst us who live by spreadsheets and delight in archiving material in zip format. (Yes, that comment includes something of an admission!)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 8^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

For what it is worth, this point is true. The creation of this anomaly was not however sufficient to persuade the Home Office to use taxpayer's money to fully fund calls to 101.

Why Not?  Surely there may be numerous instances where users of Pay As You Go Mobile Phones have run out of credit but are not in a position to add any more (especially the young, the very elderly, the very poor or the recently bankrupt who may not have any debit or credit cards) and so do not have the required funds to call 101.  There is a surprisingly large number of matters the Police now refuse to deal with on 999/112 that the caller may none the less consider to be urgent from their point of view.


Quote:

It is an interesting question as to whether UK roaming operators connect calls to 101. If they do, I would argue that these calls fall within the terms of their agreement to charge 15p per call. (The 15p rate is by agreement between the telcos and the Home Office/ACPO.)

An overseas visitor to this country is going to be charged by their own network in their own currency so it won't be 15p.  The question is will the charge be roughly equivalent to 15p after currency conversion?

Or is the charge in fact waived on the basis that not many such calls will be made and that if the networks are allowed to charge they may not be trusted to charge fairly given the daylight robbery roaming costs that virtually all of them have for UK visitors from outside the EU.

The trouble is I doubt that anyone in the Police will have even bothered themselves about this question.


Quote:

To make a non-emergency call to a UK Police Service from an overseas network, one would need to use its published alternative geographic number. This would obviously work whilst roaming from overseas, at the rate for a call to a UK geographic number.

Yes obviously but I was talking about foreigners roaming in the UK with their mobiles and needing to call 101 (now widely advertised) and not Brits in Spain.


Quote:

This alternative geographic number is also available for use by those who may feel disadvantaged by the fact that the 15p 101 fee is waived for payphone callers and can call the alternative more cheaply.

Only if you know it may exist to begin with and happen to have access to the internet since most Police forces are failing to advertise their alternative geographic numbers.  Also three Police forces ridiculously continue to have a non geographic only means of contacting them.


Quote:

the BT Price List at www.bt.com/pricing/homepage.htm … … is not a consumer document.

Perhaps you would care to direct me to BT's consumer website document where the cost of calling 101 or any other non standard number that a domestic telephone caller may need to call (on a BT landline) can be easily found in a friendly layout? ::)


Quote:

sad people amongst us who live by spreadsheets and delight in archiving material in zip format. (Yes, that comment includes something of an admission!)

I wonder to whom exactly you may be referring. ;) :-X

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 8^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:

Please forgive the short quotes Quote: Why Not? Indeed; we agree. Ask your MP. [quote]The trouble is I doubt that anyone in the Police will have even bothered themselves about this question.

As the providers of roaming services in the UK will be the parties to the agreement that sets the 15p rate for their own direct customers, it is a question of whether their provision of roaming services to users of foreign networks is covered by the agreement.

(I am happy to privately share the details of my Home Office contact, who will be able to answer this question. One could approach ACPO directly.)


Quote:

I was talking about foreigners roaming in the UK with their mobiles and needing to call 101 (now widely advertised) and not Brits in Spain.

There is no standard EU 116 number for non-emergency contact with the Police. That is why 101 was needed. If 101 is not supported whilst roaming in the UK, a visitor using their own phone would need to know the relevant geographic number, which is the same as they would use from home.

I agree that we are thinking about situations which most of us would regard as an emergency for a visitor. The situations in which 101 is needed are however classed as non-emergency. Having to use data roaming to look up the number of the local police service on the internet, or pre-loading it into a list of useful numbers before travelling, is the sort of additional effort that someone may be expected to have to go through.

(This is fair enough if the visitor is intending to visit a local Police museum and wants to enquire about opening times or translation services, but not if they have to report that their luggage has been stolen, before contacting their insurance company.)


Quote:

Three Police forces ridiculously continue to have a non geographic only means of contacting them.

