http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9005656/Crime-victims-told-...


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.”

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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:

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.