NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

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:

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 ...

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:


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. 

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 6:19pm:


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 8:32pm:



No link

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:


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.

SCVs manner of doing things is always strange compared to usual practice yet as usual he expects us to adapt to his offbeat methods.

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