If these are not 03 (geographic rate) numbers, then they are in breach of Home Office directions. I had understood that they had all been dealt with, by local members of this forum.

So long as these geographic numbers are published and available for those who begrudge paying the standard rate for a 101 call, in the same way that any other telephone number is made available, then I would feel content. (That is not to deny my disagreement with the decision not to use taxpayers' money to fund all 101 calls.)


Quote:

Perhaps you would care to direct me to BT's consumer website document where the cost of calling 101 or any other non standard number that a domestic telephone caller may need to call (on a BT landline) can be easily found in a friendly layout?

I cannot. That is one of many points that need to be made about the appalling quality of BT's consumer price information.


Quote:

I wonder to whom exactly you may be referring.

Pursuing the fair telecoms campaign requires us to be in touch with lots of technical detail, as well as public policy, political and media matters.


I believe that we are in total agreement about the fact that many of the calls that have to be made to 101 should be handled by the 999 service, or some other “free to caller” service. If this were so, then the remainder of 101 calls would probably best be dealt with using geographic rate numbers - local for the relevant local service, 03 where needed to avoid a sense of bias within an area, or perhaps a single national 03 number. I feel the same way about 111, but that is a purely personal view, which may spark another debate.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 8^th, 2012 at 9:38pm:

I believe that we are in total agreement about the fact that many of the calls that have to be made to 101 should be handled by the 999 service, or some other “free to caller” service. If this were so, then the remainder of 101 calls would probably best be dealt with using geographic rate numbers - local for the relevant local service, 03 where needed to avoid a sense of bias within an area, or perhaps a single national 03 number. I feel the same way about 111, but that is a purely personal view, which may spark another debate.

When my mother was ill in Spain in September with a pneumonia like illness and it was a Saturday afternoon with no doctors surgeries open and my mother immobile I called 112 (which as you know also operates here as an EU wide alternative to the UK specific 999) and the lady answering the call spoke perfect English and was very happy to arrange for a call out by the local out of hours/walk in centre doctor service.  This was then fully covered by the possession of a valid EHIC card by my mother.

They seem to interpret the use of 112 far more liberally in Spain and indeed widely promote and advertise making calls to the number in any kind of urgent situation threatening personal safety and welfare.

The Police's own current list at www.police.uk/alternative-non-emergency-numbers shows the alternatives to 101 for Cheshire, Cumbria and Humberside Police as being 0845 numbers so quite clearly the Police have not yet dealt with the problem.

However this recent post in the Police Specials discussion forum at www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?/topic/83502-list-of-police-non-emergency-contact-numbers/ does show a geographic alternative number for Cheshire Police but not for Cumbria or Humberside.  If Cheshire does have a geographic alternative it is disappointing that the police.uk website does not list it.

There was a website that specialised in listing alternative Police geographic numbers and that highlighted the forces that do not offer an alternative.  It had some punnish name like a variant on crimestoppers or similar.  However I cannot locate it today.  I wonder if the Police have had it shut down..............

Strange how this thread has never been merged or unified with the other main Police number thread in the forum at:-

www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1189257846/330

The Home Office carried out some research on the use of 101.It was discovered a section of the public have misconceptions regarding 101 calls which may discourage use of this service. ( One of which was charging).

Section in report says " Most members of the public appeared to be unaware that there was a small charge to use the 101 service. However, when informed of the cost, users generally felt it was reasonable."

See full report here:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/police-research/horr66/

Firstly, thanks must be offered to bj for the thoroughness of his research activity and the issues which he brings to our attention.

The report seems reasonable, however, in my view, there are two omissions.

Not only is the charge for calling 101 relatively low - the key point is that it is the same for everyone. I believe that Home Office funding should have been provided to make it free for all, however one must accept the argument that a small charge may discourage nuisance calls and the government's reluctance to spend money on the public sector.

The continuing existence of geographic rate alternative numbers, and the failure of some to provide them, is not referred to. I believe that this answers the concerns of those who are able to call such numbers without charge and resent contributing to the funding of the 101 service as they use it.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:51am:

Not only is the charge for calling 101 relatively low - the key point is that it is the same for everyone.

