Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rosetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just found out that each call to 101 costs 15

> pence. Did anyone else know that?

>

> It's considered a premium rate number. This is

> the non Emergency police number that we are

> encouraged to ring. The money goes to the police.


Police UK website:


"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. 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."


Not saying it's right, but the old bill aren't profiting from it.

Rosetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't you think it should say so at the beginning

> of the call? My telephone provider said that the

> police do profit from it. Isn't the emergency

> number free?


No, all profits go to Vodafone who run it. As I said, not saying it's right and yes a warning beforehand would be good as most people will assume it's free. 999 is definitely free.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Police UK website:

>

> "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. 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."

>

> Not saying it's right, but the old bill aren't profiting from it.


They are worse than not profiting - Vodaphone also charge English police forces 0.035p per minute for every call received.

Rosetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't you think it should say so at the beginning

> of the call?



No, because


1. If I'm calling the police, I want to get on with it rather than listen to recorded messages.

2. If the call has started I've already been charged, so they'd still be telling me after the event.



Frankly I'd rather the 15p was going to the underfunded police than the telephone provider, but as has been said, the police don't profit form it.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rosetta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Don't you think it should say so at the

> beginning

> > of the call?

>

>

> No, because

>

> 1. If I'm calling the police, I want to get on

> with it rather than listen to recorded messages.

> 2. If the call has started I've already been

> charged, so they'd still be telling me after the

> event.

>

>

> Frankly I'd rather the 15p was going to the

> underfunded police than the telephone provider,

> but as has been said, the police don't profit form

> it.


There is already an overlong message from Sir Bernard Hogan Howe at the beginning, so they might as well bother to mention the cost so you would know for next time. Heard him giving out the 101 number during an interview today.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rosetta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Don't you think it should say so at the

> beginning

> > of the call?

>

>

> No, because

>

> 1. If I'm calling the police, I want to get on

> with it rather than listen to recorded messages.

> 2. If the call has started I've already been

> charged, so they'd still be telling me after the

> event.

>

>

> Frankly I'd rather the 15p was going to the

> underfunded police than the telephone provider,

> but as has been said, the police don't profit form

> it.


Long thought that any charging number should by law have to have a short message at the beginning - if you proceed with this call you will be charged xxx, press 1 if you accept this charge. If you don't accept then you should just be cut off and charged the standard rate for a normal connection.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I had no idea. Always assumed it was a free call

> because it is to the Police.



Exactly. I only found out because my landline phone provider told me, when I queried my bill. 0345 numbers are free, they replaced the 0845 numbers, and those replaced the 0870 numbers.

So, who is it that you think should pick up the phone bill?


15p per call seems like a relatively small price for individual callers to pay. It's not like anyone needs to call 101 every day. When you consider that something like 40% of 101 calls turn out not to be police matters, it's understandable that the cops want to make a small charge that might make people think twice about complaining about next door's smelly bins or whatever. Otherwise it would be ??? of council tax money going on a phone bill instead of on essentials like bullets and tear gas and whatnot.

peckham_ryu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, who is it that you think should pick up the

> phone bill?

>

> 15p per call seems like a relatively small price

> for individual callers to pay. It's not like

> anyone needs to call 101 every day. When you

> consider that something like 40% of 101 calls turn

> out not to be police matters, it's understandable

> that the cops want to make a small charge that

> might make people think twice about complaining

> about next door's smelly bins or whatever.

> Otherwise it would be ??? of council tax money

> going on a phone bill instead of on essentials

> like bullets and tear gas and whatnot.


Don't forget those new "spit hoods" they want to use...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Link to petition if anyone would like to object: Londis Off-License Petition https://chng.it/9X4DwTDRdW
    • He did mention it's share of freehold, I’d be very cautious with that. It can turn into a nightmare if relationships with neighbours break down. My brother had a share of freehold in a flat in West Hampstead, and when he needed to sell, the neighbour refused to sign the transfer of the freehold. What followed was over two years of legal battles, spiralling costs and constant stress. He lost several potential buyers, and the whole sale fell through just as he got a job offer in another city. It was a complete disaster. The neighbour was stubborn and uncooperative, doing everything they could to delay the process. It ended in legal deadlock, and there was very little anyone could do without their cooperation. At that point, the TA6 form becomes the least of your worries; it’s the TR1 form that matters. Without the other freeholder’s signature on that, you’re stuck. After seeing what my brother went through, I’d never touch a share of freehold again. When things go wrong, they can go really wrong. If you have a share of freehold, you need a respectful and reasonable relationship with the others involved; otherwise, it can be costly, stressful and exhausting. Sounds like these neighbours can’t be reasoned with. There’s really no coming back from something like this unless they genuinely apologise and replace the trees and plants they ruined. One small consolation is that people who behave like this are usually miserable behind closed doors. If they were truly happy, they’d just get on with their lives instead of trying to make other people’s lives difficult. And the irony is, they’re being incredibly short-sighted. This kind of behaviour almost always backfires.  
    • I had some time with him recently at the local neighbourhood forum and actually was pretty impressed by him, I think he's come a long way.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...