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

    • But all those examples sell a wide variety of things,  and mostly they are well spread out along Lordship Lane. These two shops both sell one very specific thing, albeit in different flavours, and are just across the road from each other. I don't think you can compare the distribution of shops in Roman times to the distribution of shops in Lordship Lane in the twenty first century. Well, you can, but it doesn't feel very appropriate. Haa anybody asked the first shop how they feel? Are they happy about the "healthy competition" ?
    • ED is included in the 17 August closure set (or just possibly 15 August, depending on which part of the page you trust more) listed at https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/25/full-list-25-poundland-stores-confirmed-close-august-23753048/. Here incidentally are some snippets from their annual reports, at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02495645/filing-history. 2022: " during the period we opened 41 stores and closed 43 loss-making/under-performing stores.  At the period-end we were trading from 821 stores in the UK, IoM and ROI. ... "We renogotiated 82 leases in the year, saving on average 45% versus the prior lease agreement..." 2023: "We also continued to improve our market footprint through sourcing better store locations, opening 53 and closing 51 stores during the year." 2024:  "The ex-Wilco stores acquired in the prior year have formed a core part of this strategy to expand our store network.  We favour quality over quantity and during the period we opened 84 stores and closed 71 loss-making/under-performing ones."
    • Ha! After I posted this, I thought of lots more examples. Screwfix and the hardware store? Mrs Robinson and Jumping Bean? Chemists, plant shops, hairdressers...  the list goes on... it's good to have healthy competition  Ooooh! Two cheese shops
    • You've got a point.  Thinking Leyland and Screwfix too but this felt different.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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