Wrong.  It is actually free from Payphones.  Also we have not yet established what rate overseas mobile phone owners currently visiting and roaming in the UK are charged.  For instance do US visitors only pay the USD equivalent of 15p (around 25 US cents) or they subject to the customary transatlantic exortion rates for roaming on a US mobile SIM card in the UK (since in my view these rates have no business being any higher than cross border EU roaming rates given the very large call volumes involved and are clearly a matter that should have been addressed by GATT).


Quote:

I believe that Home Office funding should have been provided to make it free for all, however one must accept the argument that a small charge may discourage nuisance calls and the government's reluctance to spend money on the public sector.

Why must one accept the argument.  One may note the argument as I do but I most certainly do not accept it and never will.

The principal function of 101 is to provide a short number code for non emergency calls to the Police as easy to remember as 999 or 112 (unfortunately it is actually easier to remember than 112 since the brain tends to assume that 101 is the emergency number once both 101 and 112 are available in your brain as Police numbers as I have personal experience of).  Also it is highly illogical that the Police have not also come up with 998 as a non emergency altenative in the UK given that they seems to have no plans to drop the use of the frequently accidentally nusiance called (by young kids mucking around) 999.

The point about 101 is that the need to call it does often arise unexpectedly (as the list of subjects on which the Police will not accept that a call to 999/112 is valid seems to be constantly expanding) therefore it is wrong to discourage its use by making it impossible to use by the many Pay As You Go mobile phone users (especially teenagers without credit or debit cards) who find that they have unexpectedly exhausted their credit but are not currently in a position to top it up.

Also if the charge has already increased by 50% since the inception of 101 what is to stop the government pushing it up again to say 30p in due course?  Whereas Free always remains free and is not subject to upward price pressure.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Wrong.  It is actually free from Payphones.  Also we have not yet established what rate overseas mobile phone owners currently visiting and roaming in the UK are charged.

Fair point about payphones, however that does not undermine the point that it is the equity of the charge, rather than the level, that is important.

I too would be interested to know whether the UK carriers for the roaming service used by visitors apply the agreed charge to such calls. If so, then there is only the issue of charges on currency conversion to be used as a means of extortion.

We head into very deep territory when we attempt to equate GATT with the concept of the EU single market. Perhaps such matters require a separate thread.


NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Quote: I believe that Home Office funding should have been provided to make it free for all, however one must accept the argument that a small charge may discourage nuisance calls and the government's reluctance to spend money on the public sector. Why must one accept the argument.  One may note the argument as I do but I most certainly do not accept it and never will.

I assume we agree that the government is reluctant to spend money on the public sector. The argument that a small charge MAY discourage nuisance calls appears to be reasonable and it is impossible to disprove. The report did not address this point; let us hope that further studies will perhaps offer some indication of what happens in reality.

For myself, I am prepared to accept that there may be a deterrent effect of a charge. I would however argue that it is no less likely to discourage genuine calls, and it most certainly does not offer an adequate justification for the decision not to fund the service in total from taxation.


NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Also if the charge has already increased by 50% since the inception of 101 what is to stop the government pushing it up again to say 30p in due course?  Whereas Free always remains free and is not subject to upward price pressure.

The system is intended to be "self funding", although the Home Office is understood to be underwriting it, by standing ready to make good any unexpected significant shortfall.

The level of the charge is requested by the operators, agreed by the Home Office and ACPO and embodied in agreements with the call providers. I am not sure if PCC's will get involved, although it would seem likely. One must hope that the present level has been set to last for some time to come, although it would undoubtedly have been based on estimates of call volumes. If volumes are lower than expected and/or if cost inflation is greater than expected, then there will be pressure to increase the charge. There is some democratic accountability on the part of the government and the PCC's which may cause this to be resisted.

I notice now that the police are often asking for help in the local newspaper and then asking people to call a 101 number to provide it.
Why should we have to ring a number that is not free to call?

On principal I would never ring the 101 number, I have had a need to contact the police on local issues but if I cannot contact them on the 01/02/03 number I will not pass on the information, having said that I have just conacted South Yorkshire Police on the 0114 number and that works fine.

The 101 number costs 15p per call from mobiles and landlines.

There's a lot of history as to how it ended up being a chargeable number.

Every Police service is required to offer a geographic rate number as a local alternative to 101.

It should be remembered that the Home Office decreed a long time ago that once the 101 number came into use Police Forces must make their geographic numbers available with equal prominence and availability.  (Can someone provide a relevant link?).

My experience is that Thames Valley Police give top prominence to 101 and merely refer to their 01865 841148 number as available for overseas callers.  I have drawn this to their attention several times but they appear to take no notice of the Home Office decree.  :( >:(

You need to click on their "Report a Crime or Emergency" link in order to find the 01865 841148 number.  Not good.  :(

They do however offer an 0300 number for their Action Fraud line.    :)

Why the inconsistency???  :-?

In Blackpool Lancashire, they do not provide a geographical alternative when asking for help in the local paper.  101 only!
Where is it defined that a geographical number must be published?

tangerineRDS wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 12:13pm:

I notice now that the police are often asking for help in the local newspaper and then asking people to call a 101 number to provide it. Why should we have to ring a number that is not free to call?

Apart from for emergencies (999), when was calling the police ever free? 

As I recall, they used to have standard geographic numbers so they could have been inclusive calls but never free as such.

The flat rate 15p for calling 101 is, of course, now the equivalent of what most providers charge for connection.

loddon wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 1:42pm:

It should be remembered that the Home Office decreed a long time ago that once the 101 number came into use Police Forces must make their geographic numbers available with equal prominence and availability.

Neither of the UKs two biggest forces appear to comply if this still correct.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/ContactUs

http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=C4CDC1C4273DD3228025796100421211

That is a disgrace & should be reported to the relevant authorities.   Interestingly, Glos Police provide an 01452 number as an alternative in the same section of their website as 101 which is also for use where "101 is unobtainable" so they accept that could be the case.

The question of the current Home Office position was discussed in and around this forum posting.

I have the contact details for the Home Office official currently dealing with this matter. I will be happy to pass them on (privately) to anyone wishing to press the issue.

---

I quote from the main 101 web page - http://www.police.uk/101


Quote:

Is there an alternative number I can use to call to contact my local police force? Whilst members of the public are encouraged to use the '101' number to contact their local police force, where this is not possible, there is a list of alternative numbers which can be used for contacting police forces in England, Wales or Scotland.

That list of alternative numbers (which includes two unacceptable 0845 numbers) is not, of itself, an adequate means of advising callers of the existence of alternatives to 101. I believe that each "force" must be responsible for advising of its existence in an "appropriate" manner.

(I would see "appropriate" as falling somewhere between being hidden as if a number for use only by overseas callers and being quoted whenever there is a reference to 101. The significance of 101 and the relatively modest cost must not be undermined.)

I understand what you mean but at least a geographical number would be included in a bundle.
101 numbers are never included.

tangerineRDS wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:13pm:

I understand what you mean but at least a geographical number would be included in a bundle. 101 numbers are never included.

The alternative numbers are for essentially for those who have difficulty in calling 101. This can include those who see no reason why they should pay for the call if they are able to call a geographic number at no additional cost.


tangerineRDS wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 3:28pm:

In Blackpool Lancashire, they do not provide a geographical alternative when asking for help in the local paper.  101 only!

Lancashire Constabulary clearly show its alternative number (01772 614444) on its Contact Us web page. I see that as satisfactory.

Sussex Police also show the 101 alternative on their Contact Us page...

I have it stored in my mobile phone and have used it on several occasions.

@SilentCallsVictim
I am aware of the alternative number quoted on the Lancashire Constabulary website.  The point I was making was that when they ask for help in the local paper, they only quote the 101 number.  There are at least 5 examples